Sitting of 6 November 1992

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

  BCCI (Bingham Report)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  [Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 26 of Session 1991–92) and the Fourth Report from the Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 177 of Session 1991–92) on Banking Supervision and BCCI, together with the responses of the Government and the Bank of England thereto (Third Special Report, House of Commons Paper No. 302 of Session 1991–92; First Special Report, House of Commons Paper No. 178 of Session 1992–93; Second Special Report, House of Commons Paper No. 248 of Session 1992–93) and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on 4th November (House of Commons Paper No. 250-i.]
  9.34 am
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): This debate fulfils the pledge made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there would be an early opportunity for the Bingham report to be debated in the House and for hon. Members to have the chance to express their views.
  In introducing the debate, I intend to summarise the main themes of the report and to set out the proposals of the Government and the Bank of England in response to the main recommendations. I shall put those changes in the context of what is happening in Europe and internationally on banking supervision, and respond to the reports of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. I also intend to highlight the important issue of compensation, which is of concern to many hon. Members and their constituents.
  Sir Thomas Bingham's report on the supervision of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International was published on 22 October. It represents the conclusion of an inquiry into the largest and most wide-ranging fraud in the history of banking. Billons of dollars were involved in a series of financial crimes, deceptions and malpractices that extended over many years and touched the lives of tens of thousands of depositors in more than 60 countries. Those frauds, and the calculating and cynical men who devised and directed them, were responsible for bringing hardship into the lives of many innocent and hard-working people who trusted BCCI with their savings. I know that many hon. Members have constituents who have suffered in that way, and I am sure that we all condemn the individuals whose greed and callousness has led to such widespread distress.
  The report is the outcome of an inquiry into the supervision of BCCI, not into the bank itself. The inquiry lasted for just over a year and involved taking written and oral evidence from more than 200 witnesses. Among those
  524
  witnesses were current and former Ministers, hon. Members, officials of Government Departments, including the Treasury, and representatives from the Bank of England and BCCI's auditors, Price Waterhouse. BCCI's majority shareholders from Abu Dhabi also gave evidence, as did former employees and directors of the bank; banking regulators from the United States, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates and elsewhere; and many others, all of whom had dealings with BCCI in one way or another.
  The inquiry was thorough and painstaking; and the report is both comprehensive and clear. It makes some significant criticisms of the Bank of England's supervision of BCCI and draws attention to important lessons that the Bank and the Government are determined to learn.
  I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to Sir Thomas Bingham for the thorough way in which he has produced an extremely readable report. We owe him a debt of gratitude for the assiduous and comprehensive inquiry that he conducted.
  The narrative of events that makes up a large part of Sir Thomas Bingham's report has two main themes. The first is of a bank that was structured in such a way as to maximise its potential for concealing information from both its auditors and the supervisory boards around the world that sought to regulate its activities. The bank's guiding principle was divide and deceive. It almost seemed to be in search of a home.
  Throughout much of the report, which hon. Members will have read, it is clear that the bank had a constant quest for a proper supervisory structure. However, the quest was impeded by a determination to procrastinate and obscure the command structure within the bank. The BCCI group was structured into myriad companies built around two major banking subsidiaries, one of which, BCCI SA, was incorporated in Luxembourg and the other, BCCI Overseas, in the Cayman Islands.
  Mr. David Shaw: My hon. Friend is aware that I have introduced the Transactions with Tax Havens (Sanctions) Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to concentrate not so much on the tax issues of tax havens, as on the fraud issues of the havens, which might better be called "fraud havens". Will my hon. Friend please touch on the issue of how we might take more and better regulatory action against such fraud havens?
  Mr. Nelson: I will try to do so during my remarks. I take very seriously any recommendations and legislative proposals that my hon. Friend introduces. Much of the theme of European and international debate in Basle and in some of the Community directives have very much in mind the transparency and corridors of communication that underlie my hon. Friend's proposals.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Does the Minister recall his remarks to the House when the inquiry was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Many of us are confident that it will show beyond any question of doubt that the Government and the Bank of England acted only in a timely and proper fashion."—[Official Report, l9 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 724.]
  I accept that the Minister was a Back Bencher at that stage. Will he now accept that his statement was wrong?
  Mr. Nelson: I will not. The one thing that is evident is that Treasury Ministers and other Ministers get a clean bill of health—a glorious phrase—in that regard. I do not retract my remarks.
  It is true that the report makes some serious criticisms of the Bank of England in terms of time limits; I acknowledge that. However, the report stops well short of suggesting that things would necessarily have been different if the Bank of England had acted differently, and it does not make any accusations of negligence, for example. Nevertheless, there are serious criticisms, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have acknowledged on separate occasions.
  In practice, BCCI did little business either in Luxembourg or in the Cayman Islands. It spread forth its tentacles into more than 60 countries. BCCI SA operated 47 branches in 13 countries, including the United Kingdom. BCCI Overseas had 63 branches in 28 countries, and subsidiaries and affiliates of the holding company operated 255 banking offices in 28 countries. The deliberate confusion that flowed from the structural complexity enabled BCCI to grow rapidly in the 1970s and the 1980s, when modern techniques and systems of banking supervision were only beginning to come into force, and in parts of the world where, to quote the report, "impenetrable secrecy" was a prominent feature of banking regulation.
  It was only in the final years of BCCI's existence, when Price Waterhouse took over responsibility for auditing the bank worldwide and when regulators began to come together in a college of supervisors, that the full enormity of the fraud being practised started to come to light.
  The other striking theme of the report is the sheer scale of the fraud. Many hon. Members may have felt, as I did on reading the report, that the deeply offensive point about it was that the scale and quantity of fraud dwarfed the earnings and savings of ordinary people. The fraud was wholly out of proportion to the lives, efforts and prudence of ordinary people. To that extent, the report, and the crimes and frauds revealed by it and by the collapse of the bank are shocking and arresting. The sums being siphoned off and misappropriated were enormous.
  When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his statement to the House, he thanked Sir Thomas Bingham for producing a masterly account of such a complex subject and for being so constructive in his recommendations for the future. I repeat today that the Government accept all the recommendations and have already begun to implement them.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: A few moments ago, the Minister implied that if the Bank had not made mistakes, it is unlikely that the outcome would have been different. I ask the Minister to note paragraph 2.484 in the report, in which Sir Thomas says:
  "How different the course of events would have been had these deficiences not existed, one can only speculate."
  The Minister must recognise that, if action had been taken earlier, the many individuals involved at least would not have lost money.
  Mr. Nelson: Yes. I have tried to make it clear, and I will do so again, that I have understood Sir Thomas Bingham to say that he could not speculate on what the outcome would have been if the Bank had acted differently.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke of action being taken sooner. There has been
  526
  a great deal of discussion about the exact timing, about when the whistle should have been blown and about when the bank should have been closed down. There has been discussion about when that point should have been—whether a month sooner, six months sooner or a few months later, which some people suggested at the time to protect depositors. It was suggested that the bank was closed down too soon and that another solution, such as the injection of further capital, could have been found. Whenever closure takes place, people lose.
  When the bank was closed, the books amounted to $16 billion. Previously, the gross assets had been up to $23·5 billion. I know that that cannot be construed as an argument for not acting sooner. If something is a rotten apple to the core, one must take action whenever it is justified and when the evidence is clear. However, to suggest that fewer people would have lost raises a difficult question. It is arguable that many more people might have lost, because the deposit base would have been even larger.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. It is a question of how far back one takes the matter. Everyone now accepts that there should have been a single lead regulator. Instead, a special arrangement was set up for BCCI. Had such an arrangement been refused at that point, the scale of losses would be far smaller.
  Mr. Nelson: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which is covered in a complete analysis by Sir Thomas Bingham. Hindsight is a great thing, whereas foresight is far more difficult. There were cases in 1979, in 1985 and in the latter part of the 1980s, which are considered carefully by the Bingham report, when a different decision and a different approach could have been taken by the Bank of England, not only on the question of the revocation of authorisation, but on the question of the appropriate form of supervisory structure.
  We must make it clear that we were dealing with, if not a unique, a complex and devious bank structure. The bank's deliberate intention was to play one regulatory system off against another to try to fall between all posts and to set itself up in the least regulated condition. It was difficult for any one authority to take on complete and consolidated supervision, which is why the college of regulators was established. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) makes a good point.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Minister's answer explains exactly why the Bank of England should have stepped in earlier to regulate more effectively. The structure of BCCI hid the fraud from the outset. In paragraph 2.484, Sir Thomas Bingham says that the problem of fraud did not occur only in the last 15 months, but had its roots deep in the past. He says that the fraud hidden by the structure
  "might have been in part prevented, or brought to a head much earlier, had strong and resolute action been taken to insist on structural change as a condition of continued authorisation and to impose on the group the supervisory regime it was known to require."
  It was known not with hindsight, but at the time. Sir Thomas concludes:
  "The Bank did not pursue the truth of BCCI with the rigour that BCCI's market reputation justified"—
  at the time.
  Mr. Nelson: To be fair to the Bank, it insisted on a number of changes, not only in the structure, but in the management of BCCI. The hon. Gentleman referred to the various points at which BCCI'S reputation might have been brought into question. It is important for all of us to recognise that the prime responsibility of the Bank of England under successive legislation has been to protect depositors. Bearing that responsibility uppermost in mind leads not necessarily to pre-emptive foreclosure but to an attempt to find ways to protect deposits. In 1979 the bank was profitable, the Luxembourg Banking Commission was not complaining and the auditors were not qualifying the reports.
  In 1985 an alternative structure of incorporation in the United Kingdom under SA was decided upon. It was also decided that treasury operations would be moved to Abu Dhabi—a structural change insisted upon by the Bank of England. Efforts in the later part of the 1980s were to protect depositors. The improved standing of the principal shareholder, the injection of further resources and management changes were carried out deliberately to try to safeguard the interests of depositors. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to make a different judgment about what should have happened, and with the benefit of hindsight that may well be right. But at the time, the main interest was the protection of depositors, and on the information available to the Bank of England at the time, its decisions can be defended.
  Mr. Macdonald: The Minister mentioned 1979. Bingham says that, in 1979, the bank was structured in such a way that effective regulation was impossible. Paragraph 2.30 of the report says:
  "if a group was so structured that the Bank was unable to ascertain how the business was done, and so to satisfy itself that the business was conducted prudently, then the Bank was not only entitled but obliged to refuse a licence",
  to take deposits. The Minister says that it is a matter of judgment as to whether the bank should have acted differently but Bingham's judgment is that the bank should have acted differently by refusing to issue a licence.
  Mr. Nelson: Bingham speaks for himself on the matter but also says in paragraph 2.21 that no concrete evidence of malpractice had been established in 1979. The Banking Act 1979, which was Labour legislation, introduced two tiers of full banking authorisation and deposit-licensed status. The key part of that legislation was section 3(5) which effectively allowed foreign authorisation of a bank as a satisfactory means of "grandfathering" into the new regime an authorised bank.
  The fact that BCCI was not given full banking status at that time reflected the Bank of England's concern about it. The bank became a licensed deposit taker. The report's criticisms of the Bank's actions at that time acknowledge that there were arguments on both sides, and paragraph 2.21 sets out grounds for the Bank of England believing that its action at that time was proper. [Interruption.] I should like to make some progress, because there are important issues to be addressed and many hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
  The Bank has responded to one of the important recommendations by establishing a special investigations unit under Mr. Ian Watt. It will have specific responsibility for pursuing evidence of malpractice or illegality which the Bank receives, and for seeing that the issues which may be raised are followed up. As part of this process, the Bank is
  528
  also strengthening its existing capacity for on-site examination of banks. Before taking up this appointment, Mr. Watt was a partner at KPMG Peat Marwick. He has considerable experience of liquidation and has acted as a DTI inspector on a number of occasions, most notably into the Guinness inquiry. He acted as the accountancy assessor to the Bingham inquiry. In his new role, he will have direct access to the governors and will attend meetings of the Board of Banking Supervision.
  Similar access and status will be accorded to Mr. Peter Peddie, a former partner in Freshfields, who has been appointed to head a new, specialised legal unit within the Bank. His role will be to ensure that, in carrying out its supervisory tasks, the Bank takes full account of the powers available to it under the law—an area where Sir Thomas Bingham felt that the Bank may have been too cautious in the past. The Bank will itself be taking steps to implement his recommendation that more use should be made of the Board of Banking Supervision—a body created by the 1987 Act largely to provide a vehicle for outside experts to advise the Bank on how it carries out its supervisory duties. The Bank is reviewing its guidance on involving the Board and in future its views will be sought at an earlier stage in problem cases. Outside members will be encouraged to have more contact with Bank officials at working level to discuss issues that cause them concern. They will continue to have free access to staff and papers.
  On the Bank's approach to supervision, Sir Thomas concluded that, while its traditional techniques, had, on the whole, served the community well, a different approach was needed in cases such as BCCI where trust and frankness were lacking. With such institutions, the Bank's staff need to develop a higher degree of alertness to signs of fraud and they need to be more inquisitive. 'The Bank has begun to extend and improve the training that it provides to supervisors in order to achieve these objectives.
  Sir Thomas regards
  "the most important single lesson"
  of the BCCI affair as being that
  "banking group structures which deny supervisors a clear view of how business is conducted should be outlawed."
  While not persuaded that the Bank currently lacks the powers needed to deal with such cases, if there is felt to be any doubt on the point, he would support explicit provisions being introduced. The Government accept this conclusion and will introduce legislation, as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows, to put the Bank's powers beyond doubt. In particular, the legislation will need to deal with banking groups whose structure has changed significantly after authorisation or who have developed an active presence in secretive or poorly supervised jurisdictions.
  On the European level, Sir Thomas finds nothing in the history of BCCI that requires substantial revision to the emerging Community regime for supervision. But he proposes that two recitals to EC directives—one discouraging supervisory "forum shopping" and the other requiring banks' place of incorporation and head office to be in the same member state—should become express requirements of Community law. He also proposes that all member states should confer powers on their regulators to refuse or withdraw authorisation where a bank cannot be effectively supervised, and he supports the proposed Community deposit guarantee directive being adopted as soon as possible.

  529
  As my right hon. Friend made clear at the time of publication, we shall be pursuing all of these points with the Commission and our European partners. Sir Leon Brittan has already issued a statement responding to the Bingham report and acknowledging the force of these recommendations. His officials have been asked to report quickly on all the Bingham points that bear on Community legislation so that Sir Leon can make a more detailed statement at the ECOFIN Council on 23 November. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be in the chair on that occasion and will use the opportunity to seek to take matters forward.
  The Government have already made clear the importance that we attach to making progress with the deposit guarantee directive. Our officials are seeking to finalise the draft currently before the Council working group and we continue to hope for political agreement to a final text before the end of this year.
  On the wider international front, the Government agree with all that Sir Thomas says about the need to press for further improvements in banking supervision and to facilitate better communications between supervisors. The new standards promulgated by the Basle committee—the key requirement of which is that all banks that branch abroad must have a home supervisor ready and able to conduct effective consolidated supervision—represent an important advance in international action to deal with countries offering impenetrable secrecy. The Government and the bank also support his call for independent monitoring of supervisory standards and will be proposing the establishment of peer group reviews, to both the G10 supervisors' committee and the EC banking advisory committee, as the best way of taking this forward.
  The Government accept that the effective supervision of international groups requires clear and legally robust channels of communication between supervisors and other authorities and agencies engaged in combating financial crime and fraud. We shall be focusing our further action on four main areas.
  First, we shall urge within the European Community that the provisions on information flow in the second banking co-ordination directive, and in other financial services directives, should be looked at again to ensure that the necessary channels of communication are being kept open. Next we shall raise the issue of exchanging information with non-EC countries, so that the practical difficulties in maintaining supervisory confidentiality are not allowed to constrain necessary communications with third countries. An international consensus is needed on the common interest in effective supervision of banking groups world wide, and on the level of confidentiality required to underpin it.
  Thirdly, all those concerned in regulating international banks should be clear about what information should be shared and how it is to be channelled between those who need it.
  Fourthly, as my right hon. Friend announced last month, new machinery is being established between the supervisory, investigation and prosecuting authorities within the United Kingdom, to strengthen their exchange of information, so as to enable us better to detect and deal with financial and company faud.
  530
  Finally, on auditors, Sir Thomas Bingham's main proposal is that they should be put under a statutory duty to report relevant information to the Bank. This reflects a similar recommendation in the fourth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
  The Government strongly support this approach, which, I am pleased to say, has also been welcomed by the professional bodies. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already made it clear that a similar duty should be introduced for the auditors of building societies and financial services companies. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said that he would want this approach also to be extended to the auditors in insurance companies.
  A process of consultation is now getting under way, involving both the professional bodies and representatives of the sectors concerned. This will cover the formulation of such a duty, and its enforcement. Discussions will proceed as a matter of urgency with the aim of introducing measures in this House at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. David Shaw: My right hon. Friend will know of my interest in small businesses. Has he taken into account the fact that, if every single financial services company is to be regulated, that will be getting down to some very small companies and businesses that will have to fill out even more forms than they are already filling out? Will there be a levelling-off process, so that the very small are exempted?
  Mr. Nelson: I understand full well the important point that my hon. Friend raises, and I have considered a de minimis rule. So far, I am not inclined to introduce one. These matters will be the subject of consultation, but there is an existing professional responsibility that extends to auditors to flag up concerns when they arise, Secondly, it is intended that this will apply to all authorised firms in the financial services sector. To include some and exclude others would require a line that it would be extremely difficult to draw.
  Thirdly, while I understand the concerns of some small firms, it is sometimes in those small firms that problems arise, and depositors and investors need to be protected. Finally, I want to ensure that the way that the legislation is introduced and then conducted in practice will not involve the flagging up of too much information, because that can impose an impossible burden on regulators and supervisors, and extra costs on small businesses. Overall, the objective is to bolster the ability of auditors to say to a firm or its directors, "Look, unless you bring this to the attention of the authorities, I am required to do so by law." For those reasons, the change is justified.
  Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the picture that he is painting of what is required in terms of auditors' disclosure is mirrored largely in what already exists in the regulation of insurance brokers, through the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977, on which I shall talk later if I manage to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Nelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is indeed the case, and that is one reason why it has been welcomed by the profession.
  I hope that it will be clear to the House from what I have said that the Government attach the highest importance to implementing in full all the recommendations that Sir Thomas Bingham has made. Perhaps I

  531
  should now say something about the work that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has undertaken since the collapse of BCCI. It has produced two thoughtful reports, one on the role of local authorities and money brokers, and another looking into international and national regulation. The Government and the Bank of England have already responded to both reports. On behalf of the Government, I should like to say how much we appreciate the careful consideration and the compelling analysis and recommendations of these reports. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to pay tribute to the work of the Committee.
  Both the Government and the Bank accept, and are grateful for, a sizeable number of the Committee's recommendations and conclusions, and we have already announced our intention to implement them. These include the need to deal effectively with banking groups that have an inadequate structure, the need to impose a statutory duty on auditors to report their suspicions to the Bank and the desirability of establishing an international mechanism for monitoring supervisory standards.
  Despite all that we sometimes hear about the superiority of Senate committees over our Select Committees that operate here, the work that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has done on BCCI compares favourably with the much less-considered report of Senator Kerry.
  Another subject discussed in the Bingham report is the extent and nature of the Bank's powers to deal with recalcitrant institutions.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Why did Senator Kerry have to conclude that a number of significant documents were withheld, presumably on the instructions of the British Government? These related to information, of which the Bank of England must have been aware, from the security services on the doubts that existed in those quarters about BCCI many years ago. Readers of Private Eye have had a glimpse of these documents, but apparently Senator Kerry, and perhaps even Bingham, did not. In an age of supposedly open government, how can those documents be kept private and not be put in the public domain?
  Mr. Nelson: The Governor and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer established the Bingham inquiry for exactly that purpose. Nothing was withheld from Lord Justice Bingham while he was making his inquiries, and the Government regarded this report, as they do now, as the authoritative report on the supervision of BCCI.
  Senator Kerry may complain that he did not get some information, but we may complain, with justification, that he did not seek evidence, and did not enable people to question some of his conclusions and findings. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept, as many of his hon. Friends do, that this is the authoritative version, this is the one that was justified by the calling for any papers and this is the one that we should consider today.
  Sir Thomas Bingham has, quite rightly, drawn attention at a number of points in his report to the nature and extent of the powers conferred on the Bank by the 1979 and 1987 Acts. He has also pointed, on a number of occasions, to situations where they could have been exercised. But, in all those cases, the Bank has always a second test that it must apply. It must ask itself not only
  532
  whether its powers are exercisable but, if it decides that they are, whether would it be in the interest of depositors to exercise them. Deciding to revoke a bank's licence and to bring its operations to an end may sometimes be the right or only course to follow.
  Often, the interest of depositors are better served by taking less drastic, remedial action so that an institution in difficulties can be restructured or, perhaps, wound down over a period, so minimising the risks for depositors or even, with good management, eliminating them altogether.
  Over the past six years or so, there have been 35 occasions on which banks have been persuaded to undertake remedial action without fuss and with no loss to depositors; 17 occasions on which authorisations have been revoked; 28 examples of authorisations being restricted under the Act; and 18 more in which an institution has been persuaded to surrender its authorisation under pressure from the Bank. On all these occasions, the Bank has acted in good faith with the need to protect depositors very much at the forefront of its concerns.
  Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Nelson: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, as I wish to make progress. I shall deal now with compensation, and if need be, I shall give way on that issue.
  At the time of closure, BCCI had 25 branches in the United Kingdom with deposits totalling £1·85 billion., of which one third were sterling retail deposits. Deposits by United Kingdom residents totalled £240 million, of which three quarters were in sterling. I understand that BCCI had more than 53,000 sterling accounts. The Deposit Protection Board has sent out claims forms to some 42,000 depositors. So far, more than 16,500 claims have been lodged with the board, and more than 9,000 of them have already been paid. A total of more than £54 million has been paid out so far, and we expect the final figure to be a good deal higher—perhaps as much as £85 million.
  I can understand, of course, why a number of hon. Members—especially those who have had experience of hardship among their own constituents—should want to suggest that additional compensation should be paid to help those who have lost some or all of their savings as a result of the fraud.
  The Government have made it clear that responsibility for the collapse of BCCI rests with those who devised, directed and implemented the frauds and that there is no justification for public money being used to provide recompense to those who have lost as a result. There are also other compelling reasons for this, which I invite the House to consider.
  First, no system of banking supervision is fail-safe. When a fraud like this is led and organised by those at the very heart of an institution's management, and where so much time and effort was devoted to concealing its existence both from supervisors and from their auditors, it is particularly difficult to detect in its early stages.
  It was because Parliament acknowledged that no system of banking supervision could ever guarantee banks against failure that the Banking Act 1987 established the Deposit Protection Board to provide a degree of compensation for depositors.
  What these arrangements were designed to achieve—and what in my view they do achieve—is a proper balance

  533
  between the need to offer some protection, particularly to smaller depositors, on the one hand; and the equally important need, on the other, to maintain the principle that depositors themselves have to be aware of the risks associated with different institutions and to bear them in mind when deciding where to put their money.
  If that were not so, and depositors were compensated for any failure of a financial institution, those banks that acted irresponsibly—by, for example, offering unrealistically high levels of interest—would prosper at the expense of the more prudent. That would lead to increasingly risky approaches being adopted towards the running of deposit-taking businesses, which, over the long term, would have damaging implications for the entire banking system. Recent experience of the United States thrift banks makes it clear that this is a real practical concern, and not simply the construct of theoretical economists.
  Supervisors' behaviour would change too. They would become much more cautious in the way in which they carried out their task, tending towards the setting of higher capital and liquidity requirements and moving to close down banks at the earliest sign of difficulty. Their primary motivation would soon become to protect themselves from the risk of litigation, at the expense of almost everything else. That would not be in the long-term interests of depositors or of the economy more generally.
  Mr. Vaz: I would have been astonished if the Minister had arrived in the Chamber this morning with a cheque for £6 billion to pay out compensation. If he accepts from the local authorities' point of view the argument of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, which is set out in paragraph 76—the Minister has lavished praise on the Select Committee—there was a breach of supervisory duty on the part of the Bank of England. He must accept also, as I think he has done—he has accepted all the recommendations—the savage criticism of the Bank of England that appears in the report.
  Surely there is no difference between the case of the BCCI victims, be they creditors, depositors, ex-members of staff or local authorities, and the people who lost money in Barlow Clowes. In that case, as the Minister knows, Lord Young refused compensation, but eventually compensation was paid. Surely the Minister must consider the issue of compensation. He must listen to the representations of those affected before he makes a decision.
  Mr. Nelson: It would be wrong for me to lead the hon. Gentleman on. The Government have carefully considered the representations. We have considered the report fully, in accordance with our undertaking. My right hon. Friend made it clear that it was our intention not to grant additional compensation over and above that provided by the deposit protection scheme. The BCCI case is different from that of Barlow Clowes. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration recommended that compensation should be paid to those involved in the Barlow Clowes case. For the reasons that my right hon. Friend has already—
  Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Nelson: I have given way on several occasions. There will be opportunities for the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Macdonald rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The Minister is not giving way. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) would resume his seat.
  Mr. Nelson: I hope that hon. Members will understand that I shall not give way. I wish to deal—
  Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He must not keep getting up and challenging the Minister.
  Mr. Nelson: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I move on to the Abu Dhabi scheme, which is of great importance in this matter. As many hon. Members will be aware, there is a further source of funds that will be potentially available to depositors. This is the separate package that is being negotiated by the liquidators of BCCI SA, BCCI Overseas, and the majority shareholders in Abu Dhabi. It has now been approved by the courts in Luxembourg, following earlier approval by courts both here and in the Cayman Islands. The package contains two main elements. The first is a pooling arrangement, by which the proceeds realised from assets by liquidators all around the world—whether from BCCI SA or the Caymans-registered BCCI Overseas—will be put into a central pool, from which all creditors, not just those in the United Kingdom, will receive a payment in proportion to their admitted claims.
  I understand that the intention behind that arrangement is to ensure a co-ordinated approach to all BCCI creditors wherever they may be, and to prevent competition between different liquidators for the same assets. That is clearly a sensible objective, although it does have the consequence—about which several hon. Members have expressed understandable concern—that no payments have yet been made by liquidators, either in the United Kingdom or anywhere else. It is far from clear, given the complexity of BCCI's affairs, that any payments would yet have been made even if the package had never been proposed.
  The second element, which I know has also aroused a good deal of interest, involves the setting up of a contribution fund by the majority shareholders, which—together with the estimated proceeds from the liquidation—should lead to creditors recovering some 30 to 40 per cent. of their money. I understand that, under the terms of that arrangement, majority shareholders would, over the next 20 months or so, put up between $1·2 billion and $1·7 billion to be paid to creditors. In return for payment from the fund, creditors would be required to waive any legal claims against the majority shareholders.
  In order to be put into effect, the arrangement requires that creditors to the value of $7 billion grant waivers of legal claims—although that target figure may be reduced at the discretion of the majority shareholders. Once that level has been reached, the scheme can go ahead, and a first "distribution", which I believe will equate to about 10 per cent. of creditors' claims, will be paid, some time during 1993, with further payments following later.
  Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Nelson: I shall give way for the last time.
  Mr. Vaz: Is the Minister aware that an appeal has been lodged in the past 24 hours in the Luxembourg court against the proposal? That means that it is unlikely that the case will be dealt with for several months. As the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of the Abu Dhabi scheme—I know that he visited Abu Dhabi last year—does he think that the pause will give the Government an opportunity of making approaches to a friendly Gulf state to ascertain whether the contribution that has been made can be raised, bearing it in mind that the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi will get back $4 million-worth of promissory notes as a result of the deal? The Government have been given an opportunity; will the Minister seize it?
  Mr. Nelson: No, I do not think that the Government should or will. It is a matter for the shareholders and the liquidators. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the appeal, which has just been lodged. As I have already said. that is a matter for those involved. I must say that appeals against the scheme inevitably have the effect of delaying further recompense for others. The delays so far have had exactly that effect.
  Of course people are entitled to make the judgment that they may get more. As far as Sheik Zayed is concerned—he is a man of enormous honour and integrity. and a great friend and ally of this country—the losses incurred in respect of $2 billion of investments, not deposits, placed with the group have been written off in addition to the funding requirement here. The Abu Dhabi authorities would argue, with some reason, that they are taking considerable losses on the nose.
  As well as the distress caused to retail customers, much has also been made of the losses incurred by local authorities that deposited money in BCCI, and there have been the all-too-predictable calls for the Government to compensate them. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already made it clear that no special compensation will be paid and, like him, I see no reason why local authorities should be treated differently from any other depositor who lost money.
  The losses are a matter for the local authorities concerned, although those who wish to do so can apply to their relevant Environment Department for the losses to be capitalised and spread over a number of years, so as to phase the impact on local chargepayers. But that does not mean that the Government are giving local authorities special treatment. Quite properly in my view, the consequences of the loss have to be met from local resources.
  Before I conclude, I want to restate something that, although perhaps obvious, is often overlooked. Whatever system of supervision we construct, whatever the law seeks to provide, a fail-safe system can never be devised. As a Government and a Parliament, we have a proper responsibility to remind individuals of several basic, commonsense rules of financial husbandry from which they must not depart. I call them the five golden rules, and I commend them to all investors and depositors. I hope that I will not sound too preachy if I reiterate them now, but they are worthy of repetition.
  First, the buyer, investor, and depositor must always beware. Secondly, one should spread one's investments and not put all one's eggs in one basket. Thirdly, one should obtain good advice from independent or
  536
  professional sources. Fourthly, one should always read the small print. Finally, one should never confuse authorisation with a guarantee.
  The House has a proper interest in ensuring public confidence in the United Kingdom banking system. 'The Government and the Bank of England considered carefully, learned from, and implemented changes in line with the recommendations of not only the Select Committee but of Sir Thomas Bingham. In doing so, we have considerably improved the Bank's ability to spot at an earlier stage miscreants within our banking system; enhanced public confidence in the banking system; and met the real responsibilities that the Government accept in responding to a report such as that produced by Sir Thomas.
  There were lessons to be learned and the Government have learnt them. This debate provides the House with an opportunity to express its views on Bingham's recommendations, and I hope that my right hon. Friend's response will be welcomed by all concerned.
  10.22 am
  Mr. Alistair Darling: When the Minister set out his five golden rules, I was reminded of an expression familiar to many of us—as safe as the Bank of England. In debating the Bingham report, we should bear it in mind that some members of the public in the United Kingdom and other countries are entitled to expect that certain standards can be relied upon in an institution regulated by the Bank of England.
  The Bingham report is set in the context of the whole banking and financial services regulation system being called into question. The regulators can, of course, point to their successes, but we are entitled to assess and to judge their weaknesses by examining also the system's failures. The most damning conclusion that one can draw from the Bingham report is not that the Bank lacked sufficient powers—even in 1979—but that it lacked proper judgment.
  The Minister invites the House to acquiesce in allowing the same Bank—and in many cases the same personnel who made bad errors of judgment throughout the 1980s —to continue to exercise the same functions that they have had for some years. The House is entitled to question whether that is appropriate in all the circumstances. Of course, one can reach judgments with the benefit of hindsight. In considering my contribution, I first thought of addressing the Bingham report briefly and concentrating on the future—but one cannot do that without drawing conclusions from Bingham's telling criticism, which, because it is so understated, is so powerful.
  BCCI's problems arose long before it collapsed, but I shall not dwell on the final years before its closure. In many ways, the lessons to be learned for the future are to be drawn from the bank's early days. As my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) said, Lord Justice Bingham reached the conclusion that BCCI should not have been licensed in 1979—or that it should only have been permitted to operate under strict conditions.
  The Minister seemed to suggest that the only option open to the Bank of England was to allow BCCI to trade or to shut it completely. Bingham makes the point that, even under the 1979 legislation, the Bank could have used available powers to bring pressure to bear on Mr. Abedi to comply with the Bank's understandable concern, or made

  537
  much greater use of the power of which it has always boasted, in bringing its influence to bear. That influence might have been far greater in the earlier stages than was the case as matters progressed.
  Between 1980 and 1984, the Bank of England tried to exert pressure to put in place a structure that it could regulate. It found a solution, but was rebuffed by Mr. Abedi. Lord Justice Bingham is extremely critical of that aspect, commenting that the Bank simply walked away from the situation. At paragraph 246, he states:
  "I find it surprising that no effort was made to bring the Bank's traditional authority to bear on Abedi to secure his compliance … Abedi's truculence … would have made clear that the authority of the Deputy Governor, or even the Governor, would have had to be brought to bear."
  The alarm was sounded even in the early 1980s that BCCI was no ordinary bank and that it could not be treated as a member of the gentlemen's club—which has been the Bank's traditional approach to regulation in this country. Instead, the Bank was rebuffed in 1984 and then seemed to change tack.
  Throughout the 1980s, the Bank of England received, with increasing regularity, reports that should have given notice that something was very wrong. The Bank and the auditors made considerable efforts during that decade to put in place a structure with which they could cope, when all the time BCCI appeared to be leading the Bank on a merry dance.
  The Minister said that BCCI was a bank in search of a home. I do not think so. It successfully avoided finding a home. It might be said that it was a role model for latter-day poll tax evasion. It was obvious that BCCI did not want to be regulated and regarded the Bank of England as a soft touch—which it was.
  In 1985, the Bank was alerted to substantial trading losses in BCCI's central treasury. Lord Justice Bingham is especially critical of the Bank's response in that regard. Although it is clear that it sent in inspectors, they were taken in by BCCI and had no idea what it was doing at that time.
  Between 1986 and 1988, the Bank of England heard of more and more problems—of fraud in London and—from M16—of fraud in the Gulf. There was evidence also of doubtful loans. It is clear that although individuals in the Bank and Price Waterhouse, latterly the auditors, had that information, that intelligence was not brought together at an early stage and channelled ultimately, I suppose, to the Governor—who must, as the individual in charge of the Bank, accept responsibility for regulation.
  Instead, lines of communication left much to be desired. At no time did anyone stand back and ask, "What on earth is going on at BCCI? Why have we made no progress? Why are we allowing months and years to elapse before taking firm action?"
  Mr. David Shaw: I attended a meeting in the Grand Committee Room at which many members of BCCI's staff were represented. They argued that the closure had been a CIA plot against the Muslim world. They seemed to think that it had taken place far too early, and that the bank should have been given a longer chance to stay in business. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the early warnings with the considerable political pressure that was
  538
  exerted world wide, to the effect that the bank was looking after the interests of the third world and should be allowed to continue in existence?
  Mr. Darling: I do not accept the argument that, according to the hon. Gentleman, was put to him and others in the Grand Committee Room, but that is neither here nor there. It would appear that the Bank of England considered the possible consequences of closing BCCI throughout the 1980s. It might more profitably have considered the consequences that would be visited on it if it took no action.
  Let me repeat that the sole option was not always closure. If the Bank of England had told BCCI earlier that it was not prepared to allow it to continue in business without the imposition of conditions, matters might have been different. I do not disagree with the Economic Secretary's assertion that, whenever the bank was closed, some losses, somewhere, were inevitable. We must ask, however, whether it might have been better to take firmer action at the outset, rather than letting matters build up.
  The Bank of England was in a difficult position. It was trying to arrange the restructuring of BCCI, and latterly, when the new majority shareholders appeared on the scene, it was trying to take advantage of that. Throughout that time, however, it should have focused on the main problem—that BCCI was not being regulated because its structure made regulation impossible. The Bank did not address itself to that problem; indeed, as 1991 approached, it became so confused that, in my view, it lost sight of what it was supposed to be doing. To that extent, its judgment was severely wanting.
  Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is giving an excellent account of the Bingham report. Does he agree that it is very odd that, in a 45-minute speech, the Economic Secretary did not once defend the role of the Governor of the Bank of England? Is it not extraordinary that, following the savage criticism directed at him, the Governor has not resigned —or, at least, tendered his resignation and left Ministers to decide whether it should be accepted?
  Mr. Darling: I shall deal with that point shortly.
  Let us consider Bingham's criticism of the way in which the Bank of England handled reports that came to it from the fraud squad in England, from MI6 and from other sources. According to chapter 2, paragraph 14,
  "it was in my view incumbent on the Bank to see that serious and apparently credible allegations capable of investigation … were fully investigated. As it was, the police complaint petered out and the report from the Gulf was neither investigated"
  nor pursued.
  Alarm bells should also have rung in respect of the Tampa indictment. According to paragraph 2.166, the auditors felt it necessary to enter the Bank of England separately in case they were seen by their clients. Yet, after they had spoken to an official of the Bank about the matter and acted accordingly, nothing was done. As Bingham points out, the Bank showed a "marked lack of curiosity".
  In paragraph 2.162, he observes:
  "The likelihood of involvement in handling the proceeds of drug-trafficking could scarcely have eluded a competent and diligent banker contemplating such an investment, particularly if he had branches in Panama and agencies in Florida — it was a pertinent enquiry, to which a rigorous supervisor would have wished to know the answer."
  I have cited those passages because they are relevant to what is to happen in the future. Bingham has made a

  539
  damning criticism of the judgment of junior, middle-ranking and senior officials in the Bank of England. and at the end of the day the Governor must accept responsibility.
  We all know that the Bank of England is immune from prosecution or suit because of the terms of the Banking Act 1987. Surely, if those who rely on the Bank have no normal legal remedy, the counterbalance must be that those who accept responsibility—and all that goes with the governorship of the Bank of England—should accept the other side of the coin. When things go wrong and the organisation for which they are responsible fails to live up to the expectations to which we are entitled, they should accept the logical consequences and resign.
  It is never pleasant to put someone in such a position; ultimately, however, responsibility for one's actions is a crucial part of accountability. I think that, after receiving the Bingham report, the Chancellor himself should have said to the Governor, "This is a damning criticism of the stewardship of the Bank, and you cannot do other than accept responsibility." There is a problem with that, however: I can imagine the Governor turning around and replying, "Well, Chancellor, I will go, but what about you? What about your conduct of matters for which we were both responsible?"
  That has been one of our difficulties with the Government over the past few weeks. No one is prepared to accept responsibility for his actions. That debases public life, because the public are entitled to expect someone to accept responsibility when something goes wrong. Surely, when no legal remedy is available—I shall say more about that when I deal with the question of compensation—and no one is prepared to carry the can, the Chancellor is duty bound to insist that standards are upheld.
  I find it extraordinary that the Governor seems to be maintaining the line that the Bank is blameless. I understand that he continued to take that stance when he was invited back to give evidence to the Select Committee earlier this week. According to him, no one was at fault; it was all a mistake; perhaps it should not have happened, but no one was to blame. I cannot accept that. Is the Economic Secretary asking us to accept that the Bank of England, in its present form—with many of its officials still occupying the desks that they occupied during the BCCI affair—is to continue to be responsible for regulation? If so, many people are bound to ask when the same thing will happen again.
  This is not the first time that such a problem has arisen. The affair involving the Johnson Matthey bank—which, of course, entailed different circumstances—illustrates the problem. The Bank of England may enjoy many successes, but it has yet to get on top of affairs such as those involving Johnson Matthey and BCCI. Warning signs were there, but the Bank of England did nothing.
  Mr. Beith: I believe that I am the only Select Committee member who took part in the questioning on Wednesday and who is present today. For many years, the Governor of the Bank of England has proved a courteous, frank, helpful and honest witness before the Committee. Like other Committee members, I was appalled by such a defensive approach to such a catalogue of failures as that listed in the Bingham report. I was genuinely amazed that neither the Governor nor his colleagues seemed willing to accept responsibility for what had happened.
  Mr. Darling: I have not met the Governor; I believe that I am to meet him in the next couple of weeks, which makes matters rather difficult. I dare say that he will be delighted to meet me after what I have said! I think, however, that I should be failing in my duty on behalf of my party, and on behalf of many other hon. Members, if I did not say what I believe ought to be said: that someone should accept responsibility.
  This is the biggest banking failure that we have seen. Many depositors, in this country and abroad, have lost all their money and are in severe financial difficulties. No matter what the Economic Secretary may say, when a bank is regulated its depositors are entitled to expect the regulator to discharge the duties incumbent on it. I do not suggest for a minute that they should not use their own commercial judgment in many respects, but there is no point in regulation unless it means regulation.
  I think that I have made the point strongly enough. I find it extraordinary that the attitude of the Bank's senior management is "business as usual." I suppose that all that can be said in their defence is that exactly the same attitude prevails in the Treasury. Its approach is, "Nothing has happened. The public may have lost out; tough luck. We are carrying on." That attitude needs to be corrected.
  Does the Economic Secretary believe that the Bank of England is the appropriate body to continue regulation? I know that that point has been canvassed by the Select Committee, but I wish to raise it again. I was struck by many features of Lord Lawson's book, which was published yesterday, but one aspect struck me particularly. I would not normally seek an ally in Lord Lawson, and some of his criticisms are in what I would call typically Lawsonesque style: everyone seems to have been to blame except him. However, he points out that the Bank of England has two tasks. One is to implement monetary policy; the other is to supervise banking policy.
  On page 406 of his book, Lord Lawson says:
  "despite the Bank's subordinate role in monetary policy and its leading role in bank supervision, the high fliers were all attracted to the former, much sexier side, while the humdrum but important"
  task of regulation was
  "always in danger in becoming something of a backwater."
  Two points arise. First, why did not Lord Lawson, during the six years that he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, do anything about it, if that is what he thought? Secondly, is he right? I understand that the Bank of England will say that that is not necessarily the case and that it has high-calibre people on the regulatory side. I wonder, however, whether an organisation whose sole job is regulation ought not to have focused on the problems that arose with BCCI at a much earlier stage. The Minister should look into that point.
  To digress for a moment, if the treaty of Maastricht is concluded and a European central bank is established, the structure, composition and powers of the United Kingdom's own national Bank will have to be looked at. We ought, therefore, to consider whether the Bank of England should be responsible for regulation.
  I say no more than that the situation might have been different had there been an organisation whose sole job was to look at these issues. Bingham makes the point that the Governor and deputy Governor were busy men, that they had many other matters to worry about in the 1980s and that it might have been better if someone had had sole responsibility for regulation.

  541
  I am glad that the Minister accepts the Bingham recommendations and also the Select Committee's recommendations, to which I shall return. I disagree with one of Lord Bingham's recommendations. He said:
  "the Board of Banking Supervision played a valuable role but must be alerted to any fact which even might cause their antennae to twitch".
  There were a number of facts that would have made anybody's antennae twitch a trifle. Lord Bingham is a little complacent when he says that the Board of Banking Supervision had played a valuable role. I argue that it did not do so. It had the information, or had cause to ask for information to be put before it. I do not know the two gentleman to whom the Minister referred and I do not criticise them, but I wonder whether hon. Members can leave the House today feeling happy that the same people appear to be doing the same job that they were doing throughout this episode. Apart from that, I have no quarrel with the Bingham recommendations.
  As for international co-operation, the House will be aware that under the European directive that comes into force in January 1993 we shall be faced with the curious fact that banks operating in the United Kingdom will be regulated by other European Community member states. The standards of regulation are not the same throughout the Community. The Treasury and the Bank of England will have to consider very carefully how that works out in practice so that we do not find that someone takes advantage of the fact that somewhere in the European Community there may be a regulatory regime that is less strong than the United Kingdom's regime.
  The other important point is that the statutory duty of auditors ought to be clear so that if whistles are to be blown they are blown without doubt. It should never be necessary for auditors to have to go to the Bank of England and use separate entrances in such a clandestine manner as happened in the case of BCCI.
  On the question of compensation, I have to remind the Minister that on the same day that he said that he was confident that the Bank of England would be exonerated, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said something different. The Minister may come to the Dispatch Box with a clean sheet, but the Treasury, for which he is now responsible, does not come to this matter with a clean sheet. The Chancellor is still the same Chancellor that we had in 1991. In reply to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) the Chancellor of the Exchequer said
  "I said that I would have to consider the position if the conclusion was that blame applied to the authorities or individuals, or there were findings of negligence."—[Official Report, 19 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 722.]
  The Minister muttered the word "negligence". Negligence is a high test, but the Chancellor used the word "blame". I challenge anybody who has read the Bingham report to tell me that no blame attaches to the Bank of England. Ministers sometimes say things that they subsequently regret, but the tradition is that if they say things to the House they are stuck with them.
  I know that the Chancellor will claim that he said that he would consider it and that he has now considered it. I dare say the minute he sat down he considered the matter and thought to himself, "I shouldn't have said that." However, he did lead people to believe that if there were blame, the matter might be different. The Government
  542
  have some responsibility because, as I said, the Treasury is responsible for the Bank of England. That is the line of communication and the line of accountability.
  From 1988 onwards the Treasury was well aware of the problems with BCCI. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement on 22 October I said that the Treasury had to ask itself whether it ought to have done more. It certainly briefed Ministers that all was well, but the Treasury, for which Ministers must accept responsibility, must have known that alarm bells were sounding. In my wanderings around the City in the last couple of months or so, anybody who mentions these things tells me, "Anyone could have told you about BCCI. It's just unfortunate that nobody appears to have told the Governor of the Bank of England that there were problems."
  Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend raises a very important point about what the Chancellor said on 19 January 1991. Will he take it from me that the Economic Secretary's predecessor, Mr. Maples, gave exactly the same commitment when he met an all-party delegation of Members just after the Bingham inquiry was set up? He told us that if there were any question of negligence or blame, he would look into the question of compensation.
  Mr. Darling: I must accept what my hon. Friend tells me. I dare say that someone on the Treasury Bench will have made a note of that point, though I suppose that in this era of open government we shall not see it.
  The Chancellor certainly led the House to believe that if blame were to be attached to anybody he would have to consider the position. Most hon. Members took the view at the time that this looked like another Barlow Clowes. It could be, though, that the Chancellor had been briefed by the Governor of the Bank of England and that the Chancellor was clear in his own mind at that time that no blame was going to be attached to the Bank of England. It is possible that the Bingham report came as much of a surprise to the Chancellor as the section 41 report by Price Waterhouse came to the Bank of England in 1991.
  The local authorities make one point that seems to me to have some force. Under the Banking Act 1987, the Bank of England has immunity. Local authorities cannot go to the ombudsman. It was the ombudsman's report that led to the recommendation that compensation should be paid to Barlow Clowes investors. The local authorities are in a difficult position.
  The second report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee deals with the local authorities. It makes useful comments about the Bank of England's approved list. Even those who criticise the local authorities—I am critical of one or two of them—accept that there is some ambiguity about the approved list that is published by the Bank of England. There was no point in having an approved list if the Bank of England knew, as one member of the Bank of England's staff said, that BCCI was a cesspool but then stuck it on the approved list, in the knowledge that people were likely to do business with it. Although he did not mention it specifically, I hope that the Minister accepts the Select Committee's recommendation.
  I return to the point that I made earlier: there are two possibilities. Either the Bank of England is to be made available for prosecution or legal redress, in the event of negligence, or we are entitled to expect, when things go wrong, that somebody carries the can. We cannot have it

  543
  both ways. We cannot have the Bank of England being unable to be sued and, no matter what happens, nobody accepting responsibility for what goes wrong. It is unfortunate that poll tax payers in some local authorities will have to shoulder a very heavy burden.
  Criticism has been levelled at the conduct of officials in the Western Isles council. When one looks at the catastrophic consequences for the economy of the Western Isles and for the poll tax payers—or for council tax payers next year—the Government's attitude appears to be high handed. Therefore, they ought to look into that question.
  Individual depositors pose a difficult problem. Under the Banking Act, the maximum amount payable under the deposit protection scheme is £15,000. Under the Finance Act 1987—a different regime—the maximum sum payable is £48,000. Does the Minister intend to review the working of both schemes? There appears to be an anomaly. In the United States, the equivalent of about £68,000 can be paid to individual depositors.
  If the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee returns to the question of compensation and recommends that compensation ought to be paid to investors over and above what is provided for under the deposit protection scheme, I hope that the lavish praise that the Minister heaped upon the Select Committee will not cease and that he will accept such a recommendation. The Chancellor gave an undertaking, from which Ministers cannot lightly depart. I would not go so far as to say that the statement was misleading. It would be improper of me to do so. If, however, Ministers say something to the House and, therefore, to the country, people are entitled to rely upon it.
  I accept the difficulties that the Government would have concerning the relationship between depositors, major shareholders and the compensation scheme. Nevertheless, if the Government can do anything to bring pressure to bear, as Governments can, I ask them to do so. There is no doubt that many people in this country feel that they have had a raw deal, and that they are not being given the same consideration as were the more articulate investors in other schemes. They feel badly done by, and they are beginning to wonder whether the Government regard them as less important than other investors.
  As the bank is now in liquidation, there is the problem that the liquidators are responsible for all the creditors throughout the world, not just the United Kingdom creditors. I understand that, as ever, rapacious accountants and lawyers are having a field day with what funds remain in the bank. That matter must be investigated.
  Finally, there are some relevant questions about which I had hoped the Minister would speak. For example, the whole subject of regulation has a direct bearing on the report, whose publication coincided with increasing problems in the regulation of financial services. There have been many problems, and the Government will have to get a grip on the situation.
  Next year the European directive will introduce a new area to consider. The Securities and Investments Board and its subsidiaries, if I may use that word, are relevant. The Minister will be aware that over the past few months there has been controversy, to put it mildly, over the amalgamation of the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation—LAUTRO—and the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation—FIMBRA. Mr. Newmarch of the Prudential Assurance company made a speech on Tuesday
  544
  night which brought to a head a simmering row. It is difficult to see how the PIA—the new amalgamated body, the Personal Investment Authority—will be able to get off the ground if an organisation as large as the Prudential will have nothing to do with it. The Government must get a grip on the situation. They cannot allow the debate to become dominated by producer interests. There is a large public interest.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) complained that small firms might be regulated. May I tell him that many of the problems arise from small firms—the kind that are set up in January and are gone by November, leaving a trail of devastation and hardship in their wake. The Government must consider that aspect, although it is extremely difficult. In some ways banks are easy, because one is dealing with one or two large players, whereas financial services involve many very small firms trading with hundreds of thousands of people. Nevertheless, the Government cannot allow the industry to carry on in its present state.
  I know that Andrew Large of the SIB is due to present a report to Ministers in March, but I am not sure that the Government can wait until then before making preparatory plans. Even after the report is presented in March there will have to be consultation, and it may be 1995 or 1996 before new legislation is passed. The Government will have to legislate next year and, if they are to do so, some of the more difficult problems, such as the lack of compulsion available to the SIB for knocking heads together, could be tackled.
  It is depressing to speak to people in banks and insurance companies and hear them say, "We know that we shall have to co-operate, but we shall not do so until we are forced to." The Government cannot allow that to continue, because every day somewhere in this country someone is selling duff policies to vulnerable members of the public. The public are entitled to expect that the Government regulatory regime will protect them. I hope that the Government will take that on board.
  The Government must deal with the problem of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation—IMRO—and the blot that the Maxwell affair has left on its record. And they really must resolve the problem of LAUTRO and FIMBRA.
  The term "self regulation." is not only inappropriate but perhaps symbolic of an atmosphere that prevailed in the mid-1980s, and which is not relevant to the mid-1990s. Mr. Newmarch is right that the climate must change. That term is inappropriate—but, equally, statutory regulation should not mean a United States style civil service regulator, with the taxpayer picking up the tab when anything goes wrong. Industry should be allowed to regulate its constituent parts, provided that the interests of depositors and investors are looked after.
  Parliament is entitled to lay down the framework of what it expects from the regulators—to ensure that companies are regulated, that interests are protected and that regulation means efficient and adequate policing of a regime, so that someone will knock on the door and say, "Where are your accounts? What policies are you selling? Are you deceiving people?" Yes, that will cost money, but in the long term it is a lot cheaper to have a proper regulatory regime in force than to allow the present situation to continue, claiming more victims every week.
  The Government cannot avoid blame for what has happened, either with BCCI or in the financial services

  545
  regime. They created the culture of the 1980s, when a nod and a wink were given in the direction of regulation, but they made it clear that they did not want to know about it. That has changed. Indeed, some of the utterances of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury have contrasted favourably with some of those of his predecessors. That is why I am so disappointed that today he seems to be returning to the bad old days, saying, "This is a bit unfortunate; let us walk away and hope that it never happens again." We cannot do that; the culture must change. The Bingham report clearly illustrates what goes wrong when we have a culture of the soft touch. People will take us for a ride, and the Government must remember that.
  I know that compensation is a difficult problem, but I strongly believe that, with proper regulation, it will be solved. I believe, too, that the fact that the industry will regulate itself makes abuses less likely. People will hear about things going wrong, so they will be more alert than they might otherwise be. I do not see why people who buy policies should have to pay for compensation in advance, by having it loaded onto the price of the product. That is equally wrong. The Government must get a grip on the situation, and show that they are prepared to regulate. At present, the industry is simply not doing the job.
  Regulation is important for two reasons. First, the public, the depositors and the investors expect that when they do business with a regulatory body they are entitled to certain standards, which will be actively policed. Secondly, we must consider the reputation and standing not only of the industry but of the City and of United Kingdom financial services. The United Kingdom is still a world centre, partly because of that reputation, so it is important in terms of this country's income, GDP and employment prospects. If the Government accept that, they must accept that we need a regulatory regime that works. Those two aspects—the protection of the public, and the integrity and reputation of the industry in the United Kingdom—go together.
  The Government must show that they are prepared to act quickly. Bingham and the Financial Services Act experience show that the Government and the House have been warned. We should take the opportunity that now arises. We cannot walk away from this. If we do, sooner or later we shall be back discussing the next catastrophe. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the fact that he has been warned. He may be the Minister responsible for such matters for a short time or for a long time, but he and the Government have been warned that there are problems, and that they must be tackled immediately.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that yesterday the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement on the GATT, which finished at 5.40 pm or thereabouts. Since then there have been considerable developments—the resignation of Mr. MacSharry and other matters concerning the President of the European Commission, who is responsible for the discharge of £25 billion of public money in connection with exports and agricultural support.
  In answer to a question from me yesterday, as reported in columns 443–44 of the Official Report, the President of
  546
  the Board of Trade did not dissent from the proposition that he was the prime political person in this country, and throughout the Community, in his capacity as President of the Trade Council, responsible to the public here and in the Community.
  The Government have said that they wish to bring the proceedings of national Parliaments closer to the people, so I expected that it would be their duty to arrange for a statement to be made. Looking at the clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I gather that you have received no such application. I should be grateful if you would tell me whether that is so and, if it is, how the House can express its concern at the Government's lack of action on behalf of the people of this country and of the rest of the Community in this crucial matter.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that I have no vested interest in interrupting this debate, because I hope to catch your eye later. However, in the light of all the developments that have taken place in the House and the fact that the United Kingdom has held the presidency in Europe for the past six months, it is important that we should be given some information about what measures may be taken urgently to restrict the destructive tendencies of Mr. Delors, who has already done a great deal of damage to relations between the European Community and the countries across the Atlantic.
  Mr. John Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given the thin attendance that we normally see in the House on a Friday when we have an Adjournment debate of this nature, would it not be more satisfactory to the House for the President of the Board of Trade to make a further statement on Monday rather than today, when he should spend his time negotiating the GATT settlement?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us not have a debate on this matter. I have had no request for a statement on any issue, but I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench heard what the right hon. and hon. Members said and obviously took note of it.
  11 am
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The disastrous collapse of BCCI has set a number of records, which stem from the sheer scale of the fraud. It is probably also on the way to setting a record for the number of inquiries and reports that have been made into it. We have had two reports from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, together with the responses of the Government and the Bank of England. We have also had the reports of Senator Kerry's inquiry and that of Sir Thomas Bingham.
  I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for his kind remarks about the report of the Treasury Select Committee, since, in one sense, it was my swansong as Chairman. I believe that it is a good report. I also noted with interest what he said about Senator Kerry's report. From reports in the press, I came to the conclusion that it was long on rhetoric but not very long on evidence or analysis.
  The reports of the Select Committee and that of Sir Thomas Bingham provide the House with a sound basis for a debate on the relevant issues—which, if I may

  547
  presume to say so, has been apparent from the two speeches that we have already heard. There is a difference between the two reports, because the Committee's was based on evidence taken in public, which was an important contribution to the general debate on the issue, whereas Sir Thomas took evidence in private.
  It is also true to say that, excellent though Sir Thomas's report undoubtedly is, it does not greatly add to the conclusions or recommendations that were made by the Treasury Select Committee. I am glad that the Government have been prepared to accept not only all of Sir Thomas's recommendations, but virtually all of those made by the Treasury Select Committee. It is vital that we should look forward in our consideration of this matter.
  I should like to declare an interest; I am a consultant to a firm of accountants, and obviously the role of auditors was pretty important in this matter.
  My first main point is a simple one. It is clear from the evidence that we have received that responsibility for bank supervision by statute rests with the Bank of England and not with the Government. Also apparent from the evidence we received was the extent to which the Governor of the Bank of England did—or, more accurately, did not —keep Ministers informed of what was going on.
  There is no doubt that there has been a serious failure in the regulatory mechanism, so it is important that we analyse exactly what happened. I am aware that the Treasury Select Committee is now considering the issue of compensation, and I would not wish to comment further on that, except to note the rather extraordinary statistic that the Economic Secretary has already mentioned. About 42,000 claim forms have been sent out to depositors, but only 16,000 claims have been made. It might be relevant to consider what has happened to the other 26,000 claim forms.
  Mr. Vaz: The right hon. Gentleman has highlighted part of our argument about compensation. The amounts of compensation that will be paid eventually, if the Government pay out to all the depositors, creditors, local authorities and former employees, would be a good deal less than the £6 billion mentioned, simply because people who want that compensation will under-claim.
  Mr. Higgins: I understand that very well, but I am merely drawing attention to the large disparity between the two figures.
  In the Treasury Select Committee report, we pointed out that IML—Institut Monetaire Luxembourgeois—and other regulators set up a unique system of supervision through a college of regulators, which was clearly a second-best solution with serious deficiencies. We said:
  "We simply do not understand why BCCI should have been the only bank in the world to be given such preferential treatment".
  The response of the Bank of England to that point can best be described as pathetic. It said:
  "The BCCI was a unique problem and the college a unique response to it, as Lord Justice Bingham acknowledges, so it was not a case of preferential treatment."
  I do not understand what the Bank is seeking to say. BCCI was the only bank in the world that was given a college of regulators, when all other banks were told that they should be dealt with on a normal basis by a single regulator. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) have already said, BCCI was not looking for a home: it
  548
  was trying to avoid having one. It singularly succeeded in that objective because of the special—and, I am bound to say, preferential—arrangement—the college of regulators.
  I do not understand why the Bank of England followed that course of action. If it had taken a tough line at that time and had told the BCCI that if it could not find a proper home, it would not be authorised and it would have to close down, that would have been the crunch. I am bound to say that, if that had been done, the losses to depositors would have been far smaller.
  The Treasury Select Committee also concluded that there should have been a single regulator. The Bank of England now accepts that, but it did not do so earlier. That reflects what we rightly criticised as the "climate of opinion" in the Bank, which caused a great deal of trouble. I noted with interest what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said about the session that the Select Committee had with the Bank of England the other day. I still do not feel that there has been a significant change in that climate of opinion, despite the proposals that have now been made for improving the regulatory system. The lack of change is cause for concern.
  The Select Committee also said of the Bank of England's response:
  "in our view the promise of additional funds from a major shareholder to make good any deficiencies does not exonerate a regulator from ensuring that the criteria for authorisation are met. We believe that it is important in future that a clear distinction should be made between solvency and probity, and that the 'minimum criteria for authorisation' should be strictly interpreted."
  The Bank of England seemed to be convinced that, because more money was being put in and BCCI might therefore be regarded as solvent, that was the end of the matter, and it had no further cause for concern. If BCCI had been entirely run by the mafia, which was prepared to put endless quantities of money into it, it would have been perfectly solvent. That does not mean that it would have been an appropriate bank for the Bank of England to authorise. That attitude once again reflects the climate of opinion that existed in the Bank of England.
  In the light of the reports of Sir Thomas Bingham and the Treasury Select Committee, the Bank of England and the Government have accepted the need for a body to regulate the regulators. The Treasury Committee considered this matter in considerable detail, and it is especially important against the broader issues of the EC banking directives and the GATT Uruguay round. One must consider whether, in order to have freedom of competition across international boundaries, bodies that are authorised in one country should be authorised in others. In the EC context, that goes to the idea that, if one EC country authorises a bank, that should be accepted as a sufficient criterion for authorisation in the United Kingdom.
  It is suggested that some changes should be made—some legislation, for example—to deal with the legal status of banks that are thought not to be capable of adequate regulation. The Minister referred to the proposed forthcoming legislation. There are, in addition, proposed amendments to the Basle concordat.
  I am not clear whether the legislation that we introduce would be adequate to enable the Bank of England to say that it is not prepared to give authorisation, even though it has been given in another EC country. Will the national legislation be capable of overriding what, on the face of it, seems to be an absolutely free passport across the EC?

  549
  The Economic Secretary said that that would be discussed at the Edinburgh summit. It is extremely important for the point to be cleared up. It seems, for example, that a bank could be authorised by one of the successor states to the former Yugoslavia. If that were authorised there, we should be obliged to say, "That bank can operate here." If, under EC regulations, that law was supreme over the laws that we may make in the legislation which the Minister is contemplating, that would not be adequate protection for depositors in this country. We must be clear just what is the priority in one set of laws compared with another.
  We must also consider, in relation to the Basle concordat, the question of peer pressure and so on. It is said that the concordat will cover the G10 and a wide range of countries. I suggest that it will not be adequate unless it is a universal set of rules and standards which can be applied. Otherwise, as happened in the BCCI case, a bank that wants to avoid effective regulation—forum shopping, as it is called—will go to a bank that is outside the Basle concordat.
  Will there be some form of international blackball to enable signatories or parties to the Basle concordat to say that, in those circumstances, a regulatory authority will not be accepted as appropriate? That will be difficult, given that it may be located in a sovereign state. We must cover the point, because in many ways it reflects the problems exemplified by the tragic events that resulted in the collapse of BCCI and its aftermath.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central wondered whether the present structure in this country was appropriate, given that the Bank of England is responsible both for broad financial issues and the regulation of the banking system. I am coming increasingly to believe that that combined role is not necessarily appropriate.
  I was interested to note the evidence that the Governor gave to the Select Committee a few days ago. The point was raised with him in the context of alleged remarks—I know not whether they were true—by Bundesbank officials about the situation in this country. One supposes that the Governor had given much thought to the subject. So, when he was asked whether he thought that the responsibilities should be split and whether some authority other than the Bank of England should deal with the regulatory side as well as the financial side, one would have expected him to give a considered view.
  In the event, he made two particular points. He said that the great advantage of having the two combined was that the Bank was operating in financial markets as well as in a regulatory way, and added:
  "As a result of what we do in banking supervision, we have a very close picture of what is going on in the markets and the soundness of the financial institutions who are our counterparts, and as a result of what we do in the markets we get a very close picture of how things are going in the financial system itself."
  If that were a valid argument, we would consider it in the context of BCCI and conclude that we had doubts about it. I suppose that the most active part of the financial market is the discount market, and at least one of the main participants in that market never accepted the BCCI situation. If so, one would suppose that the Bank of England, looking carefully at the discount market every
  550
  week, might have taken some notice, in its role of regulator, of that fact. Indeed, if the Governor's argument is valid, it does not seem to have worked in that case.
  The Governor's second point was that the Bank of England had close links with commercial banks and so on because it was a lender of last resort. That might be the case from the point of view of some of the clearing banks, but it blatantly was not the case in respect of BCCI.
  Given that the Governor's term of office is coming to an end, this might be an appropriate time for the Economic Secretary to consider carefully whether the combined role is appropriate, whether the individual in charge of it can adequately give enough time to both roles, and, indeed, whether the same person should be in charge of both functions.
  We are fortunate in having the Economic Secretary dealing with the issue. Many of the problems that have arisen in recent years have been due to the split between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that increasingly it will be concentrated in one Department, and the Economic Secretary's knowledge of these issues fits him well to consider the points that are being made today and, in a broader context, the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, who expressed concern about the way in which the present financial regulatory legislation of a broader kind is operating.
  The subsidiary legislation has been in a state of flux since the present framework was set up. The House did not do a particularly good job when it looked at these matters a few years ago, and the time has come for us to look at them more broadly and to learn the lessons that have been shown, not least by the report of the Select Committee and the Bingham report. We are learning those lessons, but I have thought it right to express some of the doubts that I still have about what more needs to be done.
  11.16 am
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad to speak following the former Chairman of the Select Committee, partly because I can pay tribute to him for the work he has done on the two reports on this issue, and partly to urge the Economic Secretary to realise that the points made by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) show how perturbed many of us are.
  We are perturbed not on any party political basis but because of concern over the integrity and status of banking regulation and other relevant matters. We are perturbed that so little acceptance should have been shown by the Bank of England of the scale of failing that has been revealed. The calls that we make are not born of a party political desire in some way to injure the Government by getting at the Governor. There could be no clearer testimony of our concern than the remarks of the right hon. Member for Worthing.
  We have before us a well-prepared report into a ruinous catastrophe for many individuals. Terrible hardship has been caused, life savings have been lost and small businesses have been destroyed among enterprising people, many of whom had come from another background and were building up their place in British society by hard work and effort.
  Of course, BCCI was not confined in its work to the ethnic minority community. Its tentacles, and the hardship, were spread much wider, from one end of the

  551
  country to the other, as is exemplified by the interest that is being shown in this debate by hon. Members from the southern tip of Britain to the Western Isles.
  The involvement of local authorities was examined with care by the Treasury Select Committee, as was that of the brokers with whom they dealt. We found it significant that such a small number of brokers were involved in the BCCI business done with local authorities. By and large, the smaller local authorities, having less high-calibre professional advice, did that business.
  As the Economic Secretary said, behind it all was massive fraud on a scale never seen in the banking system anywhere in the world before. The blame for what went wrong lies with that fraud and those who perpetrated it. However, it does not exonerate the regulatory authorities to say that they were simply regulators and not the evil men who planned the fraud, because a heavy responsibility rested on them.
  The report contains a series of damaging criticisms of the Bank of England. They are stated modestly and carefully and set in context, but they are extremely serious. The fact that the report did not conclude with a recommendation that the Bank of England be abolished or its leading officials be sent to the stake is being adduced by the Governor and some of those officials as showing that those criticisms do not add up to much.
  Nobody who goes through the pain of reading the whole report can come away from it without believing that the Bank has been the subject of fierce and wide-ranging criticism. I commend to anybody interested in the matter and who has not read the report in full to do so, because that is its impact. By failing to recognise the sheer extent of the criticism, one is in danger of not seeing the impact that runs from the beginning to the end of the story.
  In the earlier stages, the report is telling when it looks at the report prepared by Brian Gent, deputy head of banking supervision, who argued strongly for the bank's location within the United Kingdom so that it could be dealt with properly by United Kingdom regulatory authorities, and dismisses the feasibility of any form of regulation not rooted in that. Paragraph 2.38 of the Bingham report says:
  "This paper provoked no action."
  It was some time before it provoked real action, and there was much argument within the Bank. When other restructuring proposals based on a revised version of that paper were eventually put to BCCI with the authority of the Governor by that time the present Governor had taken over—far from insisting that its wishes be carried out in the traditional way, the Bank
  "fell at the first fence".
  As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, the Bank appeared to be a soft touch. The story is repeated time and again in the report:
  "Supervisors tended to lose sight of their primary duty to protect the bank's UK depositors. There was a lack of interest in establishing the truth."
  Paragraph 2.120 says:
  "the Bank's response was so off-hand as to suggest a lack of interest".
  Paragraph 2.161 says that, after the Tampa court case,
  "the Bank showed a very marked lack of curiosity."
  Paragraph 162 says:
  "A rigorous supervisor would have wished to know the answer."
  The report also says:
  552
  "We find that in August 1990 Mr. Quinn and Mr. Barnes were unaware of the serious doubts thrown by Price Waterhouse on the integrity of the bank's most senior management."
  They were unaware because they had not properly read documents in the Bank's possession at the time. Paragraph 2.257 says:
  "I find it hard to understand why the fitness and properness aspects of this report"—
  Bingham was referring to the Price Waterhouse 1990 report—
  "made so little impact on the minds of those who read it in the Bank."
  Paragraph 2.406 says:
  "I have much more difficulty … in understanding the Bank's failure even to try to explore whether the allegations were true or not."
  Later in the report there appears the statement that some people in the Bank were reluctant to believe ill of BCCI—a banking institution which had, by that time, acquired a reputation, almost throughout the markets, as being at least questionable.
  The total of criticism is massive. Why, then, do the Government seek to understate it? In the Economic Secretary's opening remarks today there seemed to be a deliberate understatement of the seriousness of the criticisms levelled against the Bank. The conclusion that people will draw from the understatement of the Bank's failings is that the Government are worried about the compensation aspect and do not want the failings to be stated too highly because that would strengthen the compensation case. The Government must dismiss that thought from their minds. The case for compensation will be argued on its merits. For the general good of our banking system, the Government must not ignore the scale of criticism in the report.
  When the Economic Secretary talks, as the Governor did, about the duty to depositors, he seems to refer only to existing depositors. In all those circumstances there are potential depositors. Throughout the history of the BCCI case, those least protected were the people on the threshold of the bank, about to place deposits without the knowledge of what was known within the Bank of England and elsewhere. Banking regulators must have regard to the fact that on them rests the confidence and assurance of people who are about to place money with a bank that they assume has a supervisory or regulatory safeguard.
  Reference has already been made to what the Chancellor said about blame being the basis for compensation and to what the Treasury Select Committee said about the case for compensation being dependent upon there being some failing in the exercise of supervisory duties. The Government must now consider that much more carefully than they have done so far. Legal action cannot be taken against the bank, as it could be taken against the financial advisers in the Barlow Clowes case for instance. There can be no recourse to the ombudsman. In the Barlow Clowes case, recourse to the ombudsman brought out a clear argument for compensation without regard to the possibility that legal redress might also produce compensation. The ombudsman was not deterred from recommending compensation by the possibility that investors could have got some of their money back by other means. The same applies to the bank deposit scheme. The fact that such a scheme exists does not remove the case for compensation.

  553
  I accept that 100 per cent. compensation has serious problems and I do not argue that case. However, failure to carry out supervisory duties generates a requirement for compensation and it is a matter of judgment what that level of compensation should be and how much regard should be had to what depositors will be able to obtain through other proceedings. If nothing is done, where is the discipline on the banking regulation system? Nobody resigns and nobody pays compensation, so what does it matter for those involved in it whether the banking regulation system works in the future? All that is at stake is that they do not lose their good name and are not subject to the criticisms contained in the Bingham report. If that is the only safeguard, it is clearly inadequate.
  Mr. David Shaw: I understand the line that the hon. Gentleman has taken, but it is only fair that he should answer the question. The part of the report that he quoted refers to Price Waterhouse information that was available only on 3 October 1990. That was only seven or eight months before the closure took place. Surely that report led to the closure and, even if closure had taken place slightly earlier, most if not all of the money would still have been lost.
  Mr. Beith: The failings that Bingham enumerates run through the whole history, from the earliest decision not to insist that the bank would not be authorised if it did not locate in the United Kingdom. That early key decision could have avoided far more of the losses. Failings exist at every stage and the case for compensation is therefore generated by failings that go back throughout the history of the matter.
  If no one resigns when something goes as badly wrong as that, what discipline is there in the system? If no one takes responsibility to the extent of suffering the personal loss of resignation, where is the pressure, and where is the integrity of the system? There is a general feeling among the public that someone should go—whether it be the Governor or some of the senior officials most closely involved. When that does not happen, it weakens the system and the potential for future protection.
  I do not wish to take up too much time or dwell on the many sensible and constructive changes made by the Bank following the recommendations of the Select Committee and the Bingham report, so I shall come to my final point. It relates to what the right hon. Member for Worthing said about the future responsibilty for banking supervision and the Bank of England's future position. I press the same point as he did for further consideration.
  There is a strong case for separating the ultimate responsibility for bank regulation from the conduct of monetary policy. We have got it the wrong way round in this country. The central Bank exercises a largely independent responsibility for banking supervision, but is totally subservient to the Government on the matter of conducting monetary policy—the reverse of what should happen. There is a stronger case for closer accountability for banking supervision than for independence in monetary policy. There is a risk that the Bank's role in monetary policy, especially if it is more independent—as it must be under stage 2 of the European monetary system —could well be hampered by events such as that relating to BCCI and any that might occur in future.
  554
  A bank will occasionally slip through even the best-operated regulatory system, and its failure will cause problems. Even if all our best hopes for banking regulation are carried out, at some future time the central Bank may have another problem on its hands, which will cast doubt on its competence in the monetary sector, even if irrelevantly.
  There is an argument for separating the two aspects. The Germans have an organisation located in Berlin—not even the banking centre—with responsibility for supervising the pursuit and prosecution of bank failings. That organisation draws heavily on the Bundesbank for guidance on what is happening in the banking sector, which would clearly have to be the case.
  The Bank of England's day-to-day work involvement in the banking sector would always give it a role. In Germany, ultimate responsibility lies with the Bundesaufsichtsamt für das Kreditwesen. I hope that we can think of a more catchy title if we devise such an institution in this country. The Government should look at the case for the separation of responsibilities, just as they should consider the argument for a more independent central Bank. I know that the Economic Secretary has much sympathy with that argument.
  The central Bank in this country—an institution which has served us well for many years—is presently deeply harmed by a series of well-founded and justified criticisms to which there has been no adequate response by those with responsibility who were in control at the time.
  11.35 am
  Mr. Roy Thomason: The debate seems to have been dominated by those who, with the benefit of hindsight, criticise those who were in the front line at a difficult time. We must draw back a little, stop and recall some of the actions taken by the Bank when it became conscious of some of the difficulties surrounding the organisation.
  In October 1988, when the potential Tampa prosecutions came to light, involving people who were not from the bank operating in this country but from a sister organisation abroad, the Bank of England introduced clear scrutiny arrangements. Every week it held meetings with the management of the bank here, and considered its statistics, liquidity and balance sheet. That does not constitute the degree of negligence suggested by some hon. Members in today's debate.
  Paragraph 2.3 of the Bingham report states:
  "The systematic frauds now thought to have been practised in BCCI were on a scale which had never been known before. It would, until the later stages of the story, have required considerable imagination to suppose that fraud was being practised on anything approaching the scale which has now been revealed."
  Those remarks do not demonstrate negligence or a disregard for the interests of depositors and shareholders which some people have implied existed in the Bank.
  I am following others when I refer to parts of the report that state, as at paragraph 2.283, that Bingham makes it clear that the Bank's conduct was skilful and professional in the period from January 1990 to the closure in July 1991. Therefore, there is also a story of the Bank operating properly and carefully.
  Every crime is wicked, and the one that we are discussing constitutes a particularly vigorous series of

  555
  attacks on the small as well as the larger investors and shareholders, and others. It is understandable that people wish to see compensation paid to those who have lost out.
  Earlier contributions to the debate suggested that full compensation was not being sought. It appears that the conduct of the Governor of the Bank of England is being called into question. That is rather like someone expecting a policeman to stand on the corner of every street where mugging might occur and, when it does, complaining that a police constable was not present, and calling for the resignation of the Chief Constable.
  Mr. Macdonald: Surely the whole point is not the effect of the fraud, which of course no one could imagine before, but the fact that the structure was such as to allow fraud to take place. As Bingham said, the Bank failed to regulate BCCI effectively and give it a different structure that would have made such fraud impossible. The hon. Gentleman referred to paragraph 2.283—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making long interventions this morning, and I believe that he is hoping to catch my eye.
  Mr. Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Of course, we can all be wise now and criticise the opaque structure of the bank. We can say that the fact that it was operating here although registered in Luxembourg should have alerted us to take action. We could just as well say that there should be a police constable on the corner of the road where the old lady was attacked. After the event we can all speculate about what might have been, but we can rarely be so precise about the nature of the problems that we can take action to deal with them. That is what some hon. Members present today seem to want.
  The closure of a bank or even the threat of an in-depth investigation of a bank is most serious action for the Bank of England to take. It is almost being suggested that the Bank of England officials get up in the morning, go to the office, decide whether to have tea or coffee, then decide whether to investigate a bank in depth. The system cannot work like that—there are serious issues to be addressed. The confidence required of any bank is such that to avoid a run on it officials cannot lightly take action that would prejudice its existence. They have a duty to the depositors and employees of the bank not to threaten their livelihoods, as well as not to threaten shareholders' investments. Any action by the Bank of England or any other regulatory authority with regard to other financial institutions must be exercised with the utmost sensitivity. Some hon. Members seem to be suggesting that the sensitivity of hobnailed boots is required.
  It has been said that the number seeking compensation will be substantially fewer than the number of accounts. I must draw attention to an important distinction. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who gave an excellent appraisal of the position as one would expect of him, perhaps overlooked the fact that while there may be 42,000 accounts, groups of them will be in the name of one investor. Therefore, the total number of compensation claims might well be fewer than 42,000, or might be nearer to the total number of alleged losses. That is a minor point of correction. The key aspect is that the issue cannot be taken as lightly as some hon. Members appear to think appropriate.
  11.39 am
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I welcome this debate and the publication of the excellent report. My only regret this morning is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present to open for the Government, although I am glad to see the Economic Secretary here.
  There has never been a scandal like BCCI. If it had been a work of fiction, we should have thought it bizarre. However, I have never regarded BCCI as merely a financial scandal; I have always seen it as a human tragedy. The lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals, their families and their businesses throughout the world have been terribly affected by the closure of BCCI by the Bank of England. It has had catastrophic social and economic consequences. That is why a year and three months ago, when BCCI was closed, the House demanded an inquiry.
  In welcoming the debate and the report, we must recall that the Government and the Governor of the Bank of England initially refused the inquiry. Some 12 hours before the Chancellor announced the inquiry to the House, the Governor told a group of Conservative Members that there was no need for any inquiry. He has been proved, yet again, to be hopelessly wrong.
  The Bingham report is a horrifying indictment of the role of the Bank of England. For any regulator to be called "deficient" and for its operations to be called a "tragedy of errors" should be enough to prompt the head of the organisation in honour to resign. Wednesday's fumbling performance by the Governor of the Bank of England before the Treasury Select Committee should have been the final straw. Three members of the Committee either called for or invited his resignation.
  Two weeks ago, even the Evening Standard, not known for its radical instincts, joined the chorus. Its headline was, "Go Governor". Someone must take the buck and the buck stops with the Governor. The report has made the Bank of England the laughing stock of all the financial institutions in the world.
  A year ago, Ministers could not believe that the Bank could have done any wrong. The Chancellor said on 19 July:
  "I should like to make it plain that the establishment of the inquiry is not to be taken as a criticism of the Bank of England … I have repeatedly said that I am confident that the inquiry will find that the Bank of England discharged its duties in this matter competently and expeditiously."
  The Economic Secretary, as I reminded him, said:
  "Many of us are confident that it will show beyond any question of doubt that the Government and the Bank of England acted wholly in a timely and proper fashion."—[Official Report, 19 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 715–25.]
  On 22 July, even the Prime Minister said:
  "The moment that there was evidence of fraud, the Bank of England acted very promptly and so did the Government." —[Official Report, 22 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 759.]
  The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary exonerated the Bank even before Lord Bingham had begun his deliberations.
  The publication of the Bingham report marks a watershed in the campaign for compensation for the victims of BCCI. It has been an astonishing campaign. It is the human consequences, not the fabulous statistics, which have moved me and which would have moved any hon. Member if he had seen what I have seen.
  I met a widow in Hong Kong who put her weekly income into BCCI. She lived in a tenement block with her

  557
  two young children. After the closure, she could not afford to pay the rent and she was forced out of her home. I met 400 pensioners living in Gibraltar who had put their life savings into BCCI. I also met a man who, the week before, had won the Spanish lottery and who had put all his winnings into BCCI. All was lost when the bank was closed.
  I have met people in Manchester, Bradford, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, Glasgow and other towns and cities in Britain. I have had 1,567 letters from 70 countries from people who deposited money with BCCI. Every one of them was in a state of shock after the closure. Every one of them had relied on the good name of the Bank of England.
  I went to the Western Isles at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who is present today, and of the trades council. I saw the projects that may have to close if compensation is not paid. Some 30 local authorities lost £81·8 million in BCCI, ranging from the northernmost part of Scotland through to Lisburn in Northern Ireland and down to Tory Guildford in Surrey.
  In its response yesterday to the Treasury Select Committee, the Bank of England agreed to produce a health warning on its list of authorised institutions—the report was put very late into the Vote Office—which is another sign that the Bank had got it wrong when the report was initially commissioned.
  Throughout the year, the campaign has been sustained by the work of the ex-employees of BCCI, some of the finest people whom I have ever met and many of whom are here today. The ex-employees of BCCI want an apology from the Governor for his statement that they were somehow responsible for the fraud. They were not part of what the Governor described as the "criminal culture", but, because of what he said, they cannot find jobs. A survey of 1,200 ex-employees of BCCI shows that families have been torn apart. There have been heart attacks, illnesses, nervous breakdowns and even a suicide. The ex-employees have collectively made more than 20,000 applications for jobs.
  The publication of the report makes the case for compensation for the victims of BCCI, for the depositors, for the creditors, for the local authorities and for the staff, unanswerable. I rely on just two statements, to which other hon. Members have referred.
  The first statement, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 19 July 1991, has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). The Chancellor said that he would "consider the position" for compensation if any blame "applied to the authorities".
  He then said:
  "Plainly, we would then have to reconsider the matter, as happened with the case of Barlow Clowes."—[Official Report, 19 July 1991; Vol. 195. c. 722.]
  In its excellent report of 16 December 1991 at paragraph 76, the Treasury Select Committee made it clear that if there was a breach of statutory duty or supervisory duty, the losses incurred by local authorities should not be met by the local authorities or by their community charge payers.
  Some 156 right hon. and hon. Members of all political parties have signed early-day motion 679 which calls for compensation. That is almost one third of all hon.
  558
  Members who are eligible to sign such motions. The signatories include representatives of all the parties, such as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who represents the Scottish National party, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the president of Plaid Cymru, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), a former Conservative Minister who, as I am sure the Minister will recall, because I saw his joyous mood on Wednesday night, saved the Government, and the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who also saved the Government on Wednesday. In view of the involvement of those two right hon. Members, I hope that the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary will look favourably on the campaign. I am not saying that those two votes were worth £6 billion, but I hope that the Economic Secretary will consider the case for compensation favourably because of the involvement of those two right hon. Members.
  The Chancellor told me and the right hon. Member for Brent, North, when we went to see him last week—the Economic Secretary has repeated the point today—that he had considered the question of compensation and had concluded that he would not pay it, first, because Bingham did not recommend it and, secondly, because he did not conclude that things would definitely have been different if the Bank of England had not made mistakes.
  I make several points in response to that. First, Lord Justice Bingham was not asked in his terms of reference to consider compensation. Secondly, there are many precedents that could be used. The Barlow Clowes case, to which the Chancellor referred, is a useful and acceptable precedent. The Chancellor should recall the statement made by his former colleague Lord Young, when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in response to calls to the Government for compensation. Like the Bingham report, the Barlow Clowes report was silent on the question of compensation. In fact, that report was not as strong as the Bingham report because it did not apportion blame.
  On 20 October 1988, Lord Young said:
  "The facts set out in Sir Godfray's report in the Government's view provide no grounds for concluding that my department's handling of the matter was unreasonable … and therefore provide no justification for using taxpayers' money to fund compensation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 1988; Vol. 500, c. 1259.]
  Using different language, that is precisely what the Chancellor said about compensation for BCCI. What happened? In agreeing to pay compensation after the second report, the next Secretary of State said:
  "The regulatory machinery was inadequate. It is also true that a large number of investors, many of them elderly, have suffered hardship. They were led to believe that their investment was safer than it was."
  By the use of a discretionary payment, victims of Barlow Clowes who had lost less than £50,000 were compensated for up to 90 per cent. of their loss. Those who lost less than £100,000 got 80 per cent. back and those who lost more than £100,000 got 60 per cent. back.
  The Minister will recall that this year Lord Young admitted that at the time of the Barlow Clowes collapse the Government were reluctant to admit responsibility because of their concern about setting a precedent. As with Barlow Clowes so with BCCI, because the cases are strikingly similar. In the Johnson Matthey case

  559
  compensation was paid and, as the Governor of the Bank of England told the Treasury Committee on Wednesday, "every penny recovered".
  In the Maxwell pension fund case the Government have used a discretionary payment to make grants of over £1 million to eight pension schemes and interest-free loans of £100 million. The campaign for more compensation goes on. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is involved in that case.
  When the right hon. Member for Brent, North and I met the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary last week the right hon. Member told them that there was a perception that the Government were being unfair and discriminatory. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Economic Secretary will refute those allegations and show why there is to be a difference between the two cases. I am heartened by the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), a senior and respected member of the Select Committee, that he believes that compensation should be paid. Will the Minister answer the question put to him earlier? If the Treasury Select Committee makes a recommendation for compensation will the Government pay it?
  Compensation should mean full compensation for the depositors, creditors and ex-employees of BCCI. I put to the Economic Secretary a list of proposals that I think could help resolve these matters before the question of compensation is finally resolved by the Government. First, the Chancellor should examine representations for compensation from the affected groups. As I have said, I do not think that it will be as much as £6 billion, because the number of claimants will be considerably less than the current number of customers, which is about 285,000. As he said, there has already been a 50 per cent. under-claim on the deposit protection scheme.
  Secondly, a committee should be established with representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to oversee the rapid conclusion of this problem and the co-ordination of Government activities.
  Thirdly, the Department of Trade and Industry should be asked to act on the representations to it by creditors and staff about the way in which the liquidation is proceeding. I understand that the liquidators are currently claiming fees of between £1 million and £2 million a week. When creditors write to the liquidators asking how much money they are taking they are told virtually to get lost.
  According to the liquidators' report, at the time of closure the total assets of the bank were $16 billion, including $3 billion in cash and due from other banks. According to Lord Justice Bingham, one of the reasons why the Bank of England did not tell Abu Dhabi about the closure was that it wanted the assets preserved and was concerned that, if given advance notice, Abu Dhabi might withdraw or disperse those assets. Where are those assets? In his evidence to the Select Committee last year when pressed on the position of United Kingdom branches, the Governor of the Bank of England said:
  "We do believe that the branches may be asset surplus."
  I ask again: where is the money, what has happened to it since the bank closed? Nothing has been realised and nothing has been paid out.
  As the House knows, the liquidators were appointed by a fax sent by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the undertaking that a meeting of creditors would be
  560
  held within three months. No such meeting has taken place. It is no good the liquidators chasing the small customers in Britain. They should chase the big borrowers whose loans are parked in the Grand Cayman islands, because they are the people who can give back the kind of money that the depositors need. Why are the liquidators not returning to the staff the $150 million taken by the the bank from the staff benefit fund?
  Last week I asked the President of the Board of Trade to produce a list of the liquidators' costs and information about some written-off loans. I asked those questions because I had asked Mr. Desmond Flynn, one of the President's senior officials, to produce this information. In front of five other people Mr. Flynn produced a file and said that because of the powers conferred on him by the Insolvency Act 1986 and because there has not been a creditors meeting, the Secretary of State has to approve all the write-off of these loans. Why is that information not made available to all hon. Members?
  The first scandal in BCCI was the fraudsters profiting from the misery of ordinary people because the Bank of England failed in its duty to protect them. The second scandal will be the liquidators becoming rich on the victims' money while the Government stand by and watch. I say to the Minister, as I said to the Chancellor last week, that in a year we shall be here again debating another inquiry into the way in which the liquidation has been conducted. That is why the DTI must hold an inquiry now into the liquidation.
  Fourthly, the Prime Minister should approach the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, because it is clear that the Sheikh owns the whole bank. There is no question of his being the majority shareholder. In the light of the Bingham report, the Government owe the Sheikh an apology. When that apology has been given he should be asked in the gentlest, kindest and politest way through diplomatic channels to see whether his contribution can be increased. As the owner of the bank, he has a moral obligation to increase the amount available for compensation.
  The Minister said that the Sheikh was giving $1.7 billion, but what does he get back? He gets $4 billion in promissory notes and the right to chase the big borrowers in the Grand Cayman islands. That means that any money realised after the agreement will go to the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi. At the end of next year the depositors will receive only 10 per cent.—not 30 or 40 per cent.—of their money back and they have no timetable for payment of the rest of the money because the liquidators refuse to state the timetable.
  An approach must be made to Abu Dhabi as quickly as possible, especially now that an appeal has been lodged. I suggested to the Economic Secretary the name of a person who would be a good go-between who has the confidence of both sides.
  This morning I received a cheque in the post. Initially I thought that it was a payoff inviting me not to continue my campaign but it was a copy of a cheque for $2·5 million. It was drawn on a private Swiss bank account and signed by the founder of BCCI, Abu Hassan Abedi, and payable to his excellency Mr. Ghanzim Mazrui, chief of staff of the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi. I realise that Mr. Mazrui is an important man and that, with all the current important negotiations, we cannot offend him. However, it is plain that in his evidence to the Select Committee last year the Governor of the Bank of England realised that

  561
  members of the household' who are close to the owner of the bank received some payment. It is important to clear that up and that is why the Sheikh should be approached.
  Finally, the Serious Fraud Office should be allowed to interview those responsible. One of them who has been held in detention since last year died this week while in Abu Dhabi. These people are British citizens who could not only help in discovering the truth about what happened but could assist the liquidators by disclosing the location of the assets.
  When I returned from Karachi in May I passed information to the Solicitor-General and invited him to ask the Serious Fraud Office to go to Karachi to interview people who wanted to give evidence but who, for a variety of reasons, were unable to come here. I hope that the Economic Secretary will pursue this matter to make sure that this information is made readily available, especially if the liquidators say that they cannot find some of the assets. If that is not done then, as in the case of the gentleman who unfortunately died this week, those people will be unable to help the SFO in its inquiries.
  The solution to this terrible tragedy lies with the Government. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor were told what was to happen a week before the bank closed. Lord Justice Bingham, our most senior civil law judge, has found the Bank of England to be at fault. On Wednesday, the Governor, during one of his better moments, talked about the need for natural justice. Here is a case for natural justice.
  Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I believe that people and organisations should pay for their mistakes. The cost of the Bank of England's tragedy of errors is being paid every day and every hour by the victims of BCCI. When citizens place money in banks, they do so in good faith, believing that they are being properly supervised. BCCI was owned by one of the richest men in the world and supervised by one of its greatest financial institutions. Why on earth should people have doubted its integrity?
  At the end of the Committee meeting on Wednesday, this exchange took place between my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North and the Governor. My hon. Friend asked:
  "Do you have any regret for what happened?"
  The Governor replied:
  "I have great regret that enormous amounts of money like this have been lost, yes.
  But do you feel that you have any responsibility?
  I cannot accept absolute responsibility. Banking is a risky business."
  In a democratic society, with power goes responsibility. There must be responsibility for both action and lack of action. With the failure of responsibility goes the duty to compensate those who have suffered. At paragraph 2.23 Bingham talks about the Bank's "duty to the depositors" overriding all other considerations. I agree.
  Next week, one of the depositors of BCCI, a middle-aged woman who lives in Herne Hill, London, and who has lost everything she ever possessed in the closure of BCCI, will begin a hunger strike. I beg the Government not to draw out the suffering of these unfortunate victims in the way that they did over Barlow Clowes. I beg them not to push these people to the margins of their sanity. Repenting years later, as Lord Young did, cannot help victims now.
  562
  The Chancellor should accept his responsibility and stand by his commitments to the House. He must pay for the Bank's mistakes by paying compensation in full to those affected. If he refuses to do so, he will be impeaching the good name of this country, damaging the name of the City as a major financial centre and blighting a whole section of our community.
  I can assure him that the campaign will go on and on until every penny is returned and every person, no matter how powerful or important, is brought to account, and justice is done.
  12.2 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), because it gives me the opportunity to be the first to congratulate him on the role that he has played in following up the BCCI scandal. Those of us who have been here today to listen to his speech already knew how much work he had done, but the common touch that he demonstrated this morning as he showed the House how this scandal has affected the lives of many ordinary people speaks for itself. I compliment him on that.
  I wish that I could support the hon. Gentleman's call for compensation, for which he made a compelling case. However, there is a fundamental difference between the Barlow Clowes and BCCI cases. In the former, the ombudsman found negligence on the part of officials of the Department of Trade and Industry, but there is no finding of negligence in the Bingham report. I accept that it is not an ombudsman's report, but, if anything, it is even more thorough than the report on Barlow Clowes. That is where the line needs to be drawn. However compelling the case made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East, and however much we all, in our hearts, would like to support that claim, if there is no finding of negligence, we are in some difficulty.
  Equally, given that any compensation would come from the public purse, it is important to look at what Sir Thomas Bingham says about the role of officials and Ministers in the Treasury. He is specific on that, but he makes no criticism of them. There is some criticism of Price Waterhouse. Again, those criticisms are not sufficient to lead to calls for the resignation of the Governor of the Bank of England. Even if Sir Robin Leigh-Pemberton were to resign, those who might have been responsible for some of the events, perhaps for the lack of supervision to which Sir Thomas Bingham refers, would still be in place.
  Mr. Beith: Perhaps they should go.
  Mr. Greenway: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but, if I remember correctly what I read in the report, Sir Thomas Bingham does not criticise or highlight individuals in such a way as to make it necessary for anyone to resign. I do not feel that the Governor should resign. The Bank has not been shown to be negligent. What the report demonstrates—this is what we have to conclude today—is that it was not the acts or omissions of the Bank of England that caused the loss: it was the unprecedented scale of the fraud carried out by those responsible for running BCCI. They must be called to account.
  Mr. Wilson: Behind the guise of doubtless genuine concern, the hon. Gentleman is saying that nobody was responsible and that Sir Thomas Bingham has said that nobody was responsible. However, the report says:
  "the Bank's supervisory approach to BCCI was in my opinion deficient."
  Does that apply only to vague and intangible institutions and not to the efforts of the people involved, from the Governor of the Bank of England downwards?
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that Sir Thomas Bingham also says that these criticisms are being made with the benefit of hindsight, and that nobody could possibly have been expected to anticipate the scale of fraud that was perpetrated by those responsible for running BCCI.
  We should accept Bingham's findings. There is no justification for questioning his judgment or his conclusions, or the facts revealed by the inquiry, which, in any event, are similar to the conclusions reached by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
  The role for the House is to concentrate on the measures needed to strengthen the arrangements for supervision. I welcome the comments about that by the Minister. He is right to conclude that some of these changes, particularly in relation to the role, duties and responsibilities of auditors, should apply right across the financial services sector, including insurance, the subject on which I wish to concentrate.
  In doing so, I declare some interests. I have been involved in the financial services industry for almost 23 years. I am a director of a firm of insurance brokers, and I am an elected member of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council. I advise the Institute of Insurance Brokers. All these bodies will be greatly affected by what the Minister said about putting the role of auditors on a statutory footing. That is the key recommendation of Bingham, and the key point of the Government's plans for change.
  The key is to end the uncertainty about how far an auditor can and should go in taking action to the detriment of the client, which undermines the auditor-client relationship. I am not an accountant, but I can understand the difficulty that Price Waterhouse faced in dealing with its responsibilities. To clear the uncertainty once and for all by means of the Minister's proposal is undoubtedly the right way forward. I hope that the House will welcome that course, and will welcome statutory clarification.
  I said to my hon. Friend the Minister in an intervention that the practical effect of his legislative proposal is to a large extent the basis on which the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Council regulates insurance brokers. I shall remind the House of the provisions of the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977. Effectively, all insurance brokers are required to submit their audited accounts for the year end within six months of that year end. Accompanying them must be a declaration from the auditor about the way in which policyholders' moneys have been looked after and the solvency margins of the firm. These requirements have statutory force. I know from my own experience how seriously auditors take their responsibility in ensuring that the registration council receives exactly right detail and advice in relation to the management of the firm.
  I remind the Minister that if an insurance broker fails
  564
  to discharge his responsibilities within the mechanism I have described, the registration council is required to take disciplinary action against the firm. That would almost certainly lead to the firm's being struck off the register of insurance brokers.
  For many years, I have wanted these statutory requirements to be extended to cover the entire insurance and financial services sector. Intermediaries are affected, whether they are independent or dependent on or tied to one insurer. The far-reaching proposal that has been made as a result of the Bingham report should be set in the context of developments within the financial services sector to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) referred.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked the Securities and Investments Board in July to undertake a review of the Financial Services Act 1986. An agenda has been set out, and one which is apposite to this debate. One of the regulatory responsibilities of SIB—Andrew Large, its chairman, has put it on the agenda—is whether the balance or interaction between investor protection and caveat emptor is understood or appropriate. That question goes to the heart of the BCCI difficulty and the difficulty of compensation.
  When we were faced with the Barlow Clowes scandal, the feeling emerged that if the Government put in place a regulatory framework for financial services and that framework is deficient in some way and found wanting, that is the Government's fault, and compensation should be paid.
  The other side of the argument—the Minister outlined it at the end of his speech—is that every individual must take proper advice and, more than that, ensure that the company, bank or institution in which he is investing his money is sound and properly managed. In the SIB review we need to examine the boundaries of the two conflicting arguments to ascertain whether the balance is right, and on that basis to see what needs to be done in terms of investor compensation.
  The SIB regulatory responsibility review will be concluded in March or April 1993. There will have been responses from the entire financial services industry. I warn the Minister that he is likely to find some pretty negative answers to some of the questions. For example, are the objectives that lie behind the Financial Services Act 1986 understood and appropriate? I am sure that they are not understood by the majority of the British people. They may be understood by those who work in the financial services industry, but ordinary investors do not have an understanding of them.
  Let us consider the likely changes in the regulatory structure. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central talked about the prospect of a new self-regulatory organisation, the Personal Investment Authority. That interacts with a further development, which is the European Community's recommendation that there should be regulation of insurance intermediaries.
  If we are to have a statutory duty imposed on auditors and that is to apply to intermediaries, it must apply to those in the financial services sector as well as to those in the insurance sector. I have already said that those who are registered brokers already effectively have to comply with the statutory requirement to make available their accounts and show their solvency. Under the Financial Services Act, all intermediaries must be regulated.

  565
  However, intermediaries who do not transact investment business are not properly regulated at present. The EC recommendation that genuine insurance intermediaries should be regulated provides us with an opportunity.
  I accept that responsibility lies with the Department of Trade and Industry and not with the Minister. Nevertheless, I hope that he will recognise the logic of ensuring that insurance intermediaries are regulated. I can say from my experience as a member of the registration council that it fulfils its task with great professionalism and great thoroughness.
  If that regulation were to apply:to all intermediaries, I do not believe that there would be anything like as much concern that there are regulatory gaps that need to be closed. There are gaps, but scandals would not emerge, with policyholders and investors losing their funds, if there were the regulation that I am advocating. I ask for my hon. Friend's support. A consultation paper will be issued shortly that will seek responses to the general proposition that I have outlined.
  These matters have a strong bearing on what should happen in financial service regulation as well. Under the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977, the council has responsibility for regulating insurance brokers when they mediate in insurance. If that function is extended to all intermediaries who mediate in insurance, those who mediate in investments, which include life assurance, must come within the scope of the registration council's responsibilities.
  To put the matter simply, many independent financial advisers who transact insurance business as part of their day-to-day work would come within the scope of any compulsory registration of intermediaries on the registration council. That must follow.
  Equally, it must follow that, as the registration council is carrying out supervision under the Financial Services Act entirely to the satisfaction of the SIB—it is currently authorised as a recognised professional body—we must question whether we need to adhere to the 49 per cent. threshold, or whether that can be removed on the basis that the registration council regulates all intermediaries —subject to one caveat to which I shall come.
  That would apply to all intermediaries, be they insurance brokers or whatever else they call themselves. They would be regulated to the same high standard that applies to insurance brokers. The regulation would cover all insurance services, and would be carried out under the terms of the Financial Services Act.
  That must make sense, but I will enter one caveat. Many intermediaries advise clients to make investments that are not insurance investments—unit trusts, PEPs, and so on—and such firms would have to be regulated by the new Personal Investment Authority. The Minister will find that the insurance broking profession will give general support to that overall concept, subject to some conditions.
  One is that PIA membership should not automatically be granted to firms currently regulated by FIMBRA and LAUTRO, but that a fresh application should be made with a view to re-examining advisers. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that insurance intermediaries will also want polarisation maintained, and a single public register
  566
  established and maintained by any new regulator such as the PIA, with sections for product providers and intermediaries.
  A clear distinction should be drawn between intermediaries who are dependent and those who are independent. If the statutory basis of the declaration by auditors is to be made compulsory across the board, it is no use applying that practice only to independent advisers. Bad advice and the risk of investors losing life savings is more of a problem in the tied than in the independent sector. Authorised representatives often run firms independent of the product provider—but, because they have only one agency, they are tied agents and are regulated not by FIMBRA but by LAUTRO. They would have to be regulated by the PIA.
  Any declaration by auditors relating to solvency and accounts must apply to such firms as well. It follows that the solvency margins imposed now on insurance brokers —and soon, we hope, on the entire independent sector —must apply to independent firms that are effectively dependent on one product provider. I am sure that the Minister acknowledges that important point. Unless that is done, there will be no proper polarisation or level playing field, as between the two sides of the industry.
  It is crucial also that all advisers have professional indemnity insurance, because that is the best way initially of providing adequate protection for investors. That must be a requirement of the new PIA.
  The Minister knows that there is much discussion in the financial services industry about those key points. He was absolutely right to outline the basic principles of best advice. I look forward to reading his five golden rules in Hansard, to see whether he missed anything out. If investors are not to put all their eggs in one basket but are to approach a number of different outlets and sources of advice, it is crucial that all are soundly based, secure, and fit and proper.
  It was the fitness and properness of BCCI as a bank that gave rise to the problem—the Bank of England was examining BCCI's solvency, whereas we require fitness and properness. If the House genuinely wants to protect investors, nothing less will do.
  12.24 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: I wonder whether the Minister has the courage to visit the widow in Hong Kong described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and tell her his five golden rules —particularly that about always being sure to hire an adviser. That kind of response is hardly adequate in dealing with the scale of disaster and failure represented by BCCI's collapse.
  I add my congratulations to Lord Justice Bingham on producing an excellent, comprehensive, and clearly written report. It allows one to follow in detail the long, damning history of the Bank of England's errors and failures in supervising BCCI. The Bank repeatedly failed to understand the Banking Acts of 1987 and 1989 and the powers that were available to it. Time and again, the Bank ignored warning signals and failed to act in the way that a supervisory body should have done.
  As to the Bank of England's Governor, BCCI was surely a bungle too far. He has participated in the most humiliating devaluation since the war, presided over the biggest banking scandal in financial history, and

  567
  authorised the worst financial forecasts of any City institution. What more can he get wrong and still hang on to his position?
  For a year, the ordinary people of the Western Isles and those throughout the country, who themselves carry no blame or responsibility for the BCCI, have had to bear the costs in cuts in services and extra local taxes—in effect, a Bank of England tax. The costs of the Bank's negligence should be carried by the Governor, who should resign, and by the Government, who should devise a scheme to provide fair and equal compensation for all who lost money or jobs.
  The Government stick to the line that no negligence was shown in the Bingham report. When I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he replied:
  "my statements in July last year were about my willingness to reconsider the issue of compensation if evidence of negligence on the part of the supervisory authorities were to emerge. Lord Justice Bingham has found no such evidence."
  That same argument has been used today by Conservative Members. In fact, the report plainly shows evidence of negligence. I wondered whether Lord Justice Bingham would agree with the Chancellor's interpretation, and that of the Minister. I therefore wrote to him, enclosing the Chancellor's letter. I wrote:
  "Mr. Lamont makes the bald statement that you found no evidence of negligence on the part of the Bank of England in respect of its supervision of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International … I would be very grateful if you could tell me whether you agree with the Chancellor's assertion."
  Lord Bingham replied:
  "Thank you very much for your letter of 29 October 1992.
  Having been appointed to inquire and report by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England, and having delivered my report, I do not feel that it would be right for me to comment on the interpretation which either of them put on it.
  I appreciate that the report, even without the appendices, is quite lengthy, but I did my best to make it clear and intelligible. It is not for me to say whether or not I succeeded. But I am afraid that the answer to your question must be found in the report."
  The sphinx has spoken.
  The main point in that letter is that, at the very least, it is not possible for the Minister and other Conservative Members to state categorically that Lord Bingham found no evidence of negligence. At the very least, they must admit that we are forced to draw that conclusion, having read the evidence presented in the report.
  I do not believe that any reasonable person could read the report without concluding that the Bank of England was negligent in the execution of its duties. According to Bingham, right from the beginning—in 1979, when the Bank of England authorised BCCI to accept deposits—the Bank
  "was not only entitled but obliged to refuse a licence".
  That is in paragraph 2.30. The Bank was obliged to refuse a licence, but it went ahead and granted one. Surely that represents a gross failure to understand the powers available to it—and, indeed, required of it—under the Banking Act 1979. It also represents negligence.
  Paragraph 2.46 of the report, and the paragraphs leading up to it, reveal what is perhaps one of the strangest episodes to feature in the whole affair. In 1982–83, the supervision department of the Bank of England concluded that BCCI must be incorporated in London if the Bank was to be able to regulate it effectively. A memorandum to that effect was sent to the Governor; he signed it, authorising the Bank's conclusion. The Bank then called in Mr. Abedi, who was interviewed by the director of
  568
  banking supervision and told that the Bank wished him to incorporate in London so that BCCI could be regulated more effectively. Apparently, Mr. Abedi threw a tantrum and walked out of the office. That was the end of the affair.
  With, as usual, mild understatement, Lord Bingham says in paragraph 2.46 that the Bank was "rather easily deterred". It is astonishing that the Bank of England, with its worldwide reputation for being able to bring other institutions into line simply by raising an eyebrow, could drop a course of action authorised by the Governor himself, merely because the person required to take that course had thrown a tantrum and declined at the very first interview. Has the Chancellor, the Economic Secretary or anyone else asked the Governor why he did not pursue more effectively the policy that he himself had authorised and approved?
  That bizarre episode was followed by something equally strange: a complete change of policy. From 1985 onwards, the Bank of England shied away from any suggestion that BCCI should be incorporated in London. It declined all such offers, performing a complete flip-flop. The report does not explain why that happened. There is no explanation for the change of view by the Bank of England. One wonders whether that has anything to do with the information contained in appendix 8 relating to the intelligence services, and whether some of the blank pages—the black holes of logic or causality in this whole affair—could be explained if we had access to appendix 8.
  A number of points have been made by the Minister and Conservative Members to explain why the Bank of England failed to carry out its regulatory role. Reference has been made to the last 15 months of BCCI's life. Whether the bank was closed down earlier or later is not the point: the structural problem was there from the very beginning, and the Bank of England had reason to act about that problem from the very beginning. It was too late by the last 15 months of BCCI's life.
  Reference has been made to the unpredictable scale of the fraud. Again, that is not the point. Nobody could have predicted the exact scale of the fraud. Lord Bingham's point is that that fraud was made possible by the opacity, the vagueness of the structure of BCCI, which made it impossible to regulate the bank effectively. The Bank of England's failure was to allow such a structure to exist. By allowing it to exist, the Bank enabled fraud to be committed.
  Revocation is another red herring that has been drawn across the path of this whole affair. It has been said that the Bank of England could not possibly pull the plug on BCCI because of the catastrophic consequences that would flow from its closure. But revocation is not the point, either. Lord Bingham pointed out time and again that the Bank of England has enormous powers to step in and exercise its influence, and that it clearly failed to do so in the case of the 1984 episode. One is therefore entitled to ask why the Bank of England did not exercise its influence.
  Hon. Members have said that we see all this with the benefit of hindsight, but that is not what Lord Bingham says. Section 7 of his report covers the years from 1984 to 1986, well before BCCI's final collapse. In paragraph 2.57 of chapter 2, Lord Bingham describes the Bank's supervisory situation as highly unsatisfactory, adding:
  "as should have been obvious at the time."
  That is not with the benefit of hindsight. According to Lord Bingham, it should have been obvious at the time that this was highly unsatisfactory.

  569
  Lord Bingham went on to describe some of the Bank of England's responses. In paragraph 2.62, he says:
  "making, as I hope, appropriate allowance for the benefit of hindsight, I cannot regard this as an adequate supervisory response."
  It was an inadequate response, not with the benefit of hindsight but because of what was known at the time.
  Lord Bingham refers in paragraph 2.66 to the Bank of England's failure to exercise its powers in an appropriate way and to exercise some formal control over the way the business was run:
  "it is hard to think that SA in the summer of 1986 was not such a case"
  as to deserve some formal control over the way the business was run. Inadequacy of supervision should have been obvious at the time to the Bank of England.
  Lord Bingham concludes paragraph 2.67 with what I believe to be one of the most damning sentences in the whole report:
  "I think the supervisors tended to lose sight of their primary duty to protect the bank's UK depositors. I do not think that in this instance the Bank measured up to its task."
  When the Bank of England loses sight of its primary duty to protect BCCI's United Kingdom depositors, the Bank of England is thereby negligent of its duties.
  The case for compensation for local authorities is especially strong. The authorised list has been mentioned, but in order fully to understand its import, one must understand its origins. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 specifically restricted local authority investments to "authorised" investments. Investments would have to be made with authorised institutions, which included banks authorised by the Bank of England.
  Why was that done? For no good reason? No, it was done for a specific purpose: the Government's express intention to end imprudent investments and so safeguard local authority funds. That was made clear in the consultative paper on capital expenditure and finance published by the Department of the Environment in July 1988, before the Act went through Parliament.
  In paragraphs 37 and 38 of that paper, the Department of the Environment said:
  "it is … a matter for concern that some authorities appear to have used their funds to undertake speculative investments … the new system will, therefore, specify a list of approved investments."
  In other words, the new system—the list—was intended to distinguish between speculative investments and non-speculative, presumably safer, investments.
  Acting in that context, and according to those guidelines, local authorities throughout the country placed money with BCCI, which featured on the list of authorised institutions. To me that context is inescapable, and it makes the local authorities' case for compensation especially compelling.
  Local authority compensation need not mean extra overall taxation in the country as a whole. Local authorities are already having to pass on the cost of the losses to local taxpayers, by means of higher local taxes. Compensation from central Government would mean that, instead of the burden being loaded entirely onto the shoulders of local taxpayers—many of whom, in areas such as mine, are suffering high unemployment and severe economic distress—the load could be carried more broadly across the nation as a whole.
  570
  Finally, on the subject of redress and compensation, it has already been said that BCCI depositors have no means of redress other than through the Government. The Bank of England has legal immunity and cannot be sued, except in instances of bad faith. I do not say that there was bad faith; there was simply incompetence and negligence. The ombudsman is not empowered to investigate the matter either, because it affects the Bank of England, so depositors can look only to the Government for some kind of compensation.
  It is clear from the Bingham report that what has happened has been primarily a failure of national regulation.
  If the Select Committee returns to this problem in a future report, and if it recommends the payment of compensation, will the Government accept that recommendation? The Select Committee is the only independent body able to make such a recommendation. The ombudsman and the courts could not; nor could Lord Justice Bingham, because it was not in his remit. The only independent voice to decide the verdict in this matter is the Treasury Select Committee. If it recommends compensation, will the Government accept that?
  BCCI represented a huge failure of regulation by the Bank of England, charged by the Government with the task of supervising the banking system and ensuring the basic security for people's deposits. I believe that it is now the responsibility and duty of the Government to come forward with a fair and reasonable scheme of compensation to lift the burden from tens of thousands of innocent depositors and local taxpayers who are now carrying all the costs through lost savings, lost jobs and lost services.
  I echo the question by other hon. Members—what is the price of failure on the part of the Bank of England? So far, we have had no apologies, no resignations, no compensation—just excuses. If there is no price, what incentive is there to do the job effectively and properly in the future?
  More than 123 hon. Members have already signed early-day motion 727, calling upon the Governor to accept his responsibility for this failure and to resign. The longer he declines to do so, the longer he remains a Governor not just without credibility, but I am afraid—I am reluctant to say it—without honour.
  12.46 pm
  Mr David Wilshire: I apologise to the House because the issue I want to raise may result in my failure to be present for the conclusion of the debate. I should declare an interest because I was one of the people who actually owed money to BCCI when it closed down. I used its credit card, which gave a percentage of turnover to green issues, and when the bank closed down I owed it £5·50. I hasten to add that I paid that rather promptly.
  Mr. David Shaw: With interest?
  Mr. Wilshire: I do not believe that I had the debt long enough for interest to be added.
  I must also explain to the House that I cannot possibly bring certain expertise to bear in this debate because I am neither a banker nor an accountant. I am also ready to admit to not having been closely involved as this awful

  571
  saga unfolded. However, in the past few days, I have become horribly involved because of a family tragedy in my constituency caused by that saga.
  As time has gone by, we have all heard about the traumatic cases of financial ruin caused by BCCI—we heard about some more this morning. We have heard of the loss of life savings and the destruction of businesses. However, as the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said, this week death has been added to the grisly catalogue of things that have gone wrong because of BCCI.
  One of my constituents who worked for BCCI had been held for 14 months in detention in Abu Dhabi. He was held without charge, without access to proper lawyers and without access to proper medical care. He died in detention on Monday. Up until now his family and I have kept quiet, because, quite properly, his family's priority throughout this week has been to get his body back to the United Kingdom. Earlier this morning his body finally reached Heathrow. This is the earliest opportunity the family or I have had to speak out and, if the House will allow, that is exactly what I intend to do.
  My constituent was aged 45. He was married with three young children living in my constituency. They are all British subjects. He was a United Kingdom officer with BCCI, and when the bank moved its headquarters to Abu Dhabi, he originally told the bank that he did not wish to go. The bank subsequently persuaded him to go, and on 8 September of last year, with 17 others, he was detained by the Abu Dhabi authorities.
  My constituent was among those who had offered to return to the United Kingdom to give evidence to the Serious Fraud Office to help with its inquiries. His detention made it impossible for that to happen. The hon. Member for Leicester, East was right to point out that there are people still willing to help but who are prevented from doing so.
  My constituent's detention was extended on a monthly basis. At no time since last September was there any charge and at no time, to the best of our knowledge, were he or the others allowed any form of exercise. I understand that at no time was proper legal support given to those detained and, to the best of our knowledge, no proper medical assistance was available, even though my constituent was a known diabetic.
  Because of the loss of earnings, that family, unlike some others, could not go to Abu Dhabi to see him. His application to make telephone calls to the United Kingdom to speak to his wife and children was refused by the authorities, and the only communication received by the family was by way of letters smuggled out of Abu Dhabi and brought to this country.
  I am grateful for all that the Foreign Office has done since last September. I am told by the Foreign Office that all of what I have explained to the House is in accordance with Abu Dhabi law. It might be, but it is not within my definition of human rights. I am appalled and disgusted at the treatment that my constituent received. My heart goes out to his family for what has happened this week.
  I call on the British Government—I appreciate that the Economic Secretary is not responsible in this context and will probably not be able to respond directly—to lodge the strongest possible protest with the Abu Dhabi authorities about what has happened. We should redouble our efforts to obtain the release, or at least the charging, of the other British subjects who are still held in Abu Dhabi.
  Mr. Vaz: Everyone involved in the campaign will be delighted with what the hon. Gentleman has done for the family in question. When, with members of the campaign committee, I visited Abu Dhabi, we asked, through the ambassador, to see the people in detention. We were forbidden to see them. In appealing to the Minister, we urge him to remember that there are still 17 British citizens in detention. We appeal on behalf of them and their families.
  Mr. Wilshire: I was seeking to make that point and I echo what the hon. Gentleman said. No form of compensation that we could discuss and no form of help could now assist my constituent or do any good for his family. But I agree that we must do all we can to assist the others.
  Any comments that I make on the BCCI affair are general in character. I have not been as closely involved as perhaps some might say I should have been, and I am no expert. But as a lay person, I must ask what the public have a right to expect when doing business with banks. I suggest that they have a right to expect an adequate framework of control, and only the Government and the House can provide that. The public also have a right to expect an adequate standard of supervision. We as lay people, when dealing with such issues, cannot deliver that supervision. We must rely on the experts.
  It is worth underlining the fact that the public have no right to expect that anybody, anywhere can guarantee that such a thing will never happen again. We must debate whether everything possible has been done to minimise the risk of its ever happening again. The question that should be answered is: did the Government, the Bank of England and the individual experts do everything possible to minimise the risk? Given the scale of the disaster, I well understand why many people say, "No, somebody, somewhere did not do everything possible to minimise the risk".
  I do not feel qualified to answer that question, so I looked to the Bingham report to see what answers are given to that question of minimising risks. Much to many people's relief, the Bingham report appears to exonerate the Government and the Treasury from blame. I then notice from the report the suggestion that the general system of supervision seems to be all right. Finally, I note that the Bank of England does not seem to be quite all right. I, too, am relieved about the message that I receive on the role of the Government and the Treasury, but it is hard to accept that a system of supervision is basically all right when something so horrendous has gone wrong.
  I note the point about split responsibility, but it does not need an expert to understand that the system of divide and rule applies here. If lots of different people or even two groups have joint responsibility, it is hardly surprising that sooner or later the responsibility falls—plop—between the two. That appears to be what has happened. I also note that, if the general system of supervision is national, the international dimension will never adequately be taken care of. I raise that matter to enter the caveat in the response that I see being put about: that we should now beef up the EC system of banking regulation. I cannot resist the temptation to point out that countries such as Switzerland are not members of the EC, so it is difficult to believe that asking the EC to resolve an international problem will get us far. Even if the EC could do something, I have no doubt that if the Council of Ministers came up

  573
  with a grand scheme, Mr. Delors, in his bid to be President of France, would say, if it suited his purpose, "Tough. I shall sabotage it." That is what he now does when he does not like what is going on within the EC.
  Finally, I am forced to look at what the Bingham inquiry report says about the Bank of England. It makes serious criticisms—even a layman can understand that they are serious. Earlier in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) described the Bank of England's response as "pathetic", and the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) used the word "negligent". All that I have read and heard smacks of going through the motions, in the hope that one would get away with minimum effort.
  That was bad enough for those who have suffered financial loss, but, now, going through the motions and not necessarily doing the job properly have reached the bottom line of at least one death. I hope that those concerned will think carefully about that consequence. In the past—and even recently in the case of the London ambulance service—shortcomings, even if they were not wilful, resulted in resignations. I deeply regret that resignations are no longer fashionable. I hope that those involved will once again consider the role that they played or did not play and consider their consciences again and again. They should then act in the honourable way.
  The BCCI saga is about fraud on a scale which the world has not often seen before. It is about financial disaster for thousands of people. And now it is about death, for which we cannot sensibly talk about compensation. When we have such debates I hope that, as well as cataloguing what has happened and seeking to apportion blame, we shall spend most of our time ensuring that we minimise the chance of the disaster ever happening again.
  1 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: The House has listened with much sympathy to the account given by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) of the tragedy that has befallen his constituent and family. On behalf of my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends who are not present today, I tender our sincere condolences.
  The Economic Secretary will recall that the Chancellor reminded the House on 22 October of Lord Justice Bingham's terms of reference, which included the words:
  "to consider whether the action taken by all the UK authorities was appropriate and timely".
  I would be inclined to reverse those words to read, "timely and appropriate".
  From my comparatively neutral position in the House —depending on the issue before us on any given day—I have noted that the sordid story began back in 1972. For 15 of those 20 years Conservative Governments were in charge, and for five years a Labour Government were in charge. At least there is some excuse for the Labour Government, as at one period they had no majority and during another they were in alliance with another party in the House. To some extent the wheel has turned full circle. If representatives of the allied party had been present I might have given them a few tips about how to do a deal: "Get all you want, without giving anything in return." I speak as an old hand in such matters.
  574
  Lord Justice Bingham concluded that the conduct of Treasury Ministers and officials was not, in his view,
  "open to criticism in any respect."
  I am not qualified to differ from that conclusion, even if I wanted to. It is unfortunate for the present Government that they are answerable and accountable, which is why —for constitutional reasons—we are having today's debate. I think that we feel grateful to the Treasury Ministers for co-operating and securing a debate so soon after the report's publication.
  As hon. Members have said, section 1(4) of the Banking Act 1987 appears to grant the Bank of England immunity from liability for damages unless
  "it is shown that the act or omission was in bad faith."
  To my simple mind it would seem that as Parliament granted such immunity and produced defective laws, it must collectively accept some liability. In this case the agency of Parliament is the Treasury. It is my view—I think that it is shared by other Opposition Members—that the Treasury must make generous contributions to those organisations, institutions and, most of all, individuals who were not only unprotected by defective legislation, but encouraged to invest in a bank, which was known to be unstable for approximately two years—that is to put it mildly.
  In the case of Lisburn borough council, the bulk of the £3 million investment was made in those last two years. That investment was recommended and fully approved to the council on the basis of the continued inclusion of BCCI in the quarterly bulletin, which is compiled by the Bank of England, but circulated by the Department of the Environment.
  The Minister said that Her Majesty's Government and Ministers are exonerated, which is true. The report concludes that Treasury Ministers are blameless. But can the same be said of the Department of the Environment? I am convinced that at least a section of that Department —I am talking about two Departments, the big brother over here in Whitehall and the smaller brother in Northern Ireland—would have been aware of the doubts about BCCI.
  Yet the bank remained on the approved list and its retention on the approved list undoubtedly misled local authorities, especially those in the more remote parts of the United Kingdom. It is no accident that local authorities in the Greater London area, which would independently have picked up the little whispers, the suspicions and the gossip, steered well clear of the trap. The Department of the Environment may claim that it was acting as postman by simply distributing the quarterly bulletin which contained the list, but that action conveyed to councils and to other institutions—to individuals as well, I suppose—the impression that BCCI continued to be officially approved.
  The Economic Secretary rightly advised against confusing authorisation with guarantee, but the existence of the list suggests that the Department of the Environment had committed the error of making that confusion. Investments were made on the basis of what was a form of Government approval. I am especially mindful of private investors, but I realise that local authorities were more directly influenced by that information. Local authorities saw themselves as accepting the advice and guidance of their parent—the Department of the Environment.

  575
  In recent years, councillors have been compelled to regard themselves as creatures of the Department of the Environment. I have here a code of conduct which has just become effective in Northern Ireland. The same straitjacket has been applied to many local authorities in Britain. The code of conduct contains 31 directives to local councillors and they are all based on the theory that they must obey their superior authority without question.
  I hope that the Government will devise an early warning system on the lines of the Minister's final words of advice and the words of the final passage in the Select Committee report.
  The Bingham report refers to financial institutions in the Isle of Man and in Gibraltar. In addition to the activities of BCCI in those areas, there is a parallel scandal of the Gibraltar-based company International Investments Ltd., the subject of early-day motion 747. There is a United Kingdom angle to that about-to-burst scandal. The Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland is currently pursuing that connection and the Crown solicitor is considering extradition proceedings in regard to an Irish banker, Mr. George Finbar Ross, who has become the central figure in a book published last month entitled "Gibgate", about which we shall hear more in the near future.
  There is some overlap between the two scandals. A family residing in Antrim, East had invested £200,000 in International Investments Ltd. and had made a smaller investment in BCCI. That family suffered a double blow and, as in the case quoted by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, a death has resulted. I do not suggest that the death was caused entirely by the double blow.
  To be fair to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), he did not attach blame to the Government —nor do I. Responsibility rests with successive Parliaments and we must all face the consequences of the failure of responsibility. Whatever our views on the Bank of England, the House must hasten to ensure that such disasters are not repeated, in so far as that is possible in this computer age when currencies do not change hands, but become merely blips on a computer screen. As there has been no political point scoring in the debate, let us all combine to do all in our power to mitigate the resulting hardship on individuals and institutions who quite unwittingly become victims of a massive fraud.
  1.9 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: As small financial services firms have been mentioned in the debate, I shall declare my interest as chairman of the Back-Bench smaller businesses committee and my association with a small financial services company. I am an ex-banker and a chartered accountant.
  The BCCI fraud is not about small firms. The nature and the enormous size and scale of that fraud is totally unprecedented in the history of banking. It is clear that a small number of people, aided and abetted by some senior managers and possibly one or two people outside the company, are to blame for the fraud. The fraudsters have still not been brought to justice and I can understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) about the way in which his constituents are suffering. Perhaps some innocent members of BCCI staff are suffering because of the over-zealousness of some
  576
  people to protect themselves. It would certainly be wrong for such suffering of British subjects to continue without the opportunity for a fair trial.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for his assiduous work in the interests of many. I do not share all his views on the matter, but he has certainly worked hard, especially in his quest for information. On the Select Committee on Social Security I experienced the need for information to understand what is going on and what went on in the Maxwell affair. I totally support the hon. Gentleman in his quest to get to the bottom of what happened to the billions of pounds that were paid into BCCI.
  We all agree, as Bingham clearly identifies, that the fraud did not suddenly happen at the last minute but went back many years into the 1970s. Billions of pounds went into BCCI. Where did it all go, because little of it was left at the end? Cheques for billions of pounds cannot be writen overnight at the end of a bank's life. Cheques taking money out of BCCI must have been written over many years and there must still be stories to be told. It is disgraceful that the hon. Member for Leicester, East has not had answers to his questions. The Government must do everything in their power to persuade the liquidators and others to answer those questions because it is important for the information to be brought into the open.
  Part of the problem about the prevention of future frauds is that people can hide behind a veil of confidentiality. In the case of Polly Peck, Cyprus was the veil, and Liechtenstein and Switzerland hide people in the Maxwell affair. There must be a stronger effort to discover where the money went in all those frauds. I shall certainly support the hon. Member for Leicester, East in that quest.
  People have a right to know and to have an answer to the question whether more could have been done to prevent the BCCI fraud. It could be said of every fraud that more could have been done to prevent it and there is always a legitimate claim that more should have been done. But such claims are always made with the benefit of hindsight and we have to examine them carefully to see what could have been done. In the case of BCCI, it is easy, and Bingham has done so, to say that more could have been done, but it is difficult to conclude that the outcome, even if more had been done at an earlier stage, would have been any different, because the fraud seems to go back so far.
  The role of the auditors has been questioned. As I am a chartered accountant, the House will not be surprised to hear me say that I have some sympathy with the auditors. The House will know that I have been in the forefront of criticising my profession when I think that members of the profession or the profession itself stray further than is justified by the public interest. However, this case pushed at the limits of auditing.
  The public must understand that an audit can never guarantee that there will be no fraud, particularly when such a sophisticated international fraud involving about 200 people in the know is being perpetrated. Frauds normally involve no more than one or two people, because to involve more puts the whole fraud at risk—someone makes a mistake or leaks some information or leaves a document lying around. That is why BCCI's fraud is so unusual and odd.
  When I did my auditing courses, we always went through the procedures showing how frauds could be put in place. The frauds that we went on courses to investigate

  577
  usually involved a small number of people, either with one or two large transactions or with a large number of small transactions. Unusually, the BCCI fraud involved large numbers of large transactions. The auditor is a watchdog, not a bloodhound. It would have needed a rottweiler to cope with the BCCI fraud.
  There have been criticisms of the Governor and the Bank of England. In particular, hon. Members have asked whether closure should have come earlier. However, many —depositors and employees alike—argued against closure. I heard their arguments in the Grand Committee Room at a meeting hosted by the hon. Member for Leicester, East. There is no doubt that many claimed that the closure was a political act, and even professionals questioned the closure. Paragraph 2.468 of the Bingham report shows that on 4 July—the day before closure was decided upon—Price Waterhouse thought that closure might have been precipitate.
  We know that, a year before that, the authorities in Abu Dhabi and the majority shareholders invested some £4 billion in the bank to support it. They did not think that closure was appropriate, Ahmed Al Sayegh sent hon. Members a letter, dated 16 October, from Abu Dhabi and the majority shareholders. Even today, they are not happy with the closure. The letter says:
  "The Majority Shareholders continue to believe that, had their restructuring plans been allowed to succeed in July 1991, the grievous losses and hardship resulting from the closure would have been prevented."
  Even today, people question whether closure was sensible.
  I am not one of them. The report and the evidence make it clear that the fraud was deep and widespread within the company, and there is no question but that the bank was unfit to continue in existence. Therefore, the Bank of England cannot be criticised either for being too late in closure or for not closing early enough.
  The blame cannot be laid upon the Governor either, because most of the fraud was initiated, and the basis for it set up, before he became Governor. There was false book-keeping in the Cayman Islands, for example, and in other areas where the Governor is not responsible. I am sure that the Governor would never want to be responsible for fraud havens such as the Cayman Islands. To ask the Governor to resign over the BCCI fraud is about the same as asking the Leader of the Labour party to resign because Robert Maxwell was a member of the Labour party.
  Mr. Vaz: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about me. I thank him also for his involvement in the campaign over the past year. I do not want it to seem as if there is a mutual admiration society, but the hon. Gentleman has been extremely active in the Maxwell pensioners' campaign.
  Leaving aside the resignation of the Governor—I know that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that call—does he accept that there is a case for compensation that is similar to the one that he has advanced on behalf of the Maxwell pensioners? Where an authority has been criticised—even the Governor accepted on Wednesday that the report is highly critical, and the Economic Secretary has accepted that as well—there is surely a case for compensation, just as there was for the victims of Barlow Clowes, and just as there is a case—indeed, a strong and compassionate one —for the Maxwell pensioners, which the hon. Gentleman has been prosecuting.
  Mr. Shaw: I shall be coming to that issue. I want, first, to make two small points about the Bank before talking about compensation.
  We must recognise that the Bank of England was not the primary regulator. Other regulators were no better at regulating BCCI than the Bank of England was. As far as I can judge from the Bingham report, the Bank started to get a smell that something was seriously wrong on about 3 October 1990, which was less than a year before BCCI was closed. The criticism, if any can be levelled at the Bank in terms of the report that it received on 3 October 1990, is that it was not entirely streetwise in its reading of that report. The Bank, however, is not always there to be streetwise. Sometimes it has to be above the street and to assume that the banks in the City are basically honest institutions.
  The report on 3 October 1990 highlighted some wrongdoing, but it was not a comprehensive report about every aspect of BCCI. It was not produced to meet the terms of section 41—the relevant section—of the Banking Act 1987. Therefore, it was not a basis for total closure. It was, however, a basis for the Bank proceeding in the way that it did. I am sure that there are many in the Bank who look back on the report and say to themselves, "Could we have done more? Perhaps we should have done more."
  Surely that is not a fundamental basis on which to say that the Bank completely failed in its obligations. I do not believe that the report identifies enough to show that the Bank was negligent or wrong.
  It was the Bank which finally closed down BCCI. It was the Bank which finally commissioned the report that closed it down. It is interesting that that report was never finalised. The Bank closed BCCI on the basis of a draft report. In other words, it was closed extremely quickly when real evidence was found to exist. As the Bingham report makes clear, BCCI was closed before the auditors had had enough time entirely to verify all the evidence that they had found. I do not think that the Bank can be blamed for taking the correct action on a timely and proper basis. Those who say that earlier action was possible have to say when that earlier action was possible. They must put themselves in the Governor's shoes and those of others in the Bank and ask, "What decision would we have made and when would we have made it?"
  They must question also how much more money would have been saved for depositors. Because this country's deposit scheme is comprehensive, it is doubtful whether more would have been saved.
  The Abu Dhabi authorities must carefully review their actions. Sheik al Nahyan Zayed is unquestionably an honest, respectable and respected man who was conned by a so-called friend—Mr. Abedi. However, there were failures on behalf of Sheik Zayed's staff, and it would be wrong if members of the British public and British citizens suffered as a consequence. I was particularly concerned by the story the House heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). The Abu Dhabi authorities have put in billions of pounds, but they were too closely involved in some of the bank's decisions.
  I believe that all who have spoken today accept that the Government played no role in BCCI's downfall, and that the Bingham report identified no failure on the Government's part. The previous Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), tried to pin something on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That was a despicable and unjustified

  579
  smear—made before the general election campaign, for electoral purposes. Bingham did not establish any justification for that smear. There was no substantive failure either on the part of the Bank of England.
  Mr. Molyneaux: Whatever may have been said and done in the House in the past, there is a consensus that past and present Governments were not to blame. I hope that I did not offend any right hon. or hon. Member when I suggested, however, that all Members of Parliament must take some blame for defects in the law.
  Mr. Shaw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that parliamentarians must accept often a degree of responsibility when things go wrong because—despite our exhaustive legislative procedures in Committee and on the Floor of the House—the laws that we introduce are not always effective and efficient. If the Government had to pay compensation every time that Parliament failed to introduce effective laws, no one would ever be held responsible for financial losses, and the Government and taxpayers would for ever be paying compensation.
  The question that must be asked in the case of BCCI —and of Maxwell, when Government compensation is considered in that case—is whether taxpayers should forgo the equivalent of a hospital or more in resource terms, in favour of paying compensation in this instance of wrongdoing. Sadly, for the employees and depositors concerned, I find no justification for doing that.
  There is, however, every justification for the Government and others trying to ensure that certain persons are brought to justice, and that any resources they may have are taken from them. There is evidence that there are some very wealthy people out there guilty of significant wrongdoing. The Government should wind up the machine a crank or two and put on a bit of pressure. I pressed the Government hard to work on Liechtenstein, and now I press them to become involved, through diplomatic channels, with Abu Dhabi and others, so that the persons responsible for BCCI's collapse can be brought to justice and money can be squeezed out of those wrongdoers who still have it.
  Nevertheless, I must point out to many of BCCI's depositors that this was a dangerous bank. The case is not like that of the Maxwell pensioners, who put their money into what everyone would have regarded as a safe haven. In the case of the companies, the pension funds were administered by IMRO, a self-regulatory body, in the City of London. In that instance, City banks—often based overseas—abused their responsibilities and the trust placed in them by engaging in transactions that were often illegal or fraudulent; if not that, they were at least questionable transactions which any sensible bank manager would have known to be wrong, and I hope that the banks involved will be brought to account.
  As I have said, the case of BCCI is different. When people made deposits, they could see a set of accounts at the local branch. They would thus have seen the connection with the Cayman Islands and with fraud havens, and might then have been in a position to ask themselves whether they really wanted to invest large amounts of their money in a bank with such connections. The Maxwell pensioners had placed a good deal of faith and trust in the City, and in the banks that were involved
  580
  in trading with Maxwell and looking after the pension fund moneys. BCCI, however, had a number of questionable features from day one.
  Many of Bingham's suggestions for the future are potentially good news, in regard to ensuring that the banking industry is better regulated from now on. Unquestionably, the Bank of England needs explicit powers to close down banks, for it has not proved adequate in the past. It should not hesitate to close down banks that engage in substantial transactions with tax and fraud havens, because they are probably not fit and proper banks to be based in the City of London. We should ensure that the primary regulator of a bank is not only well known, but in a reliable country that has proper means of investigating banks.
  I am pleased to see that Bingham's recommendation for a special investigations unit at the Bank of England is to be adopted, and that such a unit is to be active in investigating banks such as BCCI in the future.
  Sadly, Government compensation cannot be justified in this instance. The problems of BCCI boil down to a single key issue: the question of timing. At what point was enough known for it to be proved that the whole bank was a fraud—not part of it, but all of it? I do not think that substantive evidence has been discovered—and none has been reported by Bingham—that an earlier closure would have been realistic. I therefore conclude that, although mistakes may have been made, on balance the authorities operated in the best way possible, given the complex and difficult circumstances. Considerable pressure was exerted for the bank to be kept open, not only by the auditors but by others in the banking and regulatory world—and in the political world. I believe that the Bank of England operated legally and properly, as soon as it could properly do so.
  1.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Hain: I see Lord Justice Bingham's inquiry into the supervision of BCCI as yet another nail in the coffin of City self-regulation. As Bingham confirms, the self-regulatory framework for banking in Britain has failed abjectly. That view is not confined to City critics; just two days ago, Mick Newmarch—chief executive of Britain's biggest investor, the Prudential Corporation—called for the Government to take over regulation. He said:
  "It is time to face up to the fact that this approach has not worked, and to revert to the conventional, proven statutory basis for regulation."
  If the man from the Pru is now saying such things, it is surely time for the Chancellor to ask the old lady of Threadneedle Street to hang up her dancing shoes and make way for a younger, more alert and more inquisitive partner.
  The main charge against the Bank of England in the BCCI affair is that if the Bank knew for some years that BCCI was riddled with fraud, why did it wait for so long to act? More important, why did the Bank allow innocent customers to continue to make deposits when it knew that the end was near? The answer is partly, in my view, that the Bank is a venerable British institution and that, as such, it expects everybody else to follow its own officer's and gentleman's code when, in real life, City fraud, insider dealing, financial incompetence and so on are now endemic. The problem is that the Bank's Kiplingesque

  581
  culture has made it an international laughing stock, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) so aptly remarked.
  BCCI is at the end of an ever-lengthening list of scandals where the Bank and the other authorities either have turned a blind eye, have failed abysmally to discharge their responsibilities or, in some cases, have deliberately concealed matters of critical importance from public scrutiny. Although it is politely couched in Old Etonian code, Lord Justice Bingham's criticism of the Bank is devastating. The problem is that there is absolutely nothing in the Bingham report to suggest that another BCCI will not happen again. Therefore, can the Minister tell me what the Government intend to do? I found the Minister's introductory speech bland, smug and almost offensively complacent. There is absolutely no reason to believe that something on the scale of BCCI could not turn up yet again, given the Minister's suggested policies.
  Bingham is being used by the Government to let the Bank of England off the hook. The only way to send a clear signal to the apprentice banking fraudsters and innocent depositors alike is for the Chancellor to demand the immediate resignation of Robin Leigh-Pemberton, the Governor of the Bank of England. I see from the Bank's charter that his five-year tenure runs out in June 1993 and that he cannot be sacked. He can vacate his office only if he becomes bankrupt—an unlikely eventuality, although the precedent set by the former Tory party treasurer, Lord Beaverbrook, is interesting in that respect—or if he is convicted of an offence, or if he is absent from meetings of the court—the Bank's board—for six months, or if he resigns
  "if he be found lunatic or become of unsound mind."
  There may be views about the latter part of that quotation.
  It is important to recall when we analyse the Government's role in the BCCI scandal that the Governor of the Bank of England was only appointed in 1982 because he was an obedient member of the Thatcher mafia —the "thafia", if one likes. The Governor's early career mirrored Lady Thatcher's. They briefly overlapped at Oxford in the late 1950s. They were both called to the Bar in the same year, 1954. During the 1950s they were part of the inner circle of Conservative Kent politics. Lady Thatcher fought the parliamentary seat of Dartford. She married Denis, another Kent Conservative. The Governor still lives in Kent, on a 2,000 acre estate at Milstead, near Sittingbourne. While she went on to higher things, the Governor, as a Conservative councillor, worked his way up through the ranks to the dizzy height of chairman of Kent county council between 1972 and 1975. He and Denis Thatcher became golfing chums, playing regularly at Lamberhurst golf club in Kent.
  Is it any surprise that Margaret Thatcher, in the face of fierce criticism in 1982 that it would be an entirely inappropriate appointment, thought that Robin Leigh-Pemberton was the obvious choice for Governor? The Governor's incompetence, negligence and dishonesty over BCCI is testimony to the bankruptcy of the distasteful political patronage that disfigured the Thatcher era.
  If, however, the Chancellor stands by his Governor and if the Minister does so again today, what about the failure of the Board of Banking Supervision over BCCI? My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) referred to that issue. This august body is directly
  582
  responsible for uncovering and exposing illegal and dubious practice. That body consists of accountants, solicitors and leading business men, most of whom have alternative sources of income, and whose resignations would be widely received as a principled course following the BCCI scandal. Why did they not resign? Is it because, again, they are part of the umbilical cord between the City and Conservative party coffers? The right hon. Lord Swaythling, for example, as chairman of Rothmans International plc, donated £100,000 to the Conservative party election fund in 1991–92 alone.
  Who chaired the Board of Banking Supervision? It was Mr. Brian Quinn—another Bank of England establishment man, who has been in post for more than 20 years. As early as 1986, blithely ignoring the mounting evidence of corruption in BCCI, he decided against withdrawing the bank's licence because
  "the closure of the 45 UK branches would cause substantial political and diplomatic problems".
  That was grossly negligent. But where is Mr. Quinn now? Has he left his job? No, he is exactly where he was five years ago. After Bingham, the Bank established a new investigation unit headed by an outsider, Ian Watt. That was a step to be welcomed. Mr. Quinn has been effectively sidelined—but why has he not been sacked? I believe that this is another shameless example of the Bank protecting itself, another example which suggests that if one is part of the Bank's inner charmed circle one can carry on regardless of how incompetent or negligent one is.
  The whole sorry spectacle has lifted the curtain on a murky world in which the City closes ranks while ordinary citizens are bankrupted or destroyed, as they have been in their thousands as a result of the BCCI scandal.
  Another aspect of the report is equally disturbing, if not more so. The report was filed with the Treasury in July, yet it was published only on 23 October—without appendix 8, which covered MI5's involvement in the scandal. We know of that not through our Government, but through the efforts of United States Senator John Kerry, whose 800-page report revealed that British intelligence was up to its neck in BCCI.
  As Kerry's report reveals, MI5 took away sealed documents from BCCI's records. The House should ask what was in those documents? Did they show that MI5 or MI6, like the CIA, was laundering funds through BCCI to promote Saddam Hussein in Iraqgate, during the Iran-Iraq war? Did they show that MI5 was using BCCI in the Irangate scandal? We know that Colonel Oliver North used BCCI. Did British intelligence use it in the same way? If so we have not only a City scandal but a major political and security scandal with international implications.
  As the Kerry report says:
  "A British source has told the Bank of England and British investigators that BCCI was used by numerous intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom. The British intelligence service, the MI5, has sealed documents from BCCI's records in the United Kingdom which could shed light on this allegation."
  Kerry also reports that documents sealed by MI5 concern the financing of terrorism—such as the activities of Abu Nidal, assisting the builders of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, financing Iranian arms deals, and other related matters. Those are important issues, because, as Kerry confirms, BCCI was a vehicle for dirty tricks and deniable operations in the middle east by various intelligence agencies, especially the CIA, and possibly MI6—with or without the involvement of MI5.

  583
  If the appointment of Stella Rimington as head of MI5 is to be more than a window-dressing operation for open government, the Minister must publish appendix 8 in full and place it in the public domain so that the information contained in the files which Stella Rimington has ordered to be sealed can be revealed. If the Minister is not 'willing to do that fully, openly and publicly, perhaps he will follow the precedent set by the Prime Minister earlier this week by placing that information in the Library.
  Before I finish I shall quote another extract from the Kerry report, taken from page 462:
  "By agreement, the Bank of England had in effect entered into a plan with BCCI, Abu Dhabi and Price Waterhouse in which they would each keep the true state of affairs at BCCI secret in return for co-operation with one another … from April 1990 forward, the Bank of England had now inadvertently become partner to a cover-up of BCCI's criminality."
  That is a devastating indictment of the Bank and one which Lord Justice Bingham confirms in rather more circumspect language. In its own way, Lord Justice Bingham's report carries just as strong an indictment, but he prefers to use more polite language.
  If the Chancellor does not fire the Governor, if the chair of the Board of Banking Supervision does not go and if Ministers do not open the MI5 secret files, the Government will be guilty of complicity in a cover-up that could make even Watergate look like chicken-feed.
  The Government must also take this opportunity to institute a thorough-going reform of City regulations to rid us once and for all of the spivs who openly ridicule the arcane, old-boy style of self-regulation, which means that the City has now become an international laughing stock. The prospects of the City attracting overseas finance and the European central bank, as well as other important future initiatives, are gravely jeopardised, if not irretrievably prejudiced by the Government's behaviour over the BCCI scandal.
  1.46 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: The Opposition have chosen the wrong target by trying to suggest that the Government should pay compensation to the victims of BCCI. If one took that argument to its logical conclusion one could therefore say that the Labour party should compensate Maxwell pensioners because many of its leaders were spokesmen for and, indeed, in charge of the Maxwell pension fund. We should concentrate on the real cause of the problem and the fact that crimes were committed by those inside BCCI—that is where the blame lies.
  Mr. Hain: Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that the relationship between Robert Maxwell and the Labour party was in any way comparable to the relationship between the Governor of the Bank of England—given his overall supervisory duties—and the BCCI? If so, she should spell that out explicitly. I believe that it is an absolute nonsense and that she should withdraw that shameful allegation.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I certainly will not withdraw those remarks, because people in the Labour party were responsible for the Maxwell pension fund.
  How was it that BCCI was able to continue as it did? We must accept that it was subject to poor banking supervision. Although the Bank of England was empowered by Parliament under the Banking Acts of 1979
  584
  and 1987 to supervise the banking system, it was rightly condemned for BCCI's conduct, which was described as the greatest fiasco in history. It is absolutely correct to describe BCCI as a tragedy of errors, misunderstandings and failure of communications. I would go even further and blame the Bank of England for weak handling and positive negligence.
  What really angers me is that I have not seen a single sign of remorse from the Bank of England. We have witnessed an appalling catalogue of errors and delays when one considers that leaks about BCCI's standing began to creep into the public domain from 1976. The background of the bank's founders should have raised alarm here as it did in America.
  It makes one wonder whether it is right for the Bank of England to continue to supervise the financial sector. Perhaps, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) suggested, that responsibility should be given to another, tougher, outside body, which would run it on a more stringent basis.
  It is ironic that the Bank of England sanctioned a dodgy bank in 1980. It turned down BCCI's request for recognised status under the Banking Act 1979, but decided to give it licensed deposit-taker status. By 1986 the alarm bells were ringing loud and clear, but they were ignored.
  Although the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) is not in the Chamber today, I supported her comments to the Select Committee when she said that the Bank of England had been passive, timid, amateurish and sloppy. I would add that it had been arrogant and complacent. The buck stops with the Bank of England and its Governor. But in the light of his evidence to Bingham, Mr. Robin Leigh-Pemberton has not ducked his responsibility, although I regarded his comments as reluctant and hesitant.
  As we consider the scale of the anguish that has been caused to the victims of the BCCI affair, we must accept that those concerned are not always the most articulate. They are in many instances not powerful with great lobbies supporting them. They have been mugged—that is the only way I can describe their plight—and they are rightly angry because of the great abuse of trust that has occurred. In addition to the grave injustice that has been done to thousands of innocent people, 30 local authorities in Britain have suffered.
  I object to the way in which it is suggested that it is not the responsibility of the Government or anyone else to warn local authorities when things are not right. That is a dog-in-the-manger attitude; they have the information, they are sitting on it but they do not have the guts to bring it into the open. They would rather let others suffer in consequence.
  The victims of the BCCI affair comprise in large measure people who have built up a cornerstone in Britain. The Asian community has enjoyed the fruits of burning the midnight oil, opening corner newsagents and providing endless services, including round-the-clock shops and restaurants. Is it suggested that what happened was their fault or that they should have recognised that trouble was coming?
  Let us not forget the 1,200 BCCI employees. They were not the perpetrators of the major crime. They were caught in a web, although innocent, and they, too, because they placed their faith in BCCI and in many instances put their savings in the bank, have lost all. I am told that many of

  585
  them are finding it difficult to get other jobs because they are tarred with the brush of the comments made by the Bank of England.
  Mr. Vaz: The hon. Lady is making a powerful and eloquent speech. I agree with everything she has said so far. May I tempt her a stage further and ask her to agree that, in view of the breach of supervisory duty that occurred and the passionate way in which she has put the case for the victims, the Government should consider the question of compensation? Does she further agree that people should be able to make representations so that the while matter may be examined, directly by the Government or in conjunction with Abu Dhabi?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I do not regard it as the Government's responsibility to pay compensation, which would come out of the taxpayers' pockets. The real source for compensation must be the BCCI founders, ultimately Abu Dhabi. But we should make sure that the people who have suffered do not lose out.
  I have a considerable Asian community in my constituency, including many former BCCI employees, depositors and a number of charities. It is cruel that charities, which invested in good faith, should be cheated. The Muslim Cultural and Welfare Association has many families on its books in Sutton. That association spent seven years raising £47,000 through jumble sales, fairs and so on, and at a stroke that money was swept away. I welcome the fact that, under the Government scheme, they received £15,000 compensation, but I hope that the Abu Dhabi Government will see them through further.
  The irony is that nobody would have put money into BCCI, had the bank not been propped up by the Bank of England. When the closure was happening, the Bank of England was discussing with BCCI's British operation its restructuring in the light of a variety of international scandals. The Bank's presence and involvement had the misleading result of persuading potential customers, investors and depositors that their money would he safe with BCCI. So the bank's integrity was believed. It is typical of people to say that the British way of doing things must be right.
  The anger also lies in the fact that no heads have rolled. It is unbelievable and astonishing that no one has taken personal responsibility. The Governor of the Bank of England amazed me by saying that the Bank could not afford to lose scarce talent. That was cant of the highest order. What about people's life savings? Tell that to a family that has been beggared by the Bank of England's incompetence.
  Many lessons can be learned. I welcome the setting up of a new fraud probe clearing body, the special investigation unit, designed to co-ordinate, exchange and collate information of all potential fraud on a regular basis, Let us ensure that it really works and that it is tough, resolute and meets regularly. We want to know how often, where and when it will meet and to ensure that it reports. Otherwise, the best endeavours of producing this important Bingham report will simply come to naught.
  1.56 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: I wish to concentrate my remarks on the local authorities that got into difficulties with BCCI and to draw two conclusions from that.
  In 1990, when I was leader of Sheffield city council, I was approached through members of the Asian community in Sheffield to suggest that BCCI was an appropriate institution for the council to invest money in, for two reasons. First, it was offering a good financial deal and, secondly, a significant part of Sheffield's population originates from the Asian sub-continent. Those people felt that, as the bank had strong links with and lent to that community, it was right that the city in which they lived should make some of its money available for investment in BCCI.
  I approached the professional officers in the city council and a meeting was arranged between the chair of finance, the deputy city treasurer and myself. We went to Bradford to meet senior officials of BCCI to tell them that an approach had been made to us and that we felt it right at least to investigate the matter.
  Sheffield city council has a large treasury department with well-qualified and professional officers for whom I have the highest regard. Following the meeting, the council carried out an investigation of its own to see whether that institution was a proper place for the city to invest its money. On the basis of that investigation, the deputy city treasurer wrote to me and the chair of finance in April 1990 giving us advice, based on the information that the city council had found.
  It was found that, although the bank was incorporated in Luxembourg, it was based in London. It was the largest private bank in the world with no clear lender of last resort. In 1979, when licensing arrangements for banks had changed in this country, BCCI had not immediately obtained a licence because of certain worries about it. In 1980, the Bank of America—one of BCCI's major funders —had pulled out. In October 1988, the Bin Mahsouz family, who controlled the National Commercial Bank in Saudi Arabia and had also been big funders of BCCI, had also pulled out. In 1988, the bank has been indicted of laundering drugs money in Florida. It had eventually come to a deal and accepted guilt.
  The council's investigation found that there were links with Noriega; it found that the state of Florida had revoked BCCI's banking licence; it found that Luxembourg, where the bank was incorporated, was currently investigating BCCI. If that investigation had resulted in the closure of the bank in Luxembourg, it would have had a consequence for its banking arrangements in Britain. It found that the bank had been guilty of currency regulation breaches in several countries and that in 1988 the bank had lost $48·7 million.
  The deputy city treasurer told the chair of finance and me that he could not recommend BCCI as an appropriate institution in which to put public money from Sheffield city council. I draw two conclusions from that. First, some might ask why, if Sheffield city council could find out that information, other city councils that invested money could not discover that information. The reason is that the Sheffield city council is a large authority with a large treasury department; it employs specialists and it has contacts in the City. The council used those contacts to gather the information about BCCI.

  587
  Many of the authorities that ran into difficulty are small and do not have the same sort of in-house expertise as Sheffield city council. The authorities that got into difficulty looked at an authorised list from the Bank of England, which was circulated by the Department of the Environment. Whatever the Government say about it now, I believe that at the time many local authorities thought that the organisations on the list were approved and accepted as ones in which to place public money.
  Even if that were not the case, the Bingham report accepts that the Department of the Environment was not approving the organisations on the list, but was circulating the list to assist in the progress so that the authorities could issue more accurate returns to the Government, showing the organisations from which they were borrowing and to which they were lending. The Department of the Environment and the Treasury must have been aware of which local authorities were investing in BCCI and the amounts that were invested.
  If Sheffield city council's treasury department could discover that list of information about BCCI—which would have led any lay person to conclude that it was not a satisfactory institution in which to invest—why did our national Treasury not come to a similar conclusion? On the basis of its information about local authorities investing in BCCI, why did the Treasury not take steps to warn and advise the authorities of the potential risks that they were running? Why did it do nothing? If the advice was available to Sheffield city council treasury, why did not the national Treasury—which was far more able to obtain that advice—take steps to warn local authorities about what was happening? Instead, it sat back and watched. That is an indictment which gives all the local authorities involved the right to say that they should be compensated for investing in an institution about which they were not warned, but should have been.
  My second conclusion is that the difference between Sheffield city council and the authorities that got into trouble was that Sheffield city council had its own in-house financial investment advice and did not rely on brokers. The Government are considering extending compulsory competitive tendering into white collar services in local government, including financial advice.
  The Government should think carefully. Local authorities have a right to independent financial advice, which enables councils to carry out their fiduciary duty. It is important for that advice to be given by people who work for the authorities, not to them, and whose sole loyalty is to the council for which they work. If the Government push ahead, force competitive tendering in that sector, and force local authorities to look for the cheapest solution and use brokers when they believe that their in-house advice is better and more appropriate, they will begin to run the risk of encountering more difficulties involving local authority financial organisations and investments. The Government should think hard before abolishing the right of local authorities to take their in-house financial advice. Authorities such as Sheffield city council, which had that advice, did not make the same mistakes or encounter the same difficulties as those authorities that used private sector brokers.
  2.4 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: I will make a couple of brief points, including the issue of compensation. As I represent a constituency which is—at least in terms of postal area, if not administratively—in Kent, I was somewhat miffed that the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) did not include me in his far-reaching Kent political conspiracy theory.
  I compliment the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on the effectiveness with which he has pursued the campaign, especially in defence of the victims of BCCI, with whom I have the most profound sympathy. The better the compensation deal that can be given to those victims, the more satisfactory will be the position in relation to this and any future banking or financial scandal. The victims must get the best protection that the law can give them.
  I cannot support the idea of total compensation. In classic economic terms, interest is partly a payment for risk taken. If we remove the risk entirely, we take responsibility away from individual decisions, and we take out of the banking system the differentiation between the various forms of investment which drives the system. There must be an element of risk and responsibility left to individuals, although I agree that compensation schemes should be generous.
  It is worth considering strengthening the existing compensation to give a greater percentage for the first £5,000. The figures could be 90 per cent. for the first £5,000, 85 per cent. for the next £5,000 and 75 per cent. for investments above that.
  The closure of BCCI was a disaster for many, and it was essential to have a full inquiry. The report shows that that was carried out. The report is not complacent or weak, arid it includes significant findings and important recommendations. The House should not play politics with this issue; to do so will not cause amusement for the people most affected. Instead, we should move swiftly to implement the recommendations of the report, and we should put into law adequate levels o protection and investigation.
  2.6 pm
  Mr. Darling: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that one feature of the debate is that it has been remarkably free of political bias.
  First, does the Minister understand that almost every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate has stressed that the Bank of England was found to be at fault? Almost every hon. Member has made the point that the Governor should take responsibility for what has happened. Will the Minister convey that fact to the Governor? The Governor and the Government have not grasped the scale and nature of the problem.
  Secondly, will the Minister tell us specifically whether the Government will consider the establishment of a separate regulatory organisation away from the Bank's other activities? Thirdly, although I appreciate that he is not here to answer for the Foreign Office or for the Department of Trade and Industry, will the Minister undertake, if he cannot answer the points made, that the appropriate Secretaries of State will communicate to those who attended the debate their views on two points?
  No one in the Chamber can have failed to be moved by what the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) told us about the difficulties being faced by British citizens who

  589
  are now in gaol and about his constituent who died earlier this week. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who deserved every plaudit he was given for his efforts, has made a powerful point about the fact that the Government, especially through the Department of Trade and Industry, have information which should be made available unless there are good reasons for not doing so. Will the Minister attend to that?
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) suggested that we cannot remove the element of risk. Of course we cannot. An individual always has to exercise judgment. However, the risk that people took in putting money into BCCI, whether individuals or local authorities, was a risk that they took in the light of the fact that BCCI was regulated by the Bank of England. The regulator has let them down. That must have some bearing on the question of compensation and we cannot walk away from that.
  Will the Minister tell us when he expects that the Government will bring forward legislation or, if he has a White Paper in mind, when it will be produced? As I said earlier, we simply cannot wait much longer for a clear indication of the Government's intentions.
  2.9 pm
  Mr. Nelson: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to this most interesting debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) for his measured winding-up speech for the Opposition. I am also grateful to all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions on this most important issue. Their words will be heard outside the House with interest, not just by those who were affected by the collapse of BCCI. For the most part, the quality of the speeches has been outstanding and, on behalf of the Government, I express my appreciation. The issues are wide ranging and complex, but I hope that I shall be able to answer most points. I am anxious to refer to all those hon. Members who spoke.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said that the signs should have been read earlier and that options other than closure were available. I acknowledge that, because restrictions and measures short of revocation of authorisation can be imposed by the Bank of England. As I said in my opening speech, the Bank did that in other cases, to the advantage of employees and depositors alike. Like many hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman called for the resignation of the Government—[Interruption.] I mean the Governor. This must be the only day when there has not been a call for the Government's resignation. This place is getting rather like Turandot because it is the fashion to call for heads every day. It is also the fashion to resist such calls, and I do so now.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central asked who would accept responsibility. In his response to the Select Committee on the Treasury earlier this week and in other ways the Governor has behaved in a wholly proper manner in answering the criticisms in the Bingham report and in bringing forward measures of redress. The hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members, including, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), spoke about the case for separating central banking responsibilities from authorisation and supervision. I acknowledge that a case can be made for that, but
  590
  the Bingham report does not conclude that there is such a case on the basis of BCCI. Bingham does not say that such a case should not be considered more generally, but does not believe that it is justified on the findings of the supervision of BCCI. Many hon. Members have expressed that view from time to time and it is a matter of record that I did so perhaps as much as seven years ago and more recently in the House. However, it is not the Government's view at this time that such a separation is called for and it is not being considered.
  As I said earlier, it is not my view that by changing structures we necessarily get better decisions. I would far rather have better human judgments with a defective structure than poor human judgments with an ideal structure. At the end of the day, it is people judgments that matter. I am sure that everyone agrees, although some hon. Members have said that people judgments have been brought into question.
  Those who argue for a banking commission, a separation of powers, do so on the basis that it would perhaps provide a permanent core of expertise and professionalism in supervision. They argue that an independent supervisor would improve communication with other regulatory bodies such as the Securities and Investments Board which is also concerned about similar judgments on such matters as fit and proper persons. Often the same fit and proper persons are in banks and financial services companies. The SIB sees logic in a similarity of commission of supervision.
  It is also argued that there is a conflict of interest between a central bank and the supervision of banks. That was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing. It is said that a banking comission would be more accountable to Parliament and might be able to detect a problem bank rather earlier. Some have said that even a strengthened Board of Banking Supervision is not the best way to spot the bad apples in the tray. It has also been pointed out that other countries in Europe, such as Germany, France and Switzerland, have banking commissions. I acknowledge also that there is an argument that, if and when the evolution towards a European central bank is completed, the responsibilities of such a central bank, as far as I am aware, would not encompass supervision of banks, so some changes might be necessary in the light of that.
  It remains the Government's position that they do not favour, and do not believe that the report makes the case for, such a separation of powers. A separation would undoubtedly involve a great deal of administrative upheaval and loss of continuity. Bingham and the Government consider that the case for separation is not made by the report, that no system of banking supervision is perfect in detecting dodgy banks, and that there is already an established expertise and authority in the Bank of England that we would be reluctant to unsettle.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central spoke about the need for common standards of supervision in the European Community, and I agree about the importance of that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing made a similar point when he spoke about the passporting of banking facilities both within the European Community and from without into this country and other EC states. The second banking co-ordination directive will enable such passporting. That is to say, other banks within EC countries will be able to passport their services into here,

  591
  and our banks will be able to go to other EC countries. The foreign subsidiaries of banks in other EC states will be able to have branches in this country.
  Given all that, it is important that we have common and high standards of banking supervision and prudential control. The second consolidated supervision directive, tied together with the solvency directive, the own funds directive and the deposit guarantee directive, all of which have either been agreed or are in the process of being negotiated, are directed to this end. They should ensure that the high standards that we insist on are more widely promulgated within the European Community and that we are able to withhold from the Community authorisation for banks that do not meet those standards. Outside the Community, one relies much more on the Basle concordat for high and common standards of supervision. The work that is being done and the recent improvement in minimum standards, which was agreed in July, will mark a major step forward in this direction.
  Mr. Higgins: Will we be able to withhold authorisation if, in our view, another Community country does not impose standards that are sufficiently high?
  Mr. Nelson: We shall not be able to withhold authorisation from a bank that has been authorised elsewhere in the Community. Where we are not satisfied with the system of authorisation and supervision in a country, we intend to address that through the system of peer group review, to which my right hon. Friend referred, by the system within the Community of observance of the directives and infraction proceedings and by the other challenges that can be made. The basis of the peer group review is checking on each other's systems to our own advantage to ensure that they comply with the high standards set by the directives and are common to all EC states.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central spoke, like others, about local authorities, and some have spoken about the list. The Select Committee on the Treasury and the Civil Service has made it clear that the existence, by itself, of a list of banks that have been authorised does not absolve local authorities of the responsibility to husband their resources and to be careful. It is not a guarantee of credit worthiness that an authorised bank appears on a list. It is a point which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) also made. It is said that if a local authority, such as Sheffield city council, can learn that it is perhaps not the best-quality deposit to make, why should the Treasury not provide that information? I suggest that it is not the Treasury's job to draw up credit ratings of banks or other investment businesses. It can provide to the best of its ability, through an agency such as the Bank of England or others, an authorisation procedure, but individuals and local authorities still have to make their own decisions.
  What is proper—it is the recommendation of the Select Committee—is that local authorities should perhaps get together for some central advice on these matters, either through the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy or the local authority associations. In the Government's response to the Select Committee's report there is an acceptance and endorsement of that proposal.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central spoke about the limit under the deposit protection scheme and whether it should be raised. The limit is rather more generous than
  592
  that proposed in the European directive. I know that it is less under the compensation scheme in the investment sector, which is regarded as being a different area in which people put all their money into investments. We are talking, of course, about a compensation scheme that is paid for by the rest of the banking community.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, with others, raised the wider issue of regulation. There is the prospect of a personal investment authority in the light of some recent remarks. The review that is being conducted by Mr. Andrew Large of SIB's supervision is not a wider review of the entire regulatory system. It is a follow-up to the IMRO investigation of Maxwell. It is an attempt to ascertain whether there is a proper implementation of responsibilities under the Financial Services Act 1986 and whether there are ways in which the SIB can sharpen up its act and improve communication. The review is not a re-look at the fundamentals of our statutory-based system of practitioners self-regulation. A separate case may be made for and against that, but Mr. Andrew Large is not engaged in that exercise.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing spoke about the quality of regulators and asked whether special treatment was being provided in the case of BCCI. Indeed, it was special treatment. The Government's response to my right hon. Friend's Select Committee's report concluded that the existence of the college of regulators was in the end responsible for unearthing—
  Mr. Higgins indicated dissent.
  Mr. Nelson: That was the Government's conclusion. In my view, a reading of the report suggests that it was only when the college got together and was able in consolidation to look into BCCI more adequately that the worms started coming out of the can and became rather more apparent.
  My right hon. Friend asked whether there would be blackballing of certain states under the Basle concordat. The answer is no. There will not be blackballing, but there will be new minimum standards, which have been promulgated since 6 July by the Basle arrangements. My right hon. Friend talked also about the case for separation, on which I have already responded.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that the Bank of England was undoubtedly at fault. He said that nobody resigns and nobody pays. We have heard that refrain recently. I hear what he says, but I believe that the conclusions of the Bingham report justify the view that while serious mistakes were made, they have been addressed. The report does not conclude that there was negligence. It is for others to assess the extent to which the mistakes, faults and criticisms are serious or less serious. The Government and the Bank have taken the findings of the report extremely seriously, as is reflected in the range of measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) said that there is a record of the Bank acting properly and carefully. I was grateful to him for saying that. On a day when there has been much criticism, understandably, cast about the Bank of England, it is important to recognise that it has an outstanding record of supervising our banking system. It is easy to criticise in a case where things may have gone wrong, but it is appropriate to remind the public that the Bank has a good

  593
  record, over a long period, of fulfilling difficult responsibilities and statutory duties with great ability, sensitivity and confidentiality.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has taken an active part in the BCCI affair for a long time, and I pay tribute to him for his interest. He felt that the Governor of the Bank of England should go, and drew attention to the human plight of those affected by the BCCI fraud. We were all moved by the cases that he recited, and we understand the difficulties confronted by those who lost out, as well as by those who cannot find jobs.
  Most reasonable people accept that there are good and bad in any organisation. It is unusual for a company's employees to be wholly bad or wholly good. That being the case, it is unfair and disappointing that many BCCI employees who attended to their duties with great diligence and integrity should be besmirched by events.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East spoke also of compensation and cited Barlow Clowes. I explained in an intervention earlier why I thought that case was different. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the important issue of liquidation fees, as did other hon. Members. I will disclose a few facts, because I feel strongly about that issue. I have tried to do my homework, and the House and the public are entitled to more information.
  I understand the restraints and difficulties that confront liquidators, and I must be careful about Government involvement in pressurising or leaning on them. That would be quite improper—but a request to know the facts is not unreasonable. The fees and expenses of the liquidators to date amount to some £69 million. Of that sum, some £28 million was incurred in respect of their role as provisional liquidators prior to the winding-up order on 14 January, and some £48 million since then. The court has approved the payment of fees up to 15 April 1992, since which time—with the authority of the court and the approval of the creditors' committee—they have drawn on account of fees yet to be formally approved.
  Fees are currently running at approximately £1 million a week, not all of which is accounted for by the liquidators. Legal and other professional fees amount to some £22 million
  My information is that the cash book receipts of the liquidators in respect of BCCI SA England amounted to just over £325 million, and that cash book payments amounted to £124,684,000—leaving a balance at 15 July 1992 of £200,318,000.
  Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Nelson: I am sorry, but I must insist on replying to other hon. Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said that the Bingham report found no evidence of negligence on the Government's part, and I am grateful for that. He welcomed the proposals on auditors
  594
  and spoke with great knowledge about the PIA, the Insurance Brokers' Registration Council, and the 49 per cent. limit—to which he has drawn my attention before.
  The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) said that although the report did not find evidence of negligence, its findings pointed to that. He said that the Bank of England was too easily deterred by BCCI in 1984. The reasons, though not wholly accepted by Lord Justice Bingham, are given in paragraphs 244 and 245. The hon. Gentleman said that not all criticisms were made with the benefit of hindsight, and I believe that that is accepted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) spoke of the death of a constituent. He said that the treatment in Abu Dhabi was appalling and that he wanted a complaint lodged. There have been discussions at the highest level.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said that as the legislation was defective, compensation should be paid. He also raised the case of Mr. George Finbar Ross. I shall take both his comments very seriously, and examine them carefully.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) made a thoughtful and realistic speech. I am most grateful to him for the way in which, in measured tones, he defended both the Bank of England and its Governor. In contrast, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) attacked self-regulation and City ethics. He made wounding remarks to me personally, describing me as bland and complacent; and he called the Governor dishonest, a charge which he should certainly withdraw. I think that every other hon. Member will agree that, without doubt, the Governor is a man of total integrity. He needs to be defended, and I consider that what the hon. Gentleman said went way over the top. He was paranoid about the role of British security.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), to the hon. Member for Attercliffe—
  It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  BCCI (Bingham Report)

    MAINTENANCE ORDERS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) BILL [LORDS]
    Ordered,
    That, in respect of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Bosworth.]

    LIAISON
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Robert Adley, Sir Nicholas Bonsor, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Terence L. Higgins, Mr. David Howell, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Mr. William McKelvey, Mrs. Marion Roe, Sir Giles Shaw, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Sir Malcolm Thornton, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. John Watts and Mr. Jerry Wiggin be members of the Liaison Committee. —[Mr. Bosworth.]

  Military Ceremonial Duties
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  2.31 pm
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I declare an interest at the outset as a reserve officer in the Life Guards who has in the past served in both the service regiment and the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment. I am delighted that you are in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I know of your family connections with the Army.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to address the subject of military ceremonial duties. It is important both in itself and as a case study of what I believe to be the ill-thought-out implications of "Options for Change". A Friday Adjournment debate, when most hon. Members are in their constituencies, is never a well-attended occasion, but I especially welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and others. Many more hon. Members have sent messages of support.
  It was Harold Macmillan who once wisely advised that any Government took on the National Union of Mineworkers or the Brigade of Guards at their peril. Just over a fortnight ago, the Government succeeded in taking on not one but both, and—in defiance of all military principles—opened two fronts on the same day The debate on the pit closures conveniently disguised the fact that dramatic reductions in the Household Division were being confirmed by means of a written answer. The House has thus had no opportunity until now to consider the matter.
  For some 18 months, discussions on what I believe to have been a well-informed basis have been taking place with successive Secretaries of State for Defence, and with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He will know that a group of us—I should like my remarks to be associated with our former colleagues, Robert Boscawen and Sir Charles Morrison—also took our case to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The strength of our arguments was recognised, but I submit that no adequate answer—let alone any significant concession—has emerged. I make an exception for the welcome retention of the Ceremony of the Keys at the Tower of London.
  In his typically generous way, my right hon. Friend —along with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence—has apologised to me and, by implication, to the whole House, for failing to give proper notice of the decision. I do not wish to dwell on the issue, but it was indeed curious that the military seems to know more about the proceedings of this House than hon. Members do, despite numerous inquiries to the Ministry of Defence and to business managers.
  At the risk of sounding trite, let me say that the Government's decisions on the two issues ensured that the miners went on the march, but put in grave doubt the Household Division's ability to do so in a way that is compatible with its incomparable history, standards and reputation. I wish to sketch my grave reservations, the legitimacy of which can be supported by statistics in my possession. I shall try not to bog the House down in a 'mass of figures, however, as those might obscure fundamental arguments. I also wish to ensure that my right hon. Friend has an opportunity to reply.
  596
  The overriding aim of the Household Division is to produce first-class operational soldiers who also provide the finest ceremonial in the world—a unique dual role. The fact that they have been able to do so for centuries is a tribute to the skill and dedication of officers, NCOs, guardsmen and troopers to uphold standards that have long been forsaken elsewhere. Their ability to continue these commitments is, I submit, being severely undermined by the Government's proposals.
  There are two component parts to the problem, the Foot Guards and the Household Cavalry, which I put in the context of the need to reduce the Army in this changed, but still highly unstable, world and the inevitable pressure of the public expenditure round. The Foot Guards are to be reduced from eight to five battalions—a cut substantially larger, in percentage terms, than those in the infantry as a whole. The House should not forget that the Household Division in London and elsewhere not only supports the monarchy but shows off this country to its best advantage in terms of prestige and excellence.
  The ceremonial duties, with their colour and music, are carried out supremely well. The troops, in a brilliantly British way, act as a reserve force. They are financially self-supporting, by virtue of the tourist industry. They could be used at any time to give security to the capital and to maintain public order. No more efficient or cost-effective set-up is conceivable. What is that very special institution now being required to do? It is being required to accept duties which range from the Queen's birthday parade, through state visits, guards of honour, the Cenotaph parade, the State Opening, and so on, which may mean Foot Guard battalions being based in London district for eight to 10 years as against the present maximum of around five years, which is already considered unacceptable. That period of eight to 10 years will be interrupted only by six months of unaccompanied emergency tours to Northern Ireland.
  What sort of future does that offer to soldiers and their families in terms of career progression and quality of life? I cannot see a great rush to take on or to maintain such daunting and demanding duties. Already officers and men of the Foot Guards and the Household Division generally—the very people whom they least want to lose—are applying for redundancy.
  The Government tell us that nobody will notice that the birthday parade has been cut from eight to six guards. The precedent of the Falklands campaign is prayed in aid. I suggest that at that time the country's thoughts were concentrated at least as much on the Foot Guards fighting far afield, as on a reduced parade. It may suit the Government to settle on a six-guard parade, but it will soon become clear that that is the maximum.
  Where shall we obtain extra fighting soldiers, if the Army is stripped to a skeleton? The Foot Guards are not up to strength now and rumours of imminent recruit capping abound. Initially what the Secretary of State describes as "discretionary commitments"—by this curious term I imagine that he meant the deployment of troops in the Gulf and Bosnia, let alone other unforeseen emergencies—will have implications for the Foot Guards, on top of the difficulties of fulfilling our commitments in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. The very existence of the birthday parade as a proper spectacle worthy of the monarch must be put in doubt.
  As for the position of the Household Cavalry, historically it is made up of two regiments——the Life

  597
  Guards and the Blues and Royals. Powerful though the arguments are over the Foot Guards, the Household Cavalry's problems are much more acute. Nearly three weeks ago the Life Guards and the Blues and Royals underwent the most extraordinary process—a so-called "union", by which two service regiments were brought together but still wearing separate cap badges.
  In addition to its duties as an armoured reconnaissance regiment, it will be expected to find the Mounted Regiment in London not from two service regiments but from one. In other words, there will be the same commitment but from a different base. It will also be expected to continue to carry out ceremonial duties of a highly sophisticated kind from that reduced base. No other formula would be so certain a guarantee of damaged career prospects, disillusion and overstretch.
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces nor I doubts the willingness of the Household Division as a whole to make the proposal work —that is its ethos. However, serving soldiers are in a peculiarly inhibited position from which to express their strong doubts as to the medium-term and long-term sustainability of the plan, especially as the initial reorganisation would mask the problem for a while. Soldiers cannot speak up for themselves if they consider the Government's plan unworkable. They will continue to struggle to make it work, but the mathematics prove that it will not.
  The most infuriating aspect for the Household Cavalry is that the solution is instantly available. There is a perceived need for a third regular recce regiment for the rapid reaction corps. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if "union" is to be more than clever semantics and there is a true distinction between it and "amalgamation" either the Life Guards or the Blues and Royals could take on that role.
  I know that the Foot Guards are grateful for their increment, and the Household Cavalry for its training wing, albeit both look better on paper than in practice, but those are not enough.
  My right hon. Friend has it in his power to rectify the situation, and I wish to give him time to reply specifically to what I have said rather than to regurgitate old and, I suggest, discredited arguments. I wish to press him on the following three points, which his long experience as Minister of State for the Armed Forces will enable him to answer.
  First, will my right hon. Friend confirm that reservations and caveats have been expressed in many of the most experienced quarters both through the chain of command and through other channels?
  Question number two is: will my right hon. Friend confirm that an undertaking has been given that no additional pressure will be brought to bear on the Household Division? As a rider to that question, will he further confirm that never again will there be more than two state visits a year?
  The third and most important question is: will my right hon. Friend confirm on the record that a verbal undertaking has been given both by the Prime Minister and by the Secretary of State for Defence that the proposals for the Household Division are for a trial period only, and that if the reductions prove unworkable the whole situation will be reviewed?
  598
  Without those assurances I believe that what has been admitted to be a highly theoretical exercise will have to be rethought immediately, before it is too late to retrieve the situation. Only in that way can the country continue to maintain the military expertise and excellence for which it is so widely respected throughout the world.
  2.42 pm
  Mr. Paul Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) for allowing me a moment or two to take part in the debate. I agree with every word of his argument.
  The House knows that we do not have to have ceremonial duties in London if the Government of the day think it a bad idea. Nevertheless, it would be foolish to abandon them, and if we are to have them we must ensure that those who carry them out are given the opportunity and the conditions in which to do so without appalling strain being put upon them. If they are not, the present state of affairs cannot survive long.
  I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to give us two assurances when he replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. The first is that if the situation that the Government have imposed on the Household Division does not work, it will be kept under careful review and changes will be made if that proves necessary. Secondly—again I echo what my hon. Friend has said—will my right hon. Friend ensure that no additional pressures are brought to bear upon soldiers who already face a very difficult and demanding task in London? If he cannot give those assurances, the new arrangements will remain extremely unsatisfactory and the Government should not countenance them.
  Is it really the case that the Foot Guard battalions will be kept in London for up to eight years? If so, I cannot believe that that arrangement can last for long.
  The public like ceremonial duties; they appreciate them. There is no doubt that the amount of tourism that is attracted by those ceremonial duties means that they represent one part of the armed forces that clearly pays for itself. Those duties are not, of course, essential to the defence of Britain, but I believe that if they are to be undertaken, they must be done well. My right hon. Friend owes it to those who undertake those duties now and those who will undertake them in the future to ensure that the new arrangements work. Everyone concerned wants to make them work, but I doubt whether they can—I hope that I am wrong.
  If those arrangements do not work I urge the Government to give us an assurance that this matter will be kept under review. I also urge them to ensure that no undue strain is put on the Foot Guard battalions or on the Household Cavalry in undertaking the task that they have been given in the difficult conditions set by the Government.
  2.45 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on securing this debate. I know that he takes a great interest in this matter. I also know that my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend

  599
  the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) have been to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to discuss their concerns at some length.
  Hon. Members will be aware of the background to the Army restructuring, which is now under way and I do not wish to dwell unduly on that. As part of the restructuring it was decided that the Foot Guards should reduce, as my hon. Friend has already said, from eight battalions to five; and that the Life Guards and the Blues and Royals, who already work together in the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment, should unite into a single regiment to be known as the Household Cavalry Regiment, while retaining their individual indentities.
  Clearly, with the reductions, the dismounted public duties undertaken by the Foot Guards had to be tailored to the new situation. To this end, an interdepartmental working group was set up to consider how reductions in the public duties commitment could be achieved without adversely affecting the conduct of ceremonial or the security of the royal family. The royal household, the Home Office, the Metropolitan police, and the Department of the Environment—supported by the Historic Royal Palaces Agency—were all involved in the process. As I announced to the House in a written answer on 21 October, a number of measures were identified by the working group which will reduce requirements for the employment of Foot Guards on public duties while maintaining essential security and appropriate ceremonial duties. I reported that Her Majesty the Queen had graciously agreed to the measures and that they will be implemented between now and 1994. I also placed in the Library of the House a document providing full details of the changes.
  These changes are sufficient to achieve the greater part of the target reduction in Foot Guards manpower effort. Bearing in mind, however, that one of the three battalions to be based in London in the future will often be deployed in Northern Ireland or on a short overseas tour, each of the three London-based battalions will, as I have announced, be supplemented by a public duties increment of about 100 guardsmen, who will remain in London when a battalion is temporarily deployed elsewhere.
  I want the House to understand that the main objectives and features of dismounted public duties will be largely unaffected by these measures. In most cases, the changes will only be noticeable to the more expert onlooker. I certainly do not believe that there is cause for alarm, and if there was concern previously, it ought to have been allayed by the measures that have been announced.
  I should like, if I may, to consider briefly mounted public duties, where, as I stated in a written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West on 26 October, there is to be no change. The Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment, as part of the new Household Cavalry Regiment, will continue to consist of one squadron from each cap badge, and its duties will continue as they are now.
  I ought also to make mention of the Royal Horse Artillery who will continue, as now, to fire ceremonial salutes at state occasions, and to take over the Queen's Life Guard when the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment is on annual training camp.
  It has been argued in some quarters that the Household Division should somehow have been exempt from the restructuring process. I think that most hon. Members will
  600
  agree that that would have been wrong and unfair to the other arms and corps that were required to make changes. I fail to understand how it would have been possible for the Government to have amalgamated a number of different infantry regiments going back a long way while the Foot Guards kept its second battalion. The Grenadiers, Scots and Coldstream Guards have not.
  That being so, the challenge was to come up with a package of measures that enabled the required reductions to be made with minimum impact, both on the level of public duties and on the careers of the individual soldiers and officers of the Household Division. I am confident that the measures I have announced meet that challenge.
  A particular concern expressed by my hon. Friend relates to commitments and overstretch. It is clearly in no one's interests to place the Foot Guards in a position where they cannot meet their commitments without an unreasonable amount of disruption. I assure the House that it was our firm intention that the reorganisation would not impose undue strain on the Foot Guards, nor be too tight.
  I do not deny that, with the reduced number of Foot Guards battalions, there will be some pressures. But I am confident that, with the reductions in the scale of dismounted public duties to which I have referred, together with the public duties increment of requisite size and the achievement of full manning, they will be able successfully to carry out their tasks.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Minister referred to the public duties increment. If someone is expected to spend many more years in public duties, there is no way for that person to become a good operational soldier at the same time. The Household Division has a history of providing elite soldiers who have done well in battle. They cannot do that if they do nothing but drill.
  Mr. Hamilton: It is not a question of their doing nothing but drill. For those going on the Northern Ireland roulement, there is an extensive period of training before duties start. I accept that the Household Division has had extremely high standards in Northern Ireland and I am sure that that will continue to be the case. It is wrong to give the impression that they come straight from doing drill to carrying out tasks in Northern Ireland. That is not the case and, as I have explained, there is an extensive training programme first.
  I assure the House that the Household Division has been thoroughly consulted throughout. That covers the point that was raised about reservations and caveats through the chain of command. The chain of command has been consulted extensively and some of the concerns that have been raised have been met, for instance with the increase in the increment, which was originally intended to be at a somewhat lower level.
  We have been told by the chain of command that this will work and that it is more than prepared to ensure that it will. If my hon. Friend is telling me that the chain of command has other reservations, I must say that those reservations are not coming to me. In the circumstances, they should come to me; people should not be saying that the measures will not work when they are telling the chain of command that they will.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I imagine that my right hon. Friend is speaking from an entirely up-to-date position.

  601
  Will he undertake that if representations reach him following today's debate, he will fully consider them and discuss their implications with interested parties?
  Mr. Hamilton: At this stage we are moving on—this bears on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon about a trial period—and are not talking in terms of a trial period. I am also answering the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West when I say that we shall keep the matter under careful review. If at some stage it is found not to be working, we are not so inflexible as not to try to make it work better.
  The Army is in a constant state of change and nothing that happens at any stage is necessarily set in concrete and perpetuity. Much consultation has gone into the matter and we are confident that the system will work. If at some stage we find that it is not working as we anticipated, we shall look at it again.
  I mention full manning because I know that it is of interest to hon. Members and, clearly, it is an important factor in making the changes workable. On current manning forecasts for the Army as a whole, we are confident that full manning is achievable: fewer recruits being required for a smaller Army. There is no reason to suppose that the Foot Guards will not benefit from that as much as the other arms and corps. If, however, circumstances were to prove that we had been over-confident in our predictions, we would look again. But at the moment we judge that it is right to press ahead.
  I wish to take up the point about manning levels and the Foot Guards. They will be affected by the capping of recruiting levels, which is only sensible if we are moving towards the amalgamation of battalions. We do not want them at full strength at the time when they are amalgamated. I therefore imagine that the numbers in those regiments that are being amalgamated are being reduced.
  I know that the structure of the new Household Cavalry Regiment has caused some concern. It has even been suggested that its structure is extraordinary and suspect. While it is certainly true that the union is unlike any of the other amalgamations that are taking place, in that the two former regiments will retain their separate identities, that does not make it suspect or unworkable. The two regiments have shown that they can successfully work together in the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment, and there is no reason why that same spirit cannot be carried through to the new combined Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment. Those who have the interests of the regiments at heart will, I am sure, seek to make the new arrangements work.
  I should like to conclude by stating some general principles that underlie this whole debate.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Before my right hon. Friend concludes, will he assure those like me who fear that, having gone through that painful "Options for Change" exercise, we shall be rapidly overtaken by further defence cuts and reductions in manpower for the British Army?
  Mr. Hamilton: I wish that I could give my hon. Friend all the undertakings that he wants. My hon. Friend will have to wait until we hear the announcement next week to
  602
  see how it affects defence. Indeed, we shall have to see what the position is. I share many of his concerns. The Army is certainly under a lot of pressure at the moment and I have always made it clear that if the Army were involved in long-term commitments that were more than we could meet with our existing levels, we should have to look at the matter again. That position has not changed. So I accept that, if we are to have very long-term commitments in Yugoslavia and if the increased numbers in Northern Ireland become a permanent feature, we shall have to see how all that works out.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend has kindly dealt with two of the questions that I raised, but he has not answered the one about additional pressure on the Household Division; nor has he answered my question about the number of state visits a year.
  Mr. Hamilton: I shall come to that. On additional pressures, it is difficult to give my hon. Friend carte blanche that nothing will be asked of the Foot Guards beyond what they are doing now. We do not intend to heap other long-term commitments on to them in terms of public duties and what they are doing at the moment.
  On the question of two state visits a year, that is certainly our long-term plan, but there is a plan to have three next year. Beyond then, we are working on the assumption that there will be two.
  The twin roles of the Household Division are to be first-class operational soldiers, and to provide the finest military ceremonial in the world. That is not in dispute. The exacting nature and demands of ceremonial are well appreciated by the Army. The quality of the Household Division's ceremonial in London derives from specific training, from tradition, and from those qualities that military discipline confer. Although resources are limited, and what we can achieve has to be a compromise with the best that is attainable in the circumstances, I am confident that our ceremonial will continue to be second to none.
  I would caution the House against taking an overly pessimistic view of the consequences of the restructuring. There will undoubtedly be some difficulties arising from the reduced pool from which soldiers may be drawn for mounted training; and some loss of flexibility with the reduction from eight to five battalions of Foot Guards. We do not believe, however, that there are any insurmountable problems ahead.
  It is true that the achievement of full manning is important to the success of the restructuring, both here and elsewhere. The suggestion, however, that if that is not absolutely achieved then the whole situation will unravel is unduly alarmist. We are, as I have explained, confident that something approaching full manning is achievable.
  As far as the Household Cavalry is concerned, we do accept that some action is needed to increase proportionally the number of soldiers that are mounted trained, and to that end, we are establishing a training wing at Windsor.
  As for the Foot Guards, we do not accept that the loss of three battalions will make it impossible to maintain a reasonable balance between ceremonial and operational duties. We are concerned that dismounted public duties should continue to be carried out in a fitting matter. We have therefore looked very carefully at the balance of tasking and the availability of manpower. We are satisfied that the numbers available to the Household Division should be sufficient and that the Army is intent on making

  603
  the new arrangements work. As Ministers have said on more than one occasion when faced with scepticism about the adequacy of Army resources, we are quite ready to look again at particular issues if practical experience demonstrates the need to do so. I do not believe that that is likely in the case of dismounted public duties.
  I do not see a need to depart from the agreed restructuring arrangements that were announced to the
  604
  House on 21 October. The situation will, however, be kept under review. If it became clear that remedial measures were required, I can assure the House that action would be taken.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the publication dates of(a) the citizens charter White Paper, Cm 1599, and (b) the tape recorded version for partially sighted people.

  Mr. Jackson
  The citizens charter White Paper (Cm 1599) was published on 22 July 1991 and the audio version on 18 November 1991.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the salaries of the executive directors of Her Majesty's Stationery Office at the present time and 18 months ago; and what proportion of their present salaries is in the form of performance-related pay.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to HMSO under its chief executive. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Paul Freeman to Mr. John Garrett, dated 3 November 1992:
  I have been asked to reply to your Question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the salaries of HMSO's executive directors.
  The remuneration arrangements for HMSO's directors are exactly the same as for other staff. Jobs are assigned to a pay band by means of an analytical job evaluation system. Progression within the pay band is dependent on performance, and performance pay is not separately identifiable. Details of the relevant pay bands are as follows:

  Pay band

  April 1991 £

  Now £

  14

  27,856–36,549

  29,165–38,267

  15

  30,748–40,343

  32,193–42,239

  16

  33,940–44,532

  35,536–46,625

  17

  35,658–46,786

  37,334–48,985

  18

  37,469–49,155

  39,224–51,465

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

  Forged Banknotes
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee whether he will arrange for an ultraviolet monitoring machine to be made available in the House of Commons Members' post office to protect hon. Members against receiving forged banknotes.

  Mr. Martin
  There is no evidence of sufficient demand to justify this provision.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Battery Cages
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the main findings of the EC scientific veterinary committee report on hen welfare; and if he will make it his policy to advocate the phasing out of battery cages.

  Mr. Soames
  We await the official publication of the scientific veterinary committee's report, together with the Commission's proposals for revision of the battery hens directive and new welfare standards for hens kept in alternative systems.

  It is already the Government's policy that the current battery cage design, in which only feeding and drinking facilities are provided, must be phased out on a Community basis.

  Farms (Pollution Control)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are currently available to assist family farms with the costs of fulfilling pollution control requirements.

  Mr. Curry
  Since the farm and conservation grant scheme was introduced in 1989, £88 million has been spent on grants to help United Kingdom farmers meet the costs of installing or improving waste handling facilities. Free initial advice on pollution control is available to farmers from the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, the Scottish Agricultural College and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture.

  In addition, the Ministry is carrying out a pilot study to see if farmers can help to reduce pollution themselves by drawing up their own farm waste management plans.

  Agricultural Support
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, for each system of agricultural support which will be effective next year, the total estimated cost, the likely quantities involved and also the split in costs between the common agricultural policy and United Kingdom public funds.

  Mr. Curry
  Details of estimates for the years 1992–93 to 1994–95 were provided in the departmental report by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board. This report was presented to Parliament in February 1992 and a copy was placed in the Library. Details are not readily available of the likely quantities involved in each of the support systems and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Milk Hygiene
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what charges are being set for milk hygiene enforcement work for 1992–93.

  Mr. Curry
  Following consultation with interested parties the Government have today laid before Parliament regulations maintaining the current charge for milk hygiene inspection visits and increasing the charge for visits for sampling and testing of untreated milk undertaken by ADAS. The new charge will come into force on 27 November 1992.
  419
  The Milk and Dairies and Milk (Special Designation) (Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 will increase the charge for sampling and testing visits from £47 to £63. This increase is necessary to assist the Government in meeting its ultimate objective of recovering the full costs of milk hygiene enforcement work. The charge for milk hygiene inspection visits will remain unchanged at £92—£71 for producers with fewer than 20 cows—as will the present exemptions from charges for pre-registration inspection visits, for farmhouse caterers and for suppliers in remote areas.

  The current milk hygiene enforcement programme will be reviewed in the context of the arrangements that are being made to implement the new EC milk hygiene directive by 1 January 1994. The review will include an examination of the possibility of contracting out the work.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average weekly amount ordered by magistrates for payment of poll tax arrears by recipients of income support.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not collected.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will include in the community charge enforcement statement figures for the remission of debt following means tests.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have no plans to add to the existing information that is supplied to the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make regulations to limit the amount of payment for poll tax arrears ordered by the courts in the case of recipients of income support to no more than £2·15 per week; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not the role of the courts to determine the rate of payment of arrears by debtors subject to a liability order. Where recovery cannot otherwise be achieved, a court may, on an application by the charging authority, decide in the light of the debtor's means to postpone committal to prison for default, subject to any requirement to make such payments as the court may determine. I do not think that it would be right for me to seek to fetter the courts' discretion in such matters.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to grant the right to free legal advice to all patients detained in psychiatric hospitals.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No. It is the Government's general policy that those who are assessed as having the means to contribute towards the cost of legal advice provided under the legal aid scheme should do so.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average time 420
  between legal aid work being done by barristers and legal aid fees being paid to them for (a) criminal and (b) civil legal aid for each of the past 20 years.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  Figures are not available in the form nor for the period requested. The information immediately available is contained in the tables. It shows performance against target for bills paid by the Legal Aid Board and the Crown court. It is only available in respect of the time taken to pay bills once they have been submitted.

  Payments made by the Legal Aid Board

  1991–92 Civil bills: Taxed and assessed Time taken

  March 1992 Target Per cent.

  March 1992 Performance Per cent.

  6 weeks

  65

  78

  8 weeks

  85

  88

  Bills in Magistrates' Courts' proceedings

  6 weeks

  80

  89

  Other bills

  6 weeks

  95

  95

  1990–91 Civil bills: taxed and assessed time taken

  March 1990 performance Per cent.

  March 1991 performance Per cent.

  March 1992 performance Per cent.

  4 weeks

  38

  31

  6 weeks

  68

  71

  85

  8 weeks

  81

  88

  85

  Bills in Magistrates' Courts' proceedings

  4 weeks

  78

  76

  —

  6 weeks

  93

  91

  80

  1990–91 Other bills Time taken

  March 1991 performance Per cent.

  March 1992 target Per cent.

  4 weeks

  82

  —

  6 weeks

  95

  95

  1989–90 time taken to process bills

  4 weeks

  82

  76

  6 weeks

  95

  91

  Payments made by the Crown court

  In the Crown court, where counsel has claimed a standard fee the target is for payment within five working days where the claim is lodged on the day that the case is concluded; and within 10 working days where it is not. The table gives the percentage of cases paid within target and the average number of days taken to pay all standard fees.

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Performance

  60 per cent.

  68 per cent.

  72 per cent.

  Average time (days) between date of receipt and payment of claim

  10

  11

  9

  For non-standard fee cases in the Crown court there is a target of no more than 30 per cent. of claims to be outstanding after four weeks from date of receipt.
  421

  1987–88 Per cent.

  1988–89 Per cent.

  1989–90 Per cent.

  1990–91 Per cent.

  1991–92 Per cent.

  Percentage of claims from counsel outstanding more than four weeks from receipt

  33

  32

  37

  38

  28

  Figures for the speed of payment of Crown court claims by the central taxing teams—which were established in March 1991—are produced on a monthly basis. The target is for payment of 75 per cent. of the claims within three months of the claim becoming ready to tax and for no claims to remain untaxed after six months. In terms of their own workload, all teams, 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.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to allow people who are being considered for appointments as Queen's Counsel to see files that are held by him on them.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Factual information held on a candidate is available on request in the form of a summary sheet. It is also open to the individual concerned to see a senior official of the Lord Chancellor's Department when he can be told the tenor of the opinions received. However, as in most organisations dealing with recruitment and appointments, the references and opinions obtained on those who have applied for appointment as Queen's Counsel are confidential. The Lord Chancellor has no plans to make them available to applicants.

TRANSPORT

  Safety Tests
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to publish annually the results of safety inspections on(a) ferries, (b) locomotives and (c) aircraft.

  Mr. Norris
  The Surveyor General's Organisation—which is responsible for inspecting ferries as well as other types of ship—produces an annual report setting out its survey and inspection performance. The Civil Aviation Authority's surveyors monitor compliance with established safety standards in transport aircraft; operators are required to report defects to the CAA under the mandatory occurrence reporting system and these reports are published. Railway operators are responsible for inspecting their locomotives and while they do not publish any information on safety inspections, the Health and Safety Executive publishes an annual report on railway safety which gives details of certain safety-related failures of locomotives and multiple units which have occurred in service.

  We have no plans to require the publication of any additional information.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to publish annually the failure of any(a) ferry, (b) locomotive or (c) aircraft to pass safety tests.

  Mr. Norris
  We have no plans to publish information on individual failures at safety tests. Any ferry, locomotive 422
  or aircraft on which a major defect was found at a safety inspection would not be allowed to return to service until the relevant fault had been rectified.

  InterCity 225 Trains
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 866, if he will list the number of claims by British Rail, under warranty protections, to the manufacturers of InterCity 225 trains.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of claims is a commercial matter between British Rail and the manufacturers.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will establish a centralised database of the movement of nuclear materials, including medical isotopes, within, into and from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his plans for the membership of the franchising authority proposed as part of the rail privatisation; and what local imput there will be.

  Mr. Freeman
  The franchising authority's head will be appointed directly by the Secretary of State. The authority will wish to take into account the views of local authorities when specifying service levels for franchises, particularly in the passenger transport authorities areas where the passenger transport executives will continue to pay for the services they support.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure the continuation of the integrated local services in the west midlands area after privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The west midlands, in common with six other areas in the United Kingdom, has a passenger transport executive responsible for specifying and procuring local passenger rail services, and for measures which promote their operation in conjunction with local passenger transport services. PTEs will continue to have this responsibility following British Rail's privatisation, feeding their requirements into the service specification that the franchising authority will draw up when letting the franchises for passenger rail services which cover PTA areas.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that expenditure by the West Midlands passenger transport authority on rail developments receives a return on outlay following privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Any contractual rights or obligations existing between British Rail and the West Midlands PTA will be honoured.

  Radioactive Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many occasions in 1991 and so far in 1992 irradiated test reactor fuel from Harwell has been transported by road to Dounreay; and how many accidents have taken place in the course of those journeys.

  Mr. Norris
  There were no such shipments in 1991, and have been none so far this year.

  Westway
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the dates of resurfacing work carried out on the Westway since 1987;

  (2) to what extent the present repairs to the Westway in west London involve remedial work following the most recent previous repairs; and what amount and proportion of the costs of the current repairs are accounted for by such remedial work;

  (3) why the current repairs to the Westway in West London were not carried out when the road was last under repair;

  (4) what the difference is between the current repairs to the Westway in west London and those carried out in the most recent previous repair programme.

  Mr. Norris
  During an inspection of Westway in 1988, the waterproof membrane was found to have reached the end of its life. As an interim measure the defective membrane was patched in places between August and November of that year. This was the first time that Westway had been subject to substantial repair works since 1986. Following this interim measure, full waterproofing and resurfacing of the entire length of A40(M) is being carried out. In consultation with the police and the local boroughs—Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham—it was decided that to undertake all the work at once would cause unacceptable disruption to traffic on both Westway and the adjacent road network. The work was accordingly divided into two phases.

  Phase I, from the Marylebone flyover to just short of Ladbroke grove, and the A40(M)/M1 flyover, started in September 1991 and was completed in February 1992. Phase II, which covers work at the A40(M)/M41 roundabout and the Wood Lane flyover, began in July 1992 and is due to finish at the end of November. None of the current work is remedial work. During carriageway closures, signed diversions are in operation.

  Once the work is complete, I do not envisage resurfacing the Westway for many years.

  Brake Lights
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what alterations are being considered with regard to the regulations affecting the provision of high mounted brake lights on motor vehicles.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have no plans at present to alter the current lighting regulations which provide for the optional fitting of high mounted stop lamps on vehicles.

  It now seems likely that Europe will follow the USA and, for the future, make the fitting of a supplementary high mounted stop lamp compulsory. When changes are agreed by the European Community, an amendment will be needed to our regulations.

  EC Transport Council
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the result of the Luxembourg Transport Council.

  Mr. John MacGregor
  The Transport Council, in Luxembourg on 26 October, held most constructive discussions which have cleared the way for agreement on a wide range of subjects including airport slot allocation, transport infrastructure funding, road and rail transit of Austria and Switzerland and road haulage cabotage liberalisation together with associated taxation and charging issues.

  Airport Slot Allocation

  The Council provided guidance on the direction which further preparatory work should take on key issues, with the objective of agreeing the detailed regulation at the December Council.

  Transport Infrastructure Funding

  After discussion based on a presidency compromise, the Council is now in a position to reach agreement on the regulation to supersede the present transport infrastructure funding regulation, subject to the views of Parliaments. As at present, maritime and aviation infrastructure is not to be included in the regulation. Its duration is to he two years but with the provision that it will automatically lapse on the introduction of trans-European networks funding for transport under the Maastricht treaty.

  Road and Rail Transit of Austria, Switzerland and Slovenia

  The Council is now also in a position to conclude transport agreements between the Community and Austria and Switzerland and administrative arrangements for implementing them, subject to the views of Parliaments and to the satisfactory conclusion of outstanding discussions between Germany and Austria. The Council reached a similar provisional agreement on a regulation on the distribution to member states of "ecopoints" which encourage the use of "green lorries" for additional transit journeys through Austria. I expect that final agreements will be reached on these items in time for implementation from 1 January 1993.

  The Council also reached agreement on a mandate and procedures for the Commission to negotiate a transit agreement between the Community and Slovenia.

  Road Haulage Cabotage Liberalisation and Fiscal Harmonisation

  The Council had a constructive discussion on the taxation and charging of road goods transport and made useful progress. It was agreed that the Commission's proposals on taxation and charging represent the best possible basis for making further progress. The presidency will work further in the next few weeks on this issue and the related one of road haulage cabotage liberalisation, on the basis of the Commission's proposal together with the previous compromise proposal of the Portuguese presidency on cabotage liberalisation. Agreement on free cabotage is required under the single market provisions of the treaty by the end of 1992 and I shall be pressing for agreement on this at the Council's December meeting.
  425
  Combined Transport

  The Council is also in a position to reach agreement, subject to the views of Parliaments, on a directive amending the definition of combined transport for the purpose of certain concessions to road hauliers so as to include journeys made partly by sea; and on a regulation to extend by three years and to widen the scope of the existing regulation permitting member states to grant aid for combined transport.

  The Commission's proposal for a Community shipping register, Euros, was discussed briefly and a full discussion will take place at the December Council. The Commission briefly introduced proposals for revising the code of conduct on airline computer reservation systems, for a directive on standards for air services relations with third countries. All these issues were referred to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for examination.

  Rail Freight Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 22 October,Official Report, column 345, whether his Department or British Rail put out to tender the consultancy on the sale of British Rail's freight operations; and how many replies were received to the invitation to tender.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes; six.

SCOTLAND

  Consultants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the names of all the consultants commissioned by his Department from 1986 to the most recent date for which information is available; and if he will give the subject and expenditure for each.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Low Pay
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his proposals to increase equal economic opportunities for the low paid.

  Mr. Lamont
  The Government's strategy of reducing inflation, cutting taxes and making markets work better is the best way of helping the low paid.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the reduction in the trade-weighted nominal rate for the pound sterling since the fourth quarter of 1986, together with his estimate of the corresponding reduction in relative export unit values, assuming that the fall in the nominal rate is fully reflected in a reduction in the prices charged by United Kingdom exporters in foreign currency terms.

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest figures for the sterling effective exchange rate index and the United Kingdom's relative export prices are on the CSO databank which may be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Pension Scheme Surpluses
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for legislation under which banks would be prevented from appropriating pension scheme surpluses in their annual accounts.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have no such proposals.

  Bingham Inquiry
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Government Ministers who gave evidence to the Bingham inquiry and the dates on which they appeared before the inquiry.

  Mr. Nelson
  A full list of those who gave evidence to the Bingham inquiry is at annex 1 to the report, a copy of which is available in the Library. Of those, five present or former Government Ministers appeared before the inquiry to give oral evidence. The dates of their appearances were:

  Date and Witness

  4 February 1992—The Right Hon. Sir Ian Stewart, now Lord Stewartby (former Economic Secretary).

  6 February—The Right Hon. Nigel Lawson, now Lord Lawson (former Chancellor of the Exchequer).

  10 February—The Right Hon. John Major MP (Prime Minister and former Chancellor of the Exchequer).

  11 February—John Maples (former Economic Secretary).

  12 February—The Right Hon. Norman Lamont MP (Chancellor of the Exchequer).

  Interest Rates
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the interest rates in Britain and other EC countries.

  Mr. Nelson
  United Kingdom short-term interest rates are the lowest in the EC.

  Kerrey Inquiry
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the departments and agencies of Her Majesty's Government which provided evidence to the Kerrey inquiry in the United States of America; and if he will place all such evidence which has been published in the Library.

  Mr. Nelson
  No Departments or agencies of Her Majesty's Government provided evidence to Senator Kerrey's inquiry into the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, nor did Senator Kerrey seek to check the accuracy of his report with them.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rate of increase in the retail prices index(a) including and (b) excluding, housing costs in (i) the year, (ii) the six-month period and (iii) the three-month period to October; and if he will estimate the effect on the price index of including rents, but excluding mortgage costs.

  Mr. Nelson
  The table shows the percentage changes in the relevant components of the retail prices index for the periods specified up to September 1992, the latest date for which information is available.
  427

  Retail Prices Index: September 1992

  Index

  Percentage change over

  (January 1987 = 100)

  Twelve months

  Six months

  Three months

  All items

  139·4

  3·6

  2·0

  0·1

  All items except housing

  134·9

  3·5

  1·4

  -01

  All items except mortgage interest payments

  137·3

  4·0

  2·1

  0·1

  Note: The housing group of the retail prices index comprises rents in both the public and private sectors, mortgage interest payments, Community charges, water and sewerage charges, dwelling insurance and ground rent, repairs and maintenance charges and do-it-yourself materials.

  Output
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give figures for the percentage increases between 1979 and 1991 of(a) consumer expenditure at constant prices, (b) output, (c) output excluding North sea oil production and (d) manufacturing output.

  Mr. Nelson
  The percentage increases, derived at constant 1985 prices, are(a) 37·5, (b) 23·6, (c) 21·8 and (d) 5·8 respectively.

  Bank and Insurance Company Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what checks he performs on bank and insurance company accounts when they are filed at Companies House.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Registrar of Companies informs me that accounts delivered to him for filing, including those of banks and insurance companies, are checked to ensure that they comprise the appropriate documents—in the majority of cases, profit and loss account, balance sheet, directors' report and auditors' report—are duly signed and cover the appropriate period. The accounts are then made available for public inspection.

  Insurance companies also deliver accounts to the insurance division of my Department under the provisions of the Insurance Companies Act 1982. These are subjected to manual and computer checks covering correctness, consistency with previous accounts and solvency.

  I am advised that the Bank of England carries out its own checks on copies of accounts of banking companies, which are sent direct to them by the companies concerned.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Fact-finding Visits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. Lennox-Boyd
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to both Wilton Park under its chief executive, Geoffrey Denton, and to the Natural Resources Institute under its chief executive, Anthony Beattie. I have asked them to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from G. Denton to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 29 October 1992:
  428
  Thank you for your question about the number of fact finding visits made by the Chief Executive of this Agency in the last twelve months.
  During the year in question I did not make any fact finding visits.

  Letter from A. Beattie to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:
  Lady Chalker has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about fact-finding visits by chief executives of Agencies.
  On 8 November 1991 I visited Hadlow College in Kent to brief myself on the College's facilities and courses. On 8 May this year I went to the EC's centre for Tropical Agriculture (CTA) at Wageningen in The Netherlands to explore the scope for collaboration between the Centre and NRI and to sign a memorandum of understanding covering joint activities.

  Overseas Territories
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the proposed citizenship status under the treaty of European union, of citizens of(a) French overseas territories and (b) British dependent territories.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The declaration on nationality of a member state accompanying the treaty on European Union states:"the question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a member state shall be settled solely by reference to the national law of the member state concerned."

  Under the United Kingdom declaration on the definition of United Kingdom nationals for European Community purposes, made on accession and revised in January 1983, the only British dependent territories citizens so defined are those
  "who acquire their citizenship from a connection with Gibraltar".

  These are accordingly the only BDTCs eligible for citizenship of the European union. It is not for us to comment on French nationality law.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken in respect of British arms trading with Indonesia under the terms of the European Council of Ministers declaration at Lisbon on non-proliferation and arms exports.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. The sale of arms and defence equipment to all destinations, including Indonesia, is subject to strict export licensing procedures. In the United Kingdom's case, the criterion agreed at the Lisbon European Council was already taken into consideration when making export licensing decisions.

  Haiti
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he has taken to encourage constitutional rule in Haiti.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We issued a statement and co-sponsored United Nations General Assembly resolution 46/7 condemning the coup and calling for the restoration of democracy in Haiti. Along with our EC partners, we continue to support the efforts of the Organisation of American States (OAS) to broker a settlement: a senior British diplomat represented the presidency on a recent OAS mission to Haiti.

  EC General Affairs
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, at the next General Affairs Council, he will propose that its next meeting shall be held wholly or partially in public, pursuant to its order of procedure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At its next meeting on 9 November the General Affairs Council, as instructed by the European Council at Birmingham, will discuss ways in which all Councils can conduct their business in a more open and transparent way. As Chairman of the Council, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will call upon Foreign Ministers to consider a number of ideas including the question of whether, and under what circumstances, Council meetings should be held in open session.

  Mahammed Afzal
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to help the Pakistani authorities to apprehend the killers of Mahammed Afzal in Jaurah village, Pakistan, on 4 October.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Mr. Afzal was a dual British-Pakistani national, and the United Kingdom has no standing under international law to intervene in the investigation of his murder, which is being conducted by the Pakistani police. Our high commission in Islamabad is, however, maintaining contact with the Pakistani authorities.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Music Day
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will support a national music day in 1993.

  Mr. Brooke
  Following the success of the national music day on 28 June this year, I am pleased to confirm my commitment to a further national music day in 1993. This will take place on Sunday 27 June.

  Redundant Churches Fund
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the implementation of the Wilding report on the redundant churches fund.
  430
  Mr. Key
  A number of the recommendations made by Richard Wilding in his report are for the Church Commissioners to implement through amendment of the Pastoral Measure 1983. The General Synod, which meets next week, will have before it a draft amending measure. Should Synod approve the amending measure, I intend to bring forward legislation to amend the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Act 1969 so that my Department's grant to the redundant churches fund can in future be paid through the Church Commissioners rather than directly to the fund. This was a key recommendation of the Wilding report, and will strengthen the role of the Commissioners as the focal point for the review of policy, the selection of priorities and the matching of expenditure with resources.

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if there have been any offers accepted in lieu of tax or allocated since his predecessor's announcement on 16 June.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since my predecessor's announcement on 16 June,Official Report, columns 448–9, I am pleased to inform the House of the acceptance of two offers in lieu of tax, and the allocation of three offers previously accepted. A further payment has also been made for an offer accepted last year.

  The offers are:
  A painting by Beccafumi, "San Bernardino preaching in the Campo at Siena", together with a chalk study for the painting, and two diagrams by Michelangelo, satisfying £119,000 tax, and
  A sculpture by Henry Moore which will satisfy £87,500 tax.

  The sculpture will be allocated to Leeds city art gallery. A decision on the allocation of the Beccafumi and Michelangelo diagrams has yet to be taken.

  Three offers, previously accepted, have now been allocated.

  An offer of a collection of eight contemporary paintings:

  "Bomb store" by David Bomberg

  "Self-portrait, recto and verso" by David Bomberg

  "Ghetto theatre" by David Bomberg

  "Woman and goat" by Robert Colquhoun

  "Two Figures Monotype" Robert Colquhoun

  "Man hosing metal fish boxes" by Prunella Clough

  "Pears" by William Scott

  An untitled work by Roger Hilton

  "Bomb store" by David Bomberg and the Prunella Clough painting have been allocated to the Tate gallery and the remainder to the Wakefield city art gallery.

  An offer comprising of a vintage motorcar and two motor-cycles. The car will go to the national motor museum and the motor-cycles to the Bradford industrial museum and the tank museum.

  An offer comprising a Rembrandt etching and 31 illuminated manuscripts will go to the national art collections fund.

  The further payment for the Statham collection of porcelain will be £4,333·51.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cattle
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what systems he has to ensure that payments for cattle sold into the Irish Republic can be traced to buyers in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  None. The question of payment for cattle sold in Northern Ireland is a private matter between the seller and purchaser and, if the sale is through a livestock market, the operator of the market.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action has been taken to trace cattle movements through herd book registers in Northern Ireland to identify smuggling activity into the Irish Republic.

  Mr. Hanley
  Checks on herd registers as a means of tracing illegal movements of cattle are ineffective. The legal movement of cattle between herds, to and from livestock markets and to slaughterhouses is recorded for purposes of animal disease control. The export of cattle to the Republic of Ireland is prohibited, except in very limited circumstances, for bovine spongiform encephalopathy reasons. This means that permits for movements to the Republic are not normally requested and such movements would not therefore be recorded in herd registers.

  Cold Weather Payments Scheme
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many households in East Antrim qualified for payment under the cold weather payments scheme during the winter period 1991·92.

  Mr. Hanley
  Social security operational matters are the responsibility of the chief executive of the Social Security Agency. However, I understand that the cold weather payment system was not triggered in any part of Northern Ireland during the winter period 1991·92 and consequently no one qualified for payment under the scheme.

  Form Buildings
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will extend the qualifying size condition for grant in respect of replacement dwellings on farms beyond the present 100 sq m restriction.

  Mr. Atkins
  Whilst existing floor area is not a factor when considering applications for grant for a replacement house or farmhouse, a replacement dwelling with a standard floor area of 100 sq m—1,050 sq ft—is regarded as reasonable to meet normal family requirements. In cases where specific family need can be established, such as accommodation for a disabled person, alleviating overcrowding or providing facilities to accommodate additional farm workers, and where these cannot be met within the standard 100 sq m floor area the Housing Executive, which administers this scheme, has discretion to exceed that standard.

  Although farms which were certified as "viable" by the Department of Agriculture, used to enjoy preferential treatment for grants purposes, such status gave no automatic entitlement to a particular size of floor area.
  432
  Applicants for grant aid who can demonstrate the need for additional floor space will not, therefore, be disadvantaged under the replacement grant scheme.

  Health Service
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the background to the review of services at Altnagelvin area hospital and detailing the reorganisation of services including relocation of wards, changes in speciality ward numbers, introduction of new facilities and the closure or phasing out of any existing facilities.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Western health and social services board has established a project review group, supported by the management consultant firm of Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte, to undertake a strategic review of acute services and associated requirements at Altnagelvin hospital.

  The review group's recommendations will be considered by the Western board at its meeting on 30 November 1992, following which the board will submit proposals to the Department of Health and Social Services for consideration.

  In the meantime a £6·6 million external re-cladding scheme for the hospital has already been approved and is at present in planning.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what contacts have been made between the management executive and units in the Western health and social services board regarding proposals or potential applications for moving to HSS trust status.

  Mr. Hanley
  The working paper "Self-Governing Hospitals in Northern Ireland—An Initial Guide" was issued in January 1990 and all units of management within the health and personal social services were invited to express an interest in becoming health and social services trusts. The initial guide was replaced by an updated version entitled "HSS: A Working Guide" which was also issued to every unit of management. After the first round, the chief executive of the management executive wrote to unit general managers in all four boards inviting expressions of interest in a second round. No expressions of interest have been received from any unit within the Western health and social services board in either round.

  Industrial Relations Legislation
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce further industrial relations legislation.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill at present before the House includes an enablement whereby certain provisions may be extended to Northern Ireland by means of an Order in Council subject to negative resolution procedure. The provisions to be extended to Northern Ireland deal with EC obligations—relating to proof of an employment relationship, procedures for handling redundancies and protection against dismissal of health and safety workers—employment rights—relating to pregnant workers, sex discrimination and industrial tribunals procedures—and the abolition of wages councils. It is my intention to introduce such an order as soon as possible following Royal Assent.
  433
  The application to Northern Ireland of provisions equivalent to the remainder of the Bill, and also the provisions of the Employment Act 1990, will be considered in due course following discussions with local bodies.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the cash limit, NID2, for the independent living fund.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The cash limit for the independent living fund (NID2) in 1992–93 will be reduced by £247,000 from £5,298,000 to £5,051,000. The cash limit is being reduced because of an overspend in 1991–92.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the lowest and the mean rates of pay discovered in wages council industries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In April 1992 the mean rate paid to workers on adult rates of pay in wages council industries was £5.05 an hour. The minimum basic rates currently range from £2.59 to £3.10 an hour.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research she has commissioned into the likely effectiveness and enforceability of legal measures intended to protect shop managers and employees who do not wish to work on Sundays.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. The Government will shortly be announcing their intentions regarding the current legislation governing Sunday trading.

  Budget—£ million

  Training weeks x 10,000

  TEC

  Total

  Enterprise training

  Youth training

  Enterprise training

  Youth training

  South East Region

  Essex

  35·5

  7·8

  16·2

  6·6

  33·0

  Hampshire

  34·1

  5·4

  17·6

  9·0

  39·5

  Heart of England

  12·2

  1·7

  5·7

  3·4

  14·6

  Hertfordshire

  24·8

  3·1

  13·2

  5·5

  19·5

  Isle of Wight

  4·3

  0·6

  1·9

  1·6

  6·8

  Kent

  35·1

  5·3

  18·0

  8·6

  31·5

  Milton Keynes/North Buckinghamshire

  8·0

  1·2

  4·0

  2·6

  11·1

  Surrey

  13·8

  1·5

  4·4

  3·1

  11·9

  Sussex

  27·2

  5·1

  11·3

  8·3

  24·5

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  21·2

  2·1

  9·2

  3·6

  20·3

  London

  AZTEC

  11·7

  1·7

  3·6

  2·8

  7·3

  CENTEC

  24·2

  6·6

  6·5

  10·4

  12·8

  CILNTEC

  22·6

  5·9

  7·3

  9·7

  12·4

  LETEC

  35·8

  9·8

  12·5

  16·2

  27·2

  North London

  18·9

  5·0

  4·1

  8·1

  8·5

  North West London

  10·0

  2·8

  2·5

  4·5

  4·9

  SOLOTEC

  20·1

  3·3

  9·1

  5·3

  14·7

  South Thames

  32·9

  9·1

  9·2

  15·4

  15·5

  West London

  17·3

  2·5

  6·6

  4·1

  13·6

  South West

  Avon

  28·8

  6·1

  11·8

  10·3

  26·9

  Devon/Cornwall

  52·5

  9·0

  26·3

  15·7

  41·5

  Dorset

  16·5

  2·3

  7·3

  4·4

  17·9

  Gloucestershire

  13·9

  2·0

  6·6

  3·6

  15·7

  Somerset

  13·8

  2·1

  6·4

  4·1

  15·7

  Wiltshire

  14·7

  2·1

  6·8

  4·1

  16·7

  Protective Headwear (Sikhs)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will arrange to exempt Sikhs from EC regulations requiring those people in certain occupations to wear protective headwear in their place of work; what representations she has received on this matter; what consultations EC institutions are undertaking with Sikh organisations and others; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has no plans to arrange for a general exemption for turban wearing followers of the Sikh religion from the regulations to implement the European directive on the use of personal protective equipment at work. Nor has she any plans to remove the existing exemption for such Sikhs on construction sites. The Secretary of State has received a number of representations from Sikh organisations and others on this issue, to which she and Ministers of this Department have responded individually. Consultations which EC institutions undertake are a matter for those institutions themselves.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 418, if she will now provide the figures for training and enterprise council budgets and contracts for 1992–93 in the same form as her answer.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The tables show the budgets and volumes agreed for each training and enterprise council in England for 1992–93.

  Information relating to Wales and Scotland is for the respective Secretaries of State to provide.
  435

  Budget—£ million

  Training weeks x 10,000

  TEC

  Total

  Enterprise training

  Youth training

  Enterprise training

  Youth training

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  49·8

  15·6

  20·6

  22·4

  36·7

  Central England

  11·7

  1·8

  5·1

  3·4

  10·9

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  25·4

  5·0

  11·9

  9·1

  27·3

  Dudley

  11·7

  2·5

  5·2

  4·4

  11·5

  HAWTEC

  11·8

  1·8

  5·5

  4·0

  13·5

  Sandwell

  12·0

  2·6

  5·5

  4·5

  13·3

  Shropshire

  14·7

  2·4

  7·7

  4·4

  17·3

  Staffordshire

  35·6

  5·4

  20·6

  9·3

  53·4

  Walsall

  10·0

  2·3

  4·3

  4·3

  11·3

  Wolverhampton

  12·1

  2·5

  5·2

  4·6

  10·8

  East Midlands

  Bedfordshire

  11·7

  1·5

  5·3

  2·7

  12·0

  Cambstec

  6·4

  0·6

  2·6

  1·2

  5·8

  Greater Nottingham

  21·0

  4·1

  9·7

  6·5

  21·2

  Greater Peterborough

  9·3

  1·8

  4·5

  3·2

  10·4

  Leicestershire

  26·2

  4·0

  13·3

  6·5

  29·0

  Lincolnshire

  20·7

  3·7

  10·2

  6·7

  22·0

  Norfolk/Waveney

  22·6

  4·8

  10·7

  8·1

  24·3

  Northamptonshire

  13·8

  1·7

  6·6

  3·0

  14·5

  North Derbyshire

  10·6

  2·2

  5·1

  4·2

  11·6

  North Nottinghamshire

  17·1

  5·4

  7·4

  5·6

  16·2

  South Derbyshire

  18·3

  3·9

  8·6

  5·9

  18·5

  Suffolk

  15·5

  1·7

  9·5

  3·1

  15·0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  25·1

  5·5

  12·9

  9·5

  26·9

  Bradford and District

  20·8

  4·2

  10·6

  7·2

  18·2

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  21·4

  5·0

  9·7

  8·4

  20·0

  Humberside

  37·8

  8·5

  17·9

  14·2

  37·2

  Leeds

  21·3

  5·2

  8·8

  9·8

  17·0

  North Yorkshire

  17·6

  3·2

  8·0

  6·1

  16·8

  Rotherham

  12·5

  2·7

  5·6

  4·6

  11·1

  Sheffield

  23·4

  6·2

  9·5

  10·2

  20·4

  Wakefield

  12·5

  3·0

  5·3

  5·4

  10·8

  North West

  Bolton/Bury

  14·4

  2·1

  6·9

  3·7

  14·8

  Cewtec

  21·0

  5·0

  9·5

  8·8

  19·4

  Cumbria

  17·7

  2·4

  9·7

  4·3

  21·3

  Eltec

  18·8

  3·5

  9·3

  6·0

  20·1

  Lawtec

  28·4

  4·9

  12·8

  8·5

  28·3

  Manchester

  39·3

  8·7

  16·4

  14·5

  36·3

  Normidtec

  14·6

  2·7

  7·2

  4·6

  15·4

  Merseyside

  51·0

  13·2

  22·8

  23·1

  47·6

  Metrotec

  11·3

  2·2

  5·3

  3·8

  11·0

  Oldham

  9·2

  1·5

  4·8

  2·8

  10·5

  Qualitec

  9·8

  2·0

  5·1

  3·4

  10·4

  Rochdale

  8·9

  2·1

  3·8

  3·8

  8·5

  South and East Cheshire

  12·8

  1·9

  6·5

  2·8

  22·3

  Stockport

  10·5

  1·6

  4·7

  2·9

  10·3

  Northern

  Durham

  30·1

  8·5

  13·0

  14·4

  27·2

  Northumberland

  15·3

  2·9

  7·8

  5·4

  12·6

  Teesside

  33·5

  9·2

  15·7

  16·1

  32·2

  Tyneside

  40·5

  10·7

  17·0

  16·4

  34·5

  Wearside

  18·5

  5·2

  7·4

  9·3

  17·1

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Price Marking Order 1991
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representation he has received from the retail industry relating to the Price Marketing Order 1991.
  436
  Mr. Leigh
  My Department has received a number of representations from the British Retail Consortium, and its constituent organisations, expressing concern about how some aspects of the order apply to them.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his plans to amend the Price Marking Order 1991.

  Mr. Leigh
  This order has been looked at in detail in the light of representations received. The issues involved are complex, but my Department will be in a position to discuss the way forward with interested parties shortly.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations and communications his Department has had in regard to the establishment of a structure for the forthcoming review of nuclear power; and what criteria he plans to adopt in setting out the remit for the review.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department is considering the form and content of the 1994 review of the future prospects for nuclear power in the United Kingdom including the need to provide for appropriate public and parliamentary consultation. The precise terms of reference will take account of any relevant conclusions reached as a result of the review of the coal industry currently being undertaken by my Department.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what environmental implications were taken into account in the original announcement for the closure of 31 pits.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is an operational matter for British Coal.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to extend the support and resources provided to citizens advice bureaux to enable them to meet their increased work load.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department of Trade and Industry funds the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—NACAB—and the Citizens' Advice Scotland—CAS—which provide the central support services for the local bureaux in England, Wales and Scotland. Similarly, the Northern Ireland Office funds the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—NIACAB. Since 1982, the total grant in aid to these bodies has more than doubled from around £5·7 million in 1982–83 to around £12·6 million in 1991–92—an increase of more than 30 per cent. in real terms. Total grant in aid in 1992–93 is expected to be more than £.13·2 million, representing a 5 per cent. increase over 1991–92 which is above the rate of inflation.

  The funding of individual bureaux is a matter for local authorities based on their own assessment of local needs and the resources available. However, although the Government do not fund individual citizens advice bureaux, directly, the grant in aid to the central organisation does include provision to develop the local network through partnership agreements with local authorities on a strictly time-limited basis.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what basis he will be reviewing the operations of the recognised supervisory bodies in 1993.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  When the supervisory bodies for auditors were granted recognition last year under the Companies Act 1989, it was agreed with them that it would be appropriate for the bodies to review jointly with my Department in 1993 the operation of their procedures for monitoring compliance by their members with their rules.
  438
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what examination he made of the disciplinary procedures of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales before granting it recognised supervisory body status.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department's examination of the institute's application for recognition as a supervisory body for auditors under part II of, and schedule 11 to, the Companies Act 1989 was such as to enable the Secretary of State to determine whether the statutory requirements were satisfied.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Auditing Practices Board and the recognised supervisory body regime established under the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Paragraph 8 of schedule 11 to the Companies Act 1989 requires recognised supervisory bodies to have rules and practices governing both the technical standards which their auditor members must apply in company audit work and the manner in which those standards are to be applied. The recognised supervisory bodies have bound themselves to adopt the standards and guidelines issued by the Auditing Practices Board and they require their auditor members to comply with those standards.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what statutory provisions govern the recourse of members of the public to recognised supervisory bodies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Paragraph 12 of schedule 11 to the Companies Act 1989 requires the recognised supervisory bodies to have effective arrangements for the investigation of complaints, both against persons who are eligible under their rules to be appointed as company auditors and for the investigation of complaints against the supervisory bodies themselves in respect of matters arising out of their functions as such. The Companies Act 1989 (Register of Auditors and Information about Audit Firms) Regulations 1991 also require the recognised supervisory bodies to maintain and make available to the public a register of individuals and firms eligible for appointment as company auditor and certain information about firms so registered.

  Public Limited Companies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring forward proposals to require public limited companies in their notes to their annual accounts to show the number of employees who earn less than £209 per week.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Company Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for legislation under which company auditors would owe a duty of care to individual shareholders.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no such proposals.

  Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will provide a list of the organisations which he consults before appointing accountants as inspectors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No. Before making such appointments, my Department makes such inquiries as are necessary and takes all relevant considerations into account.

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish a table showing for the United Kingdom, United States of America, Germany,

  Shares1 of the main manufacturing countries2 exports of manufactured goods percentage

  United Kingdom

  USA

  France

  F R Germany>3

  Italy

  Japan

  1962

  14·8

  23·0

  8–9

  19·5

  5·8

  7·3

  1963

  14·5

  22·2

  9·0

  19·8

  5·9

  7·6

  1964

  13·3

  22·4

  8·7

  19·4

  6·3

  8·2

  1965

  13·4

  20·7

  8·8

  19·1

  6·7

  9·4

  1966

  12·9

  20·5

  8·5

  19·3

  6·9

  9·7

  1967

  11·8

  20·8

  8·5

  19·5

  7·0

  9·8

  1968

  11·0

  20·6

  8·2

  19·4

  7·3

  10·6

  1969

  10·9

  19·9

  8·2

  19·5

  7·3

  11·1

  1970

  10·6

  18·9

  8·8

  19·8

  7·1

  11·7

  1971

  10·8

  17·1

  8·9

  20·1

  7·3

  13·0

  1972

  9·9

  16·2

  9·3

  20·3

  7·6

  13·2

  1973

  9·1

  16·1

  9·6

  22·2

  6·8

  12·8

  1974

  8·5

  17·1

  9·2

  21·6

  6·8

  14·4

  1975

  9·0

  18·1

  10·1

  20·3

  7·4

  13·5

  1976

  8·4

  17·5

  9·6

  20·6

  7·1

  14·6

  1977

  8·9

  16·0

  9·8

  20·8

  7·6

  15·5

  1978

  8·9

  15·7

  9·8

  20·7

  7·9

  15·6

  1979

  9·1

  16·2

  10·5

  20·8

  8·3

  13·7

  1980

  9·6

  17·2

  10·0

  19·9

  7·8

  14·8

  1981

  8·5

  18·8

  9·2

  18·4

  7·7

  17·9

  1982

  8·4

  18·0

  9·0

  19·6

  7·9

  17·3

  1983

  7·9

  17·2

  8·9

  19·0

  8·1

  18·4

  1984

  7·5

  17·4

  8·6

  18·1

  7·7

  20·0

  1985

  7·8

  16·8

  8·5

  18·6

  7·8

  19·7

  1986

  7·6

  14·2

  8·8

  20·7

  8·2

  19·4

  1987

  8·1

  14·0

  9·0

  21·4

  8·4

  18·0

  1988

  8·3

  15·1

  8·8

  20·6

  8·1

  18·0

  1989

  8·2

  16·!

  8·8

  20·4

  8·4

  17·5

  1990

  8·6

  15·8

  9·7

  20·6

  8·6

  15·8

  1991

  8·5

  17·0

  9·6

  19·6

  8·4

  16·9

  1 Share of the value of exports measured in US dollars.

  2 United Kingdom, USA, Germany, France Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Belgium/Luxembourg, Switzerland, Sweden, Canada.

  3 Includes eastern Germany from 1990.

  Sources: United Nations and national sources.

  Share Options
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to require company directors to give information about share options in the directors' report.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A director is required to disclose certain information concerning share options to the company, and this must be entered in the company's register of directors' interests, which is open to public inspection. Certain information regarding options must also be disclosed in either the directors' report or the notes to the accounts. Moreover, a director is not permitted to
  440
  France, Italy and Japan the change in relative export values for manufactures each year since 1962, on the basis of the second half of 1973 = 100, together with the change in share of exports of manufactures.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested for relative export values is not available on a consistent basis before 1975. The available information is published in table F8 of the CSO publication "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", which is available from the House of Commons Library. Data for changes in the shares of exports of manufactured goods are given in the table.

  buy options in shares in a listed company. I am aware that disclosure generally is under discussion as part of the public debate on corporate governance.

  Financial Reporting Council
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received in favour of the transfer of the Auditing Practices Board to the Financial Reporting Council.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have received no such representations.

  Auditing Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will provide a list showing the names of the auditing firms that have been criticised five or more times in his Department's inspectors' reports published since 1988.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Since 1988 there have been five published reports of inspectors appointed under the Companies Act containing criticism of constituent firms of what is now Ernst and Young, chartered accountants.

  Polly Peck
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will dismiss the Polly Peck administrators.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The power of appointment and removal of an administrator rests with the court, not with the President of the Board of Trade.

  Firework Safety
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what effect the single European market will have on firework safety in the United Kingdom; and if he will make it his policy to ensure that any European standard is at least as high as the existing British Standard (BS 7114) on firework safety.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: The single European market should not have an immediate direct effect on fireworks safety in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom delegation on the CEN technical committee will continue to try to ensure that any European standard for fireworks matches the high standards of safety in the United Kingdom; work on producing such a standard is some years away from completion.

  First Stop Shops
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on how his proposed first stop shops to support local businesses in Suffolk and Norfolk will be implemented; and how overlap with existing agencies will be avoided.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: Following extensive consultation, my Department will be issuing a prospectus inviting bids to operate up to 15 pilot one-stop shops in England. The bids will be drawn together by the training and enterprise councils and a key criterion for success will be that the bids clearly demonstrate an active partnership between all the relevant local business support agencies. Following the evaluation of the pilot operating a national network will be established.

  Coal Subsidies
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of those subsidies which have been made to the mining operations of British Coal in each of the last eight quarter year periods for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: Figures for financial assistance to British Coal by quarter are not
  442
  readily available. Government grants paid to British Coal in the last two financial years, 1991–92 and 1990–91, were £709 million and £1,822 million respectively. In addition, British Coal benefited by about £1 billion in both years from the high margins, over and above world market prices, that the electricity generators are obliged to pay for their coal supplies from the corporation under present contracts.

  Animal Testing
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy that the use of animals in skin and eye irritant testing of cosmetic materials will he ended during or before 1998.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 4 November 1992]: In March we called on the European Community to set 1998 as a target date for the replacement of animal tests for skin and eye irritancy, subject to there being validated non-animal alternatives.

  Estate Agency Fees
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will investigate the attempt to form a cartel to control the fee structure of estate agency business in part or parts of scotland by Slater Hogg and Howison, Ron Slater Estate Agents Ltd. and Royal Life Estates.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 November 1992]: Any attempt to control the fee structure of estate agency business in any part of the United Kingdom is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Bryan Carsberg, to consider. Any evidence of possible anti-competitive agreements should he submitted to Sir Bryan.

  Point of Ayr Colliery
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the socio-economic consequences of the closure of Point of Ayr colliery, north Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have been asked to reply. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a review of the proposed closure of 21 pits is under way and a moratorium has been announced on these proposals while the review takes place. My Department is in discussions with the North East Wales TEC, the Welsh Development Agency and local authorities on measures to promote economic diversification and employment opportunities in the area.

HEALTH

  Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93, for each executive agency for which she is responsible.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the National Health Service Estates agency under its chief executive, Mr. John Locke, and to the Medicines Control Agency under its chief executive, Dr. Keith Jones. I have asked them to reply to the hon. Member.
  443
  Letter from K. Jones to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 November 1992:
  The Secretary of State for Health will have advised that your recent Parliamentary Question would be answered directly by the Chief Executives of the Agencies concerned. I have set out below the response for the Medicines Control Agency.
  Numbers of staff, by grade, are as follows:

  Grade

  1991–921

  1992–932

  Unified Grade 3

  1

  1

  Unified Grade 4

  5

  5

  Unified Grade 5

  23

  26

  Unified Grade 6

  13

  13

  Unified Grade 7

  51

  53

  Senior Executive Officer/Pharmaceutical Officer I/Senior Scientific Officer

  32

  33

  Higher Executive Officer/Pharmaceutical Officer II/Higher Professional and Technical Officer/Higher Scientific Officer

  29

  29

  Executive Officer/Scientific Officer

  40

  42

  Administrative Officer/Assistant Scientific Officer

  37

  40

  Administrative Assistant

  65

  67

  Senior Personal Secretary

  6

  6

  Personal Secretary

  32

  33

  Typist/Support Grade Band I

  2

  2

  Support Grade Band II

  4

  4

  Totals

  340

  354

  Total costs3are as follows:

  (£000)

  (£000)

  Salaries, National Insurance, and Superannuation:

  9,039

  9,750

  1 Average number of permanent staff during 1991–92, as shown in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts, plus temporary and contract staff. Numbers by grade have been adjusted to take account of fluctuations during the year.

  2 Estimated numbers and costs.

  3 Cost of permanent and temporary staff as shown in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts.

  I regret it is not possible to show costs by grade, as staff budgeting in the MCA is based on functional businesses.

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

  Letter from J. Locke to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 November 1992:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Health to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question (No. 1515) regarding Agency staff. Please find attached the number and cost for each grade as recorded in the 1991–92 Annual Report and estimates for 1992–93. The salaries disclosed do not include Employer's National Insurance Contributions or Superannuation.
  On the 1 April 1992, the Agency absorbed the Works Information Management System Centre of Responsibility from the North East Thames Regional Health Authority, including their 12 posts.
  In April 1993 the Agency will be relocating to Leeds in West Yorkshire. A proportion of London based staff will not be relocating, and the 1992–93 estimate includes the additional cost of advance recruitment.

  National Health Service Estates Agency

  Cost and number of personnel by grade

  Grade

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Actual

  Estimated

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  31

  1·0

  55,000

  1·0

  64,025

  5

  6·0

  259,827

  5·0

  228,431

  6

  16·8

  572,207

  17·5

  627,710

  NO

  1·0

  35,281

  1·0

  37,221

  7

  42·5

  1,391,727

  41·0

  1,417,785

  444

  Grade

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Actual

  Estimated

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  SPTO

  8·7

  258,236

  15·0

  471,348

  SIO

  0·0

  0

  1·0

  21,814

  HPTO

  3·0

  66,062

  8·0

  185,855

  PTO

  3·5

  62,998

  3·0

  56,968

  SEO

  0·5

  9,846

  2·0

  41,550

  HEO

  11·9

  247,056

  14·0

  306,126

  IO

  0·0

  0

  2·0

  35,014

  EO

  13·5

  213,353

  15·0

  250,098

  SPES

  3·0

  58,960

  0·0

  0

  PES

  7·8

  121,220

  8·0

  130,664

  AO

  7·0

  115,033

  8·0

  138,302

  AA2

  2·3

  45,577

  3·0

  61,910

  TYP

  0·0

  0

  2·0

  32,666

  128·6

  3,512,384

  146·5

  4,107,488

  1 The Estimated Salary for 1992–93 includes a bonus payment relating to 1991–92.

  2 Cost includes casual employees not included in staff numbers.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what percentage of incidents the London ambulance service failed to meet its call-out time standards in each month of the current year to date; and what were the figures for the equivalent months in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Monthly details of the response times of ambulance services are not collected centrally. The available information is in the table.

  Summary of response times of the London Ambulance Service— 1987–88 to 1991–92

  Total emergency calls

  Percentage where response time within performance standard 1

  Percentage where response time within performance standard 2

  1987–88

  470,348

  21

  85

  1988–89

  451,150

  18

  83

  1989–90

  231,294

  14

  79

  1990–91

  456,659

  11

  74

  1991–92

  472,310

  15

  64

  Performance standard 1:50 per cent. of ambulances to respond within seven minutes up to 1990–91 and eight minutes in 1991–92.

  Performance standard 2:95 per cent. of ambulances to respond within 14 minutes.

  (i) The number of calls received in 1989–90 are low due to the ambulance dispute which took place during that year.

  (ii) 1991–92 figures are provisional.

  The response time of an ambulance is the time taken from an emergency call being received, to the arrival of a fully equipped vehicle at the patient's location.

  These figures are likely to underestimate the performance of the LAS because percentages relate to the total number of calls and not all calls result in a response.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been received(a) by her Department and (b) by the London ambulance service in each month of the current year to date about delays or failures by the London ambulance service in responding to (i) emergency and (ii) other calls; and how many of these have involved incidents in which patients have died between the time at which the call was logged and the time at which the patient was delivered to hospital.
  445
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints she has had from the public about the condition of the London ambulance service since the introduction of the computerised system.

  Mr. Sackville
  There has been widespread concern and a large number of complaints have been made about the emergency services of the London ambulance service.

  My right hon. Friend announced to the House, on 28 October, an external inquiry into the operation of the computer-aided dispatch system and the circumstances surrounding its failure on 26 and 27 October. My right hon. Friend has today announced further details of the terms of reference and composition of the inquiry which will also enquire into the further failure of the system on 4 November.

  Every allegation that a patient died as a result of the computer failure will be investigated by the acting chief executive of the London ambulance service.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent meetings she has held with the director of the London ambulance service; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Sackville
  The South West Thames regional health authority is responsible for the London ambulance service. My right hon. Friend met Professor Marian Hicks, chairman of South West Thames regional health authority, members of the South West Thames regional health authority management team and Mr. James Harris, chairman of the London ambulance service on 16 October 1992. There was a full discussion about the reasons for the unsatisfactory performance of the London ambulance service in responding to emergency calls.

  My right hon. Friend had a further meeting with the regional general manager of SW Thames RHA and the acting chief executive of the London ambulance service on 3 November.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what internal audit has been done of the purchase and efficiency of the London ambulance service computer.

  Mr. Sackville
  The purchase of the computer-aided dispatch system by the London ambulance service was subject to the South West Thames regional health authority standing orders and standing financial instructions. The RHA is satisfied that these were complied with.

  The development of the system was managed by a project board in line with the PRINCE project management methodology. During the development phase the component parts were tested on dummy data.

  The system would ordinarily have been subject to a post implementation review but due to the problems experienced following full implementation, the London ambulance service reverted to a part manual system. Following a further failure on 4 November the London ambulance service had now reverted to a full manual system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the House on 28 October, that there will be an external inquiry into the operation of the computer-aided dispatch system. Further details of the terms of reference and composition of the inquiry were announced today.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many different ambulance controls systems 446
  have been installed at the headquarters of the London ambulance service over the past 15 years; what was their cost; and what were the reasons for their abandonment.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am advised that an ambulance control system was originally commissioned at a cost of £1·8 million by South West Thames regional health authority which was responsible for the management of the London ambulance service. When the London ambulance service board was established, in August 1990, the system was found to be inoperable. The new board tendered for a new computer based system in the same year and this has been phased in over the last six months, at a capital cost of about £1·5 million. Following the failure of this system on 26 and 27 October and 4 November a decision was made to revert to manual control. The reasons for the failure are being investigated.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current condition of the London ambulance service computer; and how many times it has broken down since installation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system failed on 26 and 27 October. On 4 November the system was malfunctioning and management at the London ambulance service decided to revert to a fully manual system. The computerised system will not he brought back into use until the problems have been solved. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced today details of the external inquiry set up by the South West Thames regional health authority into these failures.

  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of the external inquiry into the London ambulance service which she announced on 28 October.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today agreed the terms of reference and composition of the independent inquiry which the South West Thames regional health authority has set up on the London ambulance service. The inquiry's terms of reference are:"To examine the operation of the computer-aided dispatch system, including:
  the circumstances surrounding its failures on Monday and Tuesday 26 and 27 October and Wednesday 4 November
  the process of its procurement
  and to identify the lessons to be learned for the operation and management of the London Ambulance Service against the imperatives of delivering the service at the required standard, demonstrating good working relationships and restoring public confidence."

  The inquiry will be led by Mr. Don Page, chief executive of the South Yorkshire ambulance service. Other members of the inquiry will be Mr. Paul Williams, a specialist in computer systems from BDO Binder Hamlyn Chartered Accountants, and Mr. Dennis Boyd, formerly chief conciliation officer of the Arbitration, Conciliation Advisory Service (ACAS).

  The inquiry has been asked to report to the South West Thames RHA by February 1993 at the latest and to highlight any action, where necessary, for the chief executive of the London ambulance service. The report will be published. The chairman of the RHA will report to me on its outcomes, and will keep me informed of progress in improving service performance during the inquiry period and beyond.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the comparative influences of(a) price, (b) parental smoking and (c) tobacco advertising bans on smoking habits.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is difficult to estimate the comparative influences of the different factors on smoking habits. The influence of each factor taken alone can be summarised as follows:

  (a) increases in price have been shown to decrease consumption, though by a proportionately smaller amount. For example, a 10 per cent. increase in price will lead to a 3 per cent. to 6 per cent. decrease in consumption;

  (b) children whose parents both smoke are two and a half times more likely to smoke than children whose parents do not smoke;

  (c) the Department of Health discussion document, titled "Effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption",

  Per cent.

  Country

  Final year of data before ban

  Smoking level in relevant country in that year

  Present level in relevant country

  Consumption reduction associated with ban

  United Kingdom prevalence in year of ban

  Norway

  1975

  43

  34

  9

  45 (1974)

  Finland

  1977

  29

  (1985) 26

  7

  42 (1976)

  Canada

  1989

  1

  32

  4

  32 (1988)

  New Zealand

  1990

  28

  26

  5·6

  30 (1990)

  1 Indicates that a prevalence figure is not available.

  It is unclear whether the effect of a tobacco advertising ban in these countries would be replicated in the United Kingdom, given the fall in smoking in the United Kingdom from 45 per cent. of the population in 1974 to 30 per cent. in 1990 and the existing controls on tobacco advertising through the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising and promotion.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the contribution of the major factors in the reduction of smoking in the past 20 years in this country and in other countries since the introduction of a ban on advertising.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is difficult to estimate the contribution of the major factors in reducing smoking in this country. Perhaps the most important factor has been the increasing social unacceptability of smoking, with increased awareness of the health risks of smoking and passive smoking. It is also difficult to estimate the contribution of various factors in other countries. The Department of Health report, titled "Effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption", reviews the evidence on the effect of advertising bans in other countries.

  Tinnitus
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been allocated for research into the cause and treatment of tinnitus in each of the past three years in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is not possible to identify centrally funds allocated for research into the treatment of tinnitus.

  The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research in the United Kingdom is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which
  448
  looks at the effect of tobacco advertising bans. It was published on 28 October and comments have been invited on it over the next three months.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list for each study examined by her Department of the effect of advertising on tobacco consumption the final year of data, the level of participation in smoking in that year, the present level and the estimated reduction associated with a ban; and what conclusions she has drawn on the effect if these results were replicated in the United Kingdom in the same years;

  (2) if she will list the information available to her of the year and the level of smoking when an advertising ban was introduced and the levels of smoking in this country in each of those years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The figures for those countries studied in the Department of Health discussion document "Effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption" are as follows:

  receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology under the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  In 1991–92, the latest year for which figures are available, the MRC spent £129,000 on research into tinnitus. The council also supports a substantial volume of basic research into hearing which may have relevance to the understanding and treatment of this condition.

  Influenza
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring her Department is undertaking as to the effectiveness of family health authorities, general medical practitioners, regional medical officers and district medical officers in implementing the advice of the Chief Medical Officer of 21 September on the immunisation of groups at risk from influenza; and if she will make a statement as to the results.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department monitors the national uptake of influenza vaccine each year. In addition, the public health laboratory service's communicable disease surveillance centre monitors laboratory reports of influenza—and other respiratory tract infections—and provides regular information for health authorities through its communicable disease review. It is for directors of public health to decide what data to collect locally in assessing health care needs, including protection against influenza. Steps have been taken in the past two years to ensure that both doctors and patients are aware of the benefits of influenza immunisation for those patients who are at increased risk of complications should they develop influenza. This includes the production of guidance leaflets for general practitioners, revised guidance in the 1992 edition of "Immunisation against Infectious Disease" and a patient information poster for GPs' surgeries.

  Hydatid Disease
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current incidence of hydatid disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  Interim figures from the public health laboratory service indicate an average of five cases a year presumed to he acquired in England and Wales for the last three years—1988 to 1990—of its current survey into hydatid disease. This figure may be subject to amendment by the time the survey is completed at the end of this year. The final results of the survey will be published.

  Health Services, Coventry
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of people each year having NHS eye tests in the Coventry health authority area in each year since 1987.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Figures are not collected in respect of district health authorities. The numbers of national health service sight tests paid for in each financial year by the Coventry family health services authority are shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of sight tests

  1987–88

  75,470

  1988–89

  86,610

  11989–90

  31,500

  1990–91

  28,200

  1991–92

  36,440

  1 From April 1989, national health service sight tests were restricted to certain groups in the population. The sight tests paid for in 1989–90 include some carried out prior to that date. The remainder paid for in 1989–90 do not represent a full year under the new system, because of the delay in payments. The figure for 1989–90 is not, therefore, directly comparable with 1990–91.

  Health Care, London
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will formally consult on the establishment of a new St. Thomas's and Guy's national health service trust; and when she expects to announce her decision on whether to grant the new hospital trust status.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Consultation on Sir Bernard Tomlinson's recommendation that the St. Thomas's and Guy's and Lewisham national health service trusts should be dissolved, and a new St. Thomas's and Guy's national health service trust, and a Lewisham national health service trust established will be managed by South East Thames regional health authority and should begin shortly. It will last for three months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce her decision only when that consultation is completed.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the members of the implementation group for Tomlinson on the future of London's health care; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The chairman of the London implementation group will be Mr. Tim Chessells. I shall announce the other members in due course.

  Deaths (Unemployed)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department has on the number of unemployed people who(a) committed suicide, (b) died prematurely or (c) suffered clinical depression in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Family Breakdown
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will outline her policy on the prevention of family breakdown.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department's view is that the family is the best place for a child to be brought up. This is reflected in the provisions of the Children Act 1989 which, among other requirements, gives local authorities the duty to provide such services for children in need to enable them to be brought up by their family, wherever possible.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of hospitals in the north-west of England are, or have applied to be, self-governing trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Fifty-three per cent. of hospital and community service revenue allocated to North Western regional health authority is currently spent in national health service trusts, or units which have applied to be trusts. From April 1993 there will be eight NHS trusts in the region which provide acute hospital services. The proportion this represents depends on the management configuration of the remaining units, but it is likely that the vast majority will apply to become operational trusts from April 1994.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what forecasts she has made for the future ratio in the number of self-governing national health service trust hospitals to district health authority hospitals; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is for local managers and clinicians to decide whether to seek NHS trust status, but we anticipate that all providers of NHS services—hospitals, community units and ambulance services—will become NHS trusts. From next April the proportion of hospital and community services revenue spent in NHS trusts will be 63 per cent. or more, depending on the decisions on outstanding third wave trust applications and deferred London teaching hospital trusts. We expect the vast majority of the remaining directly managed units to apply to become NHS trusts in April 1994.

  Kidney Dialysis
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) males and (b) females (i) under and (ii) over the age of 55 years per million of the population, were accepted for kidney dialysis treatment in England in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not collected centrally in the form requested. The number of new patients accepted for dialysis was 3,491—60.7 per million population—in 1990 and 3,430—59.7 pmp—in 1991.
  451
  No national health service patient is barred from treatment on the grounds of age. Whether any patient should receive a particular form of treatment is a matter for clinical decision by the doctor in charge of the patient.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional revenue would be raised in the financial year 1993–94 by an increase in prescription charges of(a) 1 per cent., (b) 5 per cent., (c) 10 per cent. and (d) 15 per cent.; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The requested information is in the table.

  Estimated additional revenue in 1993–94 from prescription charge set at 1 per cent., 5 per cent., 10 per cent., and 15 per cent. higher than current charge

  Percentage increase in prescription charge

  Prescription charge (£)

  Increased revenue (£ million)

  1

  3·79

  2

  5

  3·94

  9

  10

  4·13

  18

  15

  4·31

  26

  Regional Health Authorities (Property)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much, at current prices, was raised from the disposal of property in each regional health authority covering London in each year since 1990; what is the current projection of funds to be raised by such disposals in 1993–94; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table:

  £ million

  RHA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  11993–94

  North West Thames

  22

  33

  25

  50

  North East Thames

  16

  22

  21

  8

  South East Thames

  9

  11

  20

  25

  South West Thames

  17

  20

  10–15

  10

  1RHA projection.

  All money realised from the sale of surplus NHS property is used for the benefit of patients.

  Halcion
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the members of the Medicines Commission which dealt with the appeal against the ban on Halcion.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The appeal was heard by the Medicines Commission on 15 May 1992. The following members were present:

  Professor Dame Rosalinde Hurley, DBE, LLB, MD DUniv (Surrey), FRCPath (Chairman). Professor of Microbiology, Royal Postgraduate Medical School's Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of London.

  Professor I. D. Aitken, PhD, BVMS, MRCVS. Director of Animal Diseases Research Association, Moredun Research Institute, Edinburgh.

  M. J. S. Butler Esq, BSc (Econ). Lecturer in Politics and

  452

  Pubic Administration, University of Kent, Former Chairman of Canterbury and Thanet CHC and Former Chairman of Association of CHC's for England and Wales.

  Dr. M. G. Carter, MB ChB BPharm, DipPharmMed, FRPharmS, MCPP, FFPM, Director, ICI Pharmaceuticals.

  Professor J. G. Collee, CBE, MD, FRCPath, FRCP(E). Emeritus Professor of Medical Microbiology, University of Edinburgh.

  Professor A. D. Dayan, DM, FRCP, FRCPath, FIBiol, FFPM. Professor of Toxicology, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London.

  Dr. Sheila Gore, MA, PhD. Senior Statistician, Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge.

  Miss Joan Greenleaf, OBE, BA, FRPharmS. Former Regional Pharmaceutical Officer, North East Thames RHA.

  B. D. Hoskin, Esq, BVMS, MRCVS. Consultant to Veterinary Pharmaceutical Industry.

  Professor C. N. Hudson, MChir, FRCS, FRCOG, FRACOG. Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London.

  Professor T. M. Jones, BPharm, PhD, FRPharmS, CChem, FRSC, MCPP. Director, Research, Development and Medical, Wellcome Foundation Ltd.

  Professor D. G. McDevitt, MD, DSc, FRCP, FRCPed, FRCPI, FFPM. Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Dundee.

  Dr. P. Pietroni, FRCGP, MRCP, DCH. General Medical Practitioner, London, Senior Lecturer in General Practice, Regent's College, Regent's Park, London.

  Professsor John Rhodes, MD, FRCOP, BSc, ChB. General Physician, University Hospital of Wales.

  Professor P. S. J. Spencer, BPharm, PhD (London) DSc (Wales) CBiol, FIBiol, MCPP, FRPharmS. Professor of Pharmacology and Head of School, Welsh School of Pharmacy, University of Wales, Cardiff.

  Professor D. W. Vere, MD, FRCP, FFPM (Hon). Professor of Therapeutics, University of London.

  H. Cowan Wilson Esq, BVMS, FRCVS. General Veterinary Practitioner, Fife.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the members of the committee dealing with the current appeal against the ban on Halcion.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The members are:

  Ms. Diana Cotton QC, Barrister (Chairman).

  Professor J. A. Edwardson, Director of the MRC, Neurological and Pathology Unit, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

  Ms. Ann Foster, Director of the Scottish Consumer Council.

  Professor David Marsden, Professor of Neurology at London University.

  Professor Charles George, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology at Southampton University.

  Lancashire Ambulance Authority
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the emergency response times for the Lancashire ambulance authority for each year since 1986 showing the percentage answered within eight minutes and within 20 minutes.
  453
  Mr. Sackville
  Information on response times has only been collected centrally since 1987–88.

  The available figures are shown in the table:

  Year

  Total emergency calls

  Percentage where response within 8 minutes

  Percentage where response within 20 minutes

  1987–88

  70,509

  70·7

  99·1

  1988–89

  70,561

  71·2

  99·2

  1989–90

  35,630

  70·9

  99·1

  1990–91

  73,640

  67·1

  98·9

  1991–921

  71,414

  67·3

  98·9

  1 Provisional figures.

  National Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was being spent on average on the national health service per week for each family in 1979 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Sackville
  Total spending on the health service in the United Kingdom per week, for a family of four persons, was £11·05 in 1978–79—£31·28 at 1992–93 prices. Total spending in 1992–93 is planned to be £47·56, a real terms increase of 52 per cent.

  Mental Handicap
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish for each district health authority for the current financial year(a) the planned capital and revenue expenditure on mental handicap—learning disabilities—services and (b) the value of assets relevant to mental handicap—learning disabilities—services listed in capital asset registers.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not held centrally.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Housing
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to extend compulsory competitive tendering to the management of council housing.

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to offer financial incentives to local authorities that encourage tenant participation in planning, management and service delivery of housing provisions.

  Mr. Baldry
  The extent and effectiveness with which local authorities encourage appropriate tenant participation is taken into account in housing investment programme (HIP) allocations. The best authorities already deploy significant resources to encourage greater tenant participation, and the HIP process will offer clear incentives to others to follow their lead. My Department also makes grants in support of tenant management under section 16 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986.

  Housing Allocations
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue to local authorities guidelines on equal opportunities and anti-discrimination within housing allocation policies and homelessness service provision.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department issued to local authorities in August last year a revised code of guidance on the homelessness legislation. On 30 January 1991 the Commission for Racial Equality, with the Secretary of State's backing, issued a code of practice giving practical guidance on eliminating racial discrimination and promoting equal opportunities in the field of rented housing.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish details of the 1991 house condition survey at an early date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The results of the 1991 English house condition survey will be published as soon as the analysis of the data is completed.

  Staffordshire County Council
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet a delegation from Staffordshire county council to discuss the forthcoming standard spending assessment settlement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We would be pleased to receive a delegation as soon as proposals for the 1993–94 revenue support grant settlement have been announced.

  Local Housing Companies
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to permit local authorities to set up local housing companies to stimulate new investment.

  Mr. Baldry
  Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which sets out the statutory framework for local authority interests in companies, will be brought into force shortly. Any housing companies set up by local authorities would have to operate within this framework.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review current arrangements for the administration of the housing association grant and the monitoring of financial and service delivery performances by housing associations.

  Mr. Baldry
  These matters are the statutory responsibility of the Housing Corporation, in respect of housing associations registered in England, and Housing for Wales—Tai Cymru—in respect of associations registered in Wales.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue guidelines to housing associations in Wales on tenant participation within housing association management committees.
  455
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have been asked to reply. Housing for Wales is on course to issue guidelines to housing associations in Wales during this financial year.

  Intentionality
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek the repeal of the intentionality clause in the Housing Act 1985.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have no immediate plans for further legislative change, although the operation of the homelessness legislation is monitored closely.

  Mortgage Debts
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to provide funding for local authorities and housing associations to enable them to take on mortgage debts.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend section III of the Housing Act 1985 to cover all homeless people.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have no immediate plans for further legislative change, although the operation of the homelessness legislation is monitored closely.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants' organisations and individual tenants have responded to the consultation paper, "Competing for Quality in Housing"; and how many of these were in favour of compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr. Baldry
  A total of 104 tenants' organisations and six individual tenants have responded to the Government's consultation paper, "Competing for Quality in Housing". A wide range of views were expressed on various aspects of the Government's proposals, including a substantial body of opinion that competitive tendering would lead to an improvement in standards.

  Private Rented Housing
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will introduce a new improvement grants system for landlords in the private rented sector;

  (2) if he will introduce a new improvement grants system for landlords in the private rental sector.

  Mr. Baldry
  No, but we continue to keep the grant system, including provisions relating to private landlords, under review.

  Housing Needs
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the localised housing needs assessment research initiative currently carried out in England; and how much funding is provided by his Department to each initiative.
  456
  Mr. Baldry
  Information about local housing needs assessments is not held centrally; funding is a matter for individual local authorities.

  Subsidised Housing
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average subsidy from central and local government expenditure, including housing benefit for(a) council tenants, (b) housing association tenants and (c) private sector tenants, for the last period for which records are available.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is as follows:

  Council tenants: £970 in 1990–91, comprising rent rebates and the housing element in housing revenue account subsidy.

  Housing association tenants: £550 in 1990 (estimate from a sample survey; rent allowances only).

  Private sector tenants: £320 in 1990 (estimate from sample survey: rent allowances arranged over all rent-paying tenants).

  Building Research Establishment
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish key performance targets for the Building Research Establishment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Building Research Establishment has been an executive agency since 2 April 1990. The following key targets have been set for 1992–93:

  —£19,000 net contribution to the Exchequer

  —income to cover full economic costs on a trading basis

  —non-Exchequer component to be 9·4 per cent. of total net income from research commissions

  —a new unit cost ratio for research and technical consultancy commissions to be applied. (The ratio is a measure of the agency's overhead costs.)

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

  Aid Target
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the 0·7 per cent. gross national product target level for overseas aid to developing countries to be reached by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have not set down a timetable for reaching the 0·7 per cent. target. Progress towards the target will depend upon our economic circumstances and on other priorities for public expenditure.

  Aid Funds
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy, when allocating aid funds for eastern Europe, that resources will not be diverted from development projects in sub-Saharan Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 5 November 1992]: The provision of economic assistance to central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union has not been at the expense of aid to developing countries. Future allocations of resources will be made in the light of the outcome of the public expenditure survey which cannot be anticipated.
  457
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that emergency aid should not affect long-term development projects.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 5 November 1992]: We provide emergency aid in response to specific humanitarian requirements, with the objective of minimising loss of life. This funding is provided separately from that for long-term development projects, although these sometimes help reduce the damage caused by natural disasters.

  Timber
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect on the work of the Overseas Development Administration on the phasing out of the use of timber from unsustainable sources.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The most effective way of ensuring that timber comes from sustainable sources is to promote and support the sustainable management of forests. This is a central objective of many ODA-supported forestry projects. Individual projects are monitored to assess their performance against objectives. We are also supporting the International Tropical Timber Organisation, which promotes sustainable forest management with the objective of the production of internationally traded timber being from sustainable sources by the year 2000.

  Development Budget
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate what percentage of the overseas development budget is spent in(a) each of the EC nations' currencies and (b) United States dollars; and if he will make a statement on the impact on his Department's budget of the change in the value of the pound sterling in relation to those currencies.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  About 0·04 per cent. of the gross external assistance programme is spent in other EC nations' currencies and about 3·6 per cent. in United States dollars. Given that exchange rates move up as well as down during the course of a year, it is not possible to say what impact recent changes in the value of sterling will have.

  Angola
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the renewed fighting in Angola and on the steps he is able to take to help the international community to arrange a ceasefire.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We deplore the renewal of violence in Angola and fully support the efforts of the United Nations special representative there to consolidate the ceasefire arranged by the United Nations Secretary-General on the night of 1 November. We continue to work actively to this end in the United Nations and with EC partners and, in Angola, through our ambassador in Luanda.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 October,Official Report, column 320, what percentages of the United Kingdom and EC food for Somalia have come from EC food surpluses; and what commodities have been sent.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 5 November 1992]: A list of the commodities provided under United Kingdom food aid to Somalia was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 29 October—columns 799–800. Information on commodities provided as EC food aid was contained in the letter sent to the hon. Member by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 22 September, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Much of the food aid is provided through grants to NGO's, including the International Committee for the Red Cross, which are themselves responsible for the purchase from the most appropriate source, whether in the EC or elsewhere. The type of food provided for Somalia has not been determined by the availability of particular commodities in surplus in the EC, but rather by the requirements of those affected by the famine. The source of purchase is equally determined by timing, availability of food and transport, and price, rather than by the need to reduce EC surpluses.

  No part of United Kingdom food aid for Somalia has come from EC intervention stocks. As to the percentage of EC food aid provided to Somalia from intervention, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when we receive the information which we have requested from the European Commission, but I would not expect it to be a large proportion.

  Zaire
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what representations have been made to the Government of Zaire on the question of human rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding reply 5 November 1992]: The European Community and its member states made a joint statement on 10 September noting with satisfaction the election of Prime Minister Tshisekedi by the national conference and the acceptance of his Government by both the conference and the president. This represents a further step towards democracy in Zaire and we wish the Government success in working towards creating a climate which will allow peaceful progress towards free and fair elections and social and economic recovery.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information for each executive agency of the Department is shown in the tables.
  459

  1991–92 Staff numbers and costs

  Grade

  Benefit agency

  Contribution agency

  ITSA1

  Resettlement agency

  UG1–62

  236

  7

  24

  1

  UG7

  304

  17

  91

  4

  SEO

  701

  78

  301

  7

  HEO

  3,530

  356

  764

  30

  LO1/EO

  16,545

  2,356

  1,320

  68

  LO11/AO

  29,749

  3,408

  840

  104

  AA

  8,803

  1,388

  302

  9

  Secretarial support

  3,870

  60

  204

  212

  Professional

  19

  0

  0

  0

  Industrials/Others

  100

  0

  1

  84

  Total

  63,857

  7,670

  3,847

  519

  Costs £ million

  875·547

  108·824

  76·763

  10·388

  1992–93 Estimated staff numbers and costs

  Grade

  Benefit agency

  Contribution agency

  ITSA1

  Resettlement agency

  UG1–62

  300

  10

  30

  1

  UG7

  271

  21

  107

  4

  SEO

  655

  98

  312

  9

  HEO

  3,227

  420

  874

  26

  LO1/EO

  15,936

  2,438

  1,393

  60

  LO11/AO

  31,199

  3,846

  934

  83

  AA

  8,738

  1,792

  230

  7

  Secretarial/Support

  3,719

  102

  209

  183

  Professional

  19

  0

  0

  0

  Industrials/Others

  147

  18

  2

  80

  Total

  64,211

  8,745

  4,091

  453

  Costs £ million

  1,009·505

  131·036

  84·597

  9·173

  1 ITSA—denotes Information Technology Services Agency.

  1 Includes medical staff of equivalent grades.

  Notes:

  1. Staff numbers quoted refer to full time equivalent permanent staff.

  2. Staff numbers for 1991–92 have been calculated by averaging the quarterly staff in post figures.

  3. The increase in the Benefits Agency staff numbers UG1–6, in 1992–93 is mainly due to:

  (a) additional medical staff for the new disability benefits and an increased number of war pension claims: and

  (b) transfer of medical staff from the Department of Health (regional medical service).

  4. Costs relating to overtime, casuals and ERNIC are included.

  Furniture Regulations
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the rules for the social fund to take account of the pending regulations relating to second hand foam furniture in order that those entitled to social funds can meet in full the cost of second hand goods compliant with safety standards.

  Mr. Scott
  No change is required. The amount of awards under the discretionary part of the social fund are not specified in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, or in the Secretary of State's directions or in his guidance to social fund officers. The guidance advises social fund officers to accept an amount requested by an applicant if it is within the broad range of prices that would be considered reasonable for an item of serviceable quality.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to make income support payable by direct credit transfer;
  460
  (2) under what circumstances income support can currently be paid direct into a claimant's bank or building society account; and what guidance is available on such direct payments for (a) Benefits Agency staff and (b) individual claimants.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of Income Support 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 M. Bichard to Mr. Andrew Bowden, dated 5 November 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 Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what plans he has to make Income Support payable by direct credit transfer; under what circumstances Income Support can currently be paid to a bank or building society account; and what guidance is available to both staff and customers.
  The Citizen's Charter committed us to making the facility to have benefit paid by Automated Credit Transfer (ACT) as soon as possible. The Benefits Agency also sees the ACT facility as a means of improving service to its customers. ACT is already available for a range of benefits, including

  461
  Retirement Pensions and Child Benefit. As far as Income Support is concerned the introduction of ACT requires the adaptation of our computer systems, of our claim forms and of our literature. This will take some time, and the introduction of ACT for Income Support is planned for October 1993.
  Currently, payment to a bank or building society can be considered where a customer has real difficulties in getting to a Post Office and has no one to act as an agent or appointee. An appointee is someone who is appointed to act on behalf of a customer who is unable to manage his or her own affairs.
  All Districts have comprehensive written guidance covering arrangements for customers who may have difficulties, for example someone with health or mobility problems who has no 'carer' or regular visitor; these include direct payments where a bank or building society agree to the arrangement. The customer is, however, advised that the bank or building society may charge for the service.
  In such cases, guidance to customers is provided via detailed correspondence. In addition (and generally) notifications and leaflets issued to customers advise them to contact their local Benefits Agency Office if they require further advice, disagree with a decision or have anything else they wish to raise.
  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.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in each parliamentary constituency in Coventry qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of social fund 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 M. Bichard to Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, dated 5 November 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 how many households in each Parliamentary constituency in Coventry qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.
  The four constituencies in Coventry are all covered by the Agency's Coventry District, which consists of two offices, Coventry East and Coventry West. The boundaries of the constituencies do not correspond with those of the Agency's offices and it is not possible to give a figure for each constituency except at disproportionate cost. However, based on figures for those claiming Income Support in August 1992, it is estimated that 19,700 customers in the Coventry District may qualify for a cold weather payment should the area be triggered.
  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.

  Social fund information—Euston District—October 1991 to September 1992

  Applications

  Grant awards

  Loan offers

  Refusals

  October 1991

  3,177

  183

  1,652

  984

  November 1991

  2,681

  204

  1,346

  1,191

  December 1991

  2,967

  239

  1,393

  1,177

  January 1992

  3,105

  238

  1,343

  1,274

  February 1992

  2,677

  208

  1,177

  1,197

  March 1992

  2,963

  240

  1,138

  1,399

  April 1992

  2,696

  255

  1,035

  1,368

  May 1992

  2,605

  224

  1,029

  1,242

  June 1992

  1,656

  140

  709

  636

  July 1992

  2,786

  152

  1,207

  1,038

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the delay in processing the disability living allowance claim of the Woolwich constituent, national insurance No. LW 263446C about whom the hon. Member for Woolwich wrote to him on 4 September.

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

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. J. Austin-Walker dated 5 November 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 about the nine months delay in processing the Disability Living Allowance claim of the Woolwich constituent, National Insurance No. LW 263446C.
  I should explain that the claim to which you refer has now been considered by an adjudication officer and the decision notified direct to your constituent on 29 October.
  I offer my sincere apologies for the delay in dealing with your constituent's claim. My reply to your letter of 4 September to the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People explains the position in greater detail.
  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.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for social fund payments have been made in the Euston district office in each month of the past year; and how many were(a) granted money, (b) offered a loan and (c) refused.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund 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 Mr. Bichard to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 5 November 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 about Social Fund payments in Euston District.
  Details of applications to the discretionary part of the Fund, grant awards, loan offers and refusals for discretionary payments at Euston District in each month of the past year are in the Annex attached.
  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.
  463

  Applications

  Grant awards

  Loan offers

  Refusals

  August 1992

  2,890

  241

  1,326

  1,184

  Septeber 1992

  2,923

  174

  1,074

  1,125

  September 1992 data is the latest available.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department's new Finsbury Park local office will be opened; and if he will make a statement on the future of the Highgate DSS local office.

  Mr. Burt
  The provision of new, and the future of existing, local DSS offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 5 November 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 about the new Finsbury Park local office and the future of the Highgate office.
  Finsbury Park
  The main work on the new Finsbury Park local office was completed on 23 October 1992. Full completion, following the installation of computer cabling, is expected to be achieved by

  Proportion of pensioner units in receipt of an occupational pension 1988

  Group

  Percentage with an occupational pension (per cent.)

  Mean amount of occupational pension for those in receipt (£ per week)

  Median amount of occupational pension for those in receipt (£ per week)

  Single men aged 65–74

  66

  42·70

  24·90

  Single men aged 75 and over

  160

  147·30

  129·60

  All single men aged 65 and over

  63

  44·80

  26·40

  Single women aged 60–74

  53

  41·90

  25·80

  Single women aged 75 and over

  39

  32·70

  18·40

  All single women aged 60 and over

  46

  38·00

  21·00

  Pensioner couples

  70

  68·00

  33·90

  All pensioner units

  57

  54·10

  27·20

  1 Based upon a sample of less than 100 cases.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based upon data from "Occupational Pension Schemes 1987", a survey by the Government Actuary (HMSO) and the 1988 Family Expenditure Survey. Pension amounts are at 1988 levels.

  2. Pensioner couples are defined as couples in which the husband is over state pension age; pensioner units are defined as pensioner couples or single people over state pension age.

  3. Figures in square brackets are based upon a sample of less than 100 cases.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number and proportion of all pensioners had no income from any source other than from state benefits for each of the last 10 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The table sets out information for the 10 years ending in 1988, the latest year for which information is available.

  Year

  Percentage of pensioners with no income other than slate benefits

  Number of pensioners with no income other than state benefits (Thousands)

  1979

  22

  1,500

  1980

  22

  n/a

  1981

  21

  1,400

  464
  17 November and the intention is to open to the public on 30 November 1992. Until then customers will continue to be served from the existing premises.

  Highgate

  The search for a new building to rehouse the Highgate office continues and our service will, therefore, remain at Archway Tower for the time being.

  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.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the proportion of(a) all pensioners, (b) single male pensioners, (c) single female pensioners, (d) pensioner couples, (e) single women aged 75 years or over and (f) single men aged 75 years or over, who are in receipt of an occupational pension on the basis of the most recent family expenditure survey data available; and for each group, what is the mean and median amount received.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The most recent year for which information is available is 1988. The table sets out the information requested.

  Year

  Percentage of pensioners with no income other than slate benefits

  Number of pensioners with no income other than state benefits (Thousands)

  1982

  20

  n/a

  1983

  18

  1,250

  1984

  21

  1,450

  1985

  17

  1,200

  1986

  19

  1,300

  1987

  16

  1,150

  1988

  16

  1,150

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based upon data from the 1979–1988 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  2. Estimates relate to pensioner units. They are defined as single people over state pension age or couples in which the husband is over state pension age.
  465
  3. Accurate estimates of the number of pensioner units in 1980 and 1982 with no income from sources other than state benefits could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the actual weekly amount received by all pensioners as(a) total social security benefits, (b) occupational pensions and (c) savings income for each of

  The average income of pensioner units by source

  (£ per week, 1988 prices)

  Year

  State Pension/Benefit

  Occupational Pension

  Savings income

  Earnings

  Total gross income

  Tax/NI

  Total net income

  1979

  53·00

  13·90

  9·50

  10·40

  86·80

  7·20

  79·70

  1980

  53·80

  13·80

  10·00

  9·90

  87·50

  6·20

  81·30

  1981

  56·50

  15·10

  12·10

  9·20

  92·90

  7·70

  85·20

  1982

  58·20

  15·50

  10·60

  7·30

  91·50

  7·10

  84·50

  1983

  61·20

  19·00

  14·00

  8·30

  102·50

  9·10

  93·30

  1984

  61·20

  18·20

  12·70

  8·20

  100·40

  8·10

  92·30

  1985

  60·90

  21·00

  14·50

  6·50

  102·90

  9·10

  93·80

  1986

  63·10

  21·70

  15·50

  7·50

  107·80

  9·80

  98·00

  1987

  62·10

  24·40

  21·90

  8·30

  116·70

  11·90

  104·80

  1988

  60·70

  27·70

  20·00

  9·70

  118·10

  11·70

  106·30

  Real increase

  14 per cent.

  99 per cent.

  110 per cent.

  - 6 per cent.

  36 per cent.

  —

  34 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  2. Component incomes by source are rounded to the nearest 10p.

  3. Components may not sum to totals owing to rounding.

  4. Percentage increases are calculated using unrounded figures.

  5. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over state pension age or a couple in which the husband is over stage pension age.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of all pensioners, single pensioners and pensioner couples have total incomes(a) £1, (b) £2, (c) £3, (d) £4 and (e) £5 above income support levels.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the tables. As this question seeks to establish pensioners' incomes in relation to income support levels the criteria for assessing pensioner entitlement to income support have been used, i.e. "pensioners" are taken to be those aged 60 or over, and the average income bands exclude income derived from sources which would not be taken into account for income support—eg. housing benefit or attendance allowance.

  Number of pensioners whose income for IS purposes is within a banded range of their IS levels

  Range

  Singles

  Couples

  Total

  £0–£1

  75,000

  20,000

  95,000

  £1–£2

  65,000

  25,000

  90,000

  £2–£3

  65,000

  20,000

  85,000

  £3–£4

  60,000

  25,000

  85,000

  £4–£5

  80,000

  20,000

  100,000

  Note: Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  Proportion of pensioners whose income for IS purposes is within a banded range of their IS levels.

  Range

  Singles (percentage)

  Couples (percentage)

  Total

  £0–£1

  2

  1

  1

  £1–£2

  1

  1

  1

  £2–£3

  1

  1

  1

  £3–£4

  1

  1

  1

  £4–£5

  2

  1

  1

  466
  the last 10 years; what were the gross and net weekly total figures; and what was the real terms increase over the last 10 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The table sets out information for the 10 years ending in 1988, the latest year for which information is available. Information about average income from earnings is also included as net income must be derived from total gross income.

  Note: Each percentage gives the proportion of the total pensioner caseload for the column. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest percentage point.

  Source: Family Expenditure Surveys 1987–88–89 modelled at 1992–93 prices and benefit levels.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of pensioners receive income support.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 3 November at column 152.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of pensioners entitled to claim income support and housing benefit who do not do so.

  Mr. Burt
  We will publish the latest available estimates for take-up of income-related benefits shortly.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioner households have been dependent on state benefits for at least 75 per cent. of their income in each of the last 10 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The table sets out information for the 10 years ending in 1988, the latest year for which information is available. Data on pensioners' income is not available in household form so it is provided on the basis of pensioner "units".

  Percentage of pensioners dependent on state benefits for 75 per cent, of their income

  Year

  Percentage

  1979

  62

  1980

  61

  1981

  61

  467

  Year

  Percentage

  1982

  59

  1983

  60

  1984

  58

  1985

  58

  1986

  54

  1987

  53

  1988

  53

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based upon data from the 1979–1988 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  2. Estimates relate to pensioner units. They are defined as single people over state pension age or couples in which the husband is over state pension age.

  European Community
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of civil servants in his Department whose main task is work related wholly or mainly to the European Community.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: All staff are expected to be able to deal from time to time with the domestic implications of EC legislation or activities. Other than that there are currently 20.5 staff in the Department whose sole or main task is dealing with work directly generated by the European Community or the United Kingdom's current presidency of the Council of Ministers. In addition a number of staff in the Benefits Agency and Contributions Agency are engaged in the payment of benefits to, and collection of national insurance contributions from, people living abroad, including in the European Community.

WALES

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to paragraphs 67–8 of Cm 2074, if he will publish figures of the percentage of regional selective assistance projects which did not start in each of the years 1989, 1990, 1991 and the first half of 1992; and what was the percentage undershoot on the jobs actually achieved compared with the forecast made at the time of regional selective offer for each of the years 1989, 1990, 1991 and the first half of 1992.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Aggregate information on project start dates is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. As noted in paragraph 66 of Cm 2074, the Welsh Office departmental report contains information on employment actually achieved by projects which are largely completed.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, (1) how many staff posts there are within his Department at the present time; and how many of these posts(a) require the speaking of Welsh to be a prerequisite, (b) consider the speaking of Welsh to be desirable and (c) consider linguistic capacity in neutral terms;

  (2) how many staff are employed in each section of his Department; and how many staff members in each section speak Welsh;
  468
  (3) how many members of staff are currently employed by the Welsh Office on a part-time and full-time basis; how many staff members do not speak the Welsh language; and how many are currently attending Welsh learner courses;

  (4) if he will make it his policy to offer paid time-off work to employees wishing to attend courses to learn Welsh.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There are currently 2,318 permanent staff employed in my Department, of whom 220 are part time. All staff who would like to learn Welsh are strongly encouraged to do so. Training is through courses and the use of distance learning packages. Paid time off and departmental sponsorship are available. The numbers involved are not held centrally. The general staffing requirement is for there to be adequate numbers of Welsh-speaking staff in all areas to meet the needs of clients. There are currently nine specific posts which require a good working knowledge of Welsh.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total publicity budget of his Department for the latest year for which figures are available; how much of the budget has been designated for publicity literature; and, of that proportion, how much has specifically been spent on Welsh language publicity materials.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Publicity expenditure in 1992–93 is planned to be about £2,500,000. No designation for publicity literature is possible as the allocation of funds to different media often takes place only as projects develop.

  Of the £726,890 spent on publicity materials this year, £153,180 was on Welsh only and £404,382 on bilingual material.

  Coal
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, pursuant to his oral reference to the plan for German coal of 21 October,Official Report, columns 526–27, he will place in the Library a copy of the German plan 2005.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A copy of Kohlekonzept 2005 has been placed in the Library of the House today.

  River Dee
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will institute a review of the River Dee fishing byelaws as they impinge upon those River Dee fishermen who fish for fluke, mullet, cockles and shrimps; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will institute an investigation into the connection between the safety of River Dee fishermen in 14 ft boats and the implementation of the fishing byelaws; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the work force in Wales was engaged in manufacturing in(a) 1979 and (b) at the latest date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In June 1979, 30·5 per cent. of employees were employed in manufacturing. In June 1992 the figure was 23·1 per cent.
  469
  The table gives a breakdown of manufacturing employment for these two years with, for comparison, employment figures for energy and water supply industries.

  Employment figures for Wales by industrial division

  June 1979

  June 1992

  1SIC (80) Division

  Employees (thousands)

  Percentage of total employees

  Employees (thousands)

  Percentage of total employees

  Metal manufacture and chemicals

  (2)

  105

  10·2

  44

  4·6

  Metal goods, engineering and vehicles

  (3)

  121

  11·7

  98

  10·3

  Other manufacturing (including Foods)

  (4)

  89

  8·6

  79

  8·3

  Total manufacturing

  (2–4)

  315

  30·5

  220

  23·1

  Energy and water supply (including coal, coke and oil)

  (1)

  62

  6·0

  22

  2·3

  1 Standard Industrial Classification (Revised) 1980.

  Source: Employment Department.

  Maneot Community Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future use of the former Maneot community hospital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The future use of this former hospital will be a matter for the prospective Gofal Cymuned Clwydian community care NHS trust. The trust application included the hospital site as part of the estate which will form the NHS trust. The trust intends to use the former hospital as its administrative headquarters. This proposal was welcomed by the health authority and it is expected that the NHS trust staff will occupy the site by the end of the year.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of pit closures in east Clwyd upon communities; and if he will make a statement.

  Employment figures for Wales by industrial division

  June 1979

  June 1992

  SIC(80)1 Division

  Employees (thousands)

  Percentage of total employees

  Employees (thousands)

  Percentage of total employees

  Wholesale distribution, hotels, catering, repairs and retail distribution

  (6)

  170

  16·5

  183

  19·2

  Transport and communication

  (7)

  58

  5·6

  49

  5·2

  Banking, insurance and finance

  (8)

  44

  4·3

  89

  9·4

  Other services

  (9)

  299

  28·9

  332

  34·9

  Total Services

  (6–9)

  572

  55·4

  653

  68·6

  Source: Employment Department.

  1 Standard Industrial Classification (Revised) 1980.

  Traumatic Brain Injury
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision there is in each county of Wales for patients suffering traumatic brain injury.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally. Health authorities are responsible for assessing and meeting the local needs of their residents guided by the principles and targets of the protocol for investment in health gain on injuries, issued by the Department in June 1992.
  470
  Mr. David Hunt
  As the hon. Gentleman will know, a review of the proposed closure of 21 pits is under way and a moratorium has been announced on these proposals whilst the review takes place. My Department is in discussions with the North East Wales training and enterprise council, the Welsh Development Agency and local authorities on measures to promote economic diversification and employment opportunities in the area.

  Service Industries
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the work force in Wales is engaged in the service industries for 1979 and at the latest date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In June 1979, 55·4 per cent. of employees were employed in the service industries. In June 1992 the figure was 68·6 per cent.

  The table gives a breakdown of employment in the service sector for these two years.

  Investment, Clwyd
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to attract outside investment into Clwyd.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Considerable success continues to be achieved in attracting inward investment to Clwyd, and 47 projects were recorded in 1991–92 promising over 2,300 jobs. A wide range of measures will continue to be taken to build on that success, including the provision of industrial sites and infrastructure, and targeted approaches to companies. A conference on EC research and
  471
  development has been arranged to take place in Clwyd shortly which will help to focus interest in the county from other parts of Europe.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what measures are being taken to tackle the industrial pollution of Welsh rivers;

  (2) what measures are being undertaken to tackle the agricultural pollution of Welsh rivers.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the many initiatives being taken to tackle industrial and agricultural pollution of rivers is contained in the Government's White Paper on the Environment "This Common Inheritance" and in the first and second year reports thereon, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many people were accepted by local authorities in Wales as homeless between(a) January and September 1992 and (b) January and September 1991;

  (2) how many homeless inquiries were made to local authorities in Wales under part III of the Housing Act 1985 between (a) January and September 1992 and (b) January and September 1991.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Homelessness data for the period January to September 1992 are not yet available. Data for January to September 1991 are given in the table:

  Incidence of homelessness, January to September 1991

  Number of inquiries

  Number of persons in households accepted as homeless

  Aberconwy

  137

  85

  Alyn and Deeside

  204

  419

  Arfon

  35

  78

  Blaenau Gwent

  374

  645

  Brecknock

  90

  265

  Cardiff

  2,146

  3,080

  Carmarthen

  62

  147

  Ceredigion

  115

  270

  Colwyn

  52

  127

  Cynon Valley

  474

  899

  Delyn

  876

  530

  Dinefwr

  181

  321

  Dwyfor

  60

  93

  Glyndwr

  33

  65

  Islwyn

  291

  288

  Llanelli

  120

  302

  Lliw Valley

  127

  201

  Meirionnydd

  142

  204

  Merthyr Tydfil

  132

  291

  Monmouth

  196

  317

  Montgomeryshire

  135

  209

  Neath

  400

  487

  Newport

  830

  2,198

  Ogwr

  751

  1,137

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  357

  263

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  115

  199

  Radnorshire

  16

  37

  Rhondda

  111

  271

  Rhuddlan

  114

  145

  Rhymney Valley

  726

  318

  South Pembrokeshire

  74

  159

  Swansea

  1,094

  1,393

  Taff-Ely

  505

  542

  Torfaen

  916

  809

  Vale of Glamorgan

  810

  947

  472

  Number of inquiries

  Number of persons in households accepted as homeless

  Wrexham Maelor

  776

  558

  Ynys Môn

  72

  93

  Wales

  13,649

  18,392

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will issue guidelines to local authorities limiting the use of bed-and-breakfast hostels to house homeless people;

  (2) if he will issue guidelines to local authorities clearly defining their obligations on the treatment of homeless applicants.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  These matters are covered in the "Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities", a revised edition of which was issued by the Department on 15 August 1991.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local authorities in Wales currently operate a 24-hour homelessness service.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Tenants
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local authorities in Wales have approved tenants' relations officers to assist private rented sector tenants.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new lets have been created in the private rented sector in Wales in each year since 1985; and how many such lets have been short term in each of those years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available centrally.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to(a) increase the proportion of housing association grants currently allocated to rural areas and (b) allow a decrease in the borrowing requirements of rural housing associations.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that improvement grants for rural houses in Wales are issued only on the basis of a commitment that the property will stay in local ownership for a predetermined period and that the property is the only and principal home of the applicant.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Home renovation grants are available where the property is the only or main home of the applicant. We have no plans to change these rules.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been recouped from the sale of council houses in Wales in each of the last five years; and how much of this money has been redistributed for social housing provision.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In-year receipts from the sale of council houses are set out in the table. Information on the spending of usable receipts by authorities on social housing provision is not held centrally.

  In-year receipts from the sale of council houses1

  £ million

  1987–88

  69·2

  1988–89

  118·9

  1989–90

  148·0

  1990–91

  76·0

  1991–92

  54·6

  1 Including the repayment of principal on local authority mortgages on council house sales.

  Housing Research
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the localised housing needs assessment research programmes currently operational in Wales; and how much funding is provided by his Department to each programme.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information about these assessments is not held centrally; funding is a matter for individual local authorities.

  Evictions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many private rented sector tenant evictions have occurred in Wales in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available centrally.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to develop an integrated strategy for rented housing in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I look to local housing authorities to develop integrated strategies across all housing tenures.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of homes available in Wales for rent in(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total number of homes available for rent are shown in table 1.3 of "Welsh Housing Statistics No. 12 1992" a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to make funds available to local authorities and housing associations to provide sell-and-stay schemes to low-income home owners living in poor condition houses.
  474
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Our renovation grant system is designed to assist low-income home owners without a change of tenure.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to instruct Tai Cymru to encourage housing associations in Wales to purchase properties from the existing housing stock in addition to encouraging new building.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Housing for Wales already encourages housing associations to purchase from existing stock where it is appropriate and cost effective to do so.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish statutory minimum space and quality standards for housing association housing provision in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for Housing for Wales to decide upon appropriate space and quality standards for housing association provision in Wales.

  Independent Housing Advice
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funding is currently granted by his Department to independent housing advice services in Wales; and what plans he has to increase the level of funding.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Department has allocated £377,877 in grant aid to independent housing advice services in Wales for the 1992–93 financial year.

  In addition, the Department has allocated a total of £556,036 to the Home Improvement Agency initiative in Wales which provides help and advice on home improvements, maintenance and repairs to elderly and disabled home occupiers.

  Applications for future funding will be considered in the light of available resources.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the attributes he regards as essential for candidates for the post of membership of health authorities in Wales;

  (2) what inquiries he made under the procedure specified in paragraph 52 of Questions of Procedure for Ministers before making the appointments to Welsh health authorities announced on 30 October.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Appointments are made on the basis of aptitude and merit. Individual candidates possess a range of attributes and I select those with the most appropriate combination of abilities and experience for each particular post. In doing so, I take account of such matters as expertise in running organisations, previous committee experience, and the extent of other public service work that candidates have undertaken.

  Prior to the introduction of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 there was a statutory obligation to consult various specified organisations about health authority appointments. No such requirement presently exists, and I did not publicly invite nominations. It is however, my continued intention to comply with paragraph 52 and accordingly I welcome any suggestions from the Opposition parties and others as to names of those who might be considered suitable for appointment.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each local education authority in Wales are eligible to apply for grant-maintained status; how many in each case have held ballots under section 61 of the Education Reform Act 1988; how many ballots in each case resulted in votes to seek grant-maintained status, and how many of these have been the subject of section 12 or 13 reorganisation proposals; how many ballots in each case resulted in votes against seeking grant-maintained status and how many of these have been subject to section 12 or 13 notices; and what are the totals in each category.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  All primary and secondary schools in Wales are eligible to apply to become grant-maintained schools. Details of the number per authority can be found in table 1·02 of Welsh Office publication "Statistics of Education in Wales: Schools No. 5, 1991", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  To date, four primary schools and 10 secondary schools have balloted on whether to proceed with an application to the Secretary of State for grant-maintained status. All the primary schools and six of the secondary school ballots resulted in a majority in favour of applying for grant-maintained status. Of these, two of the primary schools and three of the secondary schools were the subject of section 12 or 13 reorganisation proposals. None of the secondary schools where the vote was against applying for grant maintained status was the subject of section 12 or 13 notices.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in how many ballots in Wales under section 61 of the Education Reform Act 1988, where a simple majority of parents voted in favour of seeking grant-maintained status, the proportion of such parents was(a) above 69 per cent., (b) between 60 and 69 per cent., (c) between 50 and 59 per cent., (d) between 40 and 49 per cent., (e) between 30 and 39 per cent. and (f) below 30 per cent. of the number of parents eligible to vote.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  Per cent.

  i.above 69

  2

  ii.between 60 and 69

  3

  iii.between 50 and 59

  3

  iv.between 40 and 49

  1

  v.between 30 and 39

  nil

  vi.below 30

  1

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many ballots, in Wales, on grant-maintained 476
  status have resulted in participation rates (a) above 79 per cent., (b) between 70 and 79 per cent., (c) between 60 and 69 per cent., (d) between 50 and 59 per cent. and (e) below 50 per cent.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  Per cent.

  i. Above 79

  3

  ii. Between 70 and 79

  4

  iii. Between 60 and 69

  5

  iv. Between 50 and 59

  2

  v. Below 50

  Nil

  Mental Handicap
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each district health authority for the current financial year(a) the planned capital and revenue expenditure on mental handicap—learning disabilities—services and (b) the value of assets relevant to mental handicap—learning disabilities—services listed in capital asset registers.

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

  Clinical Scientific Services
  Mr. Alan Willians
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many audiology scientists are employed in Wales; and how many are employed within each health authority.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Complete information is only available centrally on the total number of clinical scientists in post. Breakdowns of these figures into detailed occupation category are not considered reliable.

  Singleton Hospital
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 23 October,Official Report, column 388, if he will list the 19 representations in support of trust status for Singleton hospital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is not my right hon. Friend's policy to publish, or otherwise publicly identify, the individual representations that he has received as a result of public consultations on NHS trust applications.

EDUCATION

  Pre-school Education
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average of the proportion of three and four-year-olds in pre-school education in each local education authority; and what is the national average.

  Mr. Forth
  The percentage of three and four-year-olds attending maintained nursery schools or nursery classes in maintained primary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1991 are given in Statistical Bulletin 5/92 which is available in the Library. In England in January 1991, 25 per cent. of the three and four-year-old population were in such schools or classes.

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the number of nursery places available per 1,000 children for each local education authority in England and Wales for the years 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Details of the number of pupils in nursery schools and classes in each local education authority in England in January 1991 is contained in Statistical Bulletin 5/92 which is available in the Library. Information for January 1992 is not available. Information on schools in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Table A

  Secondary Schools

  LEA

  Eligible schools

  Number of ballots

  Votes in favour

  Votes against

  Avon

  61

  2

  2

  0

  Barking

  8

  0

  0

  0

  Barnet

  21

  3

  3

  0

  Barnsley

  15

  2

  0

  2

  Bedfordshire

  31

  9

  6

  3

  Berkshire

  55

  9

  9

  0

  Bexley

  17

  2

  1

  1

  Birmingham

  83

  12

  9

  3

  Bolton

  18

  1

  1

  0

  Bradford

  24

  4

  4

  0

  Brent

  14

  5

  4

  1

  Bromley

  17

  13

  12

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  45

  7

  7

  0

  Bury

  15

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  17

  3

  3

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  45

  11

  8

  3

  Camden

  11

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  72

  7

  3

  4

  City

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  53

  1

  0

  1

  Cornwall

  32

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry

  19

  0

  0

  0

  Croydon

  22

  4

  3

  1

  Cumbria

  44

  9

  9

  0

  Derbyshire

  61

  10

  7

  3

  Devon

  64

  8

  5

  3

  Doncaster

  17

  1

  0

  1

  Dorset

  41

  11

  11

  0

  Dudley

  23

  5

  4

  1

  Durham

  45

  1

  0

  1

  Ealing

  13

  8

  6

  2

  Enfield

  17

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  38

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  108

  41

  38

  3

  Gateshead

  13

  1

  0

  1

  Birmingham Schools
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what review he has made of the quality of education in schools in the city of Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend is kept informed about the quality of education in Birmingham through a variety of sources, including material which is published nationally. My right hon. Friend has made it clear on a number of occasions that he considers there is significant room for improvement.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each local education authority in England are eligible to apply for grant-maintained status; how many in each case have held ballots under section 61 of the Education Reform Act 1988; how many ballots in each case resulted in votes to seek grant-maintained status, and how many of these have been the subject of section 12 or 13 reorganisation proposals; how many ballots in each case resulted in votes against seeking grant-maintained status and how many of these have been subject to section 12 or 13 notices; and what are the totals in each category.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the following tables. A reply to the question of how many schools which voted against grant-maintained status have been subject to section 12 or 13 notices would incur disproportionate cost.
  479

  LEA

  Eligible schools

  Number of ballots

  Voles in favour

  Votes against

  Gloucestershire

  42

  22

  16

  6

  Greenwich

  15

  0

  0

  0

  Hackney

  10

  1

  0

  1

  Hammersmith

  9

  1

  1

  0

  Hampshire

  104

  10

  8

  2

  Haringey

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Harrow

  11

  1

  0

  1

  Havering

  19

  4

  3

  1

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  47

  2

  1

  1

  Hertfordshire

  79

  16

  13

  3

  Hillingdon

  17

  11

  11

  0

  Hounslow

  14

  2

  2

  0

  Humberside

  64

  1

  0

  1

  Isle of Wight

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Kensington

  5

  1

  1

  0

  Kent

  129

  49

  46

  3

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  10

  2

  2

  0

  Kirklees

  28

  3

  2

  1

  Knowsley

  11

  1

  0

  1

  Lambeth

  10

  3

  3

  0

  Lancashire

  110

  11

  6

  5

  Leeds

  46

  0

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  74

  3

  2

  1

  Lewisham

  14

  1

  0

  1

  Lincolnshire

  63

  21

  21

  0

  Liverpool

  36

  2

  1

  1

  Manchester

  31

  1

  0

  1

  Merton

  10

  0

  0

  0

  Newcastle

  13

  1

  0

  1

  Newham

  14

  1

  1

  0

  Norfolk

  54

  15

  11

  4

  North Tyneside

  13

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  59

  1

  0

  1

  Northamptonshire

  41

  14

  11

  3

  Northumberland

  16

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  79

  3

  2

  1

  Oldham

  15

  1

  0

  1

  Oxfordshire

  35

  1

  0

  1

  Redbridge

  14

  1

  0

  1

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  8

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  18

  3

  1

  2

  Rotherham

  18

  0

  0

  0

  St. Helens

  13

  0

  0

  0

  Salford

  21

  1

  0

  1

  Salop

  39

  2

  2

  0

  Sandwell

  25

  3

  1

  2

  Sefton

  23

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  32

  2

  1

  1

  Solihull

  15

  2

  1

  1

  Somerset

  31

  1

  1

  0

  South Tyneside

  11

  0

  0

  0

  Southwark

  15

  1

  1

  0

  Staffordshire

  72

  3

  2

  1

  Stockport

  18

  1

  0

  1

  Suffolk

  38

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  17

  0

  0

  0

  Surrey

  58

  12

  12

  0

  Sutton

  14

  8

  8

  0

  Tameside

  20

  3

  1

  2

  Tower Hamlets

  14

  2

  1

  1

  Trafford

  16

  3

  2

  1

  Wakefield

  20

  0

  0

  0

  Walsall

  22

  7

  3

  4

  Waltham Forest

  18

  1

  1

  0

  Wandsworth

  11

  8

  7

  1

  Warwickshire

  38

  9

  8

  1

  West Sussex

  39

  2

  0

  2

  Westminster

  8

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan

  24

  1

  1

  0

  Wiltshire

  39

  4

  3

  1

  Wirral

  23

  1

  1

  0

  Wolverhampton

  20

  3

  3

  0

  480 481

  Table

  B Middle Schools

  LEA

  Eligible schools

  Number of ballots

  Votes in favour

  Votes against

  Avon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barking

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barnet

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  41

  2

  1

  1

  Berkshire

  14

  1

  1

  0

  Bexley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Birmingham

  13

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bradford

  63

  1

  1

  0

  Brent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bromley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  61

  2

  1

  1

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Camden

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  City

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon

  15

  0

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  39

  0

  0

  0

  Dorset

  26

  0

  0

  0

  Dudley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ealing

  31

  1

  1

  0

  Enfield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hackney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hammersmith

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  73

  6

  5

  1

  Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Harrow

  18

  0

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  38

  1

  1

  0

  Hertfordshire

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  16

  0

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kensington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  9

  4

  3

  1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  10

  2

  1

  1

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  52

  0

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merton

  14

  0

  0

  0

  Newcastle

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Newham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  59

  7

  6

  1

  North Tyneside

  15

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorks

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Northants

  24

  4

  2

  2

  Northumberland

  45

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  8

  3

  1

  2

  Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  10

  0

  0

  0

  482 483

  LEA

  Eligible schools

  Number of ballots

  Votes in favour

  Votes against

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  St. Helens

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Salford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Salop

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sefton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  31

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  9

  0

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Southwark

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  14

  0

  0

  0

  Stockport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  39

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Surrey

  101

  0

  0

  0

  Sutton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tameside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  28

  0

  0

  0

  Walsall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  56

  0

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  29

  0

  0

  0

  Westminster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Wirral

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Table C

  Primary Schools

  LEA

  Eligible schools

  Number of ballots

  Votes in favour

  Votes Against

  Avon

  369

  1

  0

  1

  Barking

  54

  0

  0

  0

  Barnet

  89

  1

  0

  1

  Barnsley

  98

  1

  1

  0

  Bedfordshire

  218

  2

  2

  0

  Berkshire

  265

  3

  3

  0

  Bexley

  67

  2

  2

  0

  Birmingham

  324

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton

  107

  1

  1

  0

  Bradford

  165

  0

  0

  0

  Brent

  65

  0

  0

  0

  Bromley

  78

  2

  2

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  226

  4

  3

  1

  Bury

  72

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  94

  1

  1

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  264

  8

  7

  1

  Camden

  41

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  460

  4

  3

  1

  City

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  202

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  250

  1

  1

  0

  Coventry

  110

  0

  0

  0

  Croydon

  99

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  312

  3

  3

  0

  Derbyshire

  450

  6

  3

  3

  Devon

  433

  1

  0

  1

  Doncaster

  105

  0

  0

  0

  Dorset

  191

  1

  0

  1

  Dudley

  83

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  297

  0

  0

  0

  Ealing

  61

  1

  1

  0

  East Sussex

  218

  0

  0

  0

  Enfield

  69

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  579

  15

  13

  2

  Gateshead

  85

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  264

  4

  3

  1

  484 485

  LEA

  Eligible schools

  Number of ballots

  Votes in favour

  Votes Against

  Greenwich

  77

  0

  0

  0

  Hackney

  70

  1

  1

  0

  Hammersmith

  39

  1

  1

  0

  Hampshire

  508

  6

  5

  1

  Haringey

  77

  0

  0

  0

  Harrow

  35

  0

  0

  0

  Havering

  74

  0

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  281

  0

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  440

  7

  4

  3

  Hillingdon

  73

  4

  4

  0

  Hounslow

  63

  0

  0

  0

  Humberside

  354

  1

  1

  0

  Isle of Wight

  46

  0

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  57

  0

  0

  0

  Kensington

  27

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  575

  8

  7

  1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  36

  0

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  161

  2

  0

  2

  Knowsley

  64

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth

  78

  1

  1

  0

  Lancashire

  601

  1

  1

  0

  Leeds

  224

  0

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  331

  0

  0

  0

  Lewisham

  74

  1

  1

  0

  Lincolnshire

  293

  10

  8

  2

  Liverpool

  186

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  174

  0

  0

  0

  Merton

  37

  0

  0

  0

  Newcastle

  85

  0

  0

  0

  Newham

  67

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  339

  6

  4

  2

  North Tyneside

  62

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  395

  1

  0

  1

  Northants

  270

  7

  6

  1

  Northumberland

  143

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  423

  0

  0

  0

  Oldham

  101

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  239

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge

  56

  0

  0

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  40

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  76

  1

  1

  0

  Rotherham

  116

  0

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  216

  2

  2

  0

  St. Helens

  73

  0

  0

  0

  Salford

  89

  0

  0

  0

  Sandwell

  112

  0

  0

  0

  Sefton

  94

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  150

  5

  4

  1

  Solihull

  70

  1

  1

  0

  Somerset

  233

  2

  1

  1

  South Tyneside

  61

  0

  0

  0

  Southwark

  77

  1

  1

  0

  Staffordshire

  412

  2

  2

  0

  Stockport

  110

  0

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  255

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  106

  0

  0

  0

  Surrey

  272

  11

  9

  2

  Sutton

  42

  0

  0

  0

  Tameside

  83

  0

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  73

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  78

  0

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  122

  1

  1

  0

  Walsall

  106

  1

  0

  1

  Waltham Forest

  61

  0

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  70

  5

  3

  2

  Warwickshire

  188

  0

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  220

  0

  0

  0

  Westminster

  42

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan

  124

  0

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  295

  2

  1

  1

  Wirral

  106

  0

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton

  103

  1

  0

  1

  Note to tables A to C:

  The figures for schools eligible to become grant-maintained include those which have already done so. These are provisional 1992 figures. The figures for schools which have held ballots includes those schools which have completed the process of acquiring grant-maintained status.
  486 487

  Table D

  LEAs containing schools which have voted in favour of grant-maintained status and have been subject to section 12 or 13 notices

  LEA

  Primary

  Middle

  Secondary

  Avon

  0

  0

  1

  Barnet

  0

  0

  1

  Barnsley

  1

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  1

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  1

  Bolton

  0

  0

  1

  Brent

  0

  0

  2

  Bromley

  0

  0

  1

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  1

  Cheshire

  3

  0

  1

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  4

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  1

  Dorset

  0

  0

  4

  Dudley

  0

  0

  1

  Ealing

  1

  1

  6

  Essex

  0

  0

  1

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  2

  Hammersmith

  1

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  3

  3

  1

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  2

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  2

  Kensington

  0

  0

  1

  Kent

  2

  2

  8

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  1

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  1

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  1

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  2

  Newham

  0

  0

  1

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  1

  0

  Shropshire

  2

  0

  0

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  1

  Sheffield

  4

  0

  1

  Southwark

  0

  0

  1

  Surrey

  5

  0

  2

  Tameside

  0

  0

  1

  Wakefield

  1

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  1

  0

  1

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  1

  Wigan

  0

  0

  1

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many ballots in England on grant-maintained status have resulted in participation rates(a) above 79 per cent., (b) between 70 and 79 per cent., (c) between 60 and 69 per cent., (d) between 50 and 59 per cent. and (e) below 50 per cent.

  Mr. Forth
  The participation rates for ballots on grant-maintained status in England have been as follows: 90 above 79 per cent.; 172 between 70 and 79 per cent.; 259 between 60 and 69 per cent.; 171 between 50 and 59 per cent. and 57 below 50 per cent. The Education Reform Act 1988 requires that all first ballots with a participation rate of under 50 per cent. be reheld.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those schools which required a second ballot of parents as part of the grant-maintained status procedure; which schools achieved a 50 per cent. turnout of parents voting in the second ballot; what was the outcome of the second ballot; and in the case of those schools voting yes, what was his decision on the application for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:
  488
  Table A

  Schools requiring second ballots:

  Alexandra High School

  Archbishop Ilsley RC School

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  Belfairs School/Sixth Form Centre

  Brentside High School

  Bridgwater Hall School

  Brindley Hall School

  Bushey Hall School

  Chalvedon School

  Corby Beanfield Junior School

  Grays Secondary School

  Grange Park Infant School

  Grange Park Junior School

  Greenford High School

  Hatchford Grant-Maintained Primary School

  Henry Harbin Technical High School

  Hindley Park High School (now closed)

  Hoo Street Werburgh Middle School

  Kelsey Park School

  Kingsbury High School

  Lacey Gardens Junior School

  Laisterdyke Middle School

  Lynn Grove High School

  Mengham Middle School

  Minster College

  Northwick Park County Infant School

  Northwood School

  Parkside First School

  Pope John Paul High School

  Ramsden School for Girls

  Ravensdale Middle School

  Sale Moor County High School

  Sharnbrook Upper School

  Sir Harry Smith Community College, Peterborough

  Southlands School

  St. Andrew's CE Primary School

  St. Francesca Cabrini RC Primary School

  St. Theresa's RC Girls School

  Stopsley High School and Community College

  Stratford School

  Thamesview School

  The Chalfonts Community College (GM)

  The Douay Martyrs School

  The King Edmund School

  The Radcliffe School

  Weston Favell Upper School

  Wrenn School

  Table B Schools achieving a 50 per cent. turnout of parents voting in the second ballot

  Alexandra High School

  Archbishop Ilsley RC School

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  Chalvedon School

  Corby Beanfield Junior School

  Greenford High School

  Kelsey Park School

  Lacey Gardens Junior School

  Lynn Grove High School

  Northwood School

  Ramsden School for Girls

  Ravensdale Middle School

  Sharnbrook Upper School

  St. Andrew's CE Primary School

  St. Francesca Cabrini RC Primary School

  Stratford School

  The Chalfonts Community College

  The Douay Martyrs School

  The King Edmund School

  Note:—The results of Bushey Hall School, Gray's Secondary School, Henry Harbin Technical College, Kingsbury High School, Sale Moor County High School and Stopsley High School and Community College are yet to be announced.

  Table C

  Results of the second ballots were as follows:

  489

  Alexandra High School—No

  Archbishop Ilsley RC School—No

  Beaverwood school for Girls—Yes

  Belfairs School/Sixth Form Centre—Yes

  Brentside High School—Yes

  Bridgewater Hall School—Yes

  Brindley Hall School—Yes

  Chalvedon School—Yes

  Corby Beanfield Junior School—Yes

  Grange Park Infant School—Yes

  Grange Park Junior School—Yes

  Greenford High School—Yes

  Hatchford Grant-Maintained Primary School—Yes

  Hindley Park High School (now closed)—Yes

  Hoo St. Werburgh Middle School—No

  Kelsey Park School—Yes

  Lacey Gardens Junior School—Yes

  Laisterdyke Middle School—Yes

  Lynn Grove High School—Yes

  Mengham Middle School—Yes

  Minster College—Yes

  Northwick Park County Infant School—Yes

  Northwood School—Yes

  Parkside First School—Yes

  Pope John Paul High School—No

  Ramsden School For Girls—Yes

  Ravensdale Middle School—Yes

  Sharnbrook Upper School—Yes

  Sir Harry Smith Community College, Peterborough—Yes

  Southlands School—Yes

  St. Andrew's CE Primary School—Yes

  St. Francesca Cabrini RC Primary School—Yes

  St. Theresa's RC Girls School—No

  Stratford School—Yes

  Thamesview School—Yes

  The Chalfonts Community College (GM)—Yes

  The Douay Martyrs School—Yes

  The King Edmund School—Yes

  Applications received to date from

  Grant (£) requested per school to date

  Grant (£) approved per school to date

  Premature retirement

  Premature retirement

  Name of school

  Number of posts in school's bid (s) for SPG (R) to date

  Number of posts for which SPG (R) has been approved

  Lump sum

  Annual compensation

  Redundancy/voluntary severance

  Lump sum

  Annual compensation

  Redundancy/voluntary severance

  Adams' Grammar School

  3

  3

  12,992

  4,331

  —

  12,992

  4,331

  —

  Archbishops School

  1

  1

  —

  —

  12,000

  —

  —

  12,000

  Arnewood School

  2

  2

  16,233

  5,411

  —

  16,233

  5,411

  —

  Avon Valley School

  3

  3

  20,441

  6,814

  —

  14,553

  4,851

  —

  Aylesford School

  1

  1

  6,534

  2,178

  —

  6,534

  2,178

  —

  Bacup and Rawtenshall Grammar School

  4

  4

  15,600

  5,200

  —

  15,600

  5,200

  —

  Baines School

  1

  1

  1,738

  579

  —

  1,738

  579

  —

  Balcarras School

  4

  3

  14,917

  4,972

  —

  8,503

  2,834

  —

  Bankfield School

  1

  1

  —

  —

  20,586

  —

  —

  20,586

  Baverstock School

  2

  2

  8,631

  2,877

  —

  8,631

  2,877

  —

  Beauchamps School

  3

  3

  12,316

  2,037

  20,591

  —

  —

  20,591

  Beechen Cliff School

  3

  3

  16,310

  5,436

  —

  16,310

  5,436

  —

  Bingley Grammar School

  3

  3

  11,974

  3,931

  —

  11,974

  3,931

  —

  Bournemouth School

  1

  1

  4,123

  1,374

  —

  4,123

  1,374

  —

  Bourne Abbey School

  2

  2

  4,506

  1,502

  —

  4,506

  1,502

  —

  Brentside High School

  3

  3

  17,964

  5,988

  —

  17,964

  5,988

  —

  Bridgewater Hall School

  1

  1

  6,077

  2,026

  —

  6,077

  2,026

  —

  Bromfords School

  1

  1

  3,363

  1,121

  —

  3,363

  1,121

  —

  Budmouth Grammar School

  4

  3

  27,032

  9,011

  —

  18,216

  6,042

  —

  Bullers Wood Girls School

  2

  2

  12,291

  4,097

  —

  12,291

  4,097

  —

  Burntwood School

  3

  3

  14,599

  4,866

  20,279

  14,599

  4,866

  5,000

  Caistor Grammar School

  6

  4

  29,154

  9,718

  —

  19,497

  6,499

  —

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  2

  2

  14,509

  4,170

  —

  14,509

  4,170

  —

  Carres Grammar School

  2

  2

  10,219

  3,406

  —

  10,219

  3,406

  —

  Claremont High School

  3

  3

  14,523

  4,841

  14,513

  14,523

  4,841

  14,513

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  3

  1

  21,210

  7,070

  —

  8,423

  2,808

  —

  Collingwood School

  3

  3

  19,381

  6,460

  —

  19,381

  6,460

  —

  Coopers School

  1

  1

  1,690

  390

  10,221

  1,690

  390

  10,221

  Colyton School

  2

  2

  13,601

  4,534

  —

  13,601

  4,534

  —

  Costessey School

  2

  2

  7,215

  2,405

  —

  7,215

  2,405

  —

  490

  The Radcliffe School—Yes

  Weston Favell Upper School—No

  Wrenn School—Yes

  Table D

  Schools approved for grant-maintained status:

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  Brentside High School

  Bridgewater Hall School

  Brindley Hall School

  Chalvedon School

  Greenford High School

  Hatchford Grant-Maintained Primary School

  Kelsey Park School

  Minster College

  Northwood School

  Parkside First School

  Ravensdale Middle School

  Southlands School

  Stratford School

  Thamesview School

  The Chalfonts Community College

  The King Edmund School

  Table E

  Schools rejected

  Hindley Park High School

  Ramsden School for Girls

  The remainder are still under consideration or have yet
  to submit proposals.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what applications have been received from grant-maintained schools for special purpose grant-restructuring; and in each case(a) how many posts have been affected, (b) what grant has been paid and (c) how many changes have been rejected for grant.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:
  491

  Grant (£) requested per school to date

  Grant (£) approved per school to date

  Premature retirement

  Premature retirement

  Name of school

  Number of posts in school's bid (s) for SPG (R) to date

  Number of posts for which SPG (R) has been approved

  Lump sum

  Annual compensation

  Redundancy/voluntary severance

  Lump sum

  Annual compensation

  Redundancy/voluntary severance

  Cranbrook School

  2

  2

  11,202

  3,734

  —

  11,202

  3,734

  —

  Crofton School

  1

  1

  2,998

  999

  —

  2,998

  999

  —

  Crossley Heath School

  6

  3

  30,796

  5,338

  —

  16,015

  5,338

  —

  The Crypt School

  1

  1

  7,850

  2,617

  —

  7,850

  2,617

  —

  Dartford Boys School

  3

  2

  27,118

  9,039

  —

  12,187

  4,062

  —

  Dartford Grammar School

  2

  2

  12,868

  4,289

  —

  12,868

  4,289

  —

  Denefield School

  1

  1

  7,358

  2,453

  —

  7,358

  2,453

  —

  Desborough Comprehensive School

  4

  4

  10,719

  3,573

  9,938

  10,719

  3,573

  9,938

  The Downs School

  3

  3

  12,023

  4,008

  —

  12,023

  4,008

  —

  Ecclesbourne School

  4

  4

  24,311

  8,104

  —

  18,964

  6,321

  —

  Epsom and Ewell High School

  3

  3

  14,933

  8,369

  40,454

  10,773

  7,705

  29,381

  Francis Bacon School

  3

  3

  9,357

  3,119

  —

  9,357

  3,119

  —

  Gartree School

  3

  3

  14,595

  4,865

  —

  14,595

  4,865

  —

  Glyn School

  1

  1

  4,409

  1,470

  —

  4,409

  1,470

  —

  Great Barr School

  10

  6

  58,941

  19,647

  —

  27,837

  9,277

  —

  Graveney School

  4

  3

  232,432

  210,811

  —

  18,957

  6,319

  —

  Handsworth Grammar School

  1

  1

  6,836

  2,279

  —

  6,836

  2,279

  —

  Hardley School

  2

  2

  11,134

  3,711

  —

  11,134

  3,711

  —

  Hartshill School

  3

  2

  27,282

  9,094

  —

  16,172

  5,391

  —

  Hayes School

  4

  4

  11,110

  3,703

  —

  11,110

  3,703

  —

  Hayes Manor School

  2

  2

  16,467

  5,549

  —

  16,467

  5,549

  —

  Haydon School

  1

  1

  220,820

  26,940

  10,434

  5,970

  1,990

  —

  Heacham Middle School

  2

  2

  8,719

  2,920

  —

  8,719

  2,920

  —

  Heathside School

  2

  2

  8,846

  2,949

  —

  8,846

  2,949

  —

  Heckmondwike School

  6

  6

  13,403

  4,468

  —

  13,403

  4,468

  —

  Hendon School

  2

  2

  14,109

  4,703

  —

  14,109

  4,703

  —

  Herschel Grammar School

  5

  5

  12,733

  7,360

  —

  12,733

  7,360

  —

  Highams Park School

  3

  2

  28,752

  9,584

  —

  19,525

  6,508

  —

  John Fisher School

  1

  1

  6,946

  2,315

  —

  6,946

  2,315

  —

  Kelsey Park School

  1

  1

  7,588

  2,529

  —

  7,588

  2,529

  —

  King Edward VI School

  4

  4

  18,158

  6,053

  —

  18,158

  6,053

  —

  King Edward VI Grammar School

  2

  2

  13,186

  4,395

  —

  13,186

  4,395

  —

  King John School

  2

  2

  11,578

  3,859

  —

  11,578

  3,859

  —

  Kingsley Park School

  2

  2

  12,168

  4,056

  —

  12,168

  4,056

  —

  Kingswood School

  3

  3

  14,304

  4,768

  —

  14,304

  4,768

  —

  Kirkby Kendal School

  3

  2

  19,209

  6,403

  —

  6,512

  2,171

  —

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  5

  5

  19,391

  6,464

  —

  19,391

  6,464

  —

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  4

  4

  13,772

  4,591

  —

  13,772

  4,591

  —

  Langley Grammar School

  4

  4

  19,005

  6,335

  —

  19,005

  6,335

  —

  Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

  3

  3

  8,138

  2,713

  —

  8,138

  2,713

  —

  Loddon Middle School

  2

  2

  9,636

  3,212

  —

  9,636

  3,212

  —

  Manor High School

  5

  4

  26,985

  8,995

  —

  12,468

  4,162

  —

  Maplesdon Noakes School

  1

  1

  —

  —

  21,863

  —

  —

  21,863

  Marling School

  1

  1

  3,257

  1,086

  —

  3,257

  1,086

  —

  Mosely Park GM School

  1

  1

  5,933

  1,978

  11,852

  5,933

  1,978

  11,852

  Moulton Primary School

  1

  1

  1,335

  445

  —

  1,335

  445

  —

  Myton School

  3

  3

  8,785

  2,928

  —

  8,785

  2,928

  —

  Netherthorpe School

  3

  2

  24,297

  8,099

  9,732

  10,602

  3,534

  9,732

  Newstead Wood School

  3

  3

  15,156

  5,052

  13,315

  15,156

  5,052

  —

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  4

  4

  9,134

  3,044

  —

  9,134

  3,044

  —

  Northampton School for Boys

  1

  1

  4,508

  1,503

  9,478

  4,508

  1,503

  9,478

  Northolt High School

  3

  3

  33,276

  11,092

  —

  15,267

  5,089

  —

  North Kesteven School

  6

  6

  21,037

  7,012

  —

  21,037

  7,012

  —

  Northwood School

  2

  2

  13,837

  4,612

  —

  13,837

  4,612

  —

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  1

  1

  7,850

  2,617

  —

  7,850

  2,617

  —

  Oldborough Manor High

  1

  1

  3,729

  1,243

  —

  3,729

  1,243

  —

  Oldfield School

  1

  1

  465

  155

  11,234

  465

  155

  11,234

  Parkstone Grammar School

  2

  2

  16,722

  5,574

  14,971

  13,267

  4,427

  2,000

  Pates Grammar School

  2

  2

  12,515

  4,172

  —

  12,515

  4,172

  —

  Philip Morant School

  1

  1

  5,221

  1,740

  —

  5,221

  1,740

  —

  The Plume School

  6

  6

  10,126

  3,375

  —

  10,126

  3,375

  —

  The Queens School

  5

  5

  17,973

  6,051

  —

  17,973

  6,051

  —

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  6

  5

  222,500

  17,500

  —

  19,720

  6,572

  —

  Queen Elizabeth School for Boys

  1

  1

  5,459

  1,820

  —

  5,459

  1,820

  —

  Queen Elizabeth School

  2

  2

  7,515

  2,505

  —

  7,515

  2,505

  —

  Queen Elizabeth VC Grammar School

  1

  1

  3,744

  1,248

  —

  3,744

  1,248

  —

  Queensbury School

  3

  3

  8,155

  2,718

  —

  8,155

  2,718

  —

  Queensmead School

  4

  4

  21,336

  7,112

  —

  17,410

  5,803

  —

  Raines Foundation School

  2

  2

  10,833

  3,611

  —

  10,833

  3,611

  —

  Ravensdale GM School

  1

  1

  5,073

  1,691

  —

  5,073

  1,691

  —

  Ravens Wood School for Boys

  2

  2

  11,484

  3,828

  —

  11,484

  3,828

  —

  492 493

  Grant (£) requested per school to date

  Grant (£) approved per school to date

  Premature retirement

  Premature retirement

  Name of school

  Number of posts in school's bid (s) for SPG (R) to date

  Number of posts for which SPG (R) has been approved

  Lump sum

  Annual compensation

  Redundancy/voluntary severance

  Lump sum

  Annual compensation

  Redundancy/voluntary severance

  Redgate Middle School

  1

  1

  1,970

  657

  —

  1,970

  657

  —

  Rednock School

  1

  1

  3,385

  1,128

  —

  3,385

  1,128

  —

  Ribston Hall High School

  5

  4

  11,934

  3,978

  34,034

  11,934

  3,978

  9,594

  Riddlesdown High School

  1

  1

  2,179

  726

  —

  2,179

  726

  —

  Ringwood School

  2

  2

  14,495

  4,832

  —

  14,495

  4,832

  —

  Robert Pattinson School

  4

  3

  216,500

  25,500

  —

  10,922

  3,641

  —

  Robinswood Primary School

  1

  1

  8,727

  2,909

  —

  8,727

  2,909

  —

  Roseberry School

  1

  1

  906

  302

  —

  906

  302

  —

  Saffron Walden High School

  2

  2

  9,082

  3,027

  —

  9,082

  3,027

  —

  Senacre School

  2

  2

  13,116

  4,372

  —

  13,116

  4,372

  —

  Skinners School

  1

  1

  6,080

  2,027

  —

  6,080

  2,027

  —

  St. Aiden's

  3

  2

  27,135

  9,045

  —

  12,065

  4,022

  —

  St. Augustine's RC Comprehensive School

  1

  1

  7,231

  2,410

  —

  7,231

  2,410

  —

  St. Bartholomews School

  3

  3

  14,604

  4,870

  —

  14,604

  4,870

  —

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  2

  2

  10,200

  3,400

  —

  10,200

  3,400

  —

  St. Georges School (Kent)

  4

  3

  24,186

  8,062

  —

  16,210

  5,403

  —

  St. Georges School (Lines)

  5

  4

  19,287

  6,429

  —

  18,093

  6,031

  —

  St. Helen's Primary School

  2

  1

  12,111

  4,037

  —

  4,651

  1,550

  —

  Southfield School for Girls

  1

  1

  8,462

  2,821

  —

  8,462

  2,821

  —

  Southlands School

  2

  2

  —

  —

  10,420

  —

  —

  10,420

  Skegness Grammar School

  4

  4

  16,100

  5,371

  —

  16,100

  5,371

  —

  Stroud High School

  2

  2

  11,718

  3,906

  —

  11,718

  3,906

  —

  St. James's CE School (Bolton)

  2

  2

  12,345

  4,114

  —

  12,345

  4,114

  —

  Stratford School

  1

  1

  1,925

  642

  —

  1,925

  642

  —

  Sutton Grammar School for Boys

  2

  2

  8,659

  2,886

  —

  8,659

  2,886

  —

  Tewkesbury School

  4

  4

  17,057

  5,686

  —

  17,057

  5,686

  —

  Thamesview School

  5

  5

  18,900

  6,300

  —

  18,900

  6,300

  —

  The Burgate School

  3

  3

  17,454

  5,818

  —

  17,454

  5,818

  —

  The North Halifax High School

  3

  3

  11,753

  3,918

  —

  11,753

  3,918

  —

  The Woodroffe School

  7

  7

  26,661

  8,887

  21,483

  26,661

  8,887

  21,483

  Torells School

  2

  2

  11,476

  3,825

  —

  11,476

  3,825

  —

  Trinity School

  1

  1

  2,594

  865

  —

  2,594

  865

  —

  Uxbridge School

  2

  2

  8,213

  2,737

  —

  8,213

  2,737

  —

  Vyners School

  1

  1

  8,731

  2,910

  —

  8,731

  2,910

  —

  Watford Grammar School

  1

  1

  3,750

  1,250

  —

  3,750

  1,250

  —

  Westcliff High School for Boys

  4

  4

  14,425

  4,809

  —

  14,425

  4,809

  —

  West Hatch High School

  2

  2

  5,433

  1,811

  —

  5,433

  1,811

  —

  William Alvey School

  2

  2

  11,280

  3,760

  —

  11,280

  3,760

  —

  William Farr CE School

  2

  2

  12,239

  4,080

  —

  12,239

  4,080

  —

  Wilmington Boys School

  4

  3

  20,340

  6,780

  —

  14,805

  4,935

  —

  Wilmington Girls School

  1

  1

  —

  —

  722

  —

  —

  722

  Wilsons School

  4

  4

  10,236

  5,996

  10,455

  10,236

  5,996

  10,455

  Wolverhampton Girls School

  3

  3

  17,180

  5,727

  —

  17,180

  5,727

  —

  Wymondham College

  8

  6

  23,337

  7,779

  —

  23,168

  7,723

  —

  Yarborough High School

  3

  3

  14,348

  4,783

  —

  14,348

  4,783

  —

  1 Figure reduced due to redundancy abatement.

  2 Figures estimated.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which primary schools, that have submitted applications for grant-maintained status, offer(a) part-time, (b) full-time, and (c) both part-time and full-time nursery provision; and, in each case, whether the application has been approved, approved with modifications or rejected.

  Mr. Forth
  This information could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the date of(a) the second resolution of the governing body or (b) receipt of the written request, and (c) what was the closing date of the ballot, for each school which has held a parental ballot on grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested at(a) and (b) is not held centrally. A list of the 676 schools which have held parental ballots follows, with closing dates:
  494

  2 November 1988

  Skegness Grammar School

  7 November 1988

  St. James' CE School

  5 December 1988

  Audenshaw High School

  16 December 1988

  Wilsons School

  21 December 1988

  Castlemount School

  21 December 1988

  Queensbury School

  21 December 1988

  Blessed Hugh More RC Secondary School

  22 December 1988

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  29 December 1988

  London Oratory School

  30 December 1988

  Queen Elizabeth's Senior High School

  30 December 1988

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

  30 December 1988

  Hendon School

  30 December 1988

  Southpark High School

  30 December 1988

  The Grammar School for Girls Wilmington

  6 January 1989

  Ravensbourne School For Girls

  9 January 1989

  London Nautical School

  11 January 1989

  Sale Grammar School for Boys (Now Closed)

  17 January 1989

  Netherthorpe School

  17 January 1989

  Ramsden School For Girls

  26 January 1989

  Bankfield High School (GM)

  30 January 1989

  Millais School

  495

  30 January 1989

  Sir James Altham School

  2 February 1989

  The Grammar School For Boys Wilmington

  3 February 1989

  The Kings School Grantham

  3 February 1989

  Southfield School For Girls

  6 February 1989

  Small Heath School

  6 February 1989

  Queen Elizabeth's GM School For Boys

  6 February 1989

  Baverstock GM School

  10 February 1989

  Colyton Grammar School

  14 February 1989

  Chesterfield School (Closed, now Brookfield)

  16 February 1989

  Chichele School

  18 February 1989

  Foster's Grammar School

  20 February 1989

  Castle Hall GM School

  20 February 1989

  Droylsden County High School

  20 February 1989

  Siddal Moor High School

  20 February 1989

  Hadham Hall School

  20 February 1989

  Lord Digby's Grammar School for Girls

  23 February 1989

  Gaynes School

  24 February 1989

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  27 February 1989

  Old Swinford Hospital

  27 February 1989

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  6 March 1989

  Hindley Park High School (Now closed)

  6 March 1989

  Weald of Kent Grammer School

  13 March 1989

  Beechen Cliff School

  13 March 1989

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  13 March 1989

  Kettering Boy's School

  23 March 1989

  Guildford County School

  28 March 1989

  Ribston Hall High School

  28 March 1989

  Ruffwood School

  31 March 1989

  Long Field GM High School

  3 April 1989

  Claremont High School

  17 April 1989

  St. Helena School (Closed, now Brookfield School)

  20 April 1989

  Bishopshalt School

  2 May 1989

  The Longlands School

  15 May 1989

  Rickmansworth School

  22 May 1989

  Marling School

  22 May 1989

  Stroud High School

  30 May 1989

  Southlands School

  30 May 1989

  Simon Digby Comprehensive School

  30 May 1989

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  5 June 1989

  Eckington School

  12 June 1989

  Wolverhampton Girls High School

  24 July 1989

  St. Gregory's RC High School

  26 September 1989

  Stratford School

  2 October 1989

  St. Josephs RC High School

  9 October 1989

  Sir Thomas Rich's School

  19 October 1989

  Watford Grammar School for Boys

  20 October 1989

  Watford Girls Grammar School

  9 November 1989

  Adams' Grammar School

  10 November 1989

  Preston Manor High School

  20 November 1989

  Wade Deacon High School

  27 November 1989

  Francis Bacon School

  18 December 1989

  The North Halifax High School

  19 December 1989

  The Crossley Heath School

  22 December 1989

  Highwood School

  28 December 1989

  Pate's GM Grammar School

  2 January 1990

  Brindley Hall School

  2 January 1990

  Bridgewater Hall School

  9 February 1990

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  20 February 1990

  Carre's Grammar School

  28 February 1990

  The Ecclesbourne School

  5 March 1990

  Bournemouth School

  7 March 1990

  The Maplesden Noakes School

  7 March 1990

  Wilmington Grammar School For Boys

  3 April 1990

  St. George's GM School

  12 April 1990

  The Cornwallis School

  23 April 1990

  Armthorpe Comprehensive School

  9 May 1990

  Chalvedon School

  22 May 1990

  Bullers Wood School for Girls

  29 May 1990

  Reading School

  496

  7 June 1990

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  8 June 1990

  Wymondham College (GM)

  18 June 1990

  King Edward VI School

  27 June 1990

  Hardley School

  4 July 1990

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  6 July 1990

  Blackfield Middle School

  20 July 1990

  Ripon Grammar School

  23 July 1990

  Woodford County High

  24 July 1990

  Ailwyn Community School

  26 July 1990

  Dearneside Comprehensive School

  27 July 1990

  Swanscombe High School

  30 July 1990

  Failsworth School

  3 August 1990

  Cliffe Woods Middle School

  17 September 1990

  Manor High School, Sandwell

  4 October 1990

  Hoo St. Werburgh Middle School

  17 October 1990

  The Woodroffe School

  22 October 1990

  Bingley Grammar School

  23 October 1990

  The Avon Valley School

  24 October 1990

  Westcliff High School for Boys

  24 October 1990

  Kings School

  12 November 1990

  Kingswood School

  16 November 1990

  Burgate School

  16 November 1990

  Sexey's School

  21 November 1990

  Alexandra High School

  26 November 1990

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  29 November 1990

  Oldfield School

  3 December 1990

  Blackpool Sixth Form College

  3 December 1990

  Grange School

  4 December 1990

  St. Augustine RC (GM) Comprehensive School

  4 December 1990

  St. Bartholomew's School

  4 December 1990

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  4 December 1990

  Walsingham School

  5 December 1990

  Beaconsfield High School

  7 December 1990

  Edenbridge Middle School

  7 December 1990

  Great Barr School

  13 December 1990

  Caistor Grammar School

  14 December 1990

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  17 December 1990

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  18 December 1990

  St. George's Church of England School

  20 December 1990

  Queensmead School

  21 December 1990

  Thamesview School

  24 January 1991

  Homewood School

  24 January 1991

  The Down County Primary School

  24 January 1991

  Haydon School

  25 January 1991

  Banbury School

  25 January 1991

  Morecambe High School

  28 January 1991

  King Edward VI School

  29 January 1991

  Townmead School

  29 January 1991

  Harwood School

  29 January 1991

  Ellerdine County Primary School

  29 January 1991

  Parmiters School

  29 January 1991

  Moseley Park (GM) School

  1 February 1991

  Vyners School

  1 February 1991

  Dartford Grammar School

  4 February 1991

  Drayton Manor High School

  4 February 1991

  Bourne Abbey Primary School

  5 February 1991

  The Ridgeway School, Swindon

  5 February 1991

  Watford Grammar School for Girls

  6 February 1991

  Whickham School

  6 February 1991

  Blackthorn Middle School

  12 February 1991

  St. Aidan's County High School

  12 February 1991

  Southlands Comprehensive School

  12 February 1991

  Lord Digby's Girls Grammar School

  12 February 1991

  Foster's Boys Grammar School

  14 February 1991

  Chestnut Grove School

  15 February 1991

  Aylesford School

  18 February 1991

  Cliffe Woods Primary School, Rochester

  18 February 1991

  Kettleshulme St. James GM CE Primary School

  18 February 1991

  Northolt High School

  21 February 1991

  Collingwood GM CE School

  21 February 1991

  Boothroyd Junior and Infants School

  21 February 1991

  St. Helen's RC Primary School

  21 February 1991

  William Gladstone School

  22 February 1991

  Graveney School

  26 February 1991

  Coopers School

  26 February 1991

  Moulton Primary School (GM)

  27 February 1991

  Uxbridge High School

  497

  27 February 1991

  Copland Community School and Technology Centre

  28 February 1991

  Newton Bluecoat CE GM Primary School

  1 March 1991

  Highams Park School

  1 March 1991

  Wold Newton GM Primary School

  1 March 1991

  The Magdalen School

  1 March 1991

  St. Mary's Catholic Primary School

  2 March 1991

  Crossgates Primary School

  7 March 1991

  The Hayes Manor School

  8 March 1991

  St. Theresa's RC Girls School

  8 March 1991

  Langley Park School for Boys

  13 March 1991

  Minster College

  15 March 1991

  Weaverham High School

  18 March 1991

  Raines Foundation School

  20 March 1991

  The Manor County First School

  25 March 1991

  St. John the Baptist School

  25 March 1991

  Ravens Wood School for Boys

  25 March 1991

  Arley County Primary School

  25 March 1991

  Wood End First School

  25 March 1991

  Appledore CE Primary School

  26 March 1991

  Villiers High School

  26 March 1991

  Turnham Primary with Nursery GM School

  27 March 1991

  Send CE First School (GM)

  28 March 1991

  The Arnewood School

  4 April 1991

  Featherstone High School

  12 April 1991

  Wood End Middle School

  18 April 1991

  Northwood School

  19 April 1991

  Mellow Lane School

  26 April 1991

  John Henry Newman RC School

  29 April 1991

  de Stafford School

  30 April 1991

  Budmouth School

  30 April 1991

  The Crypt School

  7 May 1991

  Booth Lower School

  7 May 1991

  Senacre Technology School

  7 May 1991

  Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

  7 May 1991

  Gamlingay GM Village College

  7 May 1991

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  7 May 1991

  The Ellen Wilkinson School for Girls

  8 May 1991

  Redgate GM Middle School

  8 May 1991

  The Plume School

  9 May 1991

  The King John School

  14 May 1991

  Ravensdale Middle School

  15 May 1991

  Desborough Comprehensive School

  15 May 1991

  Waltham Toll Bar

  15 May 1991

  The Park School

  16 May 1991

  Hayes School

  17 May 1991

  Elmbridge School

  20 May 1991

  Woolley CE First School

  20 May 1991

  Riddlesdown GM School

  20 May 1991

  Greenford High School

  20 May 1991

  Wrotham School

  20 May 1991

  Kelsey Park School

  21 May 1991

  South Farnborough County Infants

  21 May 1991

  Glyn School

  23 May 1991

  Manor High School, Oadby

  23 May 1991

  Burntwood School

  24 May 1991

  Ash Green GM School

  24 May 1991

  The Skinners' School, Tunbridge Wells

  28 May 1991

  Newborough CE VC Primary School

  28 May 1991

  Silverdale School

  29 May 1991

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  30 May 1991

  Wortley CE Controlled Junior and Infants School

  30 May 1991

  Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys

  31 May 1991

  Heacham Middle School (GM)

  31 May 1991

  Snodland CE Primary School

  31 May 1991

  Yarborough High School

  3 June 1991

  Hawkedale First School

  3 June 1991

  Norwich Road School

  4 June 1991

  Heathside Secondary School

  4 June 1991

  Gordon's GM School

  4 June 1991

  Loddon Middle GM School

  5 June 1991

  Hartshill GM School

  5 June 1991

  The Admiral's Middle School

  5 June 1991

  Stoneleigh First School (GM)

  498

  6 June 1991

  Salterlee Primary School

  6 June 1991

  Warmbrook Junior School

  7 June 1991

  Oldborough Manor Community College

  7 June 1991

  Boyton Primary School

  7 June 1991

  Walford High School

  10 June 1991

  St. Thomas More RC High School

  11 June 1991

  Sir Wilfrid Martineau School

  11 June 1991

  Nower Hill High School

  11 June 1991

  Eden School

  11 June 1991

  Brookmead School

  11 June 1991

  St. Paul's CE Primary School

  12 June 1991

  Gresham Village School (GM)

  12 June 1991

  Rauceby School CE (GM)

  12 June 1991

  Downham Market High School (GM)

  13 June 1991

  High Oakham Middle School

  13 June 1991

  Barnhill School

  14 June 1991

  The Philip Morant School

  20 June 1991

  Cranbrook School

  21 June 1991

  St. Peter's Primary School Tunbridge Wells

  21 June 1991

  Hatchford Primary School

  21 June 1991

  Denefield School

  21 June 1991

  Christ Church CE School

  24 June 1991

  Silverhill Primary School

  24 June 1991

  Windmill Ridge Middle School

  25 June 1991

  Ringwood School (GM Comprehensive)

  25 June 1991

  Newstead Wood School for Girls (GM)

  25 June 1991

  The Gartree GM School

  25 June 1991

  Tudor Grange School

  26 June 1991

  Langley Grammar School

  26 June 1991

  La Retraite RC Girls, (GM) School

  27 June 1991

  South Holmwood CE First School

  27 June 1991

  King James 1st Comprehensive School

  1 July 1991

  Rainham Mark Grammar School

  1 July 1991

  Brentside High School

  2 July 1991

  Epsom and Ewell High School

  3 July 1991

  Belmont Primary School

  3 July 1991

  The Elmwood Primary School

  3 July 1991

  Borrow Wood Junior School

  4 July 1991

  Hassall Green Methodist Primary School

  8 July 1991

  Parkstone Grammar School

  9 July 1991

  Dereham Church CE GM School

  9 July 1991

  Myton School

  9 July 1991

  Ethelburga Primary School (GM)

  9 July 1991

  The John Fisher School

  10 July 1991

  Crofton Junior School

  10 July 1991

  Neroche Primary School

  10 July 1991

  The Castle Hills GM School, Gainsborough

  11 July 1991

  William Alvey CE Junior School

  15 July 1991

  Queen Elizabeth High School

  16 July 1991

  Hayton CE GM School

  16 July 1991

  The King John School

  19 July 1991

  Bliss Charity Primary School

  19 July 1991

  Bishop Stopford School

  19 July 1991

  Newlands Spring GM School

  22 July 1991

  Romanby County Primary School

  22 July 1991

  Cheam High School

  22 July 1991

  Fulston Manor School

  22 July 1991

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  22 July 1991

  Bowness-on-Solway Primary School

  23 July 1991

  Northampton (GM) School for Boys

  23 July 1991

  Bridport County Primary School

  24 July 1991

  Lodge Park School

  29 July 1991

  Baines School

  1 August 1991

  Westfield County First School

  6 August 1991

  Underhill Junior School

  13 August 1991

  Parkside First School

  27 August 1991

  Blindley Heath CE First School

  23 September 1991

  Huntingfield Primary School

  24 September 1991

  Thomas Whitehead CE School

  1 October 1991

  Angley School

  2 October 1991

  Cromer High School (GM)

  15 October 1991

  Marshland High School

  17 October 1991

  Hamilton County Primary School

  18 October 1991

  Saffron Walden County High School

  18 October 1991

  The City of Portsmouth Boys' School

  499

  18 October 1991

  Sutton Grammar School for Boys

  22 October 1991

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

  22 October 1991

  Crofton School, Fareham

  22 October 1991

  The Canterbury High School

  23 October 1991

  Robert Pattinson GM School

  23 October 1991

  North Kesteven GM School

  24 October 1991

  West Hatch High School

  25 October 1991

  Borough Green Primary School

  1 November 1991

  Trinity School, Carlisle

  4 November 1991

  The Robert Napier GM School

  4 November 1991

  Deighton High School

  5 November 1991

  Robinswood Primary School

  5 November 1991

  Queen Elizabeth Upper Atherstone GM School

  5 November 1991

  Queen Elizabeth Lower Atherstone GM School

  5 November 1991

  The Downs School

  7 November 1991

  St. Thomas More RC Comprehensive GM School

  8 November 1991

  Sir Roger Manwood's School

  11 November 1991

  Torells GM School

  12 November 1991

  St. George's Middle School

  12 November 1991

  Clifford CE GM School

  12 November 1991

  The Mailing School

  13 November 1991

  Robert Kett GM Middle School

  13 November 1991

  Lyne and Long Cross CE First School, Surrey

  18 November 1991

  Kettering Boys' School

  18 November 1991

  Bromfords School, Wickford

  18 November 1991

  Beauchamps GM School

  19 November 1991

  The Beacon School

  20 November 1991

  Rochester Grammar School for Girls

  21 November 1991

  The Archbishop's CE GM School

  22 November 1991

  Rosebery School

  22 November 1991

  Roehampton Gate Primary

  22 November 1991

  Bruton Primary School

  25 November 1991

  Scotby CE GM Primary School

  25 November 1991

  Aldridge School, Walsall

  25 November 1991

  Meopham School GM School

  26 November 1991

  Hayes Road Primary

  26 November 1991

  The John Birkbeck High School

  26 November 1991

  Streetly School

  26 November 1991

  Costessey High School, (GM)

  26 November 1991

  Barnehurst Junior GM School

  26 November 1991

  Barnehurst Infant GM School

  27 November 1991

  Avonbourne School

  27 November 1991

  The Rickstones School

  27 November 1991

  Holy Trinty CE Primary School

  28 November 1991

  Herschel Grammar School

  28 November 1991

  The Queen's School, Wisbech

  29 November 1991

  Lanfranc High School, Croydon

  2 December 1991

  The Bradbourne School

  2 December 1991

  Katharine Lady Berkeley's School

  3 December 1991

  Charles Darwin School

  3 December 1991

  Rede Secondary School, Strood

  3 December 1991

  Brooklands School, Leighton Buzzard

  3 December 1991

  King Edward VI Grammar School

  (GM)

  4 December 1991

  Brentwood County High School

  4 December 1991

  The Ancaster High School, Lincoln

  4 December 1991

  The Barr Beacon School, Walsall

  4 December 1991

  Tewkesbury GM School

  4 December 1991

  Joseph Leckie School, Walsall

  5 December 1991

  St. John Fisher School, Chatham

  5 December 1991

  Sandown Court Community College

  5 December 1991

  Bournemouth School for Girls

  6 December 1991

  The Queen Katherine School

  9 December 1991

  Norfolk Secondary School

  9 December 1991

  Deer's Wood Primary School, Bristol

  9 December 1991

  William Farr CE Comprehensive School

  9 December 1991

  The Helena Romanes School, Dunmow

  10 December 1991

  Elliott School (GM)

  10 December 1991

  Manor JMI School, Walsall

  11 December 1991

  Highbury Secondary Boys' School

  11 December 1991

  Bolsterstone CE Junior and Infants School, Sheffield

  11 December 1991

  Darlaston School

  500

  11 December 1991

  Bassingbourn GM Village College

  13 December 1991

  Chelmsford County High School for Girls

  16 December 1991

  Ermine Junior GM School

  17 December 1991

  Wayland High School, Norfolk

  17 December 1991

  Crompton Fold Primary School

  18 December 1991

  Warren Junior and Infant School, Sheffield

  20 December 1991

  Roscoe Bank Junior and Infants School

  20 December 1991

  Stepney Green Boys School, Tower Hamlets

  23 December 1991

  Hertingfordbury Cowper Junior Mixed Infants School

  23 December 1991

  Handsworth First School, Sheffield

  23 December 1991

  Manshead School GM

  23 December 1991

  The Ridgeway School, Plymouth

  24 December 1991

  Aloeric GM School

  24 December 1991

  Northlands Infants School, Pitsea

  24 December 1991

  Northlands GM Junior School

  24 December 1991

  Dereham Neatherd High School

  24 December 1991

  Newent Community School

  24 December 1991

  Bradenham VC CE Primary School

  23 January 1992

  Eastwood County High School and Sixth Form Centre

  23 January 1992

  Hoo St. Werburgh Middle School, Kent

  24 January 1992

  Highcliffe Comprehensive School

  24 January 1992

  South Wootton GM Junior School

  24 January 1992

  Acle High School

  24 January 1992

  The Boswells School

  29 January 1992

  Gleed Girls GM School

  29 January 1992

  Wheatfields Infants School

  29 January 1992

  Wheatfields Junior School

  29 January 1992

  Dene Magna Community School

  29 January 1992

  The Rednock School

  30 January 1992

  Balcarras School

  30 January 1992

  Haberghan High School and Sixth Form Centre

  30 January 1992

  North Crescent Primary School

  30 January 1992

  King Harold School GM School

  31 January 1992

  Heywood School, Gloucestershire

  31 January 1992

  South View County Primary School, Peterborough

  4 February 1991

  Rickmansworth Park Junior Mixed Infants School

  4 February 1992

  Chatham Grammar School for Girls

  6 February 1992

  The Alderman Smith School

  13 February 1992

  Thurstable School

  14 February 1992

  Great Totham Primary School, Essex

  14 February 1992

  Furtherwick Park School

  18 February 1992

  Katherines Primary School

  19 February 1992

  St. Thomas the Apostle RC High School

  24 February 1992

  West Flegg Middle School (GM)

  24 February 1992

  St. Michaels RC School, Barnsley

  25 February 1992

  The Cotswold School

  26 February 1992

  Cippenham Middle School (GM)

  27 February 1992

  Oak Farm Junior Mixed School (GM)

  27 February 1992

  Oak Farm Infant School (GM)

  28 February 1992

  The Park Lane Primary School

  2 March 1992

  Soham Village College, Cambridgeshire

  2 March 1992

  Whitecross School

  5 March 1992

  St. John Rigby School

  6 March 1992

  Beaufort Community School, Gloucester

  9 March 1992

  Churchdown GM School

  9 March 1992

  Thornden School

  10 March 1992

  St. Anne's RC Primary School

  10 March 1992

  The Chalfonts Community College (GM)

  11 March 1992

  Rolph CE VA Primary School, Thorpe-le-Soken

  11 March 1992

  St. Olave's and St. Saviour's Grammar School

  20 March 1992

  Chosen Hill School, Gloucester

  20 March 1992

  Sheringham High School

  20 March 1992

  Mill Rythe First School, Havant

  23 March 1992

  Hextable School, Swanley

  501

  25 March 1992

  Sweyne School

  26 March 1992

  Mengham First School

  26 March 1992

  Upper Hopton CE VC First School

  30 March 1992

  Crosshall Junior School

  30 March 1992

  Crosshall Infant School

  6 April 1992

  Priory School

  7 April 1992

  Saintbridge GM Technology School

  8 April 1992

  St. Bernadette Junior School

  10 April 1992

  Monks' Dyke High School

  13 April 1992

  Pope John Paul High School

  13 April 1992

  Old Buckenham High School

  13 April 1992

  The Hugh Christie School

  17 April 1992

  Sir William Romney's Community School

  20 April 1992

  Manor School, Northamptonshire

  22 April 1992

  South Reston CE Primary School

  22 April 1992

  The Windmill County GM Primary School

  24 April 1992

  Mengham Middle School

  27 April 1992

  Sir Harry Smith Community College, Peterborough

  30 April 1992

  Park Mead County First School

  12 May 1992

  Hearnville Primary School

  18 May 1992

  Bourton Meadow Combined School

  21 May 1992

  Bushloe High School

  22 May 1992

  Overstone County Combined School

  22 May 1992

  The Fitzwimarc School, Rayleigh

  22 May 1992

  The Appleton School

  25 May 1992

  Upton Grammar School

  26 May 1992

  The Deanes School

  27 May 1992

  The Cornelius Vermuyden School

  28 May 1992

  Chipping Campden School

  29 May 1992

  Tiffin School

  1 June 1992

  Castle View School

  1 June 1992

  Calday Grange Grammar School, West Kirby

  1 June 1992

  Front Lawn Middle School

  1 June 1992

  The Bishop's Stortford High School

  5 June 1992

  Lavington Comprehensive School

  8 June 1992

  Boundary First School

  12 June 1992

  St. Richard's RC High School

  15 June 1992

  Torquay Boys' Grammar School

  19 June 1992

  Montagu School

  22 June 1992

  Abbotswood Middle School

  22 June 1992

  Chelmer Valley High School

  22 June 1992

  Holy Family RC Combined School

  26 June 1992

  Belfairs School/Sixth Form Centre

  26 June 1992

  Davenant Foundation School

  29 June 1992

  Chellaston School

  30 June 1992

  The King Edmund School

  3 July 1992

  Rainsford School

  3 July 1992

  Orton Wistow Primary School

  3 July 1992

  Dunsfold CE First School

  3 July 1992

  Lynn Grove High School

  6 July 1992

  Chislehurst and Sidcup Grammar School

  6 July 1992

  The Priory County Primary School

  6 July 1992

  The King's School, Peterborough

  6 July 1992

  St. Thomas More RC High School

  10 July 1992

  Salesian College

  10 July 1992

  Monksmead First School

  10 July 1992

  St. William's Primary School

  13 July 1992

  St. Andrew's CE Primary School

  13 July 1992

  Rugby High School for Girls

  13 July 1992

  Alcester Grammar School

  14 July 1992

  South Dartmoor School

  14 July 1992

  Wallington High School for Girls

  15 July 1992

  Bishop Thomas Grant Secondary School

  15 July 1992

  Testwood School

  16 July 1992

  Southend Girls High School

  16 July 1992

  Weavers School

  17 July 1992

  Thorpe Bay High School

  17 July 1992

  The Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe

  17 July 1992

  The Folkestone School for Girls

  17 July 1992

  Thamesmead School

  20 July 1992

  Hamstead Hall School

  20 July 1992

  Hamilton Combined School

  20 July 1992

  William De Ferrers School

  502

  21 July 1992

  Westlands High School

  21 July 1992

  The Hedley Walter School

  21 July 1992

  Jack Hunt School, Peterborough

  21 July 1992

  St. Simon Stock School

  22 July 1992

  Scissett Middle School

  22 July 1992

  Cheddington Combined School

  23 July 1992

  Ashcroft High School

  23 July 1992

  Mill Hill County High School

  23 July 1992

  The Malcolm Sargent County Primary School

  23 July 1992

  Summerswood First School

  23 July 1992

  St. Philomena's School, Carshalton

  24 July 1992

  King Edward VI Handsworth School, Birmingham

  24 July 1992

  King Edward VI Five Ways School

  24 July 1992

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Girls

  24 July 1992

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Boys

  24 July 1992

  King Edward VI Aston School

  27 July 1992

  Sharnbrook Upper School

  27 July 1992

  Dame Alice Owens School

  27 July 1992

  The Bilston High School

  27 July 1992

  Stoke Newington School

  28 July 1992

  Sawtry Village College

  28 July 1992

  Calmore Middle School

  28 July 1992

  Edenham School

  28 July 1992

  Crawley Green Infant School, Luton

  31 July 1992

  St Gregory's RC Primary School

  31 July 1992

  Sir Christopher Hatton School

  31 July 1992

  Freshbrook Primary School

  31 July 1992

  Westcliff High School for Girls

  31 July 1992

  Teign School

  3 August 1992

  Alfold County First School

  3 August 1992

  Weston Favell Upper School

  3 August 1992

  The Douay Martyrs School

  4 August 1992

  Westborough County Primary School

  5 August 1992

  St. Francesca Cabrini RC Primary School

  5 August 1992

  St. Edmund's RC Comprehensive School

  11 August 1992

  Wrenn School

  12 August 1992

  Herne Bay High School

  12 August 1992

  The Merrill Community School

  17 August 1992

  The Wildernesse School

  7 September 1992

  Northwick Park County Junior School

  11 September 1992

  The Coopers' Company and Coborn School

  18 September 1992

  Cliff Park High School

  18 September 1992

  Danesholme Junior School

  21 September 1992

  Northwick Park County Infant School

  22 September 1992

  St. Gregory's Catholic Comprehensive School

  22 September 1992

  Tendring High School

  25 September 1992

  The Holy Family RC Primary School

  25 September 1992

  St. Mildred's CE Primary School

  28 September 1992

  Grange Park Junior School

  28 September 1992

  Grange Park Infant School

  28 September 1992

  Oakbank School

  28 September 1992

  Lea Manor High School and Community College

  28 September 1992

  Lacey Gardens Junior School

  30 September 1992

  Heathfield High School

  30 September 1992

  St. Joseph's RC VA Primary School

  1 October 1992

  Appleby Grammar School

  2 October 1992

  Bushey Meads School

  2 October 1992

  Vandyke Upper School and Community College

  2 October 1992

  Knowles Hill School

  5 October 1992

  Hollinsclough CE Primary School

  6 October 1992

  Woodnewton Way Junior School

  7 October 1992

  William Levick Primary School

  7 October 1992

  Thornton School

  9 October 1992

  Hanson School

  9 October 1992

  Wallington High School for Boys

  12 October 1992

  Henbury County High School

  12 October 1992

  Greenwood Dale School

  12 October 1992

  Richard Challoner School

  12 October 1992

  Repton Primary School

  12 October 1992

  Takeley County Primary School

  503

  13 October 1992

  Lincroft Middle School

  14 October 1992

  Fallibroome County High School

  15 October 1992

  St. John's CE Primary School

  15 October 1992

  Belper School

  15 October 1992

  Beechview Middle School

  15 October 1992

  Wardle High School

  16 October 1992

  Rastrick High School

  16 October 1992

  Mount Grace School

  16 October 1992

  Tonbridge Grammar School for Girls

  16 October 1992

  The Shire Oak Community High School

  16 October 1992

  The Radcliffe School

  16 October 1992

  The George Spencer School

  16 October 1992

  Cranwell County Primary School

  16 October 1992

  John Bunyan Upper School

  16 October 1992

  Irlam and Cadishead Community High School

  19 October 1992

  Heartsease School

  19 October 1992

  Grangefield School

  19 October 1992

  West Hill High School

  19 October 1992

  Laisterdyke Middle School

  19 October 1992

  Jotmans Hall County Primary School

  19 October 1992

  John Paul II RC School

  19 October 1992

  St. Paul's Catholic School

  20 October 1992

  St. Bede's RC School

  20 October 1992

  St. Augustine's RC High School

  20 October 1992

  Hazelwick School

  20 October 1992

  Ashlyns School

  20 October 1992

  Wootton Upper School

  20 October 1992

  Convent of Jesus and Mary High School

  21 October 1992

  Blackfield Middle School

  21 October 1992

  Redborne Upper School and Community college

  21 October 1992

  Glebe Infant School

  21 October 1992

  Picklenash County Junior School

  21 October 1992

  Ashton-on-Mersey County High School

  21 October 1992

  Eastwood Comprehensive School

  21 October 1992

  Mascalls School

  21 October 1992

  Corby Beanfield Junior School

  22 October 1992

  St. Boniface's College

  22 October 1992

  Heanor Gate School

  22 October 1992

  Roseacre County Junior School

  22 October 1992

  Park High School

  22 October 1992

  Nicholas Breakspear RC School

  22 October 1992

  Ellowes Hall School

  22 October 1992

  New Wellington High School

  22 October 1992

  Earlsheaton High School

  22 October 1992

  Dallam School

  22 October 1992

  St. Mary and St. Joseph's School

  23 October 1992

  St. Clement's High School

  23 October 1992

  Great Yarmouth High School

  23 October 1992

  The Lord Grey School

  23 October 1992

  Kingsthorpe Middle School

  23 October 1992

  Abbs Cross School

  26 October 1992

  St. Joseph's College

  26 October 1992

  Walbottle School

  26 October 1992

  The Kingsway School

  School

  Maximum transitional grant allocation available £

  Amount claimed and paid to date £

  Acle High School

  44,160·00

  0·00

  Adams' Grammar School

  21,675·00

  21,675·00

  Alcester Grammar School

  46,530·00

  0·00

  Aloeric School

  40,560·00

  28,111·67

  Ancaster High School

  47,280·00

  47,280·00

  Angley High School

  54,330·00

  54,330·00

  Appleton School

  60,000·00

  0·00

  Archbishop's School

  50,190·00

  50,124·00

  Ash Green School

  44,160·00

  44,160·00

  Audenshaw School

  25,875·00

  25,875·00

  Avon Valley School

  40,770·00

  40,770·00

  Avonbourne School

  56,580·00

  56,580·00

  Aylesford School

  58,560·00

  58,400·00

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  26,115·00

  26,115·00

  504

  26 October 1992

  The Frances Bardsley School

  26 October 1992

  Ingatestone Anglo-European School

  26 October 1992

  Hillbrook Primary School

  27 October 1992

  Gunnersbury Catholic School

  27 October 1992

  St. Thomas's CE Primary School

  28 October 1992

  Gumley House Convent School for Girls

  28 October 1992

  Newport Free Grammar School

  28 October 1992

  Dunraven School

  28 October 1992

  The Manor School

  28 October 1992

  Deacon's School

  28 October 1992

  John Port School

  29 October 1992

  Bond First School

  29 October 1992

  Blue Coat CE Primary School

  29 October 1992

  Trinity CE High School

  29 October 1992

  The Kingswinford School

  29 October 1992

  Impington Village College

  30 October 1992

  Southfields School

  30 October 1992

  Bohunt School

  30 October 1992

  Harraby School

  30 October 1992

  Rising Brook High School

  30 October 1992

  Queen's School

  30 October 1992

  Whitelocke Infant School

  30 October 1992

  Comberton Village College

  2 November 1992

  Hastingsbury Upper School and Community College

  2 November 1992

  Sawston Village College

  2 November 1992

  Great Wyrley High School

  2 November 1992

  Bay House School

  2 November 1992

  Kirkby Stephen Grammar School

  2 November 1992

  Braithwell First and Middle School

  2 November 1992

  St. Martin's School

  3 November 1992

  Grays Secondary School

  3 November 1992

  Noel Baker School

  3 November 1992

  The Greensward School

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which grant-maintained schools have published their proposals later than the guidance given in paragraph 30 of "School Governors—How to Become a Grant-Maintained School" for the proposed date of implementation; and, in each case, what was the date of(a) publication of the proposals, (b) his decision, (c) the date of proposed implementation and (d) the date of implementation.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not available in the form requested or for the time permitted.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been(a) the maximum transitional grant allocation and (b) the amount actually claimed and paid to date in respect of each school approved for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:
  505

  School

  Maximum transitional grant allocation available £

  Amount claimed and paid to date £

  Baines School

  49,410·00

  49,384·00

  Balcarras School

  51,750·00

  20,200·00

  Bankficld High School

  21,510·00

  21,510·00

  Barneshurst Infant School

  24,800·00

  22,698·69

  Barneshurst Junior School

  37,980·00

  37,057·25

  Bassingbourn Village College

  40,770·00

  40,770·00

  Baverstock School

  29,700·00

  29,700·00

  Beaconsfield High School

  54,750·00

  54,750·00

  Beauchamps School

  55,860·00

  55,860·00

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  57,870·00

  57,870·00

  Beechen Cliff School

  27,990·00

  27,990·00

  Belmont Primary School

  40,860·00

  40,860·00

  Bingley Grammar School

  58,020·00

  58,020·00

  Bishopshalt School

  28,755·00

  28,755·00

  Borough Green Primary School

  39,000·00

  32,730·00

  Borrow Wood Junior School

  37,350·00

  34,512·81

  Bourne Abbey (GM) Primary School

  45,510·00

  45,510·00

  Bournemouth School

  28,035·00

  28,035·00

  Bournemouth School for Girls

  55,860·00

  55,860·00

  Brentside High School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Bridgewater Hall School

  30,000·00

  30,000·00

  Brindley Hall School

  30,000·00

  30,000·00

  Bromfords School

  50,970·00

  50,969·15

  Brookmead School

  37,140·00

  37,000·00

  Bruton Primary School

  36,630·00

  33,150·00

  Budmouth School

  57,750·00

  57,706·25

  Bullers Wood School

  58,260·00

  58,260·00

  Burntwood School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Caistor Grammar School

  42,300·00

  40,932·00

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  23,880·00

  23,880·00

  Carre's Grammar School

  20,700·00

  20,700·00

  Castle Hall School

  21,000·00

  21,000·00

  Castle View School

  54,720·00

  0·00

  Chalfonts School

  60,000 00

  0·00

  Chalvedon School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Charles Darwin School

  58,260·00

  58,260·00

  Chatham Grammar School for Girls

  47,130·00

  41,450·00

  Cheam High School

  58,710·00

  58,710·00

  Chellaston School

  58,260·00

  0·00

  Chelmsford County High School For Girls

  50,070·00

  18,012·00

  Chosen Hill School

  60,000·00

  39,140·00

  Christ Church School

  36,210·00

  36,210·00

  Christ's Hospital School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Churchdown School

  60,000·00

  50,834·14

  Cippenham County Middle School

  43,620·00

  22,745·00

  Claremount High School

  28,515·00

  28,515·00

  Clifford CE GM School

  22,130·00

  16,960·00

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  52,980·00

  52,980·00

  Collingwood School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Colyton Grammar School

  21,495·00

  21,495·00

  Coopers School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Copland Community School

  55,020·00

  55,000·00

  Costessey High School

  49,140·00

  49,140·00

  Cranbrook School

  50,880·00

  50,880·00

  Crofton Junior School

  49,560·00

  49,560·00

  Crofton School

  59,760·00

  59,760·00

  Cromer High School

  45,480·00

  45,480·00

  Crompton Fold Primary School

  43,230·00

  43,224·14

  Crossgates Primary School

  37,080·00

  37,080·00

  Crosshall Infant School

  38,760·00

  0·00

  Crosshall Junior School

  41,550·00

  25,700·00

  Dartford Grammar School

  54,480·00

  54,462·50

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  51,840·00

  51,840·00

  De Stafford School

  41,400·00

  41,400·00

  Denefield School

  56,520·00

  56,520·00

  Dereham Church First School

  24,380·00

  24,380·00

  Desborough School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Downham Market High School

  60,000·00

  42,500·00

  Drayton Manor High School

  60,000·00

  59,819·00

  Elliott School

  60,000·00

  57,000·00

  Epsom and Ewell High School

  57,630·00

  52,930·00

  Ermine Junior GM School

  38,100·00

  38,065·00

  Ethelburga Primary School

  25,070·00

  0·00

  Francis Bacon School

  43,980·00

  43,980·00

  506 507

  School

  Maximum transitional grant allocation available £

  Amount claimed and paid to date £

  Front Lawn Middle School

  36,720·00

  0·00

  Fulston Manor School

  52,620·00

  52,620·00

  Furtherwick Park School

  57,630·00

  57,630·00

  Gamlingay Village College

  35,040·00

  20,350·00

  Gleed Girls GM School

  46,680·00

  39,915·00

  Glyn School

  54,420·00

  54,417·00

  Gordon's School

  38,400·00

  38,400·00

  Graveney School

  60,000·00

  55,000·00

  Great Barr School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Great Totham Primary School

  40,830·00

  0·00

  Greenford High School

  53,400·00

  53,400·00

  Gresham Village School

  22,490·00

  22,490·00

  Guildford County School

  25,995·00

  25,995·00

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  53,310·00

  53,310·00

  Hardley School

  51,060·00

  51,060·00

  Hartshill School

  49,410·00

  49,410·00

  Hatchford JMI School

  44,850·00

  0·00

  Hawkedale First School

  22,460·00

  22,460·00

  Haydon School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Hayes School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Hayton CE Primary School

  22,640·00

  10,325·57

  Heacham Middle School

  36,090·00

  36,090·00

  Heathside School

  44,910·00

  44,910·00

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  23,475·00

  23,475·00

  Hendon School

  27,540·00

  27,540·00

  Herschel Grammar School

  45,060·00

  45,060·00

  Hertingfordbury Cowper CE JMI School

  23,990·00

  0·00

  Highams Park School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Highbury School

  44,190·00

  44,190·00

  Highcliffe Comprehensive School

  52,800·00

  39,276·00

  Holy Trinity CE Primary School

  36,570·00

  36,570·00

  Homewood School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Katharine Lady Berkeley's School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Katherines Primary School

  37,530·00

  27,900·00

  Kelsey Park School

  51,660·00

  51,660·00

  Kettleshulme CE Primary School

  20,360·00

  17,800·00

  King Edward VI Grammar School

  50,910·00

  36,295·00

  King Edward VI School, Louth

  46,380·00

  46,380·00

  King Harold School

  53,190·00

  53,100·00

  King John School, Thrapston

  38,220·00

  38,220·00

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  39,750·00

  39,750·00

  Kingswood School

  57,870·00

  57,870·00

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  57,600·00

  57,600·00

  La Retraite High School

  47,820·00

  47,449·44

  Lancaster Girls' Grammar School

  49,260·00

  49,260·00

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  27,675·00

  27,675·00

  Langley Grammar School

  48,060·00

  48,060·00

  Langley Park School for Boys

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Loddon Middle School

  37,890·00

  37,890·00

  Lodge Park School

  54,060·00

  54,060·00

  Manor High School

  48,780·00

  48,780·00

  Manor School, Northants

  51,000·00

  0·00

  Manshead School

  50,520·00

  31,825·00

  Marling School

  25,890·00

  25,890·00

  Marshland High School

  48,840·00

  48,840·00

  Mellow Lane School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Meopham School

  44,190·00

  44,190·00

  Minster College

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Monks' Dyke High School

  51,150·00

  0·00

  Montagu School

  56,550·00

  25,300·00

  Mosely Park School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Moulton Primary School

  41,640·00

  41,640·00

  Myton School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Netherthorpe School

  23,205·00

  23,205·00

  Newent Community School

  60,00·00

  60,000·00

  Newlands Spring Primary School

  39,870·00

  39,870·00

  Newstead Wood School for Girls

  50,340·00

  50,340·00

  Newton Bluecoat School

  38,340·00

  38,340·00

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  56,820·00

  56,813·75

  North Crescent Primary School

  36,090·00

  30,992·09

  North Kesteven School

  60,000·00

  59,761·26

  Northampton School for Boys

  52,020·00

  51,945,00

  Northlands Junior School

  37,620·00

  32,683·00

  Northolt High School

  56,490·00

  56,490·00

  508 509

  School

  Maximum transitional grant allocation available £

  Amount claimed anil paid to date £

  Northwood School

  59,490·00

  59,490·00

  Norwich Road School

  41,160·00

  36,603·00

  Oak Farm Infant School

  39,960·00

  0·00

  Oak Farm Junior School

  41,010·00

  0·00

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  43,290·00

  43,290·00

  Old Swinford Hospital

  23,160·00

  23,160·00

  Oldborough Manor High School

  51,450·00

  51,450·00

  Oldfield School

  48,450·00

  48,450·00

  Overstone Combined School

  38,790,00

  34,126·00

  Parkside First School

  37,200·00

  37,200·00

  Parkstone Grammar School

  48,630·00

  48,630·00

  Parmiter's School

  58,620·00

  58,620·00

  Pate's Grammar School

  30,000·00

  30,000·00

  Priory School

  46,620·00

  0·00

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Penrith

  45,120·00

  45,000·00

  Queen Elizabeth Lower School, Atherstone

  46,710·00

  46,710·00

  Queen Elizabeth Upper School, Atherstone

  32,670·00

  32,670·00

  Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Alford

  19,935·00

  19,935·00

  Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Horncastle

  45,060·00

  45,060·00

  Queen Elizabeth's School for Boys, Barnet

  30,000·00

  30,000·00

  Queensbury School

  24,555·00

  24,555·00

  Queensmead School

  55,500·00

  55,500·00

  Raine's Foundation School

  56,010·00

  56,010·00

  Rainham Mark Grammar School

  59,550·00

  59,550·00

  Rauceby School CE GM

  22,250·00

  22,250·00

  Ravens Wood School for Boys

  55,710·00

  55,710·00

  Ravensdale GM School

  40,890·00

  40,890·00

  Reading School

  49,770·00

  47,314·14

  Redgate GM Middle School

  24,920·00

  24,920·00

  Rednock School

  60,000·00

  59,998·24

  Ribston Hall High School

  22,275·00

  22,275·00

  Rickmansworth School

  28,965·00

  28,965·00

  Riddlesdown High School

  57,630·00

  57,630·00

  Ringwood School

  52,110·00

  52,110·00

  Robert Kett GM Middle School

  42,390·00

  33,668·31

  Robert Pattinson School

  60,000·00

  58,915·00

  Robinswood Primary School

  41,040·00

  41,040·00

  Rosebery School

  52,860·00

  52,860·00

  Rugby High School for Girls

  46,050·00

  0·00

  Saffron Walden County High School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Saintbridge School

  54,090·00

  0·00

  Salesian College

  45,570·00

  0·00

  Salterlee Primary School

  22,190·00

  22,190·00

  Sandown Court Community College

  55,650·00

  55,650·00

  Sawtry Village College

  48,090·00

  0·00

  Scot by CE Primary School

  36,030·00

  36,030·00

  Senacre Technology School

  57,630·00

  57,630·00

  Send CE GM First School

  24,380·00

  24,380·00

  Sexey's School

  41,610·00

  41,610·00

  Sheringham High School

  46,620·00

  0·00

  Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys

  48,840·00

  48,840·00

  Sir Roger Manwood's School

  49,590·00

  29,503·00

  Skegness Grammar School

  23,520·00

  23,520·00

  Small Heath School

  26,535·00

  26,535·00

  Snodland CE Primary School

  40,680·00

  40,680·00

  South Wootton Junior School

  23,690·00

  730·00

  Southfield School for Girls

  24,225·00

  24,225·00

  Southlands School, New Romney

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Southlands School, Reading

  23,115·00

  23,115·00

  St Aidan's County High School

  44,700·00

  44,700·00

  St Augustine's RC Comprehensive School

  45,120·00

  45,119·25

  St Bartholomew's School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  St Bernadette Junior School

  36,990·00

  0·00

  St Francis Xavier's College

  30,000·00

  30,000·00

  St George's CE School, Gravesend

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  St George's GM School, Sleaford

  56,100·00

  56,099·75

  St Helen's Primary School

  37,620·00

  37,620·00

  St James's CE School, Bolton

  24,930·00

  24,930·00

  St John The Baptist School, Woking

  49,800·00

  44,938·29

  St Mary's Catholic Primary School, Royston

  25,850·00

  25,749·21

  St Thomas More Catholic Comprehensive

  60,000·00

  48,657·00

  St Thomas More RC High School

  57,510·00

  0·00

  Stoneleigh First School

  25,730·00

  25,730·00

  Stratford School

  52,950·00

  52,950·00

  510 511

  School

  Maximum transitional grant allocation available £

  Amount claimed and paid to date £

  Streetly School

  60,000·00

  0·00

  Stroud High School

  25,515·00

  25,515·00

  Sutton Grammar School

  47,580·00

  47,580·00

  Tewkesbury School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Thamesmead School

  43,560·00

  0·00

  Thamesview School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  The Arnewood School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  The Beacon School

  52,590·00

  51,914·00

  The Boswells School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  The Bradbourne School

  43,980·00

  38,578·52

  The Burgate School

  43,650·00

  43,650·00

  The Canterbury High School

  54,120·00

  54,120·00

  The Castle Hills GM School

  42,210·00

  42,201·22

  The City of Portsmouth Boys' School

  50,220·00

  50,220·00

  The Cornelius Vermuyden School

  53,430·00

  0·00

  The Cornwallis School

  54,360·00

  54,360·00

  The Cotswold School

  46,200·00

  10,426·00

  The Crossley Heath School

  50,700·00

  50,700·00

  The Crypt School

  40,740·00

  40,740·00

  The Deanes School

  48,600·00

  0·00

  The Downs School

  45,960·00

  45,960·00

  The Eastwood School

  51,750·00

  51,750·00

  The Ecclesbourne School

  30,000·00

  30,000·00

  The Ellen Wilkinson School for Girls

  55,650·00

  55,635·50

  The Elmwood Primary School

  44,430·00

  44,430·00

  The Fitzwimarc School

  60,000·00

  0·00

  The Gartree Grant Maintained School

  41,220·00

  41,219·00

  The Hayes Manor School

  49,800·00

  49,800·00

  The Hugh Christie School

  57,000·00

  0·00

  The John Fisher School

  53,370·00

  53,370·00

  The King Edmund School

  60,000·00

  0·00

  The King John School, Essex

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  The King's School, Peterborough

  53,460·00

  0·00

  The Kings School, Grantham

  26,150·00

  26,150·00

  The London Nautical School

  20,895·00

  20,895·00

  The London Oratory School

  30,000·00

  30,000·00

  The Long Field High School

  20,880·00

  20,880·00

  The Magdalen School

  37,020·00

  37,020·00

  The Mailing School

  46,680·00

  46,680·00

  The Manor School, Byfleet

  24,110·00

  18,191·00

  The Maplesden Noakes School

  49,710·00

  49,710·00

  The North Halifax High School

  50,040·00

  50,040·00

  The Park Lane Primary School

  38,370·00

  35,340·00

  The Philip Morant School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  The Plume School

  60,000·00

  59,850·00

  The Queen Katherine School

  60,000·00

  36,524·06

  The Queen's School, Wisbech

  60,000·00

  50,695·00

  The Rickstones School

  44,340·00

  34,050·00

  The Robert Napier School

  54,030·00

  54,000·00

  The Skinners' School

  50,040·00

  50,040·00

  Thomas Whitehead CE School

  36,690·00

  36,690·00

  Thurstable School

  54,210·00

  54,200·00

  Tiffin School

  56,820·00

  36,800·00

  Torells School

  47,160·00

  45,619·00

  Trinity School, Carlisle

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Turnham Primary School

  41,580·00

  0·00

  Upton Grammar School

  45,450·00

  0·00

  Uxbridge High School

  51,120·00

  51,119·95

  Vyners School

  57,540·00

  57,540·00

  Watford Grammar School

  30,000·00

  30,000·00

  Watford Grammar School for Girls

  58,470·00

  58,470·00

  West Flegg Middle School

  43,110·00

  30,300·00

  West Hatch High School

  57,480·00

  57,480·00

  Westcliff High School

  55,050·00

  55,050·00

  Wheatfields Junior School

  41,130·00

  27,580·00

  William Alvey School

  42,420·00

  42,420·00

  William De Ferrers School

  60,000·00

  0·00

  William Farr CE Comprehensive School

  55,650·00

  55,645·00

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys

  40,560·00

  40,560·00

  Wilmington Grammar School for Girls

  21,760·00

  21,760·00

  Wilson's School

  25,875·00

  25,875·00

  Windmill Primary School

  42,630·00

  30,869·00

  Wold Newton School

  22,880·00

  22,800·00

  Wolverhampton Girls' High School

  23,445·00

  23,445·00

  512 513

  School

  Maximum transitional grant allocation available £

  Amount claimed and paid to dale £

  Wood End First School

  38,550·00

  0·00

  Wood End Middle School

  36,810·00

  0·00

  Woodroffe School

  55,170·00

  55,170·00

  Wrotham School

  41,730·00

  41,730·00

  Wymondham College

  53,970·00

  53,970·00

  Yarborough High School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many copies have been distributed and, in each case, at what cost of the booklets(a) "School Governors—How to Become a Grant-Maintained School" (b) "Grant-Maintained schools—Questions Parents Ask", (c) "Grant-Maintained Schools—What it Means for Staff",(d) "Grant-Maintained Schools—Questions Staff Ask" (e) "Grant-Maintained Schools—Experiences During the First Year" and (f) "Education into the Next Century".

  Mr. Forth
  The total numbers of booklets which have been printed to fulfil expected demand and the current costs of producing each booklet are as follows:

  Total printed

  Current cost per booklet £

  (a) 180,000 since April 1992

  0·1800

  (b) 1,290,005 since March 1990

  0·0800

  (c) 193,000 November 1990–September 1992

  10·0900

  (d) 140,000 since September 1992

  0·0700

  (e) 350,000 since June 1991

  0·0900

  (f) 2,750,000 since August 1992

  20·0592

  1 Booklet is no longer produced. This is the cost when it was last produced.

  2 Estimated.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools' folders have been produced for the distribution of booklets; and what was the cost of(a) the design and (b) the production.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 90,000 folders have been produced to date. The cost of design was £487·63 and artwork production was £489·98. The printing costs were approximately £29,000.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, in rank order, the 10 local education authorities with most schools which have been approved for grant-maintained status; and for each local education authority, the number of schools which have been approved, the political control of the local education authority and where the local education authority ranks in spending per pupil for all local education authorities.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:514

  LEA

  Number of GM schools approved

  Political control

  LEA schools, ranking by per pupil funding, 1990–91

  Kent

  35

  Conservative

  108

  Essex

  33

  Conservative

  80

  Lincolnshire

  23

  Conservative

  101

  Norfolk

  16

  Conservative

  76

  Gloucestershire

  16

  No overall control

  102

  Surrey

  15

  Conservative

  56

  Berkshire

  11

  No overall control

  65

  Bromley

  11

  Conservative

  27

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  Conservative

  97

  Hillingdon

  10

  Conservative

  18

  Northamptonshire

  10

  Conservative

  103

  Note: The ranking is according to each LEA's net institutional funding per nursery, primary and secondary school pupil in 1990–91, the latest year for which information on actual spending is available. Per pupil funding is derived from LEAs' returns of their expenditure to the Department of the Environment and of their pupil numbers to the Department for Education. The LEA with the highest per pupil funding would be ranked as 1, that with the lowest per pupil funding as 108 (Isles of Scilly is excluded).

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in how many ballots in England under section 61 of the Education Reform Act 1988, where a simple majority of parents voted in favour of seeking grant-maintained status, the proportion of such parents was(a) above 69 per cent., (b) between 60 and 69 per cent., (c) between 50 and 59 per cent., (d) between 40 and 49 per cent., (e) between 30 and 39 per cent. and (f) below 30 per cent. of the number of parents eligible to vote.

  Mr. Forth
  The proportion of eligible parents voting in favour of grant-maintained status in ballots where a result in favour was obtained has been as follows: above 69 per cent. in 75 ballots; betweeen 60 and 69 per cent. in 86 ballots; between 50 and 59 per cent. in 155 ballots; between 40 and 49 per cent. in 155 ballots; between 30 and 39 per cent. in 99 ballots and under 30 per cent. in 15 ballots.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools include in their admissions policy an element of priority for the children of staff working in the schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about the admission policies of all grant-maintained schools is not readily available in this form. But since I November 1991, my right hon. Friend has approved applications for eight grant-maintained schools to amend their admissions policies so as to give some priority to children of their staff.

  Schools Branch
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff are employed in schools branch 4, division B at his Department; what was the cost of the branch in 1991–92; and what is the budgeted cost for 1992–93.

  Mr. Forth
  There has been some restructuring of the branch during this year. As of 5 November there were 21 civil servants employed in schools branch 4 division B. The running costs of the division in 1991–92 were £706,000 and the budget for 1992–93 is £800,000.

  School Sports Facilities
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will estimate the possible effect of the elimination of claimed surplus places in maintained schools on sports facilities in general and on statutory or recommended minimum acreages of playing fields.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department is currently consulting local education authorities on the scope for removing surplus places, on the basis of its estimate that in 1991 there were up to 1·5 million surplus places in England. Decisions on the disposal of playing fields consequential upon school rationalisation are for
  LEAs.

  School Visits
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the schools which he and his ministerial colleagues have visited in their official capacity since assuming their different offices.

  Mr. Patten
  I, my noble Friend the Minister of State, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) have visited 57 schools so far during our periods in office, made up of

  1 nursery;

  21 primary schools, including 1 middle school;

  30 secondary schools, including 3 grant-maintained schools;

  2 special schools;

  3 CTCs and 2 sixth form colleges.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Committee Meetings
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when is the next K4 committee meeting.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The K4 committee will not come into being until the treaty on European union enters into force.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the judgment of the European Court of Justice on the B & Q cases.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I hope that the court will deliver its judgment soon.
  516
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidance he proposes to give local authorities on the enforcement of the Shops Act 1950;

  (2) how he proposes to ensure that the Shops Act 1950 is fairly enforced in the pre-Christmas and new year trading periods.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has recently made clear what steps local authorities can take to enforce the law,Official Report, 11 May 1992, column 368; 15 July 1992, column 707.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his oral answer on 22 October to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall),Official Report, column 558, when he expects to make his promised statement to the House;

  (2) what procedure and time scale he intends to follow to ensure that Parliament is freely enabled to decide on the nature and extent of any changes to the Shops Act 1950.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend intends to make a statement soon which will deal with these matters among others.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his oral answer on 22 October to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).Official Report, column 558, how many of the stated representations received in favour of Sunday trading have come from pre-printed colour postcards supplied by the Shopping Hours Reform Council.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Of the 4,433 written representations received, 4,086 were postcards in the form described in the question.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the Sunday trading laws of other EC member states.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that nearly all other EC member states place some restrictions on Sunday trading.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations on Sunday trading he has received during the current year from small business organisations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received 35 written representations from business organisations. Our records do not enable us to distinguish between them according to size.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the Keep Sunday Special campaign; and when he next expects to do so.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I last met representatives of the Keep Sunday Special campaign on 23 September 1992. We agreed to meet again before the Government bring before the House any proposals for reforming the Shops Act 1950.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information he has on the incidence of shop theft and damage on the Sundays in the period from November 1991 and for similar periods in the previous five years;
  517
  (2) what information he has on the incidence on crimes against shop staff (a) in the current year and (b) in comparable periods for the previous five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We do not hold such information centrally.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times in the past 12 months he or his ministerial colleagues or his officials has met representatives of(a) the Shopping Hours Reform Council, (b) the Keep Sunday Special campaign, (c) OPEN, (d) the Pro-Sunday Coalition, (e) Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and (f) Sort Out Sunday, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have had four meetings with the Shopping Hours Reform Council in the last 12 months; four with the Keep Sunday Special campaign; one with OPEN; and two with Sort Out Sunday. We have had no meetings with either the Pro-Sunday coalition or USDAW in that period.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when was the last time his Department issued a circular to local authorities on the Shops Act 1950;

  (2) when he plans to issue the next circular to local authorities on the Shops Act 1950.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The last circular to local authorities about the Shops Act 1950 was issued on 17 July 1981. We have no plans to issue another.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultations he has held with residents associations on the subject of Sunday trading;

  (2) what consultations he has held with (a) the British Retail Consortium, (b) churches, (c) ethnic minority groups, (d) the Jewish community, (e) consumer organisations, (f) consumers, (g) trade unions and (h) employees and other trade associations in the retail sector on the subject of Sunday trading.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Home Office Ministers have consulted a large number of groups and organisations about the law on Sunday trading. Over 75 meetings have been held since January 1988 with a range of different groups.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has commissioned into the impact on small shops of the Sunday trading activities of multiple food retailers since November 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A study has been commissioned to review the economic effects of changing Sunday trading patterns.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the last year how many individuals have been refused leave to remain or requested to leave the United Kingdom; and how many have actually left.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In 1991, 16,300 applications for variation of leave were refused. Comprehensive information on those leaving following refusal, or on the outcome of subsequent appeals or reconsideration of the case, is not readily available.
  518
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) visitors, (b) short-term students and (c) would-be students were refused (i) entry clearance and (ii) entry to the United Kingdom by country and for each month since January 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: The available information is given in the tables. It is not possible from the information available centrally to ascertain how many of the persons covered by tables 2 and 3 were seeking entry as visitors, short-term students or would-be students, but it is likely that the large majority of them were.

  Table 1. Visitors and students refused1 entry clearance to the United Kingdom in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Ghana, Nigeria and Hong Kong

  Country where application made

  Visitors

  Students2

  Bangladesh

  1991:

  1st quarter

  397

  7

  2nd quarter

  576

  —

  3rd quarter

  806

  12

  4th quarter

  751

  4

  Year

  2,530

  23

  1992:

  1st quarter

  557

  6

  2nd quarter

  548

  1

  India

  1991:

  1st quarter

  1,821

  21

  2nd quarter

  3,574

  32

  3rd quarter

  2,672

  65

  4th quarter

  1,438

  28

  Year

  9,505

  146

  1992:

  1st quarter

  1,617

  20

  2nd quarter

  2,505

  15

  Pakistan

  1991:

  1st quarter

  2,286

  63

  2nd quarter

  4,247

  59

  3rd quarter

  5,048

  151

  4th quarter

  3,963

  114

  Year

  15,544

  387

  1992:

  1st quarter

  2,975

  87

  2nd quarter

  3,393

  52

  Ghana

  1991:

  1st quarter

  521

  37

  2nd quarter

  1,061

  45

  3rd quarter

  1,527

  90

  4th quarter

  1,132

  76

  Year

  4,241

  248

  1992:

  1st quarter

  819

  62

  2nd quarter

  1,330

  71

  3rd quarter

  1,727

  125

  519

  Country where application made

  Visitors

  Students2

  Nigeria

  1991:

  1st quarter

  3,331

  94

  2nd quarter

  3,763

  76

  3rd quarter

  2,892

  36

  4th quarter

  5,506

  82

  Year

  15,492

  288

  1992:

  1st quarter

  2,988

  68

  Hong Kong

  1991:

  1st quarter

  10

  1

  2nd quarter

  11

  —

  3rd quarter

  11

  2

  4th quarter

  9

  2

  Year

  41

  5

  1992:

  1st quarter

  10

  1

  2nd quarter

  6

  3

  3rd quarter

  1

  1

  1 Data relate to applications refused initially; some were granted subsequently on appeal.

  2 Including long-term students.

  Table 2—Persons refused entry clearance to the United Kingdom other than for settlement1 in 1991, in all countries except Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Ghana, Nigeria and Hong Kong.

  Country where application made

  Number of refusals2

  Algeria

  3,931

  Angola

  27

  Argentina

  1

  Ascension Island

  —

  Australia

  75

  Austria

  17

  Bahamas

  2

  Bahrain

  50

  Barbados

  137

  Belgium

  96

  Belize

  2

  Bermuda

  —

  Bolivia

  1

  Botswana

  1

  Brazil

  4

  Brunei

  3

  Bulgaria

  457

  Burma

  14

  Cameroon

  18

  Canada

  65

  Chile

  —

  China

  2,534

  Colombia

  2

  Congo

  —

  Costa Rica

  1

  Cote D'Ivoire

  46

  Cuba

  —

  Cyprus

  421

  Czechoslovakia

  10

  Denmark

  88

  Ecuador

  —

  Egypt

  1,222

  Ethiopia

  456

  Fiji

  13

  Finland

  12

  520

  Country where application made

  Number of refusals2

  France

  532

  Gabon

  —

  Gambia

  118

  Germany

  325

  Gibraltar

  —

  Greece

  24

  Guatemala

  —

  Guyana

  97

  Holy See

  —

  Honduras

  —

  Hungary

  73

  Iceland

  1

  Indonesia

  9

  Iran

  —

  Ireland

  32

  Israel

  2

  Italy

  410

  Jamaica

  680

  Japan

  64

  Jerusalem

  9

  Jordan

  730

  Kenya

  117

  Korea

  8

  Kuwait

  17

  Lebanon

  318

  Lesotho

  1

  Liberia

  —

  Libya

  7

  Luxembourg

  2

  Madagascar

  —

  Malawi

  5

  Malaysia

  180

  Malta

  25

  Mauritius

  129

  Mexico

  —

  Mongolia

  —

  Morocco

  2,101

  Mozambique

  16

  Namibia

  5

  Nepal

  127

  Netherlands

  84

  New Zealand

  29

  Norway

  184

  Oman

  75

  Panama

  1

  Papua New Guinea

  —

  Peru

  1

  Philippines

  787

  Poland

  2,462

  Portugal

  13

  Qatar

  135

  Romania

  574

  St. Helena

  —

  Saudi Arabia

  701

  Senegal

  22

  Seychelles

  2

  Sierra Leone

  363

  Singapore

  36

  Solomon Island

  —

  South Africa

  37

  Spain

  48

  Sri Lanka

  1,143

  Sudan

  42

  Swaziland

  3

  521

  Country where application made

  Number of refusals2

  Sweden

  155

  Switzerland

  50

  Syria

  413

  Tanzania

  37

  Thailand

  809

  Tonga

  —

  Trinidad and Tobago

  122

  Tunisia

  172

  Turkey

  2,322

  Uganda

  516

  United Arab Emirates

  888

  United States

  154

  Uruguay

  —

  USSR

  1,087

  Table 3. All persons refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom

  1991

  Nationality

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Year

  European Communitly1

  Belgium

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Denmark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  France

  —

  1

  5

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  —

  18

  Germany

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  4

  13

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Italy

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  9

  Portugal

  7

  2

  2

  3

  4

  5

  1

  2

  —

  3

  —

  3

  32

  Spain

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5

  Common wealth

  Australia

  19

  27

  28

  22

  20

  17

  30

  17

  21

  16

  16

  17

  250

  Bangladesh

  41

  42

  35

  25

  26

  30

  48

  30

  49

  35

  24

  47

  432

  Barbados

  5

  3

  2

  2

  1

  5

  4

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  26

  Canada

  11

  5

  5

  11

  10

  16

  11

  15

  11

  16

  11

  8

  130

  Cyprus

  10

  9

  15

  10

  12

  5

  4

  7

  8

  9

  11

  11

  111

  Ghana

  47

  41

  40

  36

  40

  28

  34

  40

  46

  30

  33

  49

  464

  Guyana

  3

  4

  6

  1

  6

  7

  2

  5

  7

  8

  3

  5

  57

  Hong Kong

  10

  5

  20

  16

  19

  35

  23

  18

  19

  27

  16

  15

  223

  India

  29

  36

  54

  30

  34

  68

  39

  39

  28

  39

  34

  37

  467

  Jamaica

  33

  32

  37

  34

  36

  32

  50

  12

  28

  33

  26

  39

  392

  Kenya

  14

  15

  14

  13

  24

  14

  11

  11

  17

  10

  13

  11

  167

  Malaysia

  35

  21

  70

  156

  105

  114

  44

  78

  35

  49

  41

  50

  798

  Malta

  4

  1

  5

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  —

  2

  19

  Mauritius

  19

  16

  16

  11

  22

  18

  10

  17

  11

  23

  15

  11

  189

  New Zealand

  5

  9

  7

  20

  14

  15

  15

  12

  15

  19

  20

  10

  161

  Nigeria

  71

  50

  94

  105

  122

  187

  160

  59

  134

  186

  222

  122

  1,542

  Pakistan

  41

  29

  36

  19

  33

  45

  27

  31

  48

  35

  29

  47

  420

  Sierra Leone

  31

  22

  24

  26

  35

  29

  34

  88

  43

  55

  33

  36

  456

  Singapore

  1

  4

  3

  5

  8

  10

  1

  3

  6

  7

  6

  5

  59

  Sri Lanka

  5

  15

  17

  6

  0

  30

  11

  6

  9

  7

  8

  3

  123

  Tanzania

  5

  4

  15

  11

  6

  12

  13

  16

  12

  11

  14

  12

  131

  Trinidad and Tobago

  7

  13

  7

  6

  6

  4

  4

  1

  4

  7

  4

  7

  70

  Uganda

  25

  19

  34

  6

  12

  5

  5

  4

  6

  7

  3

  4

  130

  Zambia

  8

  5

  10

  5

  12

  7

  12

  3

  4

  8

  11

  3

  88

  Zimbabwe

  16

  13

  13

  18

  15

  13

  10

  4

  15

  15

  21

  9

  162

  British Overseas Citizens

  5

  2

  1

  1

  2

  3

  4

  3

  4

  3

  7

  2

  37

  Other Commonwealth

  20

  19

  35

  52

  38

  40

  33

  26

  31

  25

  28

  51

  398

  Other foreign

  Algeria

  27

  14

  6

  10

  22

  19

  13

  19

  16

  20

  29

  31

  226

  Argentina

  4

  7

  15

  17

  14

  8

  2

  6

  13

  5

  5

  9

  105

  Austria

  6

  4

  4

  1

  3

  5

  7

  7

  7

  4

  3

  2

  53

  Brazil

  54

  35

  53

  80

  72

  70

  65

  53

  64

  73

  57

  45

  721

  Bulgaria

  6

  8

  4

  8

  2

  —

  11

  7

  —

  3

  8

  —

  57

  Chile

  8

  1

  5

  1

  4

  8

  5

  6

  3

  4

  3

  1

  49

  China

  7

  13

  4

  11

  1

  1

  9

  3

  5

  4

  5

  2

  65

  Colombia

  32

  32

  39

  48

  52

  48

  39

  28

  42

  29

  41

  49

  479

  Cuba

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  10

  Czechoslovakia

  21

  18

  16

  30

  45

  73

  112

  53

  41

  22

  18

  9

  458

  Egypt

  5

  1

  5

  2

  2

  1

  1

  2

  4

  —

  1

  1

  25

  Ethiopia

  4

  4

  8

  5

  4

  5

  10

  6

  5

  2

  3

  1

  57

  Finland

  2

  3

  6

  4

  2

  3

  5

  4

  6

  4

  6

  3

  48

  Hungary

  33

  12

  11

  21

  22

  32

  39

  19

  31

  28

  15

  6

  269

  Indonesia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  10

  3

  1

  1

  1

  3

  21

  Iran

  14

  17

  9

  4

  14

  14

  33

  32

  21

  16

  9

  6

  189

  Iraq

  9

  5

  8

  —

  2

  3

  5

  3

  5

  —

  1

  4

  45

  Israel

  18

  9

  13

  13

  8

  22

  15

  24

  18

  13

  14

  6

  183

  Japan

  18

  6

  18

  24

  6

  11

  8

  14

  12

  14

  14

  15

  160

  522

  Country where application made

  Number of refusals2

  Vanuatu

  —

  Venezuela

  5

  Vietnam

  2

  Yemen

  138

  Yugloslavia

  57

  Zaire

  32

  Zambia

  31

  Zimbabwe

  76

  Total

  29,632

  1 That is all persons seeking entry clearance other than spouses, fiance(e)s, children and other dependant relatives.

  2 Data relate to applications refused initially; some were subsequently granted on appeal.

  523

  Nationality

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Year

  Jordan

  10

  2

  1

  1

  1

  3

  2

  5

  —

  1

  2

  2

  30

  Kuwait

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Lebanon

  26

  25

  26

  15

  19

  36

  25

  34

  12

  12

  28

  23

  281

  Libya

  6

  3

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  2

  4

  9

  1

  1

  34

  Mexico

  14

  6

  6

  8

  9

  6

  14

  13

  3

  14

  5

  4

  102

  Morocco

  17

  11

  8

  5

  18

  24

  33

  33

  26

  17

  15

  27

  234

  Norway

  7

  4

  3

  4

  2

  4

  8

  7

  2

  8

  4

  5

  58

  Peru

  11

  15

  8

  8

  9

  10

  4

  8

  7

  7

  5

  8

  100

  Philippines

  5

  6

  23

  5

  9

  14

  17

  11

  5

  18

  7

  24

  144

  Poland

  8

  12

  6

  9

  8

  13

  6

  13

  14

  6

  16

  5

  116

  Romania

  8

  1

  2

  7

  7

  4

  7

  15

  3

  2

  7

  2

  65

  Saudi Arabia

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  3

  5

  4

  2

  1

  22

  Somalia

  4

  5

  5

  7

  7

  10

  12

  8

  6

  11

  9

  —

  84

  South Africa

  39

  44

  44

  27

  46

  37

  36

  42

  31

  46

  34

  20

  446

  Sudan

  2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  2

  2

  2

  5

  —

  3

  2

  22

  Sweden

  17

  17

  11

  12

  13

  12

  9

  18

  21

  8

  18

  11

  167

  Switzerland

  10

  4

  4

  4

  8

  14

  8

  10

  8

  5

  7

  6

  88

  Syria

  3

  2

  3

  —

  1

  2

  4

  3

  7

  3

  —

  —

  28

  Thailand

  2

  4

  4

  2

  3

  4

  1

  2

  9

  3

  3

  1

  38

  Tunisia

  5

  2

  6

  5

  7

  7

  5

  3

  1

  5

  4

  6

  56

  Turkey

  28

  26

  26

  30

  31

  25

  26

  26

  23

  30

  15

  40

  326

  USA

  111

  79

  96

  83

  79

  108

  96

  107

  112

  109

  95

  87

  1,162

  USSR

  11

  5

  11

  7

  6

  10

  32

  9

  13

  4

  9

  9

  126

  Uruguay

  1

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  7

  Venezuela

  5

  3

  5

  7

  5

  4

  3

  1

  3

  3

  7

  5

  51

  Yugoslavia

  50

  30

  42

  48

  66

  50

  97

  96

  143

  171

  117

  104

  1,014

  Other foreign countries

  53

  63

  77

  70

  89

  78

  94

  84

  76

  64

  86

  74

  908

  Stateless

  114

  109

  140

  100

  114

  145

  177

  206

  162

  146

  158

  178

  1,749

  All nationalities

  1,367

  1,167

  1,437

  1,400

  1,516

  1,757

  1,761

  1,605

  1,610

  1,637

  1,547

  1,466

  18,270

  1 Persons claiming to be EC nationals

  1992

  Nationality

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  European Community1

  Belgium

  4

  2

  —

  1

  3

  —

  2

  1

  Denmark

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  France

  4

  3

  5

  6

  12

  5

  10

  12

  Germany

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greece

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Italy

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  3

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  4

  2

  Portugal

  4

  2

  —

  7

  3

  4

  2

  9

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Commonwealth

  Australia

  21

  21

  23

  27

  21

  21

  18

  18

  Bangladesh

  35

  46

  64

  26

  32

  30

  32

  19

  Barbados

  1

  3

  4

  3

  3

  4

  2

  2

  Canada

  11

  8

  11

  9

  20

  10

  13

  6

  Cyprus

  6

  4

  5

  7

  2

  6

  4

  10

  Ghana

  33

  40

  25

  19

  35

  35

  33

  38

  Guyana

  1

  6

  2

  6

  3

  7

  2

  3

  Hong Kong

  16

  12

  6

  17

  6

  16

  14

  12

  India

  28

  26

  31

  27

  40

  23

  26

  26

  Jamaica

  31

  32

  37

  36

  29

  33

  37

  27

  Kenya

  18

  20

  14

  9

  20

  12

  19

  20

  Malaysia

  21

  16

  33

  39

  50

  22

  39

  16

  Malta

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  —

  Mauritius

  16

  11

  19

  14

  13

  9

  18

  15

  New Zealand

  8

  14

  11

  18

  16

  6

  14

  11

  Nigeria

  121

  119

  91

  85

  55

  62

  67

  96

  Pakistan

  25

  30

  18

  22

  32

  28

  20

  37

  Sierra Leone

  25

  23

  22

  22

  15

  20

  36

  37

  Singapore

  4

  5

  4

  7

  5

  —

  3

  2

  Sri Lanka

  11

  6

  1

  1

  18

  5

  8

  14

  Tanzania

  6

  8

  8

  9

  11

  12

  13

  5

  Trinidad and Tobago

  5

  6

  2

  5

  4

  4

  5

  8

  Uganda

  2

  5

  2

  4

  4

  —

  2

  5

  Zambia

  6

  2

  3

  5

  9

  7

  5

  4

  Zimbabwe

  16

  11

  5

  9

  7

  10

  8

  9

  British Overseas Citizens

  2

  —

  1

  5

  2

  4

  3

  3

  Other Commonwealth

  41

  35

  42

  34

  23

  33

  25

  42

  Other foreign

  Algeria

  29

  20

  11

  11

  14

  20

  20

  17

  Argentina

  8

  —

  11

  5

  7

  6

  9

  6

  Austria

  3

  5

  7

  4

  11

  12

  9

  2

  524 525

  Nationality

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  Brazil

  44

  39

  46

  46

  46

  44

  41

  45

  Bulgaria

  5

  1

  3

  1

  1

  3

  4

  3

  Chile

  2

  1

  7

  4

  3

  7

  4

  3

  China

  —

  5

  8

  2

  6

  5

  —

  7

  Colombia

  30

  24

  48

  26

  30

  37

  24

  30

  Cuba

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Czechoslovakia

  12

  12

  19

  25

  15

  43

  84

  30

  Egypt

  —

  5

  3

  1

  5

  1

  2

  2

  Ethiopia

  2

  2

  3

  4

  —

  3

  4

  4

  Finland

  2

  4

  5

  4

  6

  4

  6

  4

  Hungary

  18

  7

  11

  15

  10

  20

  14

  14

  Indonesia

  —

  1

  —

  1

  4

  1

  2

  1

  Iran

  18

  17

  23

  4

  13

  9

  16

  25

  Iraq

  8

  —

  1

  4

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Israel

  7

  8

  8

  15

  12

  8

  11

  14

  Japan

  10

  10

  14

  10

  11

  16

  13

  16

  Jordan

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  3

  3

  1

  Kuwait

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Lebanon

  11

  9

  6

  2

  10

  4

  20

  44

  Libya

  3

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  6

  4

  Mexico

  4

  9

  3

  7

  2

  9

  11

  14

  Morocco

  7

  5

  9

  11

  9

  8

  5

  16

  Norway

  4

  7

  2

  3

  3

  5

  1

  6

  Peru

  4

  3

  3

  12

  12

  9

  10

  9

  Philippines

  6

  13

  6

  6

  8

  9

  12

  22

  Poland

  6

  4

  7

  3

  16

  8

  235

  139

  Romania

  6

  5

  5

  5

  3

  13

  21

  8

  Saudi Arabia

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  6

  Somalia

  7

  8

  4

  —

  —

  3

  4

  1

  South Africa

  26

  25

  38

  38

  37

  46

  31

  42

  Sudan

  1

  —

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  Sweden

  9

  3

  6

  9

  12

  19

  14

  12

  Switzerland

  7

  5

  11

  7

  5

  3

  6

  5

  Syria

  1

  2

  2

  2

  —

  6

  1

  2

  Thailand

  1

  6

  4

  4

  2

  10

  2

  3

  Tunisia

  4

  1

  2

  4

  3

  1

  2

  2

  Turkey

  19

  22

  16

  18

  20

  17

  18

  20

  USA

  78

  71

  79

  89

  82

  80

  84

  68

  USSR

  9

  2

  15

  6

  3

  7

  12

  27

  Uraguay

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  6

  1

  Venezuela

  3

  1

  1

  4

  3

  —

  4

  3

  Yugoslavia

  74

  48

  59

  51

  77

  58

  49

  8

  Other foreign countries

  96

  78

  73

  81

  73

  83

  73

  97

  Stateless

  95

  109

  88

  82

  83

  73

  132

  107

  All nationalities

  1,211

  1,124

  1,161

  1,116

  1,162

  1,152

  1,518

  1,403

  1 Persons claiming to be EC nationals.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 October,Official Report, column 453, what assessment he has made of the change in costs of catering in prisons resulting from the introduction of contracts with commercial companies.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The dietary allowances for inmates are the same in all prisons including those where catering has been contracted out. Catering has only been contracted out in new prisons, therefore for these prisons there is no historical data on which to assess changes in other costs associated with catering. Future assessments of different methods of providing catering will balance the quality of the service against the costs.

  Banknotes
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will make a statement on forgeries of banknotes;
  526
  (2) how many forged (a) £5, (b) £10, (c) £20 and (d) £50 banknotes he estimates have been released in the United Kingdom during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is not possible to estimate accurately the number of forged notes of different denominations in circulation, but it is unlikely to exceed a small fraction of 1 per cent. of the total number of bank notes in circulation.

  The national criminal intelligence service works with the police both to seize the forgeries before they circulate and to identify and bring to justice those who are responsible for this criminal activity.

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum seekers(a) came to the United Kingdom, (b) wilfully destroyed their documentation and (c) arrived with inadequate documentation in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) what percentage of asylum applicants apply at the port of entry; and of those what percentage have been seen to destroy their nationality documents;
  527
  (3) how many of those who claim asylum enter the United Kingdom (a) without documents, (b) as visitors, (c) students and (d) pre-entry cleared asylum seekers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  For information on the total asylum applications to the United Kingdom by location, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 20 October 1992 at columns 261–62.

  In the first half of 1992, 26 per cent. of all asylum applications to the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, were made at ports. Available information on these cases, as a percentage of total port asylum applications is given in table A.

  About 75 per cent. of all applications were made in-country. Available information on these cases is given in table B.

  Table A

  Applications made at ports for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, January to June 1992

  Percentages

  Percentage of total port applicants

  With genuine documents

  33

  With forged documents

  15

  With mutilated documents

  3

  With no documents

  48

  Table B

  Applications made in country1 for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, January to June 1992

  Percentages

  Percentage of total in-country applicants

  Applicants who were admitted to the United Kingdom as visitors2

  53

  Applicants who were admitted to the United Kingdom as students2

  5

  Other in-country applicants13

  43

  1 Includes also a small number of applications recorded as made overseas; this number may be underrecorded.

  2 Includes those who applied after their leave as a visitor or student had expired.

  3 Includes also, inter alia, applications made by illegal entrants, cases with no documents, and cases where the immigration status is not known or not yet recorded.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 October,Official Report, columns 261–62, what proportion of the figures quoted in respect of exceptional leave to remain represent second or subsequent applications for (a) extension of leave and (b) upgrade to asylum.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The figures referred to are just of first grants of exceptional leave following determination of the asylum application. They exclude decisions on applications for subsequent extensions of exceptional leave or for upgrading to asylum.

  Court Escort Service
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in selecting a contractor to operate the court escort service in Humberside and the east midlands.
  528
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  On 5 February my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary announced that invitations to tender for the provision of the court escort service in Humberside and the east midlands, under provisions contained within the Criminal Justice Act 1991, had been issued to 12 private sector contractors. The contract will cover all prisoner movements to and from court except for those of high security prisoners.

  After carefully considering all the proposals submitted, the Government today signed a contract with Group 4 Court Services Ltd. for the operation of the court escort service within the designated area. The signing follows a three-month development phase, during which representatives of Group 4 have visited prisons, police stations and court premises in the area to familiarise themselves with all the agencies concerned and their requirements from the service to be provided.

  The new service is due to start in April 1993 using staff who are statutorily and contractually required to be properly trained and vetted. It will free up prison and police officers to concentrate on duties more appropriate to their particular skills and training.

  The Government will, in due course, consider extending the contracting out of court escorting to other areas of the country.

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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 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. Kenneth Clarke
  Information on reports produced by external consultants working in the Home Office during the past three years could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will now provide a substantive answer to the written question of 22 October from the hon. Member for Walsall, North regarding when the documents relating to the wartime Nazi occupation of the Channel islands will now be released;

  (2) when he now intends to release into the public domain the present classified document relating to the Nazi occupation of the Channel islands.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answers 5 November 1992 and 22 October 1992]: The review of Home Office records relating to the wartime Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands should be completed shortly. I will make a statement about the results of the review later this month.

  European Community
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of civil servants in his Department whose main task is work related wholly or mainly to the European Community.
  529
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: Approximately 60 officials spend all or most of their time on work within the European Community or between the member states. A number of others spend smaller proportions of their time engaged in this area of work.

DEFENCE

  Press Releases
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make available on request to hon. Members his departmental press releases on the day of release.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The main method of distributing the MOD's and other Government Departments' press releases is through the Central Office of Information's electronic news distribution service. This ensures that material becomes available to hon. Members and noble Lords through the computerised parliamentary on-line information system (POLLS) at the same time that it is released to the media.

  In addition, my Department sends press releases to the House of Commons Library by facsimile as soon as practicable after electronic distribution. Copies are also sent direct to Opposition defence spokesmen and to the Clerk of the Select Committee on Defence.

  I believe that these are the most cost-effective means of keeping each House informed of press announcements.

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom experience of the disposal of fissile nuclear materials recovered from dismantled nuclear warheads.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United Kingdom has the appropriate facilities for, and extensive experience in, the dismantling of redundant nuclear warheads. Fissile material recovered is re-used where this is necessary and possible; otherwise, the material is stored in safe and secure facilities.

  United States Military Bases
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what United Kingdom health, safety and environmental legislation applies to United States military bases and storage depots in Wales.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All relevant United Kingdom health, safety and environmental legislation applies to United States military bases in Wales.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current status of the A91 building at AWE Aldermaston; and on what date it is expected that this building will become operational.

  Mr. Aitken
  A project definition study into the scope of the work needed to overcome the corrosion problem is under way, and is due to report by the end of March 1993. This study will confirm the date on which the building will become fully operational.
  530
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the present status of the programme to appoint a contractor to operate the atomic weapons establishments.

  Mr. Aitken
  Three tenders were received on 1 September 1992 and are being evaluated. We expect to announce the successful tenderer in early 1993.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the distinction made by his Department between the separate buildings of the A90 complex at AWE Aldermaston; when each of these will be fully operational; what buildings and facilities at AWE Aldermaston will be superseded by the A90 complex; and which of these buildings and facilities will be demolished.

  Mr. Aitken
  A90 is the designation of the new plutonium processing building at AWE Aldermaston and its immediate support facilities. The plutonium processing laboratories in A90 and their support systems are currently going through a comprehensive commissioning process prior to becoming operational. A90 will replace Aldermaston's existing plutonium processing facilities, which will them be progressively decommissioned and, if necessary, demolished.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State For Defence what was the cost of the truck cargo heavy duty vehicles recently delivered to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Around £11 million.

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which facilities owned or operated by his Department are inspected by the nuclear installations inspectorate; and from which areas in these facilities the nuclear installations inspectorate inspectors are excluded.

  Mr. Aitken
  The only facilities falling into this category are the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth which are owned by my Department but operated by contractors. These are licensed sites under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 and are therefore subject to inspection by the nuclear installations inspectorate. Arrangements for such inspections are a matter for the contractors and the inspectorate who may have access to all facilities covered by the licence.

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future use of RA. F Greenham Common.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the wake of the United States Air Force's decision to withdraw from RAF Greenham Common, alternative defence uses for the station are being investigated. It is not yet possible to say whether the station will be retained or declared surplus to defence requirements although I expect firm decisions to be announced shortly.

  Imber
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will reconsider his Department's requirement for the village of Imber and the lands that surround it.
  531
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The level of training in the United Kingdom is likely to increase as a result of the return of combat units from Germany. The Department's requirement for the Salisbury Plain training area including Imber village and surrounding lands is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

  Experiments on Primates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many scientific procedures have been carried out on primates in laboratories under the control of his Department in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its frame-work document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from G. Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 6 November 1992:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many scientific procedures have been carried out on primates in laboratories under the control of his Department in each of the last 10 years (Questions 16, Order Paper 29 October 1992) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. As information on the number of scientific procedures carried out on primates can assist a potential aggressor in assessing the current state of development of our medical countermeasures against the threat of attack by chemical or biological weapons, it is not in the national interest to provide such information.
  3. It is important to consider the use of animals in scientific procedures in the context of the role and function of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. Our role is to carry out research to ensure that the Servicemen and Servicewomen of our Armed Forces are provided with adequate protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. The United Kingdom does not possess chemical or biological weapons and all work related to such weapons ceased in the late 1950's. Nevertheless, we do have to recognise that other countries still produce and maintain considerable stocks of chemical weapons; they were possessed by Iraq during the Gulf war. It is vital that the protective measures provided for our Service personnel should have been developed and tested to ensure that they are effective and safe. Such work, which may involve the use of animals for experimental purposes is of considerable importance to the nation.
  4. The number of experiments carried out in any one year at CBDE is relatively small and is less than one half of one per cent. of all animal experiments carried out in the United Kingdom. No animal experiments are carried out in order to improve weapons or ammunition or to practice surgery.
  5. Animal experiments are only carried out after careful consideration has been given to alternatives. Where none are found to be an adequate substitute, it is essential to carry out some experiments involving animals; the majority involve mice, rats or guinea-pigs. It is important to select an animal that is representative of man and for some studies the marmoset or monkey is the most appropriate animal. Such studies with marmosets or primates are particularly important in evaluating a proposed new medical countermeasure prior to assessment of its acceptability in man. We have also been active in the area of environmental enrichment as this is very beneficial to the animals concerned.
  6. All experiments involving the use of animals at CBDE fully meet the spirit and the letter of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. CBDE is a registered place under the Act and all experiments are done under Home Office approved project licences by staff holding a personal licence. Unannounced visits are made by the Home Office Inspectors to satisfy themselves that the requirements of the Act are met.
  532
  Our aim is to provide the Armed Forces with medical countermeasures that meet the same standards of safety as the drugs supplied to the public.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what category of nuclear waste are glove boxes that have been used for handling plutonium at Aldermaston and Burghfield atomic weapons establishments; and if he will make a statement on the means by which glove boxes that have been used for handling plutonium at AWE Aldermaston and AWE Burghfield are disposed of.

  Mr. Aitken
  Decommissioned glove boxes which have been used for handling plutonium are categorised as intermediate level waste (ILW). Such waste is currently stored on site at AWE in special containers and buildings, pending decisions on a national disposal method for ILW.

  Nuclear-Powered Warships Safety Committee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual budget of the nuclear-powered warships safety committee.

  Mr. Aitken
  About £38,000.

  Nuclear Weapons (Safety)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he make a statement on his Department's progress in implementing the recommendations contained in the Oxburgh report on nuclear weapons safety.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Minister of Defence has accepted all the recommendations of the Oxburgh report and is proceeding with their implementation.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual budget of the nuclear weapons safety committee.

  Mr. Aitken
  About £37,000.

  Nuclear Plant (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the expenditure by his Department, in current and in then-year prices, since 1979, on the decommissioning of nuclear and nuclear-related plant and installations of his Department; and from which subheads of which votes this expenditure was accounted.

  Mr. Aitken
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Nuclear Strategic Force
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the expenditure by his Department on the nuclear strategic force in current and in then-year prices, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Estimated costs—in millions of pounds—of the nuclear strategic force from 1979–80 to 1992–93 are shown in the table. Figures for years up to and including 1991–92 are derived from tables published in the statistical volume of the annual statement on the Defence Estimates prior to 1992. The estimate for the current year is the product of an ad hoc exercise to identify the capital and operating costs associated directly with the strategic deterrent.
  533

  Outturn at outturn prices1

  At 1992–93 prices1

  1979–80

  126

  318

  1980–81

  165

  354

  1981–82

  269

  519

  1982–83

  327

  585

  1983–84

  382

  645

  1984–85

  384

  610

  1985–86

  509

  770

  1986–87

  658

  949

  1987–88

  882

  1,205

  1988–89

  1,072

  1,385

  1989–90

  1,158

  1,415

  1990–91

  1,480

  1,683

  1991–92

  2 1,445

  1,510

  1992–93

  —

  1,245

  1 Outturn prices have been uprated using defence specific deflators.

  2 The 1991–92 figures are based on a breakdown using 1991 Supply Estimates.

  Nuclear Accident Response Organisation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role and function of the Nuclear Accident Response Organisation; what is its annual budget; how many personnel are assigned to it; in what year it was first established; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The role and function of the Nuclear Accident Response Organisation is to ensure, in conjunction with the appropriate civil agencies, an effective response to safeguard the general public and MOD personnel in the unlikely event of an emergency involving defence nuclear materials. In addition to a small full-time staff in MOD Headquarters, it would draw upon the skills of a range of teams and personnel from units and establishments across the armed forces and the MOD to respond to the particular circumstances of an incident. Contingency arrangements to deal with a range of accidents have existed for as long as the MOD has used nuclear material. The annual cost of the seven full-time MOD staff in MOD HQ is some £230,000. Details of costs and numbers for the specialist teams and personnel which might be called upon, and who are largely involved in other duties in normal circumstances, are not held centrally.

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the designation of the warhead used for the British Trident programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Trident warhead has no special designation.

  Nuclear Weapons (Transport)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent information his Department has received about the consequences of a possible accident between a nuclear weapons convoy and a petrochemical transporter on the M25, M1, M6, M4 or A 1; and if he will make a statement.
  534
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Nuclear weapons are transported by road only in specialised military vehicles and are always carried in containers that are designed and tested to resist the effects of severe impact and prolonged fuel fire, such as could occur in the situation mentioned. A fire tender always accompanies nuclear weapon convoys. The recent review of nuclear weapon safety conducted by my Department's chief scientific adviser confirmed that these arrangements"give a high degree of confidence in the safety and security of the load even in the case of a severe accident",
  and confirmed that internal containment and protection are satisfactory. A copy of this review is in the Library of the House.

  Precision Cleaning
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to reduce the level of solvent used by the armed forces for precision cleaning.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  MOD is investigating possible alternatives to ozone-depleting chlorinated solvents currently used for the precision cleaning of delicate instruments, surfaces made of metal, plastic or glass or combinations of materials where cleanliness is of critical importance. Alternative cleaning agents will be introduced into service as soon as their technical suitability has been determined. The amount of ozone-depleting solvents being procured is being reduced by this Department in line with the requirements of the Montreal protocol.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those buildings in Gibraltar, in the ownership of his Ministry, of historic or architectural interest, which will now be surplus to requirements when "Options for Change" is fully implemented.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The future disposition of our remaining forces in Gibraltar is currently under review, as is the extent of the estate necessary to support those forces. Meanwhile, the Gibraltar Heritage Trust, formed in 1989 by the Government of Gibraltar, is carrying out a revision of the buildings it has listed as being of architectural or historic interest. It is, therefore, not yet possible to predict which historic buildings in MOD ownership will be surplus to our requirements.

  RAF Chilmark
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) service and (b) civilian jobs are affected by the proposed closure of RAF Chilmark; what are the principal tasks carried out there; where they will be carried out in future; what net savings are anticipated over the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Support Agency under its chief executive, Air Vice-Marshal French. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from N. Carter to Mr. John Home Robertson, dated 5 November 1992:

  535
  1. In the absence on duty of the Maintenance Group Defence Support Agency Chief Executive, Air Vice-Marshal French, I am responding to your recent Parliamentary Question, Number 7307F.
  2. The principal tasks of RAF Chilmark are the storage and maintenance of RAF non-guided aircraft weapons and ammunition, together with the bulk storage of RAF packed petroleum products. Following the closure of RAF Chilmark, the weapons and ammunition storage and maintenance task will be transferred to Army Department Ammunition Storage Depots in the UK, whilst the petroleum stores task will be transferred to an RAF Equipment Supply Depot—either at RAF Quedgeley, RAF Carlisle or RAF Stafford. The outcome of current studies will determine which depot this will be.
  3. Fourteen Service and 250 civilian jobs will be affected by the closure of RAF Chilmark. The Conventional Armament Study Team's report estimated the net savings accruing from the closure of RAF Chilmark as £44 million over 10 years.

  Plymouth Urban Development Corporation
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 October,Official Report, columns 612–13, from what vote and subhead it is proposed to find the £20 million to be transferred to the proposed Plymouth urban development corporation; what are the normal financial channels for transfer of his Ministry's funds to such a corporation; on what previous occasions funds have been transferred from his Department to an urban development corporation or local authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is currently intended that MOD funding for the proposed Plymouth urban development corporation (UDC) is made available by means of four annual transfers of funds to the DOE effected as part of the public expenditure survey (PES) process. The funding required will be deducted from the Department's overall PES settlement rather than charged to specific MOD vote sub-items. There is no record of funds being transferred from the MOD for a similar purpose in the past to either other UDCs or local authorities.

  RAF Ground Training
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals there are for the rationalisation of ground training in the Royal Air Force.
  536
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As part of our programme to create a more efficient structure for the RAF under "Defence for the 90s", a comprehensive study into the RAF's ground training organisation has been carried out. The aim of the study is to eliminate spare capacity and maximise efficiency by meeting future requirements for trained manpower in the most cost-effective way.

  The proposals resulting from the study involve concentrating aircraft engineering training at RAF Cosford; recruit and administration training at RAF Halton; and, subject to further review, ground communications training at RAF Locking. It is proposed to close RAF Swinderby by July 1993; RAF Hereford by July 1994; and to reduce RAF Newton to an enclave by March 1995. It is also proposed wherever practicable to market test support services at the remaining stations.

  The proposed future organisation will provide better value for money in terms of cost savings and suitability to meet our future training requirements.

  All possible measures will be taken to minimise civilian redundancies at the locations concerned. Any staff leaving prematurely under voluntary or compulsory redundancy terms would receive appropriate compensation and be eligible for the services provided by the MOD redundancy counselling and outplacement service.

  These proposals are subject to consultation with trade unions and a final decision will be taken in the light of any representations. A consultative document has been passed to the trade unions and is being made available to all members of staff at the stations concerned today. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Chile
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which defence research agency or other defence establishments have been used in the past 10 years by the armed forces in Chile.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested is not available centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.