Sitting of 26 October 1992

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

    Rural Transport
    Mr. Pike:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to monitor the service provision level (a) in rural areas and (b) on Sundays and at off-peak times.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He is chairing the Transport Council in Luxembourg today.
    The Transport Research Laboratory has published several reports on the changing pattern of bus services, including one recently on rural bus services.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that, as we forecast when the Transport Act 1985 went through, because local authorities do not have enough money for subsidised services there is a rapidly declining off-peak service on some days and in rural areas? The same will happen on the railways because of privatisation unless the Government recognise the social need for a public transport service.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman asks about railway privatisation. I can confirm that central funding will be applied to the subsidisation of socially necessary rail services. Through the franchising authority, the state will provide sufficient funding to ensure the running of socially necessary services.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: As the Minister well knows, the deterioration in off-peak services was predicted, was bound to happen, and has happened. Has the Minister attempted to monitor the mergers in the bus industry and is he anxious about increasing monopolisation in the industry?
    Mr. Freeman: It is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading to monitor the bus industry and, where appropriate, action is taken by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is not the responsibility of the Department of Transport to take action, but the Department monitors the performance of the industry. The recent Transport Research Laboratory report about which I spoke refers to service patterns in four rural areas and concludes that in recent years there has been no significant change in the provision of services.
    Ms. Walley: I am stunned at the lack of concern among Conservative Members about the effects of bus
    758
    deregulation on rural transport. In view of what the Minister has said, why is he not prepared to recommend that subsidies for standard spending assessments should be ring fenced? We are worried about the way in which bus journeys have decreased by as much as 18 per cent. since bus deregulation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has said, no matter what assurances the Minister gives about central funding for British Rail privatisation, there will not be the same concern to ring fence rural services following rail privatisation.
    Mr. Freeman: The Government have no proposals to ring fence specific provision through the revenue support grant and standard spending assessments, either for subsidising socially necessary bus services or for concessionary bus fares. It is for local authorities to determine their own priorities. I accept that those choices are difficult, but local authorities must make them.

    Manchester Airport (Rail Link)
    Mr. Bennett:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about a railway link southwards from Manchester airport.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): This is a matter for British Rail, in consultation with the local authorities and the airport company. I understand that a working party has been set up to consider the case for a southern link.
    Mr. Bennett: The Minister will be aware that people in Greater Manchester are delighted about the progress that has been made to establish the railway station at the airport and at the fact that from next May there will be a first-class rail service from the north of England to the airport. Does he agree that it is tragic that for the want of approximately a 100-yard curve, the airport will not be linked to the whole of the midlands? Is it not rather odd that although the Government can produce large sums for transport in London, they cannot find sufficient to set up 100 yards of track to enable the airport to be linked both north and south?
    Mr. Norris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the fact that the northern link is due to be commissioned in May 1993 and that it will provide direct and excellent access from Manchester to the airport. He asked about further possible links and I will draw his remarks to the attention of British Rail, which will have ultimate responsibility for that matter.

    Settle-Carlisle Line
    Mr. Booth:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the Settle-Carlisle route.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): This is a matter for British Rail in the immediate future. In the longer term, the line, like all others, will be franchised and subsidy for socially necessary services will continue.
    Mr. Booth: Beyond saying that the Carlisle to Settle railway will extend to Finchley, will the Minister kindly assure the House—moving from rural to urban

    759
    regeneration—that in future urban regeneration schemes, infrastructure and particularly rail infrastructure will be thought about and put in place at the formative stages?
    Mr. Carlisle: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in this sector. As he knows, we have substantial interest and investment in the Sheffield and Manchester schemes and we recognise that those schemes can do a great deal for urban communities. As to the Settle to Carlisle route, since British Rail was refused consent for this to close in 1989 there has been great success with the scheme, and substantial investment has been made. I am glad to tell the House that work on the famous Ribblehead viaduct has been completed, stations have been improved and platforms extended. This will provide a corridor for substantial investment in this beautiful part of our country.
    Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable amount of work done by the supporters of the line to promote it, and that this involved surveys of local businesses? Will he take into account the fact that this line is predominantly for social and recreational use, so that any subsidy purely for travelling to work and other similar purposes will not go a long way to subsidising the line?
    Mr. Carlisle: I realise how much loved the line is, and that is one reason why it survived attacks in previous years. I believe that it has a future not only for social and recreational reasons but because of the service that it can give to the general community. It is supported by a whole range of people. It is interesting to note that the standing conference consists not only of the local authority but of the tourist board, the Rural Development Commission, voluntary groups and the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority. The recent report, "Settle to Carlisle: Opportunities for Development", offers the real way forward for this famous line.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there could be a hidden agenda here? When I see the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) tabling questions about the Settle to Carlisle railway and the Minister giving a positive reply, I begin to put two or three things together. Is it conceivable in this hidden agenda that the hon. Member for Finchley is thinking about getting a job there, running the show on the Settle to Carlisle line, and vacating his seat at Finchley so that the queen across the water—Lady Thatcher—can inherit it? If so, I have a good suggestion: the line can be renamed the Chiltern Hundreds.
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman would see not only a hidden agenda but a plot under every support of the Ribblehead viaduct.

    London Underground
    Mr. Carrington:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of London Underground to discuss improvements to the underground train service.
    Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the chairman of London Underground regularly to discuss a variety of issues, including improvements to the underground train service.
    Mr. Carrington: My hon. Friend will be aware that the new Westminster and Chelsea hospital opens in April next year. The hospital is badly served by London Underground and if Professor Tomlinson's proposals for London's health services are implemented, communications with the hospital will be even more vital. In the planning for the Chelsea-Hackney route, will my hon. Friend consider the proposals to put a station near that hospital to serve the patients? Will he also consider the possibility of speeding up construction of the route, which will be even more important in the future than it has been in the past?
    Mr. Norris: I know of my hon. Friend's considerable concern about rail services in his constituency. The Government have safeguarded the route of the Chelsea-Hackney line and thus demonstrated their confidence in the viability of the project. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand when I tell him that I cannot give any assurances on when construction might commence.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise that the underground service provides no stations in the London borough of Greenwich? That is why there is particular concern about progress on the Jubilee line. When will the Minister be able to make an announcement, and will that announcement be positive, that the Government will proceed to build the Jubilee line extension?
    Mr. Norris: I wish that I could give the hon. Gentleman a full and complete answer to that question. He will have to satisfy himself with the response that he knows that I am obliged to make, which is that the matter is not one on which I can deliberate at this stage. He is right about the benefits that the line will bring to his constituency and to others that it will serve.
    Mr. Bowis: May I endorse the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington)? Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that among those seeking to reach the excellent new hospital facility will be my constituents from south of the river? It is important that the Chelsea-Hackney line comes in soon and continues south of the river into Wandsworth.
    Mr. Norris: I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said about possible options for the route of the Chelsea-Hackney line at the southern end. It is right that several options are available which have not yet been fully explored. I shall be happy to take his suggestions on board.
    Mr. Cohen: Has the Minister seen today the survey produced by the Association of London Authorities, which shows that fares in London are four times higher than in Paris, six times higher than in Rome and Madrid and eight times higher than in Athens? At the same time, the underground system has not had investment to match fare rises. Does the Minister agree that in those circumstances there is no case for further fare rises? Will he come down from his ivory tower and admit that the price is not right?
    Mr. Norris: Someone has to pay for the operation of the rail service—and that means either the taxpayer or the user. I am convinced that it is right that users should pay enough to cover at least the majority of the operating costs of London Underground. I am sure that the hon.

    761
    Gentleman knows that there still has to be a subsidy of the operating costs. If users pay an appropriate amount of the costs, the taxpayer's contribution flows straight through into new investment. That must be in our interests. That seems to be something that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have overlooked.
    Mr. John Marshall: Would my hon. Friend care to recollect his journey on the Northern line with me? Does he agree that existing services on that line are Victorian and need to be brought up to date? Does he agree also that it would be quite illogical to appoint a Minister with responsibilities for transport in London and then to cut or cancel expenditure on the London Underground system?
    Mr. Norris: I remember my journey on the underground with my hon. Friend with particular piquancy. It was an interesting and illustrative experience. In all seriousness, he knows that London Underground fully appreciates the extent of the need to modernise the Northern line service. He will know of the considerable programme of modernisation on the Central line, which is worth about £800 million. He will know also that London Underground currently proposes to follow on from that work to the Northern line.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Peter Snape—[Interruption.] Mr. Tony Banks.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I do not know who should be more offended, Madam Speaker.
    I welcome the Minister to the Government Dispatch Box on the occasion of my latest and most enduring comeback. Will he confirm that thousands of jobs in construction and manufacturing industry outside London are waiting on a decision on the Jubilee line extension? It is appalling that the indecision and lack of an announcement from the Government should be leading to so much uncertainty. If the Minister cannot make an announcement today, will he tell the House whether he is personally in favour of the Jubilee line extension?
    Mr. Norris: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. As he suggested, he has made more come backs than Frank Sinatra. I hope that this one will prove enduring, as I am sure that our exchanges will be enjoyable.
    I am fully aware of the extent to which all mega-projects can generate jobs. It is clear, however, that such schemes must be subject not only to the criterion of desirability but to that of affordability. That will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues when they consider the whole public expenditure round. There is no doubt in my mind that the Jubilee line is an excellent scheme, and I hope very much that it will proceed. The decision will, however, be made by others on the basis of overall affordability. I acknowledge that I must be as much subject to such pressures as any other Minister.

    Rail Privatisation
    Mr. Hawkins:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has had to the White Paper "New Opportunities for the Railways".
    Mr. Harvey:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's plans to privatise British Rail.
    Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a number of responses following publication in July of the Government's proposals for privatisation of British Rail. We plan to introduce this autumn the main legislation, to enable our proposals to be implemented. On 12 October, we published a detailed consultation document on franchising. I look forward to the responses, especially those from firms interested in taking on franchises.
    Mr. Hawkins: I again draw attention of my hon. Friend to a problem of which I know he is aware from our previous discussions. I refer to the withdrawal of the last remaining direct InterCity services to my constituency from London and Glasgow. I thank my hon. Friend for the attention that he has paid to that matter in the past, and ask him to take full account of the views of no fewer than 11,000 people who signed a petition asking British Rail to reinstate those through services. Will my hon. Friend comment on the scope for the introduction of through direct services from London and Glasgow to Blackpool as a result of the Government's plans for privatisation?
    Mr. Freeman: Currently, decisions about rail services are for British Rail. Although it suspended the direct service to which my hon. Friend referred, a connecting service is available from London and Glasgow. As to the future, I envisage that when the new regime is in place after full parliamentary debate and discussion, private sector operators will want to run specific services, with the agreement of the regulator, on a train path. It may be that Blackpool-Euston will be such a service; and if it can be run viably and a train path is available, I will welcome that.
    Mr. Harvey: Will the Minister comment on the collapse of Charterail and on the end of the StageCoach service to Aberdeen—two pilot private operations—and say whether the Select Committee on Transport will have a chance to report before the privatisation Bill comes before the House?
    Mr. Freeman: I regret the demise of Charterail, but that had more to do with the recession and the company's optimistic plans than the charging regime, which is currently not in place but is operated ad hoc by British Rail. I do not believe that we can fault British Rail for Charterail's demise. Under the present regime—not the new track-charging regime which will be in place on privatisation—StageCoach reached agreement with British Rail. That company also was clearly too ambitious, as not enough tickets were sold. However, I am pleased that services will continue, and that StageCoach will sell tickets to London not only from Aberdeen and Edinburgh but from Glasgow. I repeat that it is the Government's intention to publish a Bill next month.
    Mr. Adley: May I put it to my hon. Friend—quietly and, I hope, thoughtfully—that his proposals are novel, complex, controversial and untried? Would not the Government be better off listening to all the issues and debating them thoroughly before producing a Bill? My hon. Friend has referred to the franchising White Paper.

    763
    As the document contains no information about charges, should not that fundamental issue be explored before we rush into introducing a Bill?
    May I ask my hon. Friend again whether he agrees that it would be good for all concerned if publication of the Bill, which presumably cannot take place until the paving Bill has received Royal Assent, were delayed until the Select Committee has had a chance to examine the issues?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right in saying that there should be thorough discussion of the Government's proposals. We are trying to meet the timetable, and it seems to us that the publication of a Bill will help the process. Detailed examination of the Bill will take up much of 1993 and the Select Committee hearings will provide a valuable forum for the Government and, indeed, others to comment on the proposals.
    I draw a distinction between the publication of our proposals for the framework of introducing the private sector, and the implementation of those proposals. We have no plans to rush the process; indeed, we expect both passenger franchises and the sale of freight to start operating for the first time in 1994.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister agree that, on the whole, it is better to take evidence before making a decision than to take it after that decision has been made? Would not the Minister benefit from an opportunity for the Government to find out a bit about the subject, before they have to reverse their views too publicly?
    Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the Select Committee's deliberations, which will go into great detail, will be very valuable to the Bill's Committee stages in both Houses. I do not accept that the principles of our privatisation proposals, which we have set out very clearly, cannot be debated in the House. The debate that will take place on Thursday will provide us with an ample opportunity to consider the broad principles. Of course we are prepared to listen to discussion of the details: that is why we published a franchise document a short time ago.
    The Select Committee's conclusions will be extremely important, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I look forward to appearing before the Committee on Wednesday.
    Mr. Dunn: In the interests of my constituents in north-west Kent, may I urge my hon. Friend to refuse to listen to those who counsel for delay? Does my hon. Friend agree that British Rail managers, or those who succeed them, are bound to welcome the privatisation plans because they will place full responsibility, control and accountability where they belong—with those who run the railway system?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. There is no doubt that our proposals have received a very positive reaction—not only from some 50 companies in the private sector which have expressed an interest in the principle of franchising the passenger rail services and the sale of freight service, but from British Rail management and staff. Our proposals are certainly gradualist, and they will be thought out, argued and presented in great detail. The process will not be rushed, and it will work.
    Mr. Prescott: The House will note that the Minister has given the first indications of another U-turn in
    764
    Government policy: no longer are we promised a full-blooded rail privatisation Bill—the Government are now talking of what is basically an enabling Bill.
    Given that the Minister will have to rely on the advice of the regulator, will he tell us whether the regulator has been appointed, and whether he satisfies the condition specified in the Department of Transport's advertisement, which states:
    "Knowledge of public transport not essential"?
    Mr. Freeman: The appointment has not yet been made. The appointment of someone to fulfil the responsibilities of regulator cannot be made until the Houses of Parliament have approved this measure and it receives Royal Assent. In the interim, there is a job to be done in 1993: to regulate the provisions of international access under the European Community directive of 1991. We are looking for a regulator with understanding and intelligence of regulation and of the operation of public services and the protection of consumer interests.

    Heathrow Airport (Noise)
    Mr. Jessel:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take in 1993 to reduce the aircraft noise around Heathrow.
    Mr. Norris: Heathrow will continue to benefit in 1993 from the replacement of older, noisier, chapter 2 aircraft with modern, quieter chapter 3 types.
    Mr. Jessel: Although the Government have an excellent record on aircraft noise, including the decision to refuse planning permission for a fifth terminal at Heathrow in the 1980s, and the removal of the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link, is my hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of people living around Heathrow, where there are 1,000 flights a day, find aircraft noise a curse and a pestilence which spoils their enjoyment of their homes? Apart from emergencies, should not night flights be banned altogether?
    Mr. Norris: The whole House knows that my hon. Friend has been a doughty fighter on behalf of his constituents against noise pollution. I congratulate him on this latest effort. My hon. Friend knows that the night-flying restrictions are due for review and that we intend to introduce new ones in the winter season of 1993. That process will involve wide public consultation, during which I know that my hon. Friend's views and those of his constituents will be heard. As for any application that might be made to expand services at Heathrow, my hon. Friend will appreciate that no planning application has formally been made at this point. However, when it is made, the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will have to consider all the issues involved in deciding whether to grant permission.
    Ms. Hoey: Will the Minister apply his attention to a particularly nasty form of aircraft, the helicopter, which, as he knows, is being put to increasing use, particularly along the river? Can he tell us why his Department is being so secretive about ferreting around trying to find new heliport sites along the river? Can he tell us why he will not now make public the sites that his Department is looking

    765
    at so that the people who live in those areas can make their views known? I am sure that he knows what they will want to say.
    Mr. Norris: I know of no hit list of secret sites for helicopter sites on the Thames. However, I do not believe that the Battersea heliport is adequate. A major city such as London ought to have a heliport that is much closer to the financial centre. I should welcome the proposal for a heliport in such a position as it would enhance the economic life of our city. There has been a great deal of Nimbyism about previous proposals to find such a site, but I trust that when it is identified—I have not had one put to me yet—the hon. Lady will join me in supporting something that will do a great deal to enhance London's reputation as a financial centre.
    Mr. Wilkinson: When my hon. Friend comes to review night movements at Heathrow, or any other proposal affecting air transport services to or from that airport, will he bear it in mind that it is the premier gateway to Europe, an invaluable source of foreign exchange and a vital source of employment for tens of thousands of local residents? Will he also remember that the noise footprints around the airport have been considerably reduced over the years because of the quieter aircraft that have come into service and that the really important aim is to get into service the high-speed surface transport link to Paddington? Can he help on that matter, too?
    Mr. Norris: I acknowledge that my hon. Friend's sentiments about the importance of Heathrow are widely shared. When it comes to night-flying restrictions, the British Airports Authority has to balance the commercial needs of airlines against the environmental impact of those airlines' operations. It is perfectly proper that consideration of these matters should involve public consultation. My hon. Friend knows that the Heathrow express proposal is being taken forward by the BAA and British Rail. I look forward to there being some progress so that the link can be provided as soon as possible.
    Mr. Snape: As Dan-Air has become the latest victim of the recession, does the Minister think that British Airways' replacement aircraft will lead to a reduction in aircraft noise and, indeed, a reduction in noise from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who I notice is not with us now? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he is."] I am sorry; he is skulking. Will the Minister confirm that Virgin and British Midland were offered the same deal as that accepted by British Airways, but preferred to wait for Dan-Air's collapse to pick up its routes and slots without having to save jobs or meet redundancy payments to its former employees?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman knows that the chapter 3 requirements on noise extend to new aircraft being manufactured, which will gradually lead to improvements in noise levels at Heathrow and elsewhere. He knows that the commercial criteria of the Dan-Air transaction are for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who will consider all aspects of it in considering whether to take further action.

    Network SouthEast
    Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken to monitor the performance of Network SouthEast in its West Anglia division.
    Mr. Freeman: I receive reports on British Rail's performance against its charter standards every four weeks and pursue any points of concern as necessary. I am pleased to say that for the year so far West Anglia has exceeded its charter targets.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is insufficient margin of spare rolling stock to cover when units have to be taken out of service for repair, which sometimes leads to drastic reductions in capacity on some services? Will he see whether improvements can be made in maintenance in the West Anglia division to ensure that sufficient rolling stock is always available?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes, I give my hon. Friend that assurance. I shall certainly pursue his point with British Rail. With the franchising of British Rail services, we expect a vigorous leasing market for investment in new rolling stock to develop naturally, which will permit private sector franchises and those who provide and run rail freight services to place orders and, with the assistance of the City of London, to lease rolling stock in the same way as ships, vessels, trucks, taxis and buses are leased.

    Tyneside Metro
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed with the chairman of the Tyne and Wear public transport authority the extension of the Tyneside metro to Sunderland.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I know that Tyne and Wear is considering the feasibility of extending the metro to Sunderland. It has not yet made any formal approach to me.
    Mr. Mullin: As the closure of the pits will almost certainly mean the closure of the rail line between Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough because it is heavily dependent on coal, and as the Government urgently need to find some capital projects to get the economy off its knees, would not it make sense, from everybody's point of view, to proceed with the extension of the metro to Sunderland as soon as possible?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman's point is speculative, but every approach that is made by the local authority and operators of services will be carefully considered and assessed in competition with some attractive projects that are being proposed. It may be of some comfort, however, for the hon. Gentleman to know that we give substantial support to such projects. I am delighted, for example, that we are giving substantial support to the Manchester light railway and the South Yorkshire super tram, which are costing about £135 million and £240 million respectively.

    Rail Services, Grimsby
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for improving direct rail services between Grimsby and London.
    Mr. Freeman: It is for British Rail to bring forward proposals for improving rail services, not for Ministers.
    Mr. Mitchell: In the past the Minister has given the impression that he has no powers to stop British Rail closing the service. Now that the North Eastern Transport Users Consultative Committee has put him right on the law and has not only told him that he has the powers, but has asked him to use them to stop the closure of the service, and now that Steer Davis and Gleave, the management consultants employed by Grimsby, have shown that British Rail's financial case for closing the service is almost total rubbish, will the Minister use the powers he has and keep a service that is vital to Grimsby and Cleethorpes?
    Mr. Freeman: No. I will not direct British Rail to withdraw its proposals. I do not believe that that is either legally and statutorily appropriate or in the best interest of British Rail's finances. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will meet any potential private sector operator of a through service from Grimsby, through Lincoln and Newark into King's Cross, or any consortium including local authorities that wishes either to subsidise the service or to run it. The reopening of a direct service on that line may be appropriate, but it is for British Rail to deploy its present assets as efficiently as it considers possible.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Prosecutions
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the guidelines on which a decision to prosecute is based.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The code for Crown prosecutors is kept under review by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The most recent edition, published in January this year, emphasised the interests of the victim, and gave guidance on racial motivation as an aggravating feature and on the approach to be adopted in cases of mentally disordered persons alleged to have committed offences.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many people believe that the Crown prosecution service should be more tightly reviewed? Many people whom one meets in victim support schemes have been victims of a crime, yet never see the people concerned come to court because the Crown prosecution service believes that there will be reasonable doubt for the magistrates or for the jury. On the other hand, other people have to come to court. The cases are adjourned and adjourned again, and they suffer months of sheer agony while they wait for their cases to be called. Sometimes no evidence is submitted to the bench in the end. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House that he will review the system far more tightly, because there is a trial within a trial by the Crown prosecution service?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that the position of the victim is extremely important. The Director of Public Prosecutions has made it clear that she recognises that. That said, it is important that the power to prosecute should be exercised independently. There is a powerful system of review within
    768
    the service right up to the Director and through the Director to me. I superintend her and I am answerable to the House.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Attorney-General confirm that when, just over a week ago, British Coal gave short notice of redundancy, a criminal offence was committed under section 105 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, and that that was a criminal offence which was counselled and procured by the President of the Board of Trade, as well as being an action that laid the Government open to prosecution by the European Commission for breach of the mass redundancies directive? What guidelines and advice did the Attorney-General give to his Cabinet colleagues about those blatant breaches of employment and European law, or was his opinion not asked for at all?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that he will not get an answer to most of his question. However, it is right to say that the matter in principle is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. To expand on the first part of my answser, the hon. Gentleman knows that legal advice given by Law Officers is never disclosed.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that more cases in which the Crown prosecution service has some doubt in its mind about whether there is a likely success of prosecution would come to court if the whole process of getting cases into court were speeded up?
    The Attorney-General: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The working group on pre-trial issues, in which the Crown prosecution service has played a leading part, has produced some very constructive proposals to achieve the speeding up for which my hon. Friend rightly calls.

    Fraud
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General what new proposals he has to reduce crimes of fraud.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Serious Fraud Office welcomes the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill to give the courts of England and Wales a wider jurisdiction over international fraud. It will also give its full support to the new machinery to strengthen co-operation between supervisors and other relevant authorities announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Thursday.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Solicitor-General agree that the greatest crime of fraud perpetrated against the British people was the lies and deception used by the Conservative party at the general election? Now that the Government have lost all respect and authority with the Prime Minister at war with his own party, is it not time that the Government went to the country—and went now?
    The Solicitor-General: The Government are concerned to prevent fraud and that is why we have introduced the Serious Fraud Office, the fraud investigation group and the Criminal Justice Bill. That is the answer to the question that the hon. Gentleman should have asked.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. and learned Friend seek to simplify the trial procedures in fraud cases which currently make it very difficult to secure

    769
    convictions? Many fraud cases collapse after long and expensive trials and that can scarcely be a deterrent to further fraud.
    The Solicitor-General: Following the result of the Blue Arrow trial in the summer, the Lord Chancellor announced in July that the Government would publish a consultation paper seeking ways to limit the length of such trials and canvassing solutions as to how that should be achieved. I expect that the paper will be produced shortly. However, we do not just have long trials in fraud cases. There are long trials in child abuse cases and in cases of armed robbery. At a recent seminar held by the Bar which I attended, there was virtual unanimity about the fact that legislation is now required in that area and that that was the only solution.

    May Inquiry
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects Sir John May to complete his inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich bombings.
    The Attorney-General: So as not to prejudice the trial of the Surrey police officers, Sir John May has decided to adopt a modified procedure in order to complete his inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich bombings in time to report his findings to the Royal Commission on criminal justice of which he is a member. The royal commission is due to report in June 1993.
    Mr. Mullin: Is not it the truth that Sir John May's inquiry has been nobbled? Three years have passed since the inquiry was commissioned and he has yet to begin to address the Guildford and Woolwich convictions. Has not his inquiry been nobbled because he was not willing to participate in a whitewash that would preserve the reputations of a number of extremely distinguished people such as the late Lord Havers, Sir Peter Imbert, Mr. Michael Hill QC and others who were involved in achieving those convictions?
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that there is any truth in that at all.

    Company Fraud
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy on the prosecution of persons involved in company fraud.
    The Attorney-General: It is the policy of both the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown prosecution service, acting through its fraud investigation group and specialist prosecutors in each of its areas, to prosecute company fraud, wherever it is detected, in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If Department of Trade and Industry inspectors produce a report indicating actions bordering on fraud or irregularities by prominent Conservatives, surely in those circumstances it is quite improper for the DTI to secure an injunction to prevent Channel 4 from publishing information from those reports in last night's programme "The Greed and the Glory".
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is muddling two concepts. If there is evidence of wrong-doing of that type by anyone, no matter who he or
    770
    she may be, it should be properly investigated—in such a case, by the Serious Fraud Office. However, the confidentiality of the reports carried out by the DTI is a matter of public interest which is for the courts to decide if an application for an injunction is made.

    Domestic Violence
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Attorney-General what response he intends to make to the report of the national inter-agency working party on domestic violence.
    The Solicitor-General: The report's wide-ranging conclusions and recommendations, represent a valuable and constructive contribution to finding more effective ways of tackling domestic violence.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the fact that Kiranjit Ahluwalia, who was subjected to appalling domestic violence and was imprisoned for life, has now been retried and freed? Does he welcome the recent decision of the New Zealand Government to review the laws on provocation so that women, who often retaliate at a later stage after being badly beaten, will have a much better chance of being able to plead manslaughter? Will he also take note of the recent book written by the distinguished woman QC, Helena Kennedy, which points out that the ingrained attitudes of the male-dominated legal profession often lead to women being more severely punished than men for similar crimes?
    The Solicitor-General: As my hon. Friend knows, any change to the substantive law is the responsibility of the Home Secretary, but I understand her concern about the matter. In his answer to my hon. Friend on 23 January this year the Home Secretary acknowledged that concern. He said that he believed that the arguments were finely balanced, that before we rushed into change we should be very sure that the changes did not do more harm than good, and that we did not want to introduce changes that would, in fact, sanction revenge killings.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Know-how Funds
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will consider further increasing know-how fund resources to help with problems in the developing world.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): An important part of our aid programme to developing countries is know-how in the form of training and technical co-operation. We shall continue to treat this form of aid as particularly important.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Foreign Secretary understand that many hon. Members will not be satisfied with his reply, bearing in mind that the fragile democracies and economies of central Europe as well as Commonwealth countries are desperate for assistance from western Europe? Will he assure the House that in any review of the Government's budget the know-how funds for both central and eastern Europe and Commonwealth countries will be guaranteed? Will he tell the Heads of Government from Poland and elsewhere at the summit in London this

    771
    week that the United Kingdom will increase its budget this year to assist them in developing, protecting and enhancing their fragile democracies and economies?
    Mr. Hurd: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the British know-how funds in central and eastern Europe have been a marked success. They have succeeded not only because of the substantial sums allotted to them—£36 million last year—but because they are precisely targeted at the aims and objectives of those countries. I am sure that we will discuss this matter at the summit in London on Wednesday. Obviously, I cannot anticipate what funds will be available in the future.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many Conservative Members do not expect the know-how funds or other parts of the aid budget to be cut and will take a serious view of any such cut?
    Mr. Hurd: I note my hon. Friend's remarks. But he will not expect me to anticipate the autumn statement.

    Africa
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid has been given to African countries in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): Gross bilateral aid flows to Africa were £514 million in 1989; £389 million in 1990; and £521 million in 1991.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that aid to Africa can he good only in developing the enormous resources of that vast and important continent? Is it not essential to ensure that Africa's resources, including food, are developed as a means of discouraging and stopping that appalling carnage and war that have taken place there, causing people to go west and to leave Africa in such large numbers?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Aid to Africa will remain a priority for the overseas aid programme. However, economic reform is the key to Africa's sustainable development. In accordance with our aid programme, we are encouraging economic reform in all African countries. The African countries that have taken up reform have prospered more.
    Mr. Meacher: Can the Under-Secretary confirm that the Government are planning a 15 per cent. cut in the Overseas Development Administration budget, which amounts to nearly £300 million a year? If so, is that not a denial of common humanity, when there are an unprecedented 40 million people facing death from drought and famine in Africa, who need more help and not less? If the cut is made will it not be the most immoral act yet of a deeply immoral Government, who have already cut the aid budget in half as a share of national income and—perhaps most importantly for this Government—is it not against our interests, when a rising aid budget is the most cost-effective means of increasing demand for Britain's exports, thus creating jobs and growth at home?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I confirm no such thing and I reject the hon. Gentleman's allegations. We have a substantial aid programme for Africa—40 per cent. of all British bilateral aid goes to Africa, which is a higher proportion
    772
    than is warranted by its population. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have the fifth largest aid programme in the world. If he had had his way—the increases that he had demanded in all the Departments that he has shadowed—the country would have been bankrupt long ago.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain has done much to assist the African countries with education? Is that not an area in which there is much to be done, and is not this country perhaps the most suited in the world to assist with it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We consider all aspects of a country when deciding what to assist in the aid programme, including education and other aspects, such as economic management, human rights, the rule of law, accountability and transparency of government.

    Multilateral Lending Institutions
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the relief of debt owed by developing countries to multilateral lending institutions.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The multilateral lending institutions do not reschedule debt because to do so would threaten their ability to provide new loans to developing countries.
    Mr. Denham: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as a result of the policies that he has described, the poverty-stricken countries of sub-Saharan Africa sent back to the International Monetary Fund $2.2 billion more than they received in new loans during the past eight years? Is he also aware that last year the IMF received $400 million more in debt repayments than it paid out in new loans? Does he accept that that is completely unacceptable for poverty-stricken countries, that the policies that he has outlined are not working, and that they are denying poverty-stricken countries the money that they need to recover? Will he pledge the Government to work within the IMF to change the disastrous policies that he has advocated?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. While the multilateral institutions do not reschedule debt, there are opportunities whereby the World bank and the IMF make new loan agreements with concessionary terms, which often help those countries. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his allegation that the developing world paid back more in 1990 than it received in assistance in the form of aid. Under the Trinidad terms, which the hon. Gentleman might well study for his own benefit, aid debt was written off for many countries. Under the accounting procedures that I have explained before to the House, that appears as a write-off, when it is merely a rescheduling and a forgiveness of the debt by the lending country.
    Mr. Ottaway: Following my hon. Friend's comments about the Trinidad terms, which were a welcome initiative by the Prime Minister, is there any possibility of extending them?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. So far, eight countries have benefited from the Trinidad terms—six are in Africa, and we have been discussing it this afternoon. The Paris Club is meeting this week and there might be two more beneficiaries by the end of the week

    773
    —Mali and/or Honduras. My hon. Friend is right to point out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister initiated the terms, which have been of such benefit to the developing world.

    Southern Africa
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will increase the level of aid allocated to southern Africa in the current year.
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to review the level of aid allocated to southern Africa in the current year.
    Mr. Hurd: Southern Africa must be a high priority for us, particularly because so many countries there need our support for their economic reform programmes and because we must help them cope with the effects of the grievous drought. So we keep our help to that region continuously under review.
    Mr. Bayley: The Conservative party manifesto in April said that next year's aid budget, excluding aid for eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, would reach £1,800 million. Will the 1993–94 aid budget in real terms meet that manifesto promise and will the proportion going to southern Africa be the same as in the current financial year?
    Mr. Hurd: As I have said before, I cannot anticipate the results of the public spending review, which is going on now and on which no decisions have so far been taken. We shall continue to have an energetic role in relation to the tragedies in Africa, whether they concern Somalia, dealing with the drought in Zimbabwe, or projects that, for a comparatively modest expenditure, produce enormous benefits to townships in South Africa.
    Mr. Burden: Surely the House cannot have too much confidence in such assurances given the Government's track record on overseas aid. It was cut by 27 per cent. in just 11 years so what confidence can we have that the Government will ever reach the agreed target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product devoted to overseas aid? Is it not obscene that the Government should even consider cutting back on overseas aid when a child dies of starvation every 2.4 seconds?
    Mr. Hurd: Obviously, the amount that we spend on aid is part of the Government's general public spending programme. That has been so under all Governments. What has happened in the history of this Government is that reductions in the beginning were followed by a substantial expansion, so that in 1991–92 we spent 3 per cent. more in real terms than in the year before. Since 1987–88 the aid programme has risen in real terms—not fallen as the hon. Gentleman suggested—by 8 per cent., which is a substantial increase.

English Heritage
3.30 pm
Mr. Robin Corbett (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he will make a statement on the future of English Heritage.
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): English Heritage has today published its forward strategy for the rest of the 1990s. The strategy sets out 20 key policy objectives. It proposes a new priority programme for restoration of the most important monuments in English Heritage's care and new partnerships for total management of other monuments. Grant resources will be better targeted on areas of greatest need. There will be vigorous private sector fund raising to widen support for key projects. There will be restructuring of the organisation to meet those objectives. Our citizens charter principles will be applied to raise standards of service. Proposals for London, which would redefine relationships between English Heritage and the boroughs, will be the subject of full consultation.
That is a positive, forward-looking strategy which recognises both the opportunities and the constraints which lie ahead. It confirms English Heritage's central role in the protection of our heritage. That role will continue, with my full support.
Mr. Corbett: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but why were the plans drawn up in such total secrecy? Was it a bureaucratic muddle, or does it demonstrate the scale of the shame and neglect that lie behind them? Why were not English Heritage's senior archaeologists and architectural historians consulted? Why was its Historic Buildings and Areas Advisory Committee ignored? Does not the Secretary of State understand that dividing English Heritage's 400-property estate into three arbitrary categories ensures that some sites will be doomed to neglect?
When we are in the depths of a never-ending recession, how does the right hon. Gentleman think that councils, owners and voluntary organisations can raise the money to take over the 200 sites that will be sold off when vital day-to-day services, which are already underfunded, are threatened with more cuts? How can they be expected to pay for the 480 jobs of people with unique skills, which are set to go for starters?
Does he accept that, for more than 100 years, the national responsibility for those sites has been maintained in the public interest, and that they are visited by increasing numbers of people from home and abroad who have a better love of our history than the unsuitable ideological ignoramus who presently chairs English Heritage?
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, under these plans, at the very least public accessibility is threatened, admission charges are to be increased and further work to uncover sites of national and international importance is to be put at risk? Many will see a Government, who have already sold so much of the family silver, now opening the vaults of our national heritage in an outrageous bid to place in private hands a valued heritage that, as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said, gives us our identity as a nation and helps bind us together?
Mr. Brooke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his rhetoric, if not on the underlying sense of his questions.
The document that the chairman of English Heritage announced this morning is essentially a strategy document. There is an immense amount of work to be done at a tactical level, over which there will be widespread consultation with, among others, the advisory committees involved.
The hon. Gentleman said that the properties that fell to English Heritage would be doomed to neglect. The chairman made it clear this morning that approximately 60 sites of major, first-class importance will remain permanently within the hands of English Heritage. English Heritage will expect to continue to maintain a further 100 sites that are of significant importance. At the remaining sites, no charge is made for admission, they have no commercial aspect and no staff are physically present. In due course, English Heritage will discuss those sites with other organisations to see whether, by negotiation, other responsibility could be taken for them.
I particularly resile from the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman when he described the sites as being "sold off". That is not the project's intention—indeed, it would not be within the powers of English Heritage, as the ownership of sites either falls under a form of property law known as guardianship or rests with me as Secretary of State.
Of the 480 jobs to which the hon. Gentleman referred, 380 fall within the direct labour force and 100 relate to the administrative body. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are some workers with unique skills, but some of the direct labour force—I do not mean this unkindly—are engaged in lawnmowing, and it would be wrong to use the phrase "unique skill" with reference to that job.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to refer to the increasing numbers wishing to visit English Heritage sites. In the past seven years, English Heritage has successfully improved public access to the sites and increased the numbers of those who visit them.
I took particular exception to the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman about the new chairman of English Heritage. I did not appoint the new chairman, but I worked with him closely for seven years at the Royal College of Art, initially as the Higher Education Minister and latterly as Member of Parliament for the constituency. Those who work at the Royal College of Art, including—notably—the student body, expressed the greatest regret when he left the Royal College of Art and transferred to his new post.
As I said earlier, public accessibility will be maintained. That will continue to be the case even if another organisation takes responsibility for the site.
There is of course a reference to raised income from admissions, but income can be raised from admissions by increasing the number of people who visit as well as by raising charges.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend constantly uphold Britain's heritage, which is second to none in the world? If we do not do that, future generations will curse us, and they will be right to curse us.
In London, will not English Heritage be rather more reliable than some of the London boroughs?
Mr. Brooke: Of course I endorse everything my hon. Friend has said, not only about the scale of our heritage

777
but about the commitment to its maintenance on my part and on that of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
The London decision which is foreshadowed in the statement that Mr. Stevens made this morning will be the subject of consultation over a period. Certain local authorities in London are anxious to take over these responsibilities.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State accept that this document has caused the most widespread anxiety among all the bodies in this country concerned about national heritage; and that it outlines a strategy the detailed tactics of which suggest that more than half the properties currently owned by English Heritage will not enjoy the direct attention or involvement of the body statutorily responsible for their care?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further accept that the proposals with respect to dispensing with the direct labour organisation are in direct conflict with the advice of the National Audit Office, which as recently as July pointed to the shortage of skills in areas for which English Heritage has responsibility? Will he ensure that irreversible steps are not taken before the House has an opportunity to debate these matters—for the preservation of our heritage is the right hon. Gentleman's and our first responsibility?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman refers to the proposals as prompting widespread anxiety, but certain aspects of them will secure a welcome—such as, for instance, the concentration of resources that will flow from the redirection that Mr. Stevens has foreshadowed.
Each site will be a special and individual case, and the terms on which responsibility will be transferred will vary in every case and will respond to each case's circumstances. In certain instances, I dare say that management agreements will be considered.
The sites for which English Heritage is responsible have come together over the past decades—I mean this descriptively, not evaluatively—in a miscellaneous manner. I am perfectly aware of other organisations for which I am responsible deciding that it may be the interests of particular owners or controllers of sites. or of institutions, to transfer them into the hands of others who believe that they might be better able to look after their interests. The problem with looking after a rural property in, say Wales, is that that may be better done by those who wish—
Mr. A. J. Beith: English Heritage is not responsible for Wales.
Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman is right to exclude my Welsh example. Such a property is much more likely to be looked after well locally than by central control from London.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: May I first say how much many of us welcome my right hon. Friend to his new responsibilities on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box? Most of us will want to study the document in rather more depth and detail than the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has studied his press releases. We will also expect the House to have an opportunity to debate the matter.
There is already great concern in London; English Heritage has performed a most valuable role, and it would
778
be a great pity if would-be vandal developers thought that they could get away with things without proper monitoring in future. That impression is being given, probably wrongly, but I should be grateful for a robust rebuttal of it by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. He is quite right to say that we shall get a more measured view of these proposals when their detail is looked at. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked about irreversibility. I should add to what I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman that there will be plenty of time during the discussion on the tactics of these strategic moves for sensible debate.
My hon. Friend asked about London. Because it is recognised that the performance by local authorities may be variable, there will be extended consultation to make sure that local authorities will properly be able to take the transferred powers.
Mr. Mark Fisher: I also congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. Does he not understand that his statement will be viewed with anger and dismay by people all over the country, because it fails to grasp that the sites are our national heritage and that responsibility for them should be national—that is to say, with and by the Government?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not further understand that the third category of unstaffed sites, which he apparently considers to be of lesser importance, includes vital sites such as Arbor Low in a national park which are of key importance to our archaeological heritage? If those are privatised and responsibility is divested by the Government and English Heritage, and local authorities are asked to be responsible for them, will he at least make the responsibility statutory, so that local authorities can claim revenue support grant to help them fulfil the responsibilities in which the right hon. Gentleman does not seem interested although many people throughout the country are interested in them?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman speaks about anger and dismay, and was obviously echoing the remarks by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who asked the first question.
When I said that the unstaffed sites were in Mr. Stevens's third category, I was being descriptive in terms of the category. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's kind words, but I stress that English Heritage is not thinking of transferring responsibility only to local authorities. It is looking for local voluntary bodies and bodies of a professional or expert nature. In the case of an archaeological site, there may well be an archaeological body into whose hands the site could be transferred. I repeat that each case will be looked at individually. English Heritage will need to be satisfied about those who will take on the responsibility, and it made it clear in its strategy document that, if it is not so satisfied, it will retain the responsibility.
Mr. John Gorst: As one who attended this morning's launch by Mr. Stevens along with my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to remember that one was left with the clear impression that the proposal is strong on wishful thinking and very weak on the possibility of resources? If no local authority resources are available, will my right hon. Friend's Department make the

779
necessary expenditure, or will there be a complete wilderness in the B and C category sites for which English Heritage is responsible?
Mr. Brooke: I welcomed my hon. Friend's presence at this morning's press conference. The first question he asked gave rise to a lengthy answer by Mr. Stevens. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)—that the transfers are individual, and English Heritage will need to be satisfied that the body to which it is contemplating a transfer will be properly able to look after it. The issue of resources will obviously arise, but will be part of the decision as to whether the transfer should take place.
Ms. Joyce Quin: Does the Secretary of State accept that, when he speaks vaguely about redirecting and concentrating resources, that is bound to give rise to a great deal of concern in some areas and on some sites which it is felt will lose out? Can he assure me that in my area, the north-east, all sites will be maintained, none will be allowed to fall into disrepair, public access will be maintained at all times and the essential character of the sites will not be changed simply for commercial exploitation?
Mr. Brooke: I am glad that the hon. Lady has asked those questions, although they are obviously rather detailed, about the sites in her area. The object of the exercise is not, in her phrase, "commercial exploitation". Some of the significant body of sites that have come into the hands of English Heritage over the years could more properly and sensibly be looked after by bodies closer to them, rather than being managed from London or one of the regional offices. Local bodies already have an interest in taking over such sites, and are prepared to enter into negotiations with English Heritage for them.
Mr. Paul Channon: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he will agree that the description of Mr. Stevens by the hon. Member for Erdington is ridiculous. Many Conservative Members have the greatest confidence in his stewardship of English Heritage.
Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, regardless of ownership of the sites, the important factor in the policy of English Heritage will be that the sites are properly maintained? Secondly, will he bear in mind the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack)—that there is disquiet among Conservative Members about the listed buildings casework in London, in which English Heritage has a splendid record?
Mr. Brooke: I hope that it has been implicit in all my answers that English Heritage will be concerned, whatever the future of any site, to ensure that it is maintained to the standard that it has so far enjoyed. Secondly, we are contemplating local authorities in Greater London having responsibility for grade 2 buildings, although not for grade 2 star and grade 1 buildings, which are the responsibility of English Heritage around the country.
In that respect, London is coming into line with other parts of the country. Because a number of the London
780
boroughs will have only sketchy facilities, there will be a prolonged consultation period to ensure that they are ready and prepared to take over that responsibility.
Ms. Glenda Jackson: Could the Secretary of State elaborate a little more on what is meant by "properly caring" for such sites? The Opposition have no argument with local management of sites by local people, but we are concerned because local people may have to provide the funds. Certain sites may lose their natural character by being taken over by the entrepreneurial spirit, or may be closed to the general public because entrance fees will exclude the majority of people for whom these sites are part of their history. Should not the House be concerned if these sites are barred to the generations who wish to admire what has gone before?
Mr. Brooke: I am happy to give the hon. Lady the assurance for which she asks. However, I must remark in passing that she is leading with her chin, in that Keats's house has been in the ownership of Hampstead borough council since 1924 and of Camden council since 1965. It is a matter of great regret to those of us who know the house well that Camden council is denying access to it.
Mr. Michael Ancram: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the speculation in the press today that the Avebury site in my constituency will be affected by this morning's announcement? Will he give me an assurance that the unique nature of this immensley valuable prehistoric site will not be adversely affected by the strategy announced today?
Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. Like Stonehenge, Avebury is one of the seven world heritage sites for which English Heritage is responsible, and its care and maintenance of the site will continue in the same way as heretofore.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The Secretary of State will know that we welcome his appointment to this important position. Will he assure the House on a couple of matters? First, he will be aware that the west midlands has many sites that could fall into the category that he has announced will be affected. While we welcome his assurance that these will not be subject to commercial exploitation, in his phrase, he must be aware that, as has been made clear already, the maintenance of those sites is paramount, as is public access to them on terms at least equal to the present ones.
Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman has—as I understood him to say in his statement—the ultimate say on transfer of ownership, can he assure the House that he will not agree to any change of ownership or transfer of responsibility that does not as a minimum guarantee the two requirements to which I have referred? Indeed, could there not be an enhancement, as it were, of responsibilities, especially as some of the sites that are taken over will probably require additional resources in the light of additional responsibilities?
Mr. Brooke: I had the pleasure of being in the west midlands a weekend or so back, when I looked specifically at sites in the ownership of English Heritage and others in private hands. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he is seeking in terms of any decision about change of ownership that might be involved.

781
I shall give an example at random. Fort Cumberland, one of the forts in the River Solent, is extremely difficult to visit at present, for relatively obvious reasons, Hampshire county council wishes to acquire the fort from English Heritage, and I suspect that access to Fort Cumberland will be increased by such a move.
Mr. James Couchman: I make no apologies for asking about a specific site. Chatham historic dockyard has the greatest concentration of ancient monuments in Europe in one place. Although it is managed by the historic dockyard trust, I would be grateful for my right hon. Friend's reassurance that the input that has come from English Heritage in the refurbishment of the historic dockyard will continue unabated and without any problem.
Mr. Brooke: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has praised what is happening at Chatham dockyard. As he knows, there is an agreed programme, and that programme will be honoured. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Under-Secretary of State, had the pleasure of visiting the dockyard recently.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: When did Jocelyn Stevens advise the Secretary of State of his proposals? Why were documents not available to Members this morning? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that documents are available in the Library this afternoon?
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify his statement that there will be private sector funding and reconcile that with his claim that there will not be any sell-off? Are we to assume from his statement that franchising and leases will be granted to private companies for some of the properties? Will he assure me that none of the properties that are much valued in Essex is proposed for sale or leasing? Finally, will he understand that all 1,400 members of staff have cause for anxiety, not only 300 of them?
I am sure that the members of staff will be as much in the dark as hon. Members about the details of the proposals. Is it not unsatisfactory and unfair for them? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that they and others outside the House will see today's statement as indicative of the Government's decay, their lack of standards and a lack of pride in British heritage?
Mr. Brooke: I am rather diffident about saying to the hon. Gentleman, who I realise is a new Member, that I bring to the job both affection and pride in our heritage. I know that he did not intend to be personally disagreeable, but that was an incidental effect of his remarks.
The easiest response to the hon. Gentleman's question about private funding is to refer to the proposals for Stonehenge, which have been made public. We are planning to build a visitors centre quite some distance from the site. A private developer will be involved with the centre but we shall be working also in conjunction with the National Trust, which owns the land. Basically, we have a
782
site which draws 1 million people a year. I think that it is the most visited ancient site in Europe. It is important that we ensure that the quality of services available to those who visit it are worthy of them.
Mr. Robert Banks: I add my congratulations to those expressed to my right hon. Friend on his new responsibilities. Does he acknowledge that historic buildings and sites are the cornerstone of this country's tourist industry, and will he ensure that tourist boards and other bodies involved in tourism are widely consulted on the proposed strategy? Does my right hon. Friend believe that, if the review is implemented, overall a larger sum of money will be available for the preservation and maintenance of historic buildings and sites?
Mr. Brooke: I give my hon. Friend an assurance that tourist interests in the heritage, which are very important, will be kept informed and consulted. As to funding, I cannot prejudge any statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a fortnight's time, but the grain of English Heritage's proposals is in line with the contribution that the private sector has made and will continue to make. I should earlier have answered the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) with an assurance that I will make the documents available in the Library.
Mr. Tony Banks: This seems like the country's final closing down sale, when historic monuments are to be transferred to whomsoever they are transferred to. Will the Secretary of State give a firm assurance that, when monuments are transferred to local authorities, they will be given the necessary funds to continue to keep those monuments in the order that we would expect? Will the right hon. Gentleman also undertake that, when sites are transferred, those remaining will not be privatised by English Heritage?
Mr. Brooke: The question of resources for local authorities rests more with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment than with me, but I repeat my earlier assurance that, in its negotiations, English Heritage must be satisfied that those taking on responsibility for sites have the means of looking after them. The hon. Gentleman's point about the privatisation of other sites had the flavour of a rhetorical question. I gave an assurance earlier that the main body of sites, to which English Heritage assigns the first two categories of importance, will essentially remain under English Heritage's control. I repeat that we do not envisage commercial exploitation or the sale of sites.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have a Standing Order No. 20 application to hear, so I ask the hon. Gentleman and others to resume their seats.

Parkside Colliery
4.2 pm
Mr. John Evans: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the ending of coal mining on Friday last at Parkside colliery in my constituency and the loss of 800 miners' jobs without any consultation.
The matter is specific, in that, throughout last Wednesday's debate on pit closures, the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Wales repeatedly gave categorical assurances that British Coal had a statutory duty to consult on each of the 10 pits remaining on the closure hit list. In fact, at 9.50 pm that night the Secretary of State for Wales said:
"Let me make matters absolutely clear about the 10 pits. British Coal is under a statutory duty to consult on those closures … it must be a genuine consultation. British Coal has given the criteria to show that those pits are currently loss-making and have no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future."—[Official Report, 21 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 526.]
Less than 36 hours later, at 7.15 am on Friday 23 October, the president and secretary of the Parkside branch of the National Union of Mineworkers were called to the colliery deputy manager's office and told that, as from 7 pm that night, all coal production would cease. That was the total extent of the Secretary of State's "genuine consultation."
Parkside miners have been denied any opportunity to prove to the nation that theirs is a profitable colliery with a ready market at Fiddler's Ferry power station, which presumably will now import even more Colombian coal.
The issue is important for two reasons. First, a debate would deal with the veracity and integrity of Ministers who have made statements to the House about colliery closures. Secondly, it would establish whether British Coal is treating Ministers and the House with contempt in shutting collieries without any consultation.
Lastly, the matter is urgent—indeed, very urgent—in that the very fabric of the mine is now threatened. I am advised that the proposed level of care and maintenance at this pit is completely insufficient, with no personnel deployed to protect the faces themselves—one of which, I am told, will deteriorate within the week if coaling is not resumed, owing to floorlift and geological pressure.
It is of the utmost importance, Madam Speaker, that the matter be discussed urgently, so that Parkside colliery, its work force and its millions of tonnes of coal reserves can be protected for the nation.
Madam Speaker: I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has said. I am instructed to give my decision without stating my reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman to be appropriate for discussion under standing order No. 20, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
4.6 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order concerns a report by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which recommends that emphysema and bronchitis be deemed industrial diseases. Such action would greatly assist the many thousands of miners and former miners who suffer from those wretched illnesses, and who have been seeking compensation from British Coal for many years.
Although the document emanates from the Department of Social Security, it has been reported that a senior civil servant in the Department of Trade and Industry has advised the President of the Board of Trade to delay publishing it, on the grounds that many of the sufferers will die in the interim and that the cost to the Exchequer will therefore be reduced.
Have you, Madam Speaker, received any requests for a statement on this urgent matter? What steps should my right hon. and hon. Friends take when faced with the DTI's blanket refusal to answer questions about leaks, even when the rights of dying men are at stake?
Mr. Eric Clarke: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. If anything motivated me to become a Member of Parliament, it was this. The anomaly introduced by academic and medical argument over whether certain people were suffering from emphysema or bronchitis, from pneumoconiosis or silicosis, has affected every member of the mining fraternity. It is heartrending to ask a miner's widow and dependants to allow a post mortem on the deceased after he has breathed his last, but all of us have had that experience. It may sound melodramatic, but if anything made me bitter, it was that.
Sufferers from those diseases have given their lives to an industry from which we all benefit. It is only right for the anomaly to be dealt with, and I appeal to Ministers to enact such a change immediately. It should not be delayed; if anything, it should be speeded up, and I hope that any payments that became due some time ago will be backdated.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I will, of course, take points of order that relate to the matter that we are discussing, but they must be directed to me, rather than attempting to debate the subject of the report.
Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Only last week, the President of the Board of Trade apologised to the House for his discourtesy. If it is other than discourtesy, is it not at least very disturbing that we should be left to weigh the value of stray memoranda from the Department of Trade and Industry in order to discover the Government's policy on an issue that is so deeply important to people suffering from distressing chronic illnesses, many of whom have to struggle to breathe?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Over many years, Madam Speaker—especially during the past 10 years—you will have heard my hon. Friends make requests and present Bills on this very subject. You will have heard the Government say that they now intend to look at this matter.

785
Therefore, it becomes an issue for you, in the sense that, now that you are in the Chair, it seems to me that they are saying that they are treating the House of Commons with contempt, and the proposals that have been put before it. Because of that, it is important that you insist that a statement be made by the Government, either today or tomorrow, on the matter so that we can question the Minister about this stinking, rotten, lousy memorandum.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I intend to respond now to those points of order.
The House has strong feelings on the matter. To deal with it purely factually, I have had no information from the Government that they are seeking to make a statement. However, Ministers are here, and they will have heard the strong feelings expressed about the matter. I could make light of it and say that there are more leaks around these days than there are in my kitchen colander, but it is a very serious matter, and I hope that the Ministers sitting on the Treasury Bench have heard what hon. Members have said.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are given to understand that next week we are to debate the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to enact the so-called Maastricht treaty. Unlike certain members of the Cabinet, you and I have had the benefit, if that is the word, of reading the Maastricht treaty and therefore understand some of its implications.
Title 1 of the Maastricht treaty talks about maintaining something called the "acquis communautaire". It goes on to talk about building on the "acquis communautaire"—a decentralisation measure, I understand: I do not know what it means. I thought that I would try to enlighten myself by finding the biggest English dictionary that I could set hand on. I could not find it there. I understand that "acquis communautaire" comes from the French language.
I want to ask you two questions. If it is in order, is there any precedent whatever for United Kingdom legislation being framed in the French language, and, if so, can you tell us when? Secondly, if it is in order, could it be translated into plain English before next week, so that the whole country can understand it? You yourself will wish to understand what it means because, in the increasingly unlikely event of the treaty passing through the House, you will be required to rule on the meaning of "acquis communautaire". From time to time you will have to say to us, "Lads, it's not on; it's part of the acquis communautaire, so we can't debate it." So you, as well as we, will wish to know in plain English what it means. Can you help us, please?
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Last Thursday, the Leader of the House said during business questions, at column 570, that the debate on 4 November was expected to be on a substantive motion. There has been a lot of interest in and controversy about what will happen on 4 November. We now understand that there is a possibility that the debate will not be on a substantive motion but on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, when it is unlikely that a Division would be called.
If that is the position—I stress, if that is the position—can you again confirm that it is your wish that such
786
information should be given, first and foremost, to the House before the media obtain it? I hope that we shall not find that the media state that that is firmly the position without the House having been notified before next Thursday's business questions. I put it to you that the House is being treated with contempt. If the Government are going to do another U-turn, which is quite likely, the House should be the first to know of it.
Madam Speaker: I always take the very firm view that, before going to any of the outside authorities, this House should be the first to know when statements are to be made. The hon. Gentleman and the House understand that. I cannot discuss with the hon. Gentleman what will happen next week—I do not have my crystal ball. If I were to do so, it would be hypothetical. However, I have taken—
Mr. Winnick rose—
Madam Speaker: Order; I have quite a lot to say.
I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but he will understand that from my point of view it is hypothetical and that I do not know what the situation will be next week.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) flatters me greatly by saying that he knows that I have read the Maastricht treaty. I am only a quarter of the way through it at the moment; it is not the easiest bedside reading. The House has committed the European Communities (Amendment) Bill to a Committee of the whole House, and it would be quite wrong of me to comment on the proceedings in Committee or to give rulings involving a legal opinion on matters of Community law. I cannot take it any further than that at this stage.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 15 July, the President of the Board of Trade failed to explain in his announcement of the privatisation of Parcel Force that it would lose its VAT-exempt status as part of the Post Office. As a result, charges in the newly privatised Parcel Force will rise by 17.5 per cent. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should apologise to the House and come clean about the impact of his policies.
Madam Speaker: Again, I have not had any request from a Minister to make a further statement on the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he could find methods on the Order Paper by which he could make his views known.
Dr. Kim Howells: Further to the application under Standing Order No. 20 made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend questioned the veracity of the statement made by the Secretary of State for Wales in winding up the coal debate. The Secretary of State does not seem to have realised that, as he was making his statement, lorries were entering the pit yard of Taff Merthyr colliery ready to tip hard core down the shafts. Can you call him back to the Chamber to tell us why he did not know that, or, if he did, why he made that statement?
Madam Speaker: I am afraid that the House and hon. Members credit me with more authority than I have. I listened carefully to the application under Standing Order No. 20, and gave a ruling in accordance with our proceedings. I can take it no further at this stage.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, which I hope is of some constitutional significance. The governor of Hong Kong made statements on television this morning that affect the position of hon. Members. He made statements in defence of the Prime Minister and of the Maastricht treaty that went way beyond his responsibilities as governor of Hong Kong. It should be made clear that he must desist from making such statements and must limit himself to his area of responsibility.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the House will understand that my responsibilities do not stretch as far as Hong Kong or television. The hon. Gentleman will know that he can draw this matter to the attention of the Government in an early-day motion. I must leave it to him to do so. He is a wily Member and knows how to set about these things.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A motion appears on page 1632 of today's Order Paper relating to a European Community document that was debated by the members of European Community Standing Committee B last Wednesday.
Has the Leader of the House given you any indication that he intends to seek to increase the number of European Community Standing Committees? The original intention was to create five, but we have only two. A heck of a lot of work is being put on the shoulders of members of the two Committees. There should be more Committees to debate the ever-increasing load of documents, legislation and regulations—I will not call it bumf—that is emanating from Brussels. We need a bit of help on this.
Madam Speaker: I appreciate the amount of work that members of the two Committees do. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of one of the Committees, although he is not raising the matter purely because of the burden that falls on him. The Leader of the House has not raised the matter with me. I suggest that the hon. Member puts a question to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 21 October, reported in Hansard at columns 459–460, the President of the Board of Trade, in response to remarks by Opposition Members about Colombian coal, made critical comments about local authorities purchasing such coal, and then said that he required an open inquiry into the matter.
On 25 October, it was reported in the Observer that the Prime Minister had been in Colombia and had discussed negotiations about the import of Colombian coal. The import of such coal has meant the closure of the pit in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans).
It has also been said that, at the Prime Minister's request, the Home Secretary visited Colombia, not only to discuss the issue of drug trafficking, but to take the opportunity to negotiate on behalf of the Government the early access of Colombian coal to the United Kingdom market. The Prime Minister has intervened personally to—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that points of order are for me to deal with. He is now getting into an argument. What is the point of order with which I as Speaker can deal?
Mr. McCartney: The point of order is that, on 21 October, the House was seriously misled in debate by the President of the Board of Trade. As a result of his ability to misrepresent the position, I ask you to ask him to make an early statement about the Government's negotiations about Colombian coal. The question of those negotiations is important in discovering whether the Government knew months ago of the intention to close a number of pits in the British coalfield.
Madam Speaker: I have had no information at all that any Minister wishes to come to the House to make a further statement on those matters. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to find other methods of raising the matter.

Orders of the Day
  Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill
    New clause 1

      VESTING OF ESTATE, AND DEALINGS OF DEBTOR, AFTER SEQUESTRATION (No. I)
      `(1) Section 32 of the 1985 Act (Vesting of estate, and dealings of debtor, after sequestration) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1A) A determination by the sheriff under subsection (2) below—

      (a) may be made on the application of the interim trustee or the permanent trustee; or

      (b) may be made by the sheriff of his own volition."

      (3) In subsection (2), leave out "The sheriff, on the application of the permanent trustee, may" and insert "A determination under this subsection shall".
      (4) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(2A) A determination by the sheriff under subsection (2) above may be made—

      (a) in the circumstances in paragraphs (b) or (c) of subsection (1A) above, when the sequestration is awarded; and

      (b) in the circumstances in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (IA) above, at any time thereafter during the period of sequestration.".'—[Mr. Bill Walker.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.20 pm
      Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take new clause 2—Vesting of estate, and dealings of debtor, after sequestration (No. 2)—
      `(1) Section 32 of the 1985 Act (Vesting of estate, and dealings of debtor, after sequestration) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1A) A determination by the sheriff under subsection (2) below—

      (a) may be made on the application of the interim trustee or the permanent trustee; or

      (b) may be made by the sheriff of his own volition, and

      (c) shall be made on the application of a person representing not less than one quarter in value of the creditors."

      (3) In subsection (2), leave out "The sheriff, on the application of the permanent trustee; may" and insert "A determination under this subsection shall,".
      (4) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(2A) A determination by the sheriff under subsection (2) above may be made—

      (a) in the circumstances in paragraphs (b) or (c) of subsection (1A) above, when the sequestration is awarded; and

      (b) in the circumstances in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1A) above, at any time thereafter during the period of sequestration.".'.

      Mr. Walker: My comments today will be directed largely at new clause 2, so I want to remind the House of what was said in Committee on 9 July. The point at issue
      790
      then, although in a slightly different context, was whether a debtor should be required to file details of income and outgoings when lodging his or her petition.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) made some extremely helpful and reassuring remarks. He said:
      "I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that there is much to be said in favour of adding details of the debtor's income and outgoings to the information that the debtor must lodge with his petition."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 9 July 1992; c. 291.]
      The Minister will be aware that the information required of the debtor under subsection (6A)(a) can be added by regulations. With such a power available, the need to specify the information required in the Bill would be diminished.
      I emphasise the importance that the credit industry in the United Kingdom places on those remarks and the comfort that it draws from them. The new clauses are designed to rectify what I see as an operational shortcoming in the existing law. The objective of new clause 2 is straightforward.
      Mr. John McAllion: Has the hon. Gentleman tabled the new clause on his own behalf or on behalf of any other organisation? If the latter is the case, should be not bring that to the attention of the House?
      Mr. Walker: As is the case in such debates, we all take advice and receive recommendations. We all listen to that advice. Yes, I have received advice and I have never made a secret of that. I have no interest to declare and I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will understand that. My only interest is that I hope that we can include in legislation something that will benefit the debtors and creditors and all those who are interested. If the hon. Gentleman would care to listen to me, he will learn that I intend to quote several contributions that were made in Standing Committee not by Conservative Members, but by Opposition Members.
      The object of new clause 2 is quite straightforward. It has proved impracticable under existing law for creditors to seek reasonable contributions from any excess income that the debtor may have. However, the clear intention of section 32 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 is that such a mechanism should exist.
      New clause 2 is designed to ensure that section 32 becomes workable and viable. The principle of reasonable contribution from income is agreed on both sides of the House. I draw the attention of the House to comments made in Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). He said:
      "I think that the hon. Member for Tayside, North wants more detailed information to be provided. A list of assets, liabilities, income and outgoings would show whether someone was genuinely insolvent. We often hear of people who have declared themselves bankrupt yet still drive a Jaguar and have a house in a salubrious part of the city. Something is missing in the inspection process."
      I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East will understand that that view is shared across the Chamber.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said in Committee:
      "In a way, this is a Tayside, North point. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Tayside, North is not present to hear me support his general approach, because there is concern that sequestrations are sometimes used in circumstances that are not always appropriate.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden also said:

      791
      "Let us take the case of a person who is properly going through the sequestration process on the basis that he is in receipt of public benefit and nothing else. If that person, happily, is able to get a job with a substantial salary it is clearly right that a reasonable contribution, leaving enough for livelihood, is made available to the creditors. We might quarrel about where the line is drawn, but clearly the principle is correct."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 9 July 1992; c. 293–348.]
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Under the new clause, would not the hon. Gentleman seek immediate involvement of the debtor's income? At present the normal process is to allow a period of two to three months for the sheriff or trustee to take account of the debtor's income and requirements. Why is the hon. Gentleman trying to create a situation in which that period of consultation and negotiation is removed from the debtor?
      Mr. Walker: The hon. Lady is right to some extent. I hope that I have shown in the speeches from which I have quoted that there is concern across the Chamber about the fact that the operational mechanics are suspect. While I do not pretend that anything that I introduce will be legislatively perfect, the intention of the new clause is clear. If the hon. Lady will listen to what I have to say, I shall demonstrate what the intentions are.
      There seems to be general agreement that debtors should be required to make some reasonable contribution from their income if they can afford it. To require debtors to disclose not only their assets and liabilities but their income and outgoings when they file their petition will make the process of determining whether they ought reasonably to contribute much more straighforward. That is what the new clause seeks to achieve.
      4.30 pm
      An important deterrent effect is also likely to arise from such a system of disclosure. It will not surprise anyone to know that I am a great defender of deterrence. Those "non-genuine" debtors who previously would have used sequestration, safe in the knowledge that their income would probably not be scrutinised, will be likely to think again. To put it another way, the mere requirement to disclose income and outgoings is likely to weed out unmeritorious cases. In turn, the measure will have important cost-saving implications because such cases will be less likely to enter the system. I should have thought that that would be of interest to the Government. I am always looking for ways to save taxpayers' money.
      Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman deals with an important point. Does he have any idea of the extent—for example, in the past two or three years—of the abuse that he describes?
      Mr. Walker: The evidence that I can produce today is based largely on the information that I have received within my constituency. The hon. Gentleman must also face cases in which people say, "Are you aware that So-and-So has gone bankrupt and is still living the life of Riley?" That is the difficulty to which the hon. Member for Garscadden drew attention. We all have such cases. There is a feeling that something is not right, but the matter can be put right. Those people who should not be in that particular category because they have funds and can contribute towards the debt should be made to do so.
      792
      I am conscious that the Government are anxious not to place barriers in the way of those in genuine difficulty, for whom sequestration is the only option. None of us is suggesting that we should put barriers in the way of genuine cases. This concern was demonstrated by the significant Government amendments to clause 2(b), which ease the requirements for a debtor's petition. Such a disclosure system as I have described would not constitute a serious barrier. I will explain why.
      I have been fortunate to see a copy of a book written by Mr. Jim Gray, who is well known to Opposition Members as he has written to them about the Bill. Mr. Gray is a solicitor, and manager of the Drumchapel money advice centre. He is a prominent member of the money advice industry. The book is entitled, "A Guide to Money Advice in Scotland". I understand that it was published in May or June of this year, although the introduction is dated January 1992. The book is, in effect, a handbook for money advisers.
      Before dealing with the main point, I should like to make three important observations on what Mr. Gray has to say. The first relates to credit references bureaux. In Committee I stressed how a person's ability to obtain further credit would be adversely affected by the credit reference record of a sequestration. We had some interesting debates on that aspect. That is of secondary importance to Mr. Gray, but I believe that it is vital. I remind the House briefly of what I said in Committee. If a young man in his late teens or early twenties decided to go into sequestration and later married, he would not get a mortgage—with all the related problems that that could cause. That would not be a good route to travel for a young man with prospects of a good income.
      Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that? He said that someone who had been sequestrated would not get a mortgage if he married. My understanding is that there is a time limit on the person's lack of ability to get credit. I presume that the hon. Gentleman means that he would not get a mortgage within a fixed period.
      Mr. Walker: He would not be legally entitled to a mortgage within a fixed period, but after that he would also have difficulty in obtaining credit. Let us not underestimate the importance of one's track record. I am anxious that people should not go into sequestration if they would be well advised not to go down that route. It is not always the best option. I am drawing attention to the weaknesses in the way people have been directed and I do so not out of malice, or in an attempt to prove one side right or wrong, but out of genuine concern.
      We have all met constituents and looked into the history of their problems, only to find that they are linked with something which happened some years earlier. It is important that we bear that in mind.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: I have no problem with the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which I support. It may be appropriate to enhance what he is saying by recalling that a crucial failing of the Bill is that it removes one of the filters which protect people from precisely the problem that he describes. Insolvency petitioners, far from hastening people into personal bankruptcy procedures, stop many people from going down that road because up until that point they have been badly advised. Does he agree that the Government

      793
      must take that on board, or they will increase the number of personal sequestrations in Scotland, which is contrary to their stated aim?
      Mr. Walker: I have no argument with what the hon. Gentleman says. There is general agreement on both sides of the House that we want to ensure that when the Bill is enacted it will not encourage people who should not go into insolvency to go down that route. People who can afford to pay should make a contribution. More importantly, those people who have prospects of increased earnings in the near future would he well advised not to go down that route.
      I am merely drawing attention to the book "A Guide to Money Advice in Scotland".
      Mr. Connarty: There is a fixed time after which people are supposed to return to creditworthiness. I understand that it is three years. The hon. Gentleman said that he had been given advice by organisations in the credit industry, which he did not name. My concern—and, I think, that of the House—is that he may be reading into the minutes of the House the idea that credit companies may hold a Secret extended blacklist beyond the statutory three-year period. I should like him to make the House aware whether that is the case.
      Mr. Walker: In real life, if I have money and want to lend it, I shall be selective about whom I lend it to. There is nothing sinister about that, and one must recognise it if one want to borrow—whether from a bank, building society or some other organisation which lends money—to buy goods or whatever. I ran department stores before I came to the House. We never made any secret of the fact that we vetted everyone who wanted credit, and there is nothing wrong with that.
      The question is whether people who have gone down a certain route were best advised to do so. Sequestration may be the best possible route for many individuals, but the Bill must ensure that the checks and balances are right. What is written in statute does not necessarily mean that an individual can demand credit. One can have credit only if those who are lending are prepared to give it. I see nothing sinister in that.
      Mr. Jimmy Wray: It is a bit hypocritical of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that he is looking after the interests of people who have got themselves into debt when the Government had a borrowing rate of 6 per cent. and, before long, people had to pay 16 per cent. You are responsible for about 90 per cent. of the current insolvencies and are now trying to get people out of trouble.
      Mr. Walker: I trust, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that you got people into debt and were now trying to get them out of trouble. Part of the problem with our discussion is that the hon. Gentleman is sending dots and I am receiving dashes. That is equally true of almost every discussion about personal problems. It is awfully easy to say that Smith and Bloggs are responsible. In real life, we all enter agreements believing that we can honour our commitments, but sometimes people enter agreements which they would have been well advised not to get into in the first place.
      Paragraph 10.6.1 of "A Guide to Money Advice in Scotland", entitled "Advantages", says:
      "—In most cases, all debts are wiped out after three years.
      794
      —The trustee's fee can be paid by the court where there is a small assets sequestration".
      Paragraph 10.6.2 goes on to discuss disadvantages and says:
      "—The trustee has wide ranging powers over the debtor's assets.
      —The undischarged bankrupt is disbarred from holding public office.
      In most cases, only the trustee's powers will worry debtors".
      Later, under the heading "When can the debtor start a new life again?" the author glibly talks about how much credit the bankrupt can obtain. That is misleading people.
      My second observation on Mr. Gray's book is that nowhere in the entire chapter on sequestration does he mention advice being sought from the insolvency practitioner. I hope that that answers the point which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) interjected earlier. We spent many hours in the summer listening to descriptions of the value of such advice, yet Mr. Gray's approach seems to be that the decision is for the money adviser alone. That is curious in the light of all that we have heard to date.
      My third observation is on a passage in paragraph 10.2 of the book, which says:
      "Personal bankruptcy has given rise to much debate amongst money advice practitioners. Some have felt that it offers the best solution to intractable cases where creditors are unwilling to accept that the debtor simply cannot afford to pay off even a fraction of the total debt. Others have argued that no-one should be paying off debts for over 3 years—the period of most personal bankruptcies. A few have argued that debtors on income support cannot afford any debt repayments and that in the absence of debt being written off, personal bankruptcy is the only option. Other advisers feel that bankruptcy should not be used as an easy option avoiding the need for the detailed money advice work set out in earlier chapters".
      The whole passage is agonised. Money advice workers seem to have many different views on what bankruptcy if for and some, judging by the last sentence, may be using the process just to save themselves work. All in all, it paints a disturbing picture. Those are, however, simply observations—albeit observations that throw further light on our committee hearings.
      4.45 pm
      My main point is that Mr. Gray's book makes it clear that the key function of all money advice work is to establish the debtor's income and outgoings. For example, paragraph 1.4 lists matters which should be included in the money process, including:
      "… information gathering … recording and analysis of client's expenditure … preparation of financial statement". Appendix 2 contains a pro forma financial statement to assist the money adviser to establish the client's income and outgoings.
      If a debtor has sought money advice, his income and outgoings will already have been established. It would be a simple, cost-effective matter to transfer that information to the document that is to be lodged anyway in the court. A requirement on a debtor to lodge details of income and outgoings with his or her petition would not be onerous because the investigative work would already have been done by the money advice people who are routinely involved in sequestration cases.
      Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman intend that that should become a public document?
      Mr. Walker: The new clause says that that information should be available to the sheriff at the time of sequestration. It is already available and would therefore add no additional burden of work. However, it would avoid making people go down that route and would have a determined value, which would certainly do something to help the complaints that we get about the chap driving round in his Jaguar, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) drew attention.
      Mr. Wilson rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The question is that the clause be read a Second time. Mr. Allan Stewart.
      Mr. Bill Walker rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he had finished his speech.
      Mr. Walker: I was giving way to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). He and I seem to be involved in a dialogue which will, I hope, clarify my points.
      Mr. Wilson: I wished to make a specific point. I accept that the record of income and outgoings is already prepared for the money adviser and that it then goes to the sheriff, and I see no great principle involved there, but I am concerned about whether it then becomes, by definition, a public document, as that would intrude on the rights of the individual.
      Mr. Walker: I should have thought that that would be unnecessary because the sheriff has that information, so the circumstances would be simplified and improved.
      A requirement on a debtor to lodge details of income and outgoings with a petition would not be onerous because the investigative work would already have been done by the money advice people who are routinely involved in sequestrations. I am aware that, in dealing with those matters, I have been re-travelling ground that we covered in Committee. However, I felt that it was essential to do so, particularly now that I am clearer about the Government's general approach to those issues.
      On new clause 2, the reality of the position under current law is that the debtor keeps all his income. Simultaneously, all his debt repayments stop. The effect can be dramatic and may seem to the creditor to be unfair.
      I have an example which is extreme but makes the point. Let us imagine that, before sequestration, the debtor's income was £1,800 per month and his debt repayments were £1,400 per month, making his net available income £400 per month. After sequestration, the debtor's income would be £1,800 per month, his net debt repayments would be nil and his net available income would be £1,800 per month. Is that fair? From the debtor's point of view it would seem very fair, but it definitely would not seem fair to the creditor. Any objective bystander would say that the debtor should make at least some contribution from his income.
      In theory, under section 32 of the Act the debtor can be required to make a contribution, but section 32 has a fundamental defect: it relies on two separate individuals taking two separate decisions to the effect that the debtor's ability to contribute should be considered. The individuals involved are the permanent trustee and the sheriff. The Act seems to give those individuals no guidance as to when and in what way they should make their decisions.
      796
      The permanent trustee may apply to the sheriff, but no one can force the trustee to do so. The sheriff can act only if the permanent trustee applies. But if the permanent trustee applies, the sheriff appears to be under no obligation to take action. Any reluctance on the part of the permanent trustee or the sheriff is fatal to the operation of the section.
      The credit industry is aware of no case—out of a total of 12,000 sequestrations per annum—in which section 32 has been used. A criticism of the current system frequently made by creditor organisations is that they frequently have no way of triggering the section even if they have relevant facts. They see cases in which any reasonable observer would agree that the debtor should make a contribution, but the creditor organisations have no way of requiring the court to explore the issue.
      In the interests of fairness and balance, I believe that creditors should have the right to trigger the section. That is the core of new clause 2. To prevent frivolous applications from being made, I have included a requirement that at least 25 per cent. by value of creditors must agree to the trigger.
      The other key element of my new clause is that it should be possible to consider contribution by the debtor from his income at the hearing of the sequestration award. The new clauses, particularly new clause 2, give a balance and make it possible for the sheriff to take action that he may not currently be prepared, willing or able to do. The reluctance to which I have drawn attention creates problems.
      I think that the House will accept that the views expressed, some of which I have quoted, show that there is a consensus that we should examine the issue carefully. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister responds he will agree on two matters: first, that the Government could probably save money and, secondly, that the law surrounding sequestration could be tidied up and is currently most unsatisfactory.
      Mrs. Ewing: I have listened with care and courtesy to the comments of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), but I must disappoint him and say that he has not persuaded me by his arguments that there is consensus on his new clauses. I believe that the rights of the creditor and the debtor deserve equal attention, but I do not believe that the new clauses address the problems.
      I have carefully read the two new clauses and section 32 of the 1985 Act that they seek to amend. It seems that the hon. Gentleman has missed some of the salient points of section 32 and the sheriff's role. I understand that in a sequestration case all property belonging to an individual, apart from those possessions exempted for the purposes of warrant sales, become the trustee's property. In small business cases, any income derived from the business or a substantial bank or building society account also becomes the trustee's property. New clauses 1 and 2, particularly new clause 1, have a more serious impact on ordinary employees who are not likely to receive a high income but would be severely penalised.
      Under section 32, the 1985 Act gives the creditor the right, through the trustee, to ask for a contribution. The system is similar to divorce settlement cases where an agreement is eventually reached on aliment. The normal procedure is that, after a few months, when the initial sequestration has been agreed and the person declared bankrupt, everyone can consider the assets, the family's requirements and its income, and reach a sensible

      797
      agreement on what proportion of the income should go towards paying off the debt. That seems a sensible approach and one that I should certainly like to see maintained in the legislation, but I suspect that new clause 1 would largely remove it.
      I understand why the hon. Gentleman argues the case of the creditors. He has argued the case in principle, but in practice it is impossible to have an immediate assessment of the debtor's needs. I believe that the breathing space is very important. An analysis of the figures shows that very few of the creditors have benefited as a result of sequestration. In 1989, out of 2,344 bankruptcy cases, ordinary creditors received dividends in only four cases. In 1990, out of 4,364 cases, dividends were paid in only 11. The hon. Gentleman's proposals would do nothing to resolve that problem. His new clauses would penalise those people with the least assets and income.
      The Minister, like me, is not involved in legal practice, but his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) may be able to advise him. I am worried that the powers contained in the new clauses—
      Mr. Connarty: As the hon. Lady has carried out research into who receives the money from the sequestration, will she say how much money goes to those who work in accountancy?
      Mrs. Ewing: We dealt with that point at length in Committee. I suspect that the Bill has come before the House due to inadequacies in the previous legislation, and I take some credit for having consistently asked questions for two years to draw attention to that fact.
      The sheriff has an important role to play in making decisions about bankruptcies and sequestrations. The proposals of the hon. Member for Tayside, North would seem to impose a new role on the sheriff. If a sheriff were to take an immediate decision at the time of sequestration that a proportion of income should come from the debtor, the sheriff would have to adopt an inquisitorial role. He would not previously have adopted such a role in the cases which came before him, when he would have listened to the applications made and passed a form of judgment.
      Under the hon. Gentleman's proposals, the sheriff would have to take on an inquisitorial role and pass a verdict as though he were a judge. That would need a legal amendment and should not be covered by the new clause, which I hope that the Minister will not accept.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), as he did in Committee, has done us a service with his well researched and well considered contribution. He invites the House to reflect on where the balance should lie between the interests of the debtor and those of the creditor. I find myself in the unusual situation of having a great deal of sympathy for the motives of my hon. Friend and of finding a great deal of persuasiveness in the practical arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).
      5 pm
      There is no doubt that the new clauses raise an important issue. A debtor's estate can comprise not only his or her assets, but also such contributions from that debtor's income as the sheriff may determine under section 32 of the 1985 Act. In making such a determination, the
      798
      sheriff must decide what income the debtor needs to meet his basic living expenses and his obligations to his family. Only if the sheriff decides that a debtor has income in excess of that required to meet those needs will he fix an amount to be paid to the permanent trustee for the benefit of creditors. The machinery therefore already exists to ensure that contributions from income can be used to meet the costs of administering the sequestration and to provide a dividend to creditors. However, I accept that that machinery is rarely used at present.
      The new clauses focus on the fact that only the permanent trustee may apply to the sheriff for a determination under section 32 of the 1985 Act. They would introduce three principal changes. First, the right to apply for such a determination would be extended to include the interim trustee, the sheriff and, in new clause 2, creditors where at least one quarter in value approve. I accept my hon. Friend's point that he has sought to avoid the possibility of frivolous applications under this formula.
      Secondly, an application could be made before the permanent trustee is appointed or elected, including at the time of the award of sequestration itself. Finally, the discretion that the sheriff enjoys as to whether or not to issue a determination is somewhat curtailed in new clause 2.
      The right of application under the 1985 Act was deliberately left solely with the permanent trustee because he is the person charged by law with the ingathering of the debtor's estate for the benefit of all creditors. The permanent trustee is the person who is fully armed with all the information relating to the debtor's circumstances which would enable him to judge if an application was likely to succeed or was justified. He would not seek a determination unless there was the prospect of a reasonable contribution from the debtor's earnings which would justify the cost of collection.
      It cannot be expected that creditors would have the information to make such an application, nor would it be appropriate for them to do so. Some creditors might be tempted to use such a power anomalously to pursue the debtor, not because they believed it was in the overall best interests of all—unlikely, perhaps, but a risk nevertheless.
      It remains the Government's intention to require a debtor to provide information on his income and outgoings when presenting a petition for sequestration. Such information will need to be considered by the interim trustee and the permanent trustee before a full picture of the debtor's financial affairs emerges—sufficient to allow a successful application under section 32. I reassure my hon. Friend on this point, but I agree with the hon. Member for Moray in the sense that I do not believe that it would be workable for a determination to be made at the time of the award of sequestration by the sheriff. Even though information about the debtor's assets and liabilities had been lodged with the petition, it is unlikely that the debtor's full financial circumstances would have been properly investigated at the time sequestration was granted. In particular, the extent of any obligations to the debtor's family may not be readily apparent, so the sheriff would be acting in the dark to some extent.
      Nor do I see any compelling reason to muddy the respective roles of the interim trustee and permanent trustee to allow the former to apply. The permanent trustee, with his much fuller knowledge of the debtor's financial affairs, is best placed to deal with such matters. I accept that limited use is made of the powers in section

      799
      32 at present. In the past two years or so, only 5 per cent. of debtors made any contribution from their income towards the estate. That is because many debtors are already on a low income or in receipt of state benefit and so are unable to contribute anything.
      There may be scope to make greater use of the existing powers in some 10 to 15 per cent. of cases, but I believe that one must continue to rely on the professional judgment of the permanent trustee as to whether it makes sense to pursue a contribution from income, and leave the discretion with the sheriff. We should also bear in mind the fact that creditors already have the option of taking the trustee to court if they feel that he is not acting in their interest.
      As so often in the course of our proceedings in the Bill, both sides are agreed on the need to strike a balance between the interests of debtors and creditors, although we have on occasion disagreed as to precisely how to strike that balance. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North has done the House a service by raising these points today, but I must repeat that the basic structure and approach of section 32 is the correct one. Perhaps greater encouragement could be given to its use in future. I hope that, in the light of the practical problems that I have outlined, my hon. Friend will not press his new clause.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I accept what my hon. Friend says about section 32. I imagine that these matters will be debated at considerable length in the other place. I do not want to detain the House by talking about what happens in a sheriff's court in other areas on which the sheriff does decide; nor do I wish to force these matters to a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 3

      ADVISORY COMMITTEE
      '( ).—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee to advise him on the operation of this Act and on sequestration proceedings in Scotland and in particular—

      (a) the availability and geographic spread of advice to those contemplating sequestration;

      (b) any procedural barrier to petitioners for sequestration in individual cases where that seems the appropriate course; and

      (c) the level of debt and deprivation and the links with the growth in sequestration petitioners.

      (2) The committee shall include in its membership persons with experience of debt counselling and welfare rights work in the community.'.—[Mr. Tom Clarke.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I rise with some trepidation, having read the reports of the Committee. As usually happens, a great deal of debate there turned out to be superfluous, because the matters in question were debated at such length that the relevant amendments and new clauses were not called—but that's life.
      I hope on Third Reading to catch the Chair's eye and to pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides for their work on this Bill—particularly to my own very nocturnal colleagues who kept the debate going. Few could complain that the Bill has not been considered in detail.
      I am delighted that my new clause has been selected because, although we have had scrupulous debates on other aspects of the Bill, it gives the House an opportunity
      800
      to consider the role of advisory committees. If we do nothing else, we can at least invite the Minister to give some insight into Government thinking on this matter.
      I understand that the main provisions of the Bill are to remove the appointment of an insolvency practitioner as trustee in every sequestration, and in some cases to allow a debtor to petition for sequestration. In cases where assets and debts are under £2,000, the accountant in bankruptcy will be appointed as trustee and will apply for an award of summary administration.
      Those provisions have caused great concern to advice workers throughout the country. We have all had representations, in my case right up until this afternoon, because at present insolvency practitioners fulfil an essential role in providing detailed professional advice to clients who may or may not be sequestrated. According to information from the citizens advice bureau, that amounted last year to 2,223 clients.
      Insolvency practitioners currently provide counselling and home visits to ascertain that sequestration is the only answer. That layer of advice will vanish with the introduction of the Bill, except in cases where there are assets. If I have misunderstood that, perhaps the Minister would offer clarification.
      For the first time, clients will be expected to prepare their own petitions. Although amendments to the Bill make matters slightly easier than originally envisaged, clients will still require technical advice to comply with the "apparently insolvent" requirement. As there are only 11 full-time money advice workers in the citizens advice bureau service, many clients will not be able to receive the detailed technical advice that is required to complete the forms.
      All those matters are important. The Government have said that a general rule to bankruptcy procedures and a guide for money advisers will be prepared by the accountant in bankruptcy. However, such leaflets will provide only factual advice and general guidance. If that is a misunderstanding, perhaps the Minister will clarify matters.
      The Government's proposal may assist in filling the information gap, but the advice gap, which is so important, will remain and, in view of the expert level of advice that is required, bureau advisers will be unable to step into the breach. For many people, the absence of such advice could lead to financial ruin.
      The Government have also said that solicitors will be able to provide that service under the advice and assistance legal aid scheme. Insolvency practitioners have said that approximately 40 per cent. of cases referred to them by solicitors do not proceed to sequestration. That suggests at the very least that proper training will be required, and that issue will be pursued as we see how the Bill's provisions are implemented.
      Citizens advice bureaux in Scotland are extremely concerned about the number of solicitors available to carry out this legal aid work. For example, Inverness CAB presently has no solicitor firms in its area willing to take referrals from the CAB for legal aid work. That worries people in that part of Scotland, and I am sure that the Government will bear that in mind.
      The Scottish Home and Health Department report of June 1990 included a research report on the location and access to solicitors' firms in Scotland. The report posed many crucial questions, such as the opening hours of the offices, whether firms carry out legal aid work and how

      801
      many solicitors operating from the offices carry out legal aid work. It is manifest that, in rural Scotland. many people do not have access to a solicitor's office, and that must be a great worry to the House.
      In addition, the income of many clients who seek sequestration may be limited. I think that that was mentioned several times in Committee. Such people may be excluded from legal aid advice or may be required to contribute. It seems extremely harsh that a potential bankrupt may be required to meet the cost of his own sequestration.
      5.15 pm
      The new clause proposes the appointment of an advisory committee to monitor the Bill. I am sure that many organisations in this field agree that it is imperative to address the Bill's impact on the availability and geographical spread of advice. Insolvency practitioners regularly visit clients' homes, which is of great benefit to people in rural areas. In the absence of that service, how will a leaflet fill the gap? Given the potential lack of available solicitors, what advice will the Government offer to rural clients? What will happen to people in such areas who face sequestration?
      It is imperative that the level of debt and deprivation and any links with sequestration and the availability of credit be properly researched. If the advisory committee had representatives with experience of debt counselling and welfare rights work in the community, its work would be greatly enhanced. After all, only those who carry out advice work have first-hand knowledge of the trauma of debt on a client, and they can show that, for many people, sequestration is the last step, not the first, in a catalogue of disasters. I am sure that my hon. Friends will elaborate on what I have said, and I look forward to the Minister's considered reply.
      Mr. Wilson: The central point of the new clause is the setting up of an advisory committee, a body from which the Government and the Scottish Office could take advice about the workings of the Bill. On this issue of all issues and of all the legislation to emerge from the Scottish Office, there is surely a case for a little humility.
      Those who served on the Committee are aware that the legislation is required because, only seven years ago, the Government got the whole thing dramatically wrong when they created a great new tranche of public expenditure, even though that was not their intention. At least they got right the fact that it was a humane measure, which provided an escape hatch for people with multiple debt and no obvious way of extracting themselves from it.
      We seek to protect the humane element in the legislation. We want to ensure that it is accessible to those who genuinely need it and that the burden upon the public purse is kept within realistic proportions. If those are the aims of the legislation, the Government should welcome the idea of an advisory committee which will say whether, this time, they are proceeding along the proper lines.
      We should put aside the image, beloved by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), of varmints driving around in Jaguars, having kidded on all of society so as to escape from their debts. That is one of those folk tales that persist despite being based on very little objective evidence. I support the idea of an advisory committee.
      The aspect of the Bill that causes me most concern, given our debates in Committee, is the prospect that it will
      802
      result in more people being led into the insolvency procedures and ending up in sequestration. That would be the reverse of the stated intention behind the Bill. The Bill has been driven far too much by the image of a small number of insolvency practitioners grabbing in fees of over £2,000 per case at an enormous rate.
      Although there may have been some abuse of the system—the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and others have rightly drawn attention to it in the past few years—it is not the be-all and end-all of this issue. It would be wrong if, in their new-found determination to nationalise the useful service provided by insolvency practitioners, the Government threw out the baby with the bath water, and, in the end, more people were taken into sequestration.
      The statistics are important, although there is a danger that I may go over the ground covered in Committee, so I shall not set them out at any length. A whole layer of the procedure will be excluded. At present, a person goes to a citizens advice bureau or an advice agency when he is up to his neck in problems and wants to know how to get out of them. Contrary to the impression given by the hon. Member for Tayside, North through his readings from the advice given by the Drumchapel money advice centre, it is not the normal procedure for workers in these centres to encourage people into personal sequestration. In my experience, they look at the circumstances, listen to the evidence, warn people specifically about the dangers that undoubtedly exist in personal sequestration and only then direct them towards that course if they think that it is the appropriate action.
      Of the people who go to advice centres with money problems, only a small proportion go on to see the insolvency practitioner, and even that filter will work less effectively in future. Once people get to the insolvency practitioner—this element is often overlooked—it is by no means axiomatic that they will go on for personal sequestration. This caricature of the insolvency practitioner as someone who entices people into personal sequestration to get hold of the fees is grotesque and false, as the statistics show.
      Of referrals that come to insolvency practitioners from citizens advice bureaux, 15 per cent. do not go to the lengths of personal sequestration. That figure reflects that fact that, by and large, workers in these advice bureaux are highly trained and have done a great deal of sifting through the money advice cases with which they have to deal.
      Another fact that is overlooked is that only half of the cases that reach the insolvency practitioners come from advice bureaux. The rest are referrals from solicitors and other sources. At this point, the proportion of cases that the insolvency practitioner does not take to personal sequestration goes shooting up to 40 per cent. In other words, for every ten cases referred by solicitors in Scotland, only six go to personal sequestration.
      Just as the relatively low level of referrals from the citizens' advice bureaux that do not go to personal sequestration is a reflection of the relatively high level of training in these places, so that fact that 40 per cent. do not go to sequestration in other cases is a reflection of the fact that many solicitors and others who make these referrals are not trained in money advice work. They send people along to the insolvency practitioner, doubtless with the best intentions, but sometimes entirely inappropriately.

      803
      At that point, the insolvency practitioner acts as a crucial filter, not in maximising the number of sequestrations but in keeping them down. It is folly to remove this layer in the procedure that has the proven effect of holding down the number of personal sequestrations. That point was never answered in Committee.
      Furthermore, the judgment exercised in citizens advice bureaux in each case is influenced by the fact that workers in them know that there will be a second opinion. The insolvency practitioner will give more professional and expert advice than they can offer. In future, if the insolvency practitioner no longer fills this role—and judging by this Bill, no one else will fill it—the bureaux will not take a chance. They will shove many more people towards the insolvency practitioner, because they will not take the unilateral decision that sequestration is not the best path to go down. As a result, more people will end up in sequestration.
      Because I had spoken that day to someone from Pannell, Kerr and Foster, who covers the north of Scotland, I quoted in Committee the example of two cases that had been referred to him. In both cases, this person thought that the advice to go for personal sequestration was ridiculous, wrong and inappropriate. He squared those cases by phoning the creditors and telling them that sequestration was not the right idea because they would get nothing out of it, and because the individuals had no assets, sequestration would result in no gain but substantial expense—£4,000 or more—to the public purse.
      Unless the Minister can take this away from the abstract and go down to a human personal level and tell the House what would happen under the new procedure in these cases, there is a major flaw in the plan that he is putting forward. All we heard in Committee from the Minister—I shall be pleased if he can do better tonight—was this:
      "There is no reason to believe that insolvency practitioners would not retain an interest in personal insolvency."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee: 7 July 1992, c. 130.]
      The theory is that, having been stripped of their businesses, the insolvency practitioners, as an act of public philanthropy, will still give advice such as that given in the cases that I quoted. That is a fiction: they will do no such thing. The prospect is that, contrary to the stated aims of the Bill, the number of personal sequestrations will increase as a result of the Bill, unless this central flaw is addressed.
      5.30 pm
      I am also concerned about the geographical spread of available advice. It is certain that the quality of advice varies dramatically from one part of the country to another—indeed, in some areas no advice will be available. The more rural and remote an area, the less chance there will be of responsible and high-quality advice being available.
      In some towns in rural communities, one finds that good-quality advice is available, but in the immediate hinterland, people will be 30, 40 or 50 miles away from a source of advice. At the same time, they cannot be expected to have the same awareness as others of the existence of relevant advice.
      804
      It seems that these people will be shipped direct into the hands of an accountant in bankruptcy. They will not find themselves with an insolvency practitioner, who has responsibility to advise them that perhaps they are not going down the right road. Instead, they will find themselves on a conveyor belt towards sequestration.
      Given the terms of the Bill, the accountant in bankruptcy is excluded from giving the sort of disinterested advice that would be offered by an insolvency practitioner. Once they are in the clutches of an accountant in bankruptcy, they stay in that position until the procedure has been completed. That is wrong in urban settings, and it is even more wrong in rural settings, where individuals often will not have had the benefit of advice at an earlier stage. That can lead only to more unnecessary sequestrations.
      We must at all stages repeat the message that sequestration, for many reasons, is not an easy option. People should be protected from it if that is at all possible. It should not be made a more likely course for them through the diminution of advice at earlier stages. I support the establishment of an advisory committee.
      I wish to press the Minister—perhaps this is a fortuitous day on which to do it—on legal aid. We know that the Minister has accepted at least the spirit of our amendment No. 1. This proposed that this measure
      "will not come into force unless and until provision has been made to extend the legal aid scheme to cover any legal expenses that arise from petitioning the courts for the appointment of an interim trustee under the terms of the relevant section."
      I understand, as I have said, that the Minister has accepted the spirit of the amendment. Therefore, legal aid will apply. The increasingly pertinent question is to whom it will apply. In that context, it would be interesting to hear something about the Government's policy on legal aid in Scotland. It is difficult to believe that their policy is divorced from the sentiments expressed by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It seems from an article that appears in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph that he made a speech during the weekend. I am sure that that means, in the case of Lord Mackay, that the speech was made on Saturday.
      We are told:
      "Lord Mackay's proposals that means-testing for civil legal aid should be brought more into line with means-testing for other benefits"—
      that is an interesting concept—
      "could make it harder for many with families to obtain such aid. Under the proposals, those who remain eligible for legal aid can expect to be required to pay higher contributions in both criminal and civil cases."
      There is a reference to the granting of
      "quality-controlled franchises to carry out legal aid work."
      It is suggested that such a course would favour larger firms. Once again, the geographical spread is highly pertinent, because the franchieses of legal aid are the large legal practices in towns and cities. There is not much joy in that for the more peripheral areas.
      I recognise that what Lord Mackay said applies to England and Wales and not directly to Scotland. There are, however, two conflicting concepts. First, the Government come forward with a concession under the Bill, which ostensibly extends legal aid to the processes that will arise as a result of its provisions. At the same time, the senior Law Officer in England and Wales is giving notice that the entire legal aid scheme will be subject to shocking cuts and means-testing.

      805
      I find that circle hard to square. Ministers have an opportunity this evening to clarify whether legal aid, which will be available under bankruptcy procedures in Scotland, and by extension in all other civil procedures in Scotland, will be subject to the sort of restrictions of which Lord Mackay was speaking in England and Wales. It is an extremely important piece of information. It is unfortunate that we must extrapolate it in the terms of a statement made in respect of England and Wales. However, we would prefer to have answers sooner rather than later.
      If legal aid is to be means-tested and is to be harder to obtain for many people with families, we are entitled to ask what additional problems will be created for those who need to seek legal aid under sequestration processes. This consideration applies throughout civil actions, but it clearly applies in the procedures that we are discussing. Ministers are presented with a golden opportunity immediately after the weekend during which Lord Mackay spoke. The Bill is closely related to legal procedures, and includes specific reference to legal aid. I hope that a Minister will tell us—Ministers must know this—what the Government's proposals are for legal aid in Scotland.
      I strongly support the proposal to establish an advisory committee. The Government got it wrong in 1985, and we are here as a result. There is a strong prima facie case for supposing that they have got it wrong again. Indeed, it seems that they will create more personal sequestrations rather than fewer. They will do that in the public sector, and it seems—I did not hear anything in Committee to contradict this—that this will be at more rather than less expense to the public purse. In all humility, the Government should establish an advisory committee so that they may find out rather sooner this time where they have got it wrong.
      Mr. Wallace: I too, would welcome the creation of an advisory committee. I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), particularly those in his concluding remarks. As he said, the Bill is before us because the Government failed to get things right when they introduced what became the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. There are signs of omissions and flaws in the Bill that will make it necessary for us to return to these issues sooner rather than later. Apart from the general approach of an advisory committee advising the Secretary of State on the operation of this measure when it is enacted, it would be involved with the very issues that have given rise for concern.
      I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, so I feel somewhat estranged from those who became more and more familiar with it as they sat into the early hours of the morning. I read some of the reports of the Committee's proceedings, and I have the greatest admiration for the sterling work done by its members. I am greatly relieved that I was not a member of it.
      Once again, I declare an interest. I am the parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, which has more than a passing interest in the Bill. I should add that the views that I express are my own.
      The proposed advisory committee would deal with the availability and geographical spread of advice to those contemplating sequestration. I recall that the matter was raised in the deliberations of the Scottish Grand
      806
      Committee and subsequently on Second Reading. It is obviously of importance to me as a Member who represents a Scottish constituency.
      From a report of proceedings in Committee, I notice that the Minister, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), sought to give assurances. I refer especially to columns 150 and 151. For example, the hon. Gentleman said:
      "I entirely accept the point about geographical coverage, which has been made by many hon. Members. I also accept that in establishing market testing, we must secure a quality service … I entirely accept what has been said about proper geographic coverage".—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 7 July 1992; c. 150–51.]
      I have no doubt from previous debates that the Minister got the point, but I am unclear about a Government guarantee of the adequate delivery of a quality service in diverse and scattered parts of Scotland.
      A letter that I received from the manager of the citizens advice bureau in Lerwick touches on the point about advice raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North:
      "If the applicant requires counselling prior to signing a trust deed, this can no longer be undertaken by the nominated Insolvency Practitioner nor by the Accountant in Bankruptcy. The applicant will need to find a solicitor who is qualified to provide this, and we already have problems in the islands due to conflict of interest. The applicant may be entitled to legal aid to pay for this counselling session. However, many of the people who have gone through the Shetland office have an income which would take them outside the legal aid scheme but are still insolvent. Would any solicitor take on a client for counselling knowing that their bill may join the other creditors listed in the Trust Deed?"
      Conflict of interest is an important issue in a small community served by a relatively low number of professionals, particularly solicitors. It is almost inevitable that the debtor seeking advice will see a solicitor who is acting for one or more of the creditors who are trying to exert pressure on that debtor. That makes it almost impossible for the solicitor to give impartial advice.
      Earlier debates touched on the quality of advice given by outside practitioners coming to the isles, without which many people would be lost. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North pointed out that, while there will be cases in which, for good social reasons, insolvency practitioners will be prepared to offer advice, it must be remembered that ultimately they are commercial, professional businesses—not charities—and will not provide a service for which they will get little or no remuneration. We may witness—not just in rural Scotland—the loss of professionals who have built up expertise in giving advice that often results in the avoidance of sequestration.
      The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred to a particular book offering money advice. He cited the case of the young person about to marry, who would discover in later years the consequences of having gone down the path to sequestration. If an important source of advice is denied to such a young person, it is more likely that he will follow the course that the hon. Member for Tayside, North counselled against. The sequestration process could be to the detriment of many individuals, and would incur greater public cost—because every additional personal sequestration involves added expense.
      As to a charge being made on the debtor for the original petition to the court, in Committee the Under-Secretary of State said:

      807
      "I do not believe that court fees for the processing of petitions by debtors for their own sequestration should be waived as a general rule … Court fees can be met under the advice by way of representation scheme. I believe that it is appropriate that assistance to debtor petitions should come from that source."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 9 July 1992, c. 292.]
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said that the Government accepted the spirit of amendment No. 1, which sought to give legislative force to that intent. I would prefer an explanation on the record of the extent to which people will qualify for legal aid. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North did the House a service by voicing the considerable doubts that hang over the future of legal aid after the Lord Chancellor's comments at the weekend.
      5.45 pm
      The suspicion must be that anything not enshrined in legislation can always be taken away without legislation. We need something more tangible than an expression of good will. I do not challenge or question the Minister's good intentions, but they do not bind his successors. We want a guarantee that people already confronting sequestration will not be discouraged—and thus suffer further misery and the problems of continual indebtedness—because they could not afford to petition for their own sequestration.
      I am sure that the advisory committee would be well justified in examining the costs created by the Bill. The driving force behind the legislation is a desire to cut costs. The original legislation led to an escalation of costs, but those projected in the explanatory memorandum when the Bill first came before the House revealed an exceptionally dramatic rise, which all of us found it difficult to comprehend. It allowed for one Scot in 10 to be bankrupt by 1996. Perhaps that is more likely than it was, as a result of the Government's economic policies.
      Mr. Wilson: That is even more likely now, in October, than it was in July.
      Mr. Wallace: Such a prospect gives no joy to anyone, because it suggests that the Government forecast an increase in the misery caused by personal sequestration.
      I noted also exchanges involving the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who might have been relieved from attending these proceedings but who nevertheless has nobly been in his place to hear these debates. In exchanges with the Minister on 14 July, figures were produced that raised a number of eyebrows and placed in doubt the realism of Government costings.
      There was a suggestion, for example, that an allowance of £5.13 be payable for the senior supervision of cases which, by their nature, must endure for three years. Even in the event of zero inflation—which is no longer Government policy—it is hard to believe that costs could be contained to £5.13 for senior supervision.
      The sum of £10 is allowed for travel expenses. I do not know anyone who can manage to travel to my constituency for £10—but if they can, perhaps they will please tell me, and the tourism industry, how they do it.
      Mr. Wilson: And the Fees Office.
      Mr. Wallace: I would do anything to cut Government expenditure. I appreciate that the figure will be an average,
      808
      and that constituencies such as mine will increase the average. The proposed figure, however, seems very unrealistic.
      We have been given to believe that the accountant in bankruptcy's department will spend a total of one and a half hours compiling a statement based on the applicant's background and history. That, too, strikes me as inadequate, in comparison with the volume of work currently involved at the outset of personal sequestration procedures.
      To describe the projected figures as optimistic is probably a gross understatement. As they form the basis of the Government's claim, I feel that the Minister should try to justify the figures more than he has done so far, and that he should tell us whether they have been subject to any review since July. If he fails to do that, he will have provided the most compelling case so far for the establishment of an advisory committee.
      Mr. McAllion: I had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee, and I note that eight of the 14 hon. Members now present—most of them, indeed—served on it with me.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has reminded me, Report stage gives hon. Members excluded from the Standing Committee an opportunity to debate a Bill. In view of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that you should report to Madam Speaker that something has gone wrong with our procedures. Of the three English Members who served on the Committee, only the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) is present—and that is only because, as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State, he has to be present.
      The other two, who were present throughout the Committee stage, show no interest in being present tonight. I can only assume that that is because they do not expect any Divisions to take place and their only interest in the Bill is in exercising their votes to ensure that the Tory majority is made to tell at every stage. If you report to Madam Speaker about the breakdown in procedure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps you will recommend her to approach the Government with a simple solution—the setting up of a Scottish Parliament—which would enable Bills of this kind to be handled properly and efficiently.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). The key question is how we are to preserve the humane side of the existing arrangements for sequestration and bankruptcy—the side which allows the poorest members of society to retain sequestration as a way of finding their way out of debt. My hon. Friend is right: the Bill has nothing to do with fat cats who are ripping off the public purse. I for one am all in favour of cracking down on fat cats—especially those who support the Tory party—but I am not in favour of cracking down on anyone at the expense of the poorest sector of the population, and I fear that unless the Bill is improved, that is what it will do.
      The Government should listen carefully to what I am saying. After all, their responsibility is not just to ensure that the legislation is adequate. They instigated the level of debt which now exists throughout Scotland and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom: the policies of the three Governments led by Lady Thatcher in the 1980s created

      809
      the massive debt problems which now affect so many people. The Minister shakes his head; let me remind him of some local instances.
      I am informed by the Dundee money advice project that it deals with between 40 and 50 cases a week of individuals and families with serious debt problems—which suggests that the project must handle some 1,200 serious debt cases in a year. Its members believe that that is only the tip of the iceberg. They believe that, for every person who appeals to them for help, a further 10 outside in the community never approach them. They estimate that, in Dundee alone, there are 12,000 cases of indebtedness—12,000 people who have nowhere to turn, and do not know how to get out of debt.
      This is not simply a Dundee problem; it exists throughout Scotland. In Committee, I reminded the Minister of a report produced by the National Consumers Council, which stated that, at the end of the 1980s, the level of debt—excluding mortgages and fuel bills—stood at £43,000 million, compared with £11,000 million in 1980. In the course of Lady Thatcher's three Parliaments, indebtedness had increased almost fourfold. Anyone who claims that such statistics are not clearly the Government's responsibility is not living in the real world.
      The Minister may say that there is no connection between Tory Administrations and the level of debt, but I remember the recession of 1979–81. It was not unlike the present recession: a massively overvalued exchange rate ripped the heart out of British industry, and threw millions on to the dole. The Government's response was to create a boom, in which banks and building societies were deregulated and allowed to lend to anyone they wanted. In 1987 and 1988, the Government introduced tax-cutting Budgets, leading people to believe that the good times would never end and that they could continue to spend, spend, spend—thus becoming deeper and deeper in debt. It was suggested that, at the end of the day, they would be able to find money from somewhere to dig themselves out.
      People certainly got into debt, but they did so as a direct result of the Government's policies. The Government therefore have a clear responsibility to ensure that assistance is offered to those whom they led into that debt. The Bill, however, will remove the option of bankrupty, for the simple reason that it is costing the Government too much. The story is clearly told by the statistics relating to individual sequestrations in Scotland. In 1987, there were only 808; by 1991, the figure had risen to 7,665. At a cost of £2,000 a time, that imposed a burden on the public purse which the Government were not prepared to tolerate. The Government have introduced the Bill not to improve the administration of bankruptcies in Scotland, but simply to reduce the cost to their own purse.
      It is therefore all the more important for the new clause to be accepted. At least it would give poor peolple the possibility of an escape route. The Minister has told us repeatedly that the legislation would not deter people from using bankruptcy and sequestration, but he does not know that that is the case—he merely hopes that it is. What will happen if it is not? The Minister will not even know, unless he accepts the proposal that a committee be set up to monitor the operation of the Act and to report to the Secretary of State on its impact on ordinary people. That would allow the Secretary of State to take action. I am especially concerned about the availability of advice to those in debt, as opposed to the "geographical spread of advice" across Scotland.
      810
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) referred to "debtors' right to advice". The Minister replied:
      "there is no such right. People receive advice, but they do not receive it because Parliament has voted funds for that purpose. Parliament has voted funds for insolvency practitioners to undertake sequestration procedures, not to give advice."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 7 July 1992; c. 149.]
      The Minister saw a clear distinction between the role of insolvency practitioners who implement sequestration proceedings and the role of giving advice to those in debt. There is no clear distinction between those two roles in the real world. Somebody who goes for advice to the Dundee money advice project on how to cope with his or her problem may obtain advice from that project, but it will not be the skilled advice that is required in sequestration cases. The Dundee money advice project depends upon its link with insolvency practitioners, based in Edinburgh, to give it advice that it can pass on to the poor debtor. If the Minister breaks the link between insolvency practitioners and money advice projects, those projects will be less able to give accurate and useful advice to people who urgently require it.
      6 pm
      I raised in Committee with the Minister the problem of the change in the fees paid to insolvency practitioners. At the moment they receive £2,000 a case. The Minister said in Committee, at column 150, that that sum was to be reduced to £400—a massive difference. The insolvency practitioners who work in Dundee are based in Edinburgh. What commercial incentive will there be for them to carry on operating in the Dundee area when the commercial return for so doing is to be reduced by 80 per cent.? If the Bill is passed, I fear that insolvency practitioners will be forced, by market conditions, to turn their back on areas such as Dundee and to concentrate on cases that arise in the Edinburgh area.
      When I pressed the Minister on this point he did not give a clear answer. He said:
      "The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point … there should be detailed discussions between the accountant in bankruptcy, the Scottish Office and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland about detailed costs of work in different circumstances. That should be the next part of the process. Circumstances will, of course, vary."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 7 July 1992; c. 150.]
      The Minister therefore said that he did know what the arrangements would be in the circumstances that I have just described. We shall have to wait until the next stage of the procedure before we find out what arrangements will be made for people who find themselves in this position.
      The Minister is asking the House to accept a pig in a poke. He promises that things will be all right, but when we ask him to explain why they will be all right he cannot do so. All he says is that there will be discussions with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland and the accountant in bankruptcy and that he hopes that something will come out of them. Unless the Minister changes his mind and accepts the new clause, the Bill ought not to be passed. The new clause is particularly important on account of the geographical spread of insolvency practitioners and advice throughout the country.
      The Minister referred frequently in Committee to the fact that the Government already fund money advice projects, either through the urban aid project or through local authorities. However, given what has happened since

      811
      the general election, we know that the Government intend to crack down on public expenditure, and to crack down far more than they have done during the last 13 years. Therefore, I do not think it likely that there will be local authority money to support money advice projects. If the Government continue in office, all that is certain is that public expenditure cuts will continue. If that happens, money advice projects will be put at risk. They will be the first in the firing line. Consequently, no advice whatever will be available for people who find themselves in debt.
      If expert advice is to be available for people with multiple debt problems, there must be a network of insolvency practitioners throughout Scotland who are able to provide advice and support to money advice projects. The only way of ensuring that that happens—the Minister referred to his proposal for market testing the system—is to provide a commercial return for the insolvency practitioners. The Bill does not provide such a return for them. That is all the more reason why new clause 3 should be supported.
      The Lord Chancellor has suggested that civil legal aid in England and Wales should be means-tested. In effect, that means that legal aid will be cut. Scotland is treated differently from England and Wales, but Scotland first had the poll tax and it was only a matter of time before it spread to England and Wales. Although water privatisation was intended only for England and Wales, it will soon spread to Scotland.
      The legal aid cuts proposed for England and Wales will, I fear, find their way north of the border. Access to legal aid, which would allow individual debtors to exercise their rights under this legislation through the courts, will then be cut off. Between 1987–88 and 1992–93 grants to the legal aid fund in Scotland increased from £45 million to £77 million. Costs are soaring well above what the Government are prepared to tolerate. As with every other aspect of public expenditure, the Government will look for every means of bringing down that figure of £77 million. One of the best ways to bring it down is to introduce means testing and cut off the right to legal aid of all kinds of people, including those with multiple debt problems.
      The Minister must address the problem of access to legal aid when he replies to the debate. In particular, he must deal with the difference between the announcements made for England and Wales by the Lord Chancellor and what will happen in Scotland. I fear that what England and Wales have today we shall have tomorrow. There will be cuts in legal aid. If that happens, the provisions of the Bill will not work for poor people who find themselves in debt. Therefore, it is more essential than ever that new clause 3 should be accepted.
      Mr. Connarty: I support new clause 3. Given the procedure that we went through in Committee, it is very much needed. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), I spent many hours in Committee, many of them on my feet. For the rest of the time I listened to what the Government had to say about a Bill that is a shambles. The civil servants did their best, having consulted Ministers, to correct the problems that had been encountered with the 1985 Act, but the Bill that we considered in Committee was so empty of provisions that it led to 90 amendments being tabled, some of them procedural amendments.
      It could be said that the Government had been listening, but they did not listen for seven years between
      812
      1985 and 1992. There is therefore a need for a committee to which the Government will be forced by statute to listen to regularly. It could be argued that the Ministers who piloted the Bill through Committee were not involved between 1985 and 1992. It was obvious from the way that they read their briefs during the first few sittings of the Committee that they had not been thinking about the problem. Although their reading improved, the Bill has not been improved sufficiently to satisfy us. That is why those hon. Members who sat on the Committee have come here to speak in the debate. If sufficient thought had been given to the Bill in its original form, so many amendments would not have been needed, and we should not have had to make this point again tonight.
      It is still a cheap and patchwork Bill, and even in its present form it is a sad Bill. After having spent so many hours in Committee, I should have preferred to come here to commend the Government on the Bill, but I cannot do so because it still contains major defects. It does nothing about bankruptcy and it does nothing to help people who are seriously in debt and who do not have assets to get out of debt without recourse to the courts.
      I shall give an example that I mentioned a number of times in Committee. A couple with debts of £5,000 had realisable assets of £15,000 in a part paid-up house. They came into a cash sum of £5,000, because of redundancy. However, on account of procedures that the Bill has not obviated, they find themselves having to pay out £5,000 to accountants, £6,000 to the accountant in bankruptcy for his fees and £2,000 to lawyers. In other words, they will end up with £2,000 in cash. They ended up with no house, no assets and £2,000. The Bill does nothing to change that.
      In Committee, I tabled amendments to tackle the major flaws in debtors' rights, but they were rejected because the Government promised that my points were being taken on board. I see no evidence of that. It is necessary, therefore, to have a committee to oversee the Bill and to show how, again and again, the bankruptcy procedures in Scotland have caused suffering to debtors well outwith their debts and have not allowed them to get out of debt without filling the pockets of accountants and paying substantial fees to the accountant in bankruptcy. It is unfortunate that I cannot support the Government for introducing a good Bill that helps debtors in Scotland.
      Two main elements of the Bill will make the tragedies that I have described more likely. The first is what some people see as a major climbdown by the Government—the reinsertion, under proposed new section 1A, of the interim trustee, who need not be the accountant in bankruptcy, in the process of sequestration. In Committee, in response to Members representing rural areas, this was portrayed as a sign that the Government would expect to use such insolvency practitioners in a rural location. It is absurd that the insolvency practitioner will receive travel expenses of £10 for travelling from Leith to far-flung parts of the country. The Government said that they would deal with that, but we should like some assurance that they have done so.
      I noted that as I was speaking the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) was nodding in a negative fashion. Perhaps I misinterpreted his comments in Committee, but Opposition Members would like the Government to state clearly that, in the first instance, interim trustees in rural locations will be used rather than leaving it to a case-by-case decision.

      813
      Many money advice groups remain unconvinced that the fee proposed by the Government will attract anyone to act as interim trustee in any location. There is a dispute between the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Government about the cost of sequestration, even when there are no assets.
      I am sure that my point will be proven: it will be easy to find interim trustees where assets appear to be sufficient to pay their fees and those of the accountants. People who can afford to pay the accountant will be put on the conveyor belt. Debtors whose assets outweigh their debts will remain on that conveyor belt until they are sucked dry by having to pay accountants' fees and the accountant in bankruptcy's fees—the first two charges on their assets—after which, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, there is little left for the creditor. There is nothing in the Bill to change that.
      It is little wonder that the public wonder whether the only purpose of the bankruptcy laws in Scotland is to pay money to accountants and to meet the running costs of the accountant in bankruptcy's office. Our bankruptcy laws seem to do little for people who are made bankrupt.
      6.15 pm
      The second problem with the Bill is created by clause 9, which defines the remuneration of permanent trustees. It is clear that—[Interruption.] I am not sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) is trying to signal to me. The regulations proposed under clause 9 are causing the difference of opinion between the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Government. How much will those who act as trustees be paid? It is argued that the Government are not offering enough to attract people to act as insolvency practitioners. Members of a firm in east Scotland tell me that they are extracting themselves from—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I am getting all sorts of signals.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Perhaps I may assist the hon. Gentleman. There is a tenuous link between clause 9 and new clause 3, but it is extremely tenuous. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has done his homework and knows the extent of that tenuous link. Otherwise, perhaps we may return to new clause 3.
      Mr. Connarty: I do not need to apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I thought, because it is clear that without an advisory Committee the deficiencies in the Bill that I am highlighting will become apparent. We need the advisory committee because of the Bill's deficiencies and because of the problem with remuneration that will arise from clause 9. The regulations proposed under the clause have been a constant cause of friction between the Government and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The Bill is likely to cause the collapse of advice and of the system that allows people who are facing sequestration to go to insolvency practitioners. I hope that the Government will accept my comments as a strong argument for setting up the advisory committee.
      The Government must realise that without the advisory committee they are likely to blunder on as they did between 1985 and 1992. I believe that clause 3 will cause a problem with the availability and geographical spread of advice and will erect procedural barriers between petitioners and sequestration. It is clear that the Bill is
      814
      about the Government's accounting and financial concerns rather than about the interests of bankrupts in Scotland.
      I wish to express some sympathy for the part of the equation that has not received any sympathy so far. I have been critical of accountants, who may have led to the tabling of the amendments that will cause problems for debtors in Scotland, but I have much sympathy for those in accountancy practice who diligently attempt to deal with complicated sequestrations where there are problems with realising assets and other matters.
      It is important to have an advisory committee which takes into account the needs of all those people. If we do not take them into account, we shall end up with problems about the availability and geographic spread of advice, as was said in Committee. Accountants will not come forward to do the job, although their fees are probably some balm to their hurt.
      Sympathy should also go to the debtors with whom the advisory committee would be most concerned in bankruptcy cases. Debtors will be left with little advice if our predictions about the Bill are justified. They will be left with a new summary administration system under clause 6 and with no marked route to lead them to using that system. It seems that it is also a system that debtors must find money to initiate. I find no clear guidance for the new system. I welcome the sudden attention of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) to the bankruptcy problems of the people of Scotland.
      I wish mainly to address Scottish Office Ministers. From my recollection, we were promised that on Report Ministers would clarify how people would get advice, how they would find their way through the maze of their debt problems into the courts and how they would use the new system. We were told that there would be an explanatory leaflet, but I have not seen such a draft. It is a grave concern to the House that we have had no information on paper about how people will be advised if they lose the support of the insolvency practitioners, which I predict will happen if the regulations are introduced under clause 9.
      Not by chance but by design, I had a meeting with the Scottish Legal Aid Board. The chair of the board, Christine Davis, who is a constituent of the hon. Member for Stirling, who popped into the Chamber recently, and the chief executive, Mr. Douglas, pointed out that the board was responsible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said, for £77 million of legal aid distribution. They expressed concern about what they had read in the reports of the Committee. Promises were made, although as usual with some caution, by the hon. Member for Eastwood that legal aid would be available for advice—at least the first £90 and perhaps automatically to the upper limit which can be claimed on the signature of a solicitor. Christine Davis and Mr. Douglas expressed concern to me that if that were the case, they would have to be provided with sums more substantial than those they disburse at present.
      I join my colleagues in saying that it is difficult to believe that Lord Mackay was speaking only for England and that he was not describing the Government's general policy which would bring about a cut in the availability of legal aid in Scotland, as well as such a cut in England in the near future.
      The board also explained that it was cash limited in some areas of administration expenditure. I hope that we

      815
      have an advisory committee to consider that point. If the board is cash-limited, it is a matter not just of how much money can be given out in legal aid, but of whether the board has the administration necessary to run the system efficiently. It will have not only the present legal aid distribution, but new legal aid moneys to distribute if solicitors suddenly take on the role of giving advice to people who want to use the new summary procedure under clause 6. I ask the Government to give an assurance, perhaps not an unqualified assurance, that they will not cash limit any part of the legal aid board's additional costs which come from running a proper advice system under the Bill.
      My hon. Friends have made the case again and again for the new clause to be accepted. I am pleased that we have the support of members of other Opposition parties. The Government should take on board the fact that we represent 75 per cent. of the opinion of the Scottish people in terms of their choice of representative. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the new clause and will not treat it in an offhand fashion. It is a positive addition to the Bill, and a future Government, although perhaps not of the present Government's colour, will thank the House for it.
      Mr. Stewart: It may be for the convenience of the House if I give the Government's response. Opposition Front-Bench Members may then seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on reading the Committee proceedings. That is a considerable feat, and shows that he has taken to his new task with considerable determination.
      We have had a useful debate, covering a wide range of points. I assure the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) that, although I do not accept his charge of nodding negatively, I entirely accept his general point, which was also made by the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), that the background to the tabling of the new clause is the reasonable desire of hon. Members to ensure that the Bill is monitored and that it does not give rise to problems in practice which we cannot foresee.
      I assure hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who has slipped out of the Chamber, that, given the Government's experience with the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, to which the hon. Member for Falkirk, East referred, Ministers have no intention of simply announcing the legislation and then forgetting about it. We shall want to ensure that the Bill meets the objectives set for it at the outset and that it improves the conduct of sequestrations in Scotland, at a lower cost to the taxpayer and with better value for money.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I thank the Minister for accepting the need to monitor the Bill. He will recall that the 1985 Act came under the supervision of the Department of Trade and Industry. Will the supervision and monitoring of this Bill come under the Scottish Office?
      Mr. Stewart: I am happy to be in the unusual position of being able to give the hon. Lady a wholly unqualified assurance on that point.
      Opposition Members have rightly referred to the experience of outside organisations with an interest in the
      816
      subject. I have no doubt that bodies such as the Scottish Consumer Council and Citizens Advice Scotland will monitor closely how the new legislation works from the point of view of debtors, while others with a legitimate interest, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, will check to ensure that the new procedures and the new role for the accountant in bankruptcy provide value for money for the taxpayer.
      The hon. Member for Falkirk, East was wrong to refer to friction with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. We have found discussions with the institute over the summer to be constructive and positive. Of course organisations that have a genuine interest in the Bill will soon draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, if necessary, to the attention of any hon. Member any problems about how the legislation works in practice.
      I will deal with some of the detailed points made by hon. Members when putting the case for the new clause.
      I do not believe that it is appropriate to require the accountant in bankruptcy to provide advice to debtors, for the reasons that I have given in previous debates on that issue. I accept the need for the accountant to provide general advice on the procedures and consequences of sequestration. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East asked me specifically when the advice would be published. He will understand that it would be wrong to publish the advice before the Bill has reached the statute book, which would be the normal practice with such matters.
      However, I assure the hon. Member for Falkirk, East and the House that officials have already been in contact with the Scottish Consumer Council and Citizens Advice Scotland among others, to discuss how the advice should be taken forward. That is the right route to take.
      6.30 pm
      With regard to the point about advice given by insolvency practitioners, in only 15 per cent. of cases referred to insolvency practitioners by citizens advice bureaux did they recommend against sequestration.
      Mr. Wilson: What did the Minister mean when he used the word "only"?
      Mr. Stewart: That means that the recommendation went the other way for the other 85 per cent. I was about to agree with the correct reference of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North to the fact that people often go to insolvency practitioners and are advised against proceeding to sequestration. The figure that I was given for that was 15 per cent.
      Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Stewart: I do not want to get too bogged down on this, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Wallace: What does 15 per cent. represent in figures?
      Mr. Stewart: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman at an early date about that, unless illumination comes to me in the very near future. The advice to which I have referred is important, but it also shows that the information provided by citizens' advice bureaux is often along the right lines.
      To give effect to the suggestion of maintaining the role of insolvency practitioners in all cases would require us to maintain the effective status quo that insolvency

      817
      practitioners have an effective monopoly in bringing petitions for sequestration. In general, that is not the view taken by members of the Committee.
      Mr. Wilson: I hope that I am not about to pre-empt the Minister, who will probably tell me that he was just about to clarify this point. However, he referred to "only" 15 per cent. of cases going to insolvency petitions which do not then go to sequestration. Surely he is honour bound to refer also to the 40 per cent. of cases referred by bodies other than money advice services or bureaux—mainly by solicitors—which do not go to sequestration. Once the figures arrive, I am sure that they will translate into substantial human terms. Even by the Minister's standards, 40 per cent. does not qualify for a description of "only".
      Mr. Stewart: I can see that I obviously made a great mistake when I qualified the 15 per cent. with "only". That has delayed the House for several minutes, although I do not believe that it was of particular significance. I naturally accept the figure of 40 per cent. to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
      I can tell the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that I have suddenly recalled the figure that he requested. It is about 333 cases. That is 15 per cent. of the 2,223 cases referred by citizens advice bureaux to practitioners.
      Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way for the last time?
      Mr. Stewart: If it is for the last time, yes.
      Mr. Wilson: Well, for the last time on this subject.
      Let us get this right, because the point is serious. If 15 per cent. equals 333 cases from the 50 per cent. of cases referred from advice bureaux, 40 per cent. of the 50 per cent. referred by solicitors and others equals about 888 cases. If we add the two together, we are talking about more than 1,200 families a year in Scotland who are saved from sequestration because of the filter of the insolvency practitioner. That is not an insignificant number.
      Mr. Stewart: I did not suggest that it was an insignificant figure. I was simply responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Monklands, West about the important role and very often correct advice given by citizens' advice bureaux in the first instance. There is no dispute across the Floor of the House about that.
      I must repeat what I said in Committee about this point in general. I do not share the fear that insolvency practitioners will withdraw entirely from that field. They have an important role to play in sequestrations in future. It is for insolvency practitioners to decide whether to continue to provide advice which they provide at present on a voluntary basis. A key point about costs and advice is that the major savings that resulting from the Bill will arise through simplification of the procedures. That point is not in dispute.
      The hon. Member for Falkirk, East and others asked me about the costs of the accountant in bankruptcy and the negotiations to which I have referred. The costs that I quoted were necessarily averages spread over a large number of cases. The most complex cases will involve more time than others and cost more. I must reassure hon. Members that the Government have the same interest as they have expressed in getting those costs right. We have
      818
      no interest in getting our estimates other than correct. That is why we have had discussions with the professional bodies over the summer, and adjustments have been made.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the figures in detail. I can assure hon. Members that the gap in the figures produced by the accountant in bankruptcy and those put forward by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland has substantially narrowed as a result of those negotiations.
      Mr. Wallace: I take the Minister's point that it is in the Government's interest to keep costs down. What assumptions have been fed in about the capital start-up costs of the accountant in bankruptcy in terms of computer equipment? Has any assumption been made in the medium term about the fact that many insolvency practitioners and accountancy practices may not now be engaged in training young people in the skills that they would previously have deployed in their insolvency divisions, and that that cost for training may have to fall on the accountant in bankruptcy? What provision or assumptions have been made about that?
      Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman may not have seen the detailed documents that were set before the Committee. There were certainly assumptions about capital costs and training costs. I assure him that they have been subject to the most detailed discussion over the summer among those involved, and they have resulted in the gap between the two sets of figures being substantially narrowed.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and other hon. Members questioned the geographical coverage of sequestrations. I emphasise that the accountant in bankruptcy will have a statutory duty to creditors to ensure that all sequestrations in which he is appointed are carried out properly, wherever the sequestration arises. The Bill also allows him to administer such cases directly or through agents. I have no doubt that, in Orkney and Shetland, it will make good sense to continue to use local practioners to deliver that service when it is cost-effective. Therefore, the means exist to ensure proper coverage across Scotland.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about court fees. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has written to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on that point. The simplest thing would be to let the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland have a copy of that letter.
      Hon. Members also asked me about legal aid. I can confirm that debtors petitioning for their own sequestration will be able to apply for legal aid, assistance and representation under the assistance by way of representation scheme.
      The hon. Member for Falkirk, East asked about the present position. Officials have been involved in detailed discussions with the Scottish Legal Aid Board on the details of these proposals. I am sure that they will extend those discussions to include the Law Society of Scotland.
      I was asking about the timing of the changes. It remains our intention that the legal aid arrangements will be in place before the new petition procedures of what is now clause 3 are introduced. That depends, among other things, on the progress of the legislation through Parliament.
      Mr. Connarty: I did not hear the Minister mention the cash-limited sums to which the Scottish Legal Aid Board referred in a meeting with me. The cash-limited sums are not necessarily the amounts paid to solicitors. Administration costs are cash-limited. The board expressed genuine anxiety that, if it experienced a large increase in administration as a result of the new demand for legal aid, it would find itself in difficulty because the sums for administration are cash-limited.
      Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will understand my caution in giving a detailed response. Officials are involved in detailed discussions about how the proposals would work in practice. I cannot say anything further.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North and others made a general point about legal aid which goes wider than the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, any general changes to legal aid are subject to debate in the House. I could not go further than that this evening.
      Mr. Wallace: To some extent, we understand that it may be difficult to go into the detail of what changes will be made to legal aid and the legal advice and assistance scheme. Can the Minister confirm that any changes will be the subject of secondary legislation which will come before the House? Even if he cannot go into detail, can he express with clarity on the record the principles of the changes and what and who will be covered in terms of income range and so on?
      Mr. Stewart: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. As I said in Committee, debtors who petition for their own sequestration will be able to apply for legal advice, assistance and representation under the ABWOR scheme. The details still need to be worked out. As I have said, these arrangments will be in place before any change in the petition procedures is introduced.
      Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Stewart: There is nothing further that I can add, but I will give way for the last time.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the Minister understands the unsatisfactory conclusion to which his comments bring us. We have the assurance that people will qualify for legal aid, but that is in the context of what would appear to be major changes in the whole legal aid system. Will the Minister convey to the Minister of State, Scottish Office, or whomever is responsible for legal aid, that Scottish Members would like to hear a statement, preferably in the House, and not have to draw secondary conclusions on the basis of a speech made by Lord Mackay of Clashfern?
      Mr. Stewart: I am sure that the Minister of State will in any event read these proceedings with the greatest interest and care. Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman to some extent by emphasising that eligibility for legal aid is kept under review. Any changes are debated by the House each spring, and any future changes will also be debated by the House.
      The essential proposal is that an advisory committee should be set up to keep the legislation under review. I cannot find any precedent for a committee of the nature suggested. As I have said, the outside expert organisations will have every opportunity to monitor the progress of legislation and to inform hon. Members of their views.
      820
      However, I take seriously the point about the importance of monitoring which several hon. Members made. Therefore, I can give an assurance that, once we have experienced the operation of the Bill when enacted, we intend to have outside research work undertaken on how the system operates in practice. We envisage that the results of that research will be made available to hon. Members.
      I think that hon. Members will accept that the establishment of a committee such as they have suggested is without precedent and not without difficulty. I certainly take seriously the general point about the importance of monitoring the legislation when it is enacted.
      Mr. John McFall: It is my pleasure to sum up the debate on new clause 3 for the Opposition. I was not aware that I was to he involved in this Committee until the summer. I asked a senior colleague in my party how to go about the Bill. I suggested that I read the Committee's proceedings, and he said, "Don't do that. That would only mix you up." If I am wayward tonight, it is the result of my assiduity in not taking that advice.
      The Minister said that the Government had a vested interest in getting the costs correct. We must remind ourselves that the same Government had that vested interest in getting the costs right in 1985, and got them horribly wrong. Costs have increased from £13,000 in 1986 to £18.5 million in 1991. On historical trends, the costs will increase to £50 million by 1993–94 and to £80 million by 1994–95. The Minister's comments do not give us much assurance that the costs and the procedures will be correct.
      Judging from speeches by my colleagues, legal aid seems to be the central issue. I tabled amendments Nos. I and 2, which dealt with legal aid, but Madam Speaker in her wisdom did not accept them. I was told that the Minister accepted them on principle, but his summing up appeared to contradict that.
      Opposition Members are still worried about the legal aid scheme. It is obvious that it needs to be restructured before clause 3 comes into force. We are not satisfied with the Minister's comments, because at present legal aid allows advice and assistance free. However, when someone petitions for personal sequestration, he or she will not be able to get a solicitor to do it. In practice, the procedure allowing a debtor to petition for his sequestration will not be simple enough for debtors to use it without legal assistance. Although one welcomes the Minister's undertaking that debtors will be able to apply for legal aid, that is no guarantee that they will receive it. That is the nub of our concern.
      Sometimes debtors with no assets have employed income which might make them financially ineligible. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West moved new clause 3, which seeks to establish a committee to advise on the availability of advice to those contemplating sequestration. The main concerns are access and justice.
      Justice depends on many factors, but the foundations lie in our laws—the rules and regulations which govern our lives and our relationships with people, organisations and the rest of society. People must have access to knowledge about those laws, independent advice and an assured and effective judicial system. The Minister's comments fall far short of reassuring us on those matters.
      Access to justice is denied to many people. There have been many representations—I received a number this afternoon from the Scottish Consumer Council, citizens

      821
      advice bureaux of Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland. They feel that access is denied to many and restricted for most, and the legal aid procedures in the Bill could restrict it even more. They realise the complexity of modern law. Reflecting modern society, it is so complex that many people need expert advice. The cost of legal action is rising, and only the extremely rich or the extremely poor can resort to it. The legal aid system has been undermined to such an extent that the voluntary bodies are extremely concerned.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West mentioned the Inverness citizens advice bureau, which was seriously concerned about the decline in the number of lawyers prepared to take on civil legal aid cases.
      I have received a communication from the House of Commons Library which shows that, in 1989–90, there were 29,527 applications for civil legal aid, of which only 20,463 were granted. In 1991–92, there were 33,180 applications, with only 23,027 granted. The latter is a 44 per cent. refusal rate.
      Is it the case that in Scotland today, only 23,027 poor people in any year have to turn to the courts to enforce civil rights? As the Minister will acknowledge in private, although perhaps not in public, that is not the case.
      The costs are extremely high, and the legal aid system is in crisis. The Law Society and voluntary agencies have told us so. New clause 3(2) says:
      "The committee shall include in its membership persons with experience of debt counselling and welfare rights work in the community."
      In Scotland, citizens advice bureaux dealt with almost 300,000 debt-related inquiries last year. An increased burden is falling on an already overstretched voluntary agency. Do the Government intend to provide the voluntary organisations with additional resources, to allow them to expand their role in welfare and counselling? That is another important aspect of our new clause 3.
      Unless the procedure can continue to be available at no cost to debtors with few or no assets, they will not use it, and the lifeline thrown to them by the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, will be withdrawn. Remarks were made to Lord Mackay of Clashfern on the legal aid system, which is why we are so pessimistic about its future.
      The Minister said that major savings would be made from the simplification of procedures. It was the same story over the poll tax. Hon. Members have had to deal with the results of those simplified procedures every week in their constituency surgeries and mailbags. That phrase sends a shock through us, especially as the Minister said that major savings will be made from the simplified procedures.
      While we shall not press the new clause to a vote, we hope that the Bill will not come down on Government heads in the same way that poll tax legislation has done. We hope so for the sake of many poor people in Scotland, who are disadvantaged and cannot have access to justice to ensure that their affairs are carried out properly.
      Question put and negatived.
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 29, at end insert—
      '(6) For the avoidance of doubt, the Accountant in Bankruptcy may be liable for damages in respect of any loss sustained by any person as a result of any negligent action or omission by the Accountant in Bankruptcy or a member of his staff in the performance of his duties.'.
      822
      I acknowledge that a similar amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in Committee, which sought to exclude any question of Crown immunity. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) responded by saying that Crown immunity would not apply. As we are dealing with the somewhat unusual case of someone who is a paid official or servant of the state engaging in professional practice, we think that there should be no doubt as to his liability or that of any member of his staff. We are in a vicarious position as regards members of his staff. Clearly they should he liable in respect of losses sustained by the debtor or creditor.
      One can imagine a situation in which a creditor believes that, through some act of negligence, he or she has not received the full payment of a dividend and subsequently maintains that there was negligence when managing to ingather the estate. The accountant in bankruptcy should not he able to slide out of any liability for that, and it is equally important that that applies to those practitioners who undertake work on behalf of the accountant in bankruptcy.
      As I understand it, the tender document will include an obligation to indemnify the Crown for the actions of anyone who is contracted to do the work. Given that those who do the work on behalf of the accountant in bankruptcy will have to accept and follow his general and specific directions, the contractor will tend to be put at a disadvantage. If work has been undertaken by an independent contractor and a claim subsequently arises, will the Minister assure us that that claim will be met by the accountant in bankruptcy, and that, if it transpires that the claim was due to a fault by the contractor, liability will then be passed on?
      7 pm
      Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) reminded us, the question of the liability of the accountant in bankruptcy and whether he can he sued for damages arose on a number of occasions during the proceedings on the Bill. The accountant in bankruptcy is and will be answerable to the courts for his actions. As I have previously reassured the House, the accountant may he sued for damages if any loss is sustained by a third party as a consequence of any negligence by the accountant, his staff or his agents. By virtue of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, proceedings may be raised in the courts.
      The answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question is that, where an agent acts on behalf of the accountant in bankruptcy, in accordance with the principles of the law of agency, the accountant as principal may be sued, not the agent. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, should damages be awarded against the accountant as a consequence of his agent's negligent act, the accountant may seek to recover the damages as a separate action.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: May I ask the Minister a question that I should have asked the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)? Has the Institute of Chartered Accountants expressed a view on that matter?
      Mr. Stewart: Yes, the Institute of Chartered Accountants has expressed a view on the matter. It has written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister

      823
      of State about the indemnity that we are discussing and about a number of related matters, and a response will be sent to the institute shortly.
      I repeat my assurance that the accountant in bankruptcy may, as a separate action, seek to recover damages from the agent if a breach of contract can be shown, but that would be a matter for him. The Government will not seek a blanket indemnity, as was feared by the institute earlier in our proceedings.
      Mr. Wallace: I welcome the general tenor of the Minister's reassurances and, in those circumstances, I seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 28 after 'perform' insert 'on his behalf'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 18 and 36.
      Mr. Stewart: These are purely technical drafting amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2

      APPOINTMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF INTERIM TRUSTEE
      Amendments made: No. 7, in page 4, line 31 leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.
      No. 8, in page 4, line 35 after 'administration' insert 'of the sequestration'—[Mr. Stewart.]

    Clause 3

      PETITIONS FOR SEQUESTRATION
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 6, line 7, at end insert 'of presentation'.—[Mr. Stewart.]
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 8, leave out '£750' and insert '£1,500'.
      The amendment is a concession to a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gascadden (Mr. Dewar). Members of the Standing Committee that debated the Bill will recall that the Committee accepted an amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Garscadden to increase the minimum debt level before a creditor could petition for the sequestration of a debtor from £750 to £1,500. During the debate on that amendment, there emerged a general feeling in the Committee that the equivalent minimum debt level before a debtor could petition for sequestration should also be raised to £1,500. I promised to consider the matter further, and this amendment is a direct response to the views expressed by the Committee.
      Committee members recognised that there was a need to strike a balance between the interests of debtors and creditors in all aspects of these procedures. Sequestration is a serious process which not only results in penalties on the debtor but can also result in financial loss to the creditors who will have provided money, goods or services in good faith and will now no longer be paid. It is therefore right that there should be some constraint on the levels of
      824
      debt involved before sequestration is contemplated, and £1,500 appears to strike the right balance at the present time.
      However, as I said to the Committee, it remains the Government's intention to monitor the effect of this provision and to consult more widely on the debt levels once the Bill is enacted. The Bill allows for that figure to be adjusted by regulation in the light of experience, should that prove necessary or desirable.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made:: No. 11, in page 6, line 10, at end insert 'of presentation'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Mr. Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 6, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert—
      '(i) is apparently insolvent; or'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 13.
      Mr. Stewart: Members of the Standing Committee will recall that the Government amended the Bill in Committee to allow a debtor to petition for sequestration where he or she was apparently insolvent in terms of section 7 of the 1985 Act. That was felt on both sides of the Committee to be a simpler and more objective test than the original provision. Most debtors seeking access to sequestration would have no difficulty establishing grounds for apparent insolvency.
      In the interests of maintaining a balance between the interests of debtor and creditor, it was felt necessary for this purpose to exclude the ground that a debtor had granted a trust deed. Not to have done so would simply have maintained the problem that has given rise to the present situation.
      Over the summer, concern has been expressed by the Law Society of Scotland that some debtors might seek to make use of the provision in the 1985 Act which allows apparent insolvency to be constituted by a debtor giving a written notice to his creditors that he has ceased to pay his debts in the ordinary course of business to prevent creditors from undertaking diligence. Such an action would be a form of self-certifying sequestration aimed at avoiding the payment of debts that were legitimately due.
      We have therefore concluded that that ground for apparent insolvency should also be excluded as a basis for a debtor presenting their own petition for sequestration. In practice, that is likely to affect only a small number of debtors with trading concerns. The typical consumer debtor—the main worry of hon. Members—would not fall within the terms of section 7(1) (b) of the 1985 Act. Therefore, his or her position will not be affected by the change.
      I assure the House that the other grounds on which apparent insolvency can be established will still apply—allowing debtors who genuinely cannot pay creditors to have access to sequestration. That is largely a technical and legal matter, and I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 6, line 19, at end insert—
      'and for the purposes of this paragraph a debtor shall not be apparently insolvent by reason only that he has granted a trust deed or that he has given notice to his creditors as mentioned in paragraph (b) of section 7(1) of this Act.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 36, leave out from 'whereby' to the end of line 39 and insert—
      'his estate (other than such of his estate as would not, under section 33(1) of this Act, vest in the permanent trustee if his estate were sequestrated) is conveyed to the trustee for the benefit of his creditors generally.'.
      Amendment No. 14 adjusts in a minor fashion the definition of "trust deed" in new section 5(4A). Its purpose is simply to clarify the definition. References to sections 31 and 32 of the 1985 Act are removed as those provisions do not actually set out limitations on the property which vests in the permanent trustee, and are not therefore relevant to the definition.
      The object of the definition is to ensure that, for a trust deed to be recognised for the purposes of the 1985 Act, it should not convey property of the debtor which is exempt from poinding, or which is held on trust by the debtor for another person. Section 33(1) provides that exemption in the case of sequestrations and the definition, as amended, ensures that the exemption also applies in the case of trust deeds. That was a point mentioned in Committee by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). It means that the debtor's clothes, tools of trade and certain other belongings will be exempt, which was what the hon. Gentleman wanted.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4

      AWARD OF SEQUESTRATION
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 8, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—
      '(4) In this Act 'the date of sequestration' means—

      (a) where the petition for sequestration is presented by the debtor, the date on which sequestration is awarded;

      (b) where the petition for sequestration is presented by a creditor or a trustee acting under a trust deed—

      (i) the date on which the court grants warrant under subsection (2) above to cite the debtor; or

      (ii) where more than one such warrant is granted, the date on which the first such warrant is granted.'.

      The amendment to the definition of "date of sequestration" has been proposed as a result of comments during the summer received from the Law Society of Scotland. It fears that the definition currently contained in the Bill may give rise to difficulties in relation to conveyancing transactions. A debtor may sell a property after a petition for his sequestration is presented to the court. The purchaser would not necessarily be aware that the petition had been presented and would be purchasing in good faith. However, under the Bill as presently defined, title to the property would transfer to the debtor's estate and vest in the permanent trustee following the granting of the award of sequestration, leaving the third party at a loss.
      The definition in the Bill was introduced originally at the suggestion of practitioners to bring the practice in sequestrations into line with that in insolvencies. It also clarified a problem where a court grants two warrants to cite a debtor on different days. At present there is confusion as to which warrant should trigger the date of sequestration.
      826
      As a consequence of our discussions with the Law Society, the definition will revert back to that contained in the 1988 Act, subject to a slight amendment to take account of the fact that more than one warrant to cite the debtor may be granted by the court.
      I commend this sensible technical amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 5

      CALLING OF STATUTORY MEETING
      Mr. Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 8, line 18, leave out from 'below' to 'may' in line 20 and insert
      'where the interim trustee is the Accountant in Bankruptcy, the statutory meeting'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 37 to 44, 46 and 49.
      Mr. Stewart: The amendments are substantial, not purely technical and it is appropriate for me to explain their purpose as they constitute a response to comments made by hon. Members in Committee.
      Amendments Nos. 16, 37, 38 and 46 are drafting amendments which clarify which procedures leading to the statutory meeting of creditors should apply when the accountant in bankruptcy is appointed interim trustee and which apply when someone other than the accountant is appointed interim trustee. The procedures are different and during our discussions in the Committee hon. Members said that there could be understandable confusion as to which rules applied when. The amendments aim to reduce any such confusion in the future and make the legislation easier to operate.
      The Government did consider the suggestion made in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that the discretion allowed in the Bill to the accountant in bankruptcy to dispense with a statutory meeting should be extended to other interim trustees. During the recess, we discussed that proposal further with the Scottish insolvency practitioners joint liaison committee, which is made up of representatives of the main professional organisations involved in sequestrations.
      7.15 pm
      There remains considerable concern that widening the discretion to other interim trustees would be a significant reduction in creditor rights, particularly the right to elect a permanent trustee of their choice to administer the sequestration. After all, in most of the sequestrations in which an insolvency practitioner is appointed interim trustee significant assets will be involved, and creditors' interest will be high. There is a strong feeling that dispensing with the statutory meeting can only be justified when the cost would otherwise fall on the taxpayer. We have therefore decided to retain the different procedures allowed in the Bill.
      There was, however, a wide measure of support for another suggestion put forward by the Opposition in Committee. The suggestion was that all interim trustees should be allowed to apply for a certificate of summary administration when they are administering cases which fall within the criteria set out in clause 6. When such a

      827
      certificate is granted the permanent trustee has a greater discretion as to how the case is conducted and should be able to administer the sequestration at a lower cost.
      Accordingly, the Government have brought forward amendments 39, 40 to 44 and 49 which allow both the accountant in bankruptcy and other interim trustees to apply to the court for a certificate of summary administration after the statutory meeting of creditors. The criteria as to which cases qualify remain the same, and the procedures to be followed are similar. Creditors and others retain the right to apply for the withdrawal of a certificate if they feel this is justified.
      Overall, while the number of cases which are likely to fall into this category may be small, we believe that the amendments are a useful improvement to the Bill. I commend them as a good example of constructive Committee work. When positive suggestions were proposed by the Opposition, the Government subsequently consulted on them and are now able, with confidence, to commend the amendments to the House.
      Amendments agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 17, in page 9, line 25, at end insert—
      '( ) section 25A of this Act shall apply; and'
      No. 18, in line 29, leave out from 'estate' to end of line 30.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 6

      SUMMARY ADMINISTRATION
      Mr. Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 9, line 36 leave out from 'shall' to 'grant' in line 37 and insert
      'subject to subsection (8) below,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider also Government amendments Nos. 20 to 26.
      Mr. Stewart: This group of amendments deals with provisions in clause 6, the clause relating to summary administration of sequestrations. I draw attention to amendment No. 21. Hon. Members who served on the Committee may recall that the hon. Member for Garscadden asked why basic household goods should be included when calculating whether the debtor's assets exceeded the £2,000 limit for qualifying for summary administration. In my reply, I explained that the Government were considering tabling an amendment on Report to deal with the matter. Amendment No. 21 is that amendment.
      The amendment would exclude from the calculation of a debtor's assets for the purposes of clause 6 those assets which would not vest in the permanent trustee by virtue of section 33(1) of the 1985 Act. These are goods exempted from poinding under section 16 of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, or which are held in trust by the debtor for a third party. Such an amendment has been requested by the Scottish Consumer Council and Citizens Advice Scotland, as well as by the hon. Member for Garscadden. I commend it with confidence to the House.
      The other amendments in the group are technical and procedural; I commend them to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 20, in page 10, line 3 after 'of' insert '(i)'.
      No. 21, in page 10, line 4 at end insert—'or
      (ii) any property of his which, under section 33(1) of this Act, does not vest in the permanent trustee.'
      No. 22, in page 10, line 4 at end insert—
      '( ) For the purposes of an application under subsection (1) above made by—

      (a) the Accountant in Bankruptcy; or

      (b) an interim trustee who is not the Accountant in Bankruptcy.

      a certificate by the Accountant in Bankruptcy or, as the case may be, the interim trustee as to the aggregate amounts of the debtor's liabilities and assets shall be sufficient evidence of such aggregate amounts.'.
      No. 23, in page 10, line 7 after '(a)' insert
      'in any case where the application for the certificate was made by the Accountant in Bankruptcy,'.
      No. 24, in page 10, line 8 after '(b)' insert 'in every case,'.
      No. 25, in page 10, leave out lines 32 to 39 and insert—
      '(8) The court shall not grant an application as mentioned in subsection (1) above—

      (a) in any case where the application is made by the Accountant in Bankruptcy before the sequestration of the debtor's estate has been awarded and the court has previously appointed, or at the same time as it awards sequestration appoints, as interim trustee a person who is not the Accountant in Bankruptcy; or

      (b) in any other case—

      (i) where a person has been elected as permanent trustee, before the sheriff has confirmed the election of that person as permanent trustee; or

      (ii) where no such person has been elected, unless the court at the same time appoints the interim trustee as permanent trustee.'

      No. 26, in page 11, line 25 after 'S.' insert—
      'Except in the case of an application for the grant of a certificate for the summary administration of the sequestration of the debtor's estate under section 25(2A) of this Act,'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

    Clause 7
      APPOINTMENT OF PERMANENT TRUSTEE
      Amendment made: No. 27, in page 11, line 30 leave out '23(4A)'.—[Mr. Stewart.]
    Clause 8

      FEES FOR THE ACCOUNTANT IN BANKRUPTCY
      Amendments made: No. 28, in page 12, line 4 after 'fees' insert 'and outlays'.
      No. 29, in page 12, line 7 after 'fees' insert 'and outlays'.
      No. 30, in page 12, line 12 after 'fees' insert 'or outlays'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

    Clause 9

      REMUNERATION OF PERMANENT TRUSTEE
      Amendment made: No. 31, in page 12, line 16 leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 20 and insert
      'the petition is presented during the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed'.[Mr. Stewart.]

    Clause 12

      SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 32, in page 13, line 33 at end insert 'section 1;'.
      No. 33, in page 14, line 2 leave out from 'above' to `nothing' in line 3.
      No. 34, in page 14, line 4 leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 5.
      No. 35, in page 14 leave out lines 7 to 15 and insert 'the petition is presented before such commencement.—[Mr. Stewart.]

    Schedule 1

      MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS OF THE 1985 ACT
      Amendments made: No. 36, in page 16, line 6 leave out '(2)(a)' and insert '(3)'.
      No. 37, in page 17, line 22 at end insert—
      '. Before section 21 there shall be inserted the following section—
      'Statutory meeting.
      20A. A meeting of creditors called by the interim trustee under section 21 or 21A of this Act shall, in this Act, be referred to as 'the statutory meeting'.'.
      No. 38, in page 17, line 23 at end insert—
      '( ) In subsection (1) for the words from the beginning to 'statutory meeting')' there shall be substituted the words 'Where the interim trustee is not the Accountant in Bankruptcy he shall call the statutory meeting'.
      No. 39, in page 18 leave out lines 1 to 12.
      No. 40, in page 18, line 19 at end insert—
      '( ) For subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
      '(1) At the statutory meeting, the creditors shall, at the conclusion of the proceedings under section 23(3) of this Act, proceed to the election of the permanent trustee.".
      No. 41, in page 18, line 25, leave out `subsection' and insert 'subsections.'.
      No. 42, in page 18, line 32, at end insert—
      '(3B) Where a report is made in pursuance of subsection (3A) above, the Accountant in Bankruptcy may apply to the sheriff for the grant of a certificate for the summary administration of the sequestration of the debtor's estate.'.
      No. 43, in page 18, line 36, at end insert—
      '( ) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      '(4A) Where a report is made in pursuance of subsection (4) above, the interim trustee may apply to the sheriff for the grant of a certificate for the summary administration of the sequestration of the debtor's estate.'.
      No. 44, in page 18, line 38, leave out from beginning to second 'in' and insert—
      (1) Section 25 (confirmation of permanent trustee) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(2A) Where a report is made in pursuance of subsection (1) above, the interim trustee may apply to the sheriff for the grant of a certificate for the summary administration of the sequestration of the debtor's estate.".
      No. 46, in page 25, leave out lines 10 to 16 and insert 'for the words 'section 21(1)' there shall be substituted the words 'section 20A'.
      No. 47, in page 27, line 43, after '9' insert—
      '(a)'.
      No. 48, in page 27, line 45, at end insert—
      '(b) after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
      "(1A) Where the offer of composition is approved and the permanent trustee is the Accountant in Bankruptcy, the permanent trustee shall prepare accounts of his intromissions with the debtor's estate and he shall make a determination of his fees and outlays calculated in accordance with regulations made under section 69A of this Act'.;
      (c) after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
      "(3) Subsections (2), (3), (4), (5), and (10) of section 53 of this Act as adapted by paragraph 9(2) and (3) of Schedule 2 to this Act shall apply, subject to any necessary
      830
      modifications, in respect of the accounts and determination prepared under sub-paragraph (1A) above as they apply in respect of the accounts and determination prepared under the said section 53 as so adapted.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Schedule 2

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 49, in page 29, line 39, column 3, leave out from '23' to end of line 42 and insert 'subsection (4).'
      No. 50, in page 30, column 3, leave out lines 5 and 6.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.25 pm
      Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have had full discussions of the Bill on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I pay tribute to the hon. Members on both sides who sat on the Committee, for a long time on some occasions, to consider matters of importance to the people of Scotland. The Bill has been improved as a result of that detailed consideration, and I commend it to the House.
      7.26 pm
      Mr. Tom Clarke: It is fair to say that the Government can hardly complain about the constructive response from the Opposition this afternoon. Our debate on new clause 3 was especially helpful and many of the issues raised in it will not go away even after the Bill is passed.
      It is important to place on the record our concern about the future of legal aid and about the statement by Lord Mackay of Clashfern at the weekend. It would have been helpful if we had known precisely and comprehensively what the Government's thinking on the future of legal aid is. I am sure that I would be supported in that view by the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Consumer Council, the citizens advice bureaux and others.
      The Bill has certainly been influenced by the considerable increase in the cost of sequestrations. In 1985, there were only 295 sequestrations in Scotland, but by 1991 the number had risen to 7,665, with all the attendant problems for the Government which they have considered during the deliberations on the Bill.
      The Minister mentioned that I had taken the trouble to read most of the Committee proceedings. I found them fascinating, as was the response today in the form of various amendments and new clauses.
      I am worried about whether those most affected by the Bill will have much say in its impact. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), in a distinguished contribution, mentioned his link with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. That is of course important, but I wonder whether the people who may be deterred, as many of them may be, from applying for sequestration as a result of the legislation have been consulted.
      Have they been asked their views on means testing in England and what that will mean to Scotland? Do they realise that we are considering the closing off of one bankruptcy option which, for many cases of multiple debt, was the only course open to a large number of people? We owe a great debt of gratitude to those organisations which,

      831
      as we have seen in the Hansard report of the Committee and as we have heard today, have taken seriously their role in contributing to the legislation. I am sure that the Minister will join the Opposition in thanking all those professional bodies and voluntary groups which gave outstanding assistance and provided research to all hon. Members. Whether they are satisfied with our deliberations is another matter.
      During the debate on new clause 3, the Government committed themselves to monitoring. We welcome that. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) even got a concession on clause 14 which may hitherto be known as the Connarty clause. We have made not a little progress, although I do not want to be too extravagant in praising the Bill.
      I did not take part in Committee proceedings, in which the Opposition were led by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I was interested in the contributions by new hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, East, for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) and for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire). I am sure that they found the Committee a fascinating learning curve. I vividly remember reading the advice offered by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) who not only quoted in Latin but offered to send advice in Italian. I do not know whether the Committee benefited greatly from that. One of the Government Whips is indicating assent, so somebody must have been grateful for the classical knowledge.
      We are obviously very concerned about the problems that led to the introduction of the Bill. We are concerned about multiple debt and about the evidence of poverty in our society which plainly contributed to the need for such a Bill. However, for the reasons given by me and my hon. Friends, we do not oppose Third Reading. We thank those who contributed towards putting the Bill on the statute book. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in thanking the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) for his good-humoured and diplomatic contributions to the progress of the Bill.
      On numerous occasions the Government have spoken about monitoring. I am sure that the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, the hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will not be surprised to find us monitoring the progress of the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) reminded the House of our commitment to a Scottish Parliament. Before long this legislation will be reviewed not in London but in Edinburgh, and that is absolutely right in the context of the problems that we face in Scotland.
      7.33 pm
      Mrs. Ewing: Before commenting generally on the Bill, I should like to raise a specific point with the Minister. He will recall that on Tuesday 14 July in the Committee's afternoon session I spoke about the possibility of looking at exempted assets. He undertook to consult ministerial colleagues on the issue of whether personal injury awards as a source of income would be carefully examined for consideration as an exempted asset. The speed of the
      832
      legislation may not have enabled the Minister to respond to that issue, but I should like to have some comment on it. I would settle for a letter if the Minister wishes to write to me in greater detail. It is an important issue, which was pressed by me and by other members of the Committee, and it would be a shame to let it go adrift.
      I am not sure why the Government suddenly produced this interesting legislation. I repeat my original contention that, as there was a need to look at the laws of diligence as they affected people facing bankruptcy in Scotland, the opportunity should have been taken for a wide-ranging inquiry. That could have taken account of the needs of the debtor and the creditor and looked at examples in other countries. In Committee I gave effective examples of what happens in other countries. The inquiry could have taken evidence from advice centres, the citizens advice bureaux and the legal and insolvency practitioners.
      We should have taken the opportunity to discover why so many people in Scotland are affected by the likelihood of bankruptcy. There is little doubt in anyone's mind that it is the result of the credit boom in the 1980s. At that time, credit was encouraged and, as the recession began to bite, people were faced with bankruptcy. The Government produced the Bill in great haste and may have to repent at leisure, because I am not convinced that the legislation is the correct way to address the issues that face us in Scotland.
      The Government should have looked at warrant sales in Scotland—that law which still pertains in our country and which affects so many of the poorest sections of our society. Those people have no assets and no money and cannot possibly meet the debts into which they have been pushed. We have missed a great opportunity. I am not convinced that the Government have fully assessed the costs or the implications of the legislation. We have not yet been afforded the full details of the legal aid costs that will be involved. If more time had been taken before the Bill was printed, we could have resolved some of the details in advance and made the legislation much more effective.
      Like the official Opposition, we shall not oppose Third Reading, but I give due warning that I shall carefully monitor the Bill's progress in the same way as I monitored the effects of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. I suspect that the issue will again be debated on many future occasions.
      7.37 pm
      Mr. Connarty: I join the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in expressing regret at the fact that no opportunity was taken to look seriously at the problem caused by warrant sales in bankruptcy cases. The Government will regret that, because their reputations will not be enhanced in Scotland or elsewhere as they continue to use a greatly outmoded system of diligence.
      I regret the final form of the Bill. I compliment the civil servants who adeptly sieved the submissions from people who perhaps could not see the target for the Government's smoke. A Special Standing Committee would have been able to take evidence in the way in which it was meant to be submitted, rather than in the way in which Government procedures allowed it to be submitted.
      The Bill's main omission is that the House made no attempt to change the way of looking at debt and debtors. A reading of the Bill and the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 clearly shows that they are founded on Acts drawn up centuries ago. The legislation is penal. It sees debtors as

      833
      bad people who should be dealt with by way of quasi-criminal proceedings. The Bill makes no attempt to look at people who are led into money problems because of Government policies.
      This Government freed up credit so much that I recently heard of a case of a 14-year-old girl being sent a letter by a bank asking her whether she would like to open a bank account. She placed £20 in the account arid was given a bank card which allowed her to draw out £50. Unfortunately, she did. When the mother tried to find out what was going on, she was told that she could not be given her daughter's personal details. That is ridiculous.
      Dr. John Reid: My hon. Friend may wish to recall that such behaviour was not just espoused but encouraged by members of the last Conservative Government, in particular the present Lord Ridley, who went out of his way to say that children, of any age, with substantial means should be allowed to use credit cards.
      I know that my hon. Friend cut his parliamentary teeth on the Bill and is much more experienced than I am on the cases affected by it. However, a constituent recently approached me and said that in 1983–84 she became bankrupt over a debt of £3,500 to a bank. By 1990, that case had not been solved. By that time, because of high interest rates, she and her husband owed over £9,000. In that year, she was told by the appointed receiver to borrow £14,000 through remortgaging her house. Two years later, she still has not seen any of that money and nor have any of her creditors. The receiver told her that it is none of her business and that £14,000 still sits with him. Is that not typical of the cases that my hon. Friend—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. this is supposed to be an intervention.
      Mr. Connarty: I am grateful for that intervention. I recommend that my hon. Friend reads the Official Report of today's debate. He will find references from the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) to the fact that creditors get little of the money realised through this procedure, but the Government have not tackled this problem.
      Unfortunately, the debtor is treated as a bad person and is partly criminalised, and the Bill will not change that. I was surprised that the Government did not take the trouble to investigate the procedures used in other countries, particularly in the United States. In a number of states, people are allowed to keep their homes, which is an important factor. In some they are allowed to retain their vehicle, if they have one, because it is necessary to use it to seek, or to remain in, gainful employment. The Government have not considered any of those procedures. Instead, they have brought in an amending Bill that apologises for previous draconian Acts. I regret that the Government have done nothing to move bankruptcy proceedings into the 21st century.
      I shall return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). Again and again we were shown that the creditor gains little from the bankruptcy proceedings. The Bill will not improve that. Much of the time and energy of professional accountants and people in the courts are spent on paying money into the accounts of accountants and the accountant in bankruptcy. The Government should have used this time to bring in a Bill that gave more money and resources to conciliation and
      834
      reparation and that ensured that the creditor would get something back from someone who had fallen on hard times or who had over-extended himself in debt.
      Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the Third Reading debate is about what is in the Bill rather than what is not in the Bill?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no difficulty in confirming that.
      Mr. Connarty: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who wishes us to deal only with matters in the Bill.
      Clause 6 deals with the new procedures. A great deal of concern has been expressed about the difficulty that people will find in using the new summary procedures, particularly with the loss of advice that will result from the change in remuneration. We predict that, regrettably, this will make accountants less likely to give advice as insolvency practitioners.
      Two legal aid questions remain unanswered. The first is whether people will get sufficient legal aid support to obtain advice from lawyers. The second is whether solicitors will be available to take up legal aid money and offer advice. Another question that has been asked repeatedly arose from Lord Mackay's statement that there will be means testing in England. That gives the Opposition cause for concern. We feel that the Bill will not be implemented in the way that it is written and that people will not be able to use the new summary procedures.
      I regret that the Government have not addressed these issues. If the point of Third Reading is to talk about the Bill, I can only say what I have said before—this is a cheap Bill that cheapens the cost of bankruptcy procedures in Scotland. It is a shoddy patchwork and not a real attempt to deal with bankruptcy in Scotland.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Wallace: Our wide-ranging debate on new clause 3 may allow us to keep our remarks on Third Reading relatively brief. I, too, will not divide the House, but there are still so many shortcomings in the content of the Bill that we cannot be confident that it will remain on the statute book unamended for some time to come. We have been asked to accept that the detail of legal aid will be worked out. I do not doubt the sincerity with which the detailed negotiations will be conducted, but we are being asked to give a Third Reading to a Bill of which an important part is incomplete.
      We have not had adequate answers to the questions about advice, which will no longer be available to people facing bankruptcy and serious problems of debt. In earlier exchanges, it was calculated that 333 of those recommended to insolvency practitioners by citizens advice bureaux were turned away from the courts and sequestration. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) calculated a further 888, in an impressive display of mental arithmetic on his feet. My calculation is that, if the two are added together, and we multiply the result by £300 per sequestration, the rough cost of the Government's proposed scheme, that is £366,000 which may not be saved because the Government have taken away an important element of those who provide advice.
      That leads me to the question of those who live in rural areas. I have no doubt that the Minister genuinely believes

      835
      that, somehow or other, the arrangements in place at the moment will continue. Often, Ministers express hopes that become weaknesses in Acts and result in expectations not being fulfilled. No doubt, the hopes expressed during the progress of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 were equally pious, but they have resulted in the problems that this Bill is attempting to address.
      I have a detailed point that it was not possible to raise earlier, but which may be raised on Third Reading. We have come a long way from the original debate, when the Under-Secretary was so obviously discomforted by the fact that he appeared to be introducing a nationalisation measure. He tried to retreat and argued that the system would be open to market forces and market testing. I understand that, in market testing arrangements, the accountant in bankruptcy may be in competition with those in the private sector. Is it the intention that the accountant in bankruptcy will be involved in examining tenders? If so, there would be a potential unfairness. Perhaps the Minister can say something about that.
      The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) mentioned my association with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. He is a generous person and will also know, from the debate in the Grand Committee and the debate on Second Reading, that I have tried to put the case for the ordinary people who find themselves in debt. I have in mind citizens advice bureaux and the Tackling Debt group. If we examine the record in Committee and on the Floor of the House, their case has been put. Perhaps the more telling questions are whether their case has been listened to and whether there has been a response to it. Some of us have doubts about that.
      I conclude by reminding the House of what the Scottish Law Commission stated in paragraph 2.35 of its 1982 report:
      "The discharge of prior debts is one of the main objectives of a civilised system of bankruptcy law and we consider that it would be morally indefensible and politically unacceptable to recommend policies which do not, at least after the lapse of time, admit of an insolvent debtor's discharge."
      There is concern that in an effort to tackle one problem another problem may have opened up. Perhaps many families will have to suffer a continuing burden of debt and all the worry that is associated with it because under the new regime they will not feel able—perhaps they will not know what to do—to do something about it. That remains a concern. As has already been said, the Bill, when enacted, will require careful monitoring.
      7.50 pm
      Mr. Wilson: I shall take up directly the remarks of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It is important to return to where this proposed legislation began and why it began. It is before us because the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 generated too much demand. The result was a level of demand that the Government found not to be acceptable financially. There were so many sequestrations taking place in Scotland. In a rather perverse way, from an ideological point of view, the Government chose to bring the process into the public sector. It remains a nationalisation measure, however unpalatable that may be to some of those who are promoting it.
      836
      The Government got it wrong in 1985 in terms of projecting the scale of demand. I have not heard anything to convince me that they have it absolutely right now. I congratulate the Government retrospectively, however, on what they did in 1985, which was to recognise the injustice that the Scottish Law Commission had focused upon. They provided a humane means for people to escape from the burdens of debt.
      Everything that we have sought to focus upon during our deliberations is centred on the question whether it will be more or less difficult for those who suffer problems of multiple debt and poverty to use the humane mechanism that has been provided. Only time will tell, but severe doubts remain. If a Government approach the issue by believing that the process is costing too much, the suspicion must persist that the way in which money will be saved is not through cutting the cost per case but reducing the number of cases. If that proves to be true, thousands of families in Scotland each year will not have a humane mechanism open to them.
      The subsidiary concern—it has been focused upon—is the possibility that those for whom sequestration is not appropriate will be led into it because the safety valve that now exists is not accommodated within the new legislation. The message that must go out clearly from our debates—there are some who are insulated from the sort of circumstances that lead to personal sequestration—is that personal sequestration is not an easy option or a course of least resistance. Every case involves human tragedy and burdens that are based on the circumstances in which people find themselves. It is not an easy option, and it would be a tragedy if an individual for whom personal sequestration was not appropriate were to take that course as a result of anything that we are doing this evening.
      During our consideration of the Bill we have dealt with many sub-plots. For example, we have dealt with the argument that the 1985 Act encouraged a great increase in personal sequestrations. We have dealt with the idea that insolvency petitioners are responsible for the rapid growth in personal sequestrations. We have dealt with the theory that there are money advice agencies that are telling people to go for personal sequestration. There are many theories for the increase in the number of personal sequestrations in Scotland, but we must not let the Government escape from the real reason for the increase, which is the rapid growth of grinding poverty that afflicts the lives of so many of our people. That is why there has been an increase in personal sequestrations. That is why debt has increased. That is why human misery has increased. People do not have enough money even to meet the commitments that they have entered into, far less to enter into new commitments that would enhance the quality of their life.
      We would do a disservice to those affected by this sort of legislation in the past and those who will be affected by it in future if we did not recognise that they are victims of an economic system and economic circumstances that have led to a vast and frightening escalation of debt and poverty in Scotland. They are not guilty parties.
      When the Prime Minister visited Scotland shortly before the general election he was interviewed by the Glasgow Herald. He was asked—perhaps this was one of too few occasions during those weeks—what he intended to do to deal with the problems created by poverty and deprivation. His reply was memorable. "Poverty," he said, "what poverty?" It is clear that he is truly insulated from the realities of human experience for thousands of people

      837
      in communities within a few hundred yards or a few miles from where he was speaking that day. He could have gone to any part of Britain and been told of the same circumstances, but he would still have replied, "Poverty, what poverty?"
      There is grinding poverty. There is lack of income along with unemployment, the failure of social services and the failure of public provision generally to provide a safety net. That is why people live in circumstances that no society in the western world in the last decade of the 20th century should find acceptable. That is the reason why personal—
      Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not aware that what the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is talking about is to be found in the Bill.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is straying rather wide. I have been tolerant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the contents of the Bill.
      Mr. Wilson: I am about to conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the personal failing of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that he does not realise the connection between poverty and the contents of the Bill. When we give the Bill its Third Reading, nobody should be unaware of its root cause and the root reasons for it being necessary.
      7.58 pm
      Mr. Stewart: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the debate. I recognise that several hon. Members have set down points for further consideration.
      I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that sequestration is never an easy option. I shall not weary the House with the figures, which disprove his final argument and point to a clear problem in Scotland that is not mirrored in England and Wales. I say that in the context of the way in which the law has operated since 1985.
      The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) talked about widening the list of assets that should be exempted from resting with the permanent trustee. We fully discussed the matter in Committee and I agreed to reflect further on the treatment of compensation, especially for personal injuries. We concluded that it would prove impossible to introduce a workable general exemption in the Bill that did not itself create many anomalies. I shall write to the hon. Lady in the near future to explain in detail precisely why we reached that conclusion.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked me about the involvement of the accountant in bankruptcy. I can assure him that arrangements will be put in place to ensure that the accountant is not placed in a more advantageous position from that of other contractors in tendering for sequestration work. The hon. Gentleman made an entirely reasonable point.
      I have no doubt that the Bill, when enacted, will bring significant benefits to the conduct of sequestrations in Scotland. I have in mind especially the introduction of summary administration procedures with the greater flexibility and lower costs that they will offer.
      The Bill introduces a number of improvements to procedures that take account of practical experience of the
      838
      1985 Act. It has been improved by the comments of not only right hon. and hon. Members but organisations such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).
      We are committed to maintaining an efficient and effective sequestration service in Scotland. That was our objective on Second Reading and remains our objective on Third Reading. No doubt the House will debate on a future occasion aspects on which several hon. Members put down markers in today's debate, but meanwhile I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    LIBYA
    Resolved,
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5894/92, relating to trade between the European Community and Libya, and supports the imposition of European Community sanctions against Libya to give effect to United Nations Security Council Resolution 748.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

    AGRICULTURE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Eric Martlew be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Jean Corston be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    ENVIRONMENT
    Ordered,
    That Mr. John Battle and Mr. Tom Pendry be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Kevin Barron and Mr. Roland Boyes be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    HEALTH
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Roland Boyes and Mr. David Hinchliffe be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. Hugh Bayley and Tessa Jowell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    HOME AFFAIRS
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Keith Vaz be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. Donald Anderson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    Ordered,
    That Tessa Jowell and Mr. Ian McCartney be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Jane Kennedy and Mr. Jimmy Wray be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    TRADE AND INDUSTRY
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Jim Cousins and Mr. Doug Hoyle be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Malcolm Bruce and Mr. Michael Clapham be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    TRANSPORT
    Ordered,
    That Mr. John McFall be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr. Paul Flynn be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS

  M1-M62 Link Road
  8 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I present a petition signed by Mr. Roy Dobson of Grange moor and 7,000 other constituents, who oppose the construction of any link road between the M1 and M62.
  Those who signed the petition are united in opposing both routes suggested by the Secretary of State for Transport, because the proposed link road would bring no benefits to local people or alleviate local traffic problems, but would environmentally damage the green belt and pollute the atmosphere. Such a link road would also threaten one of our present rail links and many homes. My constituents and I believe that the proposed scheme would be an outrageous use and waste of public money.
  The 7,000 signatures to the petition—which were collected very quickly—demonstrate the strong feeling of local people. The petition ends with the words
  "Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Transport to dismiss from further consideration all proposals for a link road between the M1 and M62 in the light of the destruction of homes and major damage to the environment and community life that this link road would cause."
  To lie upon the Table.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I present a petition signed by 9,214 of my constituents who oppose the Government proposal to construct an M1-M62 motorway link in West Yorkshire. In addition to that huge petition, I have received letters from hundreds of my constituents—and not one representation in favour of the scheme.
  The petition opposes both the yellow and purple proposed routes. I am happy to wholly endorse the petitioners' demands, and congratulate them on their efforts. The petition states:
  "Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Transport to dismiss from further consideration all proposals for a link road between the M1 and M62 in the light of the destruction of homes and major damage to the environment and community life this link road would cause."
  To lie upon the Table.

Downpatrick Hospitals
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew MacKay.]
8.3 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in this Adjournment debate a matter of grave concern to my constituents—the provision of health and social services.
The Minister responsible sits in another place, but I am pleased that the Minister replying this evening has a deep knowledge of the subject, as he surrendered the portfolio only last spring. My constituents and I are concerned about an apparently concerted attack on hospital provision in South Down, which has two minor hospitals and one major hospital. One—the Gowan Herron hospital in Dromore—has already closed. The Mourne hospital in Kilkeel is about to be reduced to the status of a glorified general practitioners' clinic.
The centrepiece of hospital provision in South Down is the Downe group, and its future is of fundamental importance to the people of the Down and Mourne districts. I refer not only to the continued existence of proper hospital provision but to the quality of future services. While the debate must primarily proceed on medical and health grounds, there are strong and important undertones in respect of the entire district's economic and social future.
That debate has continued a long time. I remember attending public meetings and protests as long ago as 1966. The only criterion should be the proper provision of medical and health care, allied to a reasonable assessment of the cost of those facilities. It appears that decisions will be taken purely on a bookkeeping basis, financial restrictions, and cutbacks. The submissions of the Eastern health and social service board appear to be based solely on the financial shortfall of its budget for coming years. It lays the blame squarely on the Department of Health and Social Services, which is its funding authority.
It seems that the medical and health arguments follow financial dictums rather than the reverse being true. I remind the Minister that a delegation of councillors that visited the Department were assured that the Department had sole responsibility in this matter.
The question of hospital viability should revolve around clinical efficiency. A report produced two years ago by Professor Normand for the Eastern board found that the Downe group offered the highest order of clinical efficiency, and was the most efficient of all the hospital administered by the Eastern board—including the major teaching hospitals in the city of Belfast and its environs.
Over three decades, the board has denied proper capital investment in the Downe group, and there has been extreme penny-pinching in terms of personnel—presumably so that the group could be termed non-viable, because of the various restrictions imposed on it by the board.
Only last week, the Downe hospital made an application to the board for one junior doctor—which was refused. However, a number of appoints were made to the already fattened staff of junior doctors at the city hospitals. That illustrates an absence of pro rata provision as between Down and Belfast. Good luck to the people of Belfast, but justice and equity demands adequate, just and equitable funding and staff provision, in the Downe hospital group.

841
The Normand report was followed by an inquiry undertaken by an in-house project team. In April 1992, it categorically reported to the Eastern board that a new hospital should be built in the Downe group area, to replace the out-dated surgical and general unit there. I think that unit is about 170 years old. It is recommended that the new hospital should form an extension of the maternity hospital built and opened five or six years ago.
In June 1992, the Eastern health board published a document that has set health and social service provision on its head. The document, entitled "Framework for General (Acute) Services within the Eastern Health and Social Services Board Area", was published for so-called consultation. In July, I protested strongly, pointing out that no notice had been given to enable the House to debate that dramatic document, and that the consultation period coincided with the parliamentary recess and the summer vacation in Northern Ireland.
I should have thought that such a severe review of future hospital services would have been documented in depth. The board, however, has devoted a mere nine lines to the future of the Downe hospitals. I feel that the report pre-empted the consultative and research period by stating:
"it is unlikely that the hospital would meet the future standards of clinical effectiveness required."
That is entirely contrary to the board's own in-house review, and contradicts the statistics that were available. The board had undertaken no audit of the services before making its statement.
When challenged, the board claimed that the Department had inserted that passage in its report. The Department denied it, saying, "It is the board's report." We now know that the passage was inserted by the Department, with the obvious intention of bringing about an early closure of the Downpatrick hospitals. I believe that there have been machinations involving the future of our health provision. None of it has anything to do with health; it is all to do with budgets, finance and short-term convenience.
I think that it was unfair and insulting to make such a statement. It was received with anger and hostility. In both medical and psychiatric care, the hospitals have often been at the forefront of advanced medical provision. They cater for 95 per cent. of presenting cases, and only 4 or 5 per cent. have to be transferred—as is proper—to the high-tech acute services that are available in some of the larger hospitals in Belfast. At this time of less intrusive surgery—microsurgery has now been provided in Downe—the argument should go the other way: such less intrusive methods should go out from the centre to the peripheral hospitals, rather than being brought to the centre. The same has been said about the London hospitals in the past week: the core has gone, so the periphery should be enhanced.
I believe that clinical effectiveness can be measured only by clinical outcomes. The board's own comparative performance indicators confirm that the acute medical and surgical wards in Downpatrick operate in an effective, efficient manner. The levels of outcome in acute medical and maternity wards in the Downe have outdone those of any of the other health board hospitals. The framework document, however, concentrates on inputs, failing to address the critical issue of outcomes, on a financial basis. The cost per patient admission is lower in the Downe than it is in any other acute hospital in the group.
842
As for medical and surgical expertise, the consultant surgeons currently employed in the Downe have a vast experience in a range of specialties: as I have said, they can deal with 95 per cent. of patient requirements, and they have reduced waiting lists to a level below the provincial average. It is interesting to note that all the major operations performed in the Downe hospitals are performed by consultant surgeons or consultant gynaecologists, and are attended by consultant anaesthetists. From a patient's first interview to the post-operative recovery stage, the patient is in the hands of a consultant; he is not dealt with by junior staff, as would happen in the larger hospitals in the cities. Such procedure is in accordance with the recommendations of the confidential inquiry into perioperative deaths—known as CEPOD—which provides the guidelines for conditions of operation.
Clinical effective indicators also show that, at all levels of staff, there is greater efficiency—whether those treated are in-patients, out-patients or day patients. The Downe group has performed very creditably.
The maternity hospital is threatened with closure. Since the opening of the Downpatrick maternity unit, there has been a substantial decrease in the perinatal mortality rate, which is lower than the Northern Ireland average. The Minister will know that the Northern Ireland average is itself much higher than that in any other part of the United Kingdom. I fear that the closure of the maternity hospital, which managed to bridge the gap, would lead to an upsurge in perinatal deaths.
Four years ago, we were told that, to be viable, a maternity unit must have a throughput of 1,000 babies a year. One would almost think that the subject of discussion was a cattle market. This year, we are told that the throughput must be 2,000 a year, and that that is required by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I am extremely suspicious of such dutch auctions. I wrote to the royal college asking, "Is big beautiful? What about the smaller units?"
In a letter dated 14 September, the college replied:
"It is appreciated that it is difficult to provide such cover for Units delivering less than 1,000 babies a year and this the case in over 30 per cent. of Northern Ireland Maternity Units. Indeed, about 90 per cent. of these deliver less than 2,000 babies per year. For … very small … Units, special local arrangements are usually made within the principles of HSS A5885/91. This may often include the development of Team Midwifery … Teams consisting of midwives, GPs and Consultants. Such Teams, when carefully developed, may make possible the safe continuing use of small Units provided there is good co-operation across the Team and adequate emergency services."
I believe that that letter belies the department's selective interpretation of the position of maternity services. What the letter says is required is exactly what is happening in Downpatrick.
One of the arguments for the retention and rebuilding of the Downe hospital concerns accessibility and population. We are very much aware in our area that the population of 70,000 increases during the summer months to between 120,000 and 150,000, with the addition of day trippers. It is a highly successful tourist area, because of the proximity of the Mourne mountains. The mountains themselves lead to medical services being needed at certain times of the year.
Accessibility, travelling distances and the geography of the area make it important for us to have rapid and easy access to acute hospital services. The area has no railway services and a very inadequate and inferior road transport

843
system. If one looks at the social indicators, one sees that there is a very low level of private car ownership. Against that background, I suggest that accessibility is one of the major factors that demands that the Department should make provision for a new building programme in the area.
The patients charter tells us that patients have the right to choose where and how they should be treated. The people of this area have made a clear choice. On 12 September 1992, 20,000 people marched through the streets of Downpatrick and demonstrated their choice under the patients charter. I doubt whether the Department has taken any notice whatsoever of their views. The march was the culmination of about 15 rallies in various villages and hamlets throughout July and August. It was a massive demonstration of what people wanted. They made their choice with their feet and their petitions to the Department. Unless the Department is only paying lip service to those petitions and is ignoring all these people, it must do something about it.
The report of the board's project team stated clearly that, for a relatively modest sum of money—modest in terms of hospital building—proper new acute and modern facilities could be provided at the Downshire site in Downpatrick, and that they could be attached to and have a dual-purpose use with the maternity hospital. It is now within the competence of the Department to say to the people of South Down, "We have noted what you say. We note your cost-effectiveness, your efficiency and the need for accessibility. We note also that you have been given undertakings three times which have not been fulfilled."
I end by quoting from the Royal Commission on the national health service, which I quoted on another occasion. It is a somewhat ancient report, dated 1979, but it is still relevant today. It stated:
"A fundamental principle of the national health service must be an equality of provision, so far as this can be achieved without an acceptable sacrifice of standards."
I believe that that dictum can be fulfilled on this occasion. The report also said:
"If inflexibility is to be avoided, health authorities should implement national policy in the context of their particular geographical and demographic constraints."
Those two extracts from the Royal Commission's report are a good summary of what I have tried to say to the Minister and the Department tonight.
I hope that the Minister will provide hope of some succour for the people who are so distressed and worried not just for themselves but for future generations in the area of Downe and Mourne. I hope that he will also bear in mind that it would be economically disastrous and socially devastating if the Downpatrick complex of hospitals were to be closed.
8.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanky): I thank the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) for setting out in his usual clear, cogent and reasonable manner the concerns which he shares with many of his constituents over the future of hospital services in the Downpatrick area. It is another example of the time and effort which he devotes to safeguarding the interest of the people whom he represents.
844
The hon. Gentleman—I find it difficult at times, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to call him my hon. Friend—is of course aware that ministerial responsibility, as he stated at the beginning of his speech, for health and social services, in Northern Ireland rests with my noble Friend Lord Arran, who, I know, is taking a keen interest in the debate. I must, however, declare at the outset more than a personal interest in the matter, having had the honour for 16 months of being charged with responsibility for health in the Province.
During that time, I became aware of the strengths of the services in the Province, and of the ways in which it might be possible to strengthen them still further within available resources. The hon. Member will therefore, I am sure, forgive me if I respond initially to his points by setting out some of the issues which I feel must be addressed if the quality of hospital services in Northern Ireland is to be maintained and, indeed, improved.
A great deal of work has gone into looking at ways in which this might be achieved. Last November, when I was the Minister at the Department of Health and Social Services, we published a regional strategy for the years 1992 to 1997, one of the central themes of which was to improve the use and quality of acute hospital services. The strategy expressed a number of aims, but I think the two most relevant to our discussion this evening—both of which, may I say, my noble Friend Lord Arran and I wholly support—are, first, that specialised hospital services should be concentrated on a smaller number of strategically placed sites, accompanied where appropriate by supporting services locally; and secondly, that there should be a substantial shift from in-patient to day and out-patient investigation and treatment.
Those are sensible aspirations which reflect the public's demand for the increasingly sophisticated and technically advanced services which lead to more effective treatment, shorter stays in hospital and better outcomes for patients. Less invasive surgery is in the interests of patients. I have often talked about the fact that many patients have to spend a considerable time in hospital recovering from the wound of the operation, let alone from what is going on inside them. Less invasive techniques mean that people have to spend less time in hospital. That must be desirable for us all.
However, I am under no illusions as to the difficulty of pursuing these aims, and, more important, the sensitivity and care that must go into achieving them. Hospitals are institutions which are particularly cherished by local communities. There is an understandable tendency for people to take the view that, while health boards or Ministers may say that, overall, people will receive a better standard of care if certain hospital services are provided at certain sites, nevertheless local hospitals must remain and, if anything, be developed further. We must balance those views against the need to achieve the best possible service for the greatest number of people within the resources placed at our disposal.
Perhaps I could put that last remark in perspective. In Northern Ireland, there are over 20 health service hospitals providing general acute services for a population of about 1.5 million. They range from large teaching hospitals such as the Royal Victoria hospital, with over 900 beds and more than 5,000 staff, to smaller hospitals such as the Route in Ballymoney, which has around 60 beds and 300 staff. The Downe hospital lies towards the latter end of this wide spectrum, having just over 100 beds providing

845
services in general and geriatric medicine and general surgery, with a further 24 obstetric beds provided in the grounds of the Downshire psychiatric hospital.
The cost of those services is considerable. This year, more than £1,240 million will be spent on health and social services in Northern Ireland—an increase of more than £70 million compared with last year—and of that total, the Eastern health and social services board will spend about £470 million.
Given the scale of that expenditure, I am sure that no hon. Member would disagree that it is the clear responsibility of all those involved in planning and securing services to ensure that maximum value for money is achieved at all times. Every penny saved that was wasteful expenditure will go back into patient care. The health and social services boards, holding their new responsibilities as purchasers of services, have a major role to play.
In that context, I was pleased to learn of the publication on 11 June of the eastern health and social services board's consultative document on the framework for acute hospital services in its area, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The document was not influenced by the Department; it was a matter for the board itself.
I know that the document has failed to find favour with the hon. Gentleman, but nevertheless, as the major purchaser in Northern Ireland of acute hospital services, the Eastern board must of necessity formulate a strategy for the future. I believe that its consultative document represents a constructive step towards achieving that goal.
The document explains why the existing pattern of hospital services needs to change to keep pace with modern developments and shows that, if performance in the main acute specialties in Northern Ireland were to improve to the same levels as in some English regions and some Ulster hospitals, overall bed numbers in the board could fall by more than 700, while the number of patients being treated could increase. That is very much in line with the thrust of the regional strategy of the DHSS, and it is an aim that I fully endorse.
It would be irresponsible to register such an aim without making it clear what needs to be done to achieve it. The Eastern board has done so in its document by outlining the standards that need to be met in hospitals that wish to provide acute services for the board in future. The board has been very helpful by assessing in its document the extent to which hospitals in its area meet the criteria that it has set down.
Some might not agree with that statement—I believe that the hon. Member for South Down might number among them—but only a few weeks ago, on 20 August, the hon. Gentleman met my noble Friend Lord Arran and expressed his dissatisfaction with the board's consultative document in general and with the section dealing with Downe hospital in particular. Such was his right. Last March, I well remember him expressing concern about Downe hospital in a meeting with me.
846
When he met my noble Friend Lord Arran, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he found the section in the Eastern board's document relating to Downe hospital exceptionable, particularly in its references to the clinical effectiveness of the hospital. I have read the section, and it is quite clear that Downe hospital was assessed in the same way and by the same criteria as other hospitals in the eastern board.
I remind the hon. Member that the document published by the Eastern board in June was issued for consultation and does not represent the final views of the board on the future pattern of acute hospital services in its area. The consultation period ended on 30 September, and I have no doubt that a great many of the hon. Member's constituents have made their views known to the board. I know that they have argued the very point that he has aired so ably on their behalf this evening.
It is now up to the board, on the basis of the outline that it provided in the document and of the comments that it received from people and organisations interested in this matter—I can assure the House that it received many—to put together its statement of purchasing intent, which will give a clear sign of the sources from which it expects to purchase services from 1994–95 onwards.
The hon. Member will, I am sure, be particularly interested in seeing that document. I know that my noble Friend Lord Arran has pressed, and will continue to press, for its early completion and has received assurances from the chairman of the board, Mr. Norman Ferguson, that it will be made available as soon as possible—hopefully, early in January.
Finally, I confirm that any proposals for closure or change of use of facilities by the Eastern board stemming from its consultative framework document and the consultation process, whether they relate to Downe or any other hospital in the eastern area, if they are of a major controversial nature—I assure the hon. Gentleman that this would be so—be agreed by my noble Friend Lord Arran before they can proceed.
My noble Friend has confirmed that he will maintain the closest possible interest in the outcome of the Eastern board's consultation and will, in considering any issue that requires his agreement, take full account of the views of those affected by the proposals. He will endeavour, if possible, to meet them and their representatives to listen to what they have to say before taking a final decision.
I thank the hon. Member for South Down for his speech, which I am sure will be used for definitive reference in the months ahead. He has served his constituents not only honourably but effectively, as I know he does on so many matters. I know that we shall hear from him again on this issue, and I assure him that we shall listen to what he and his constituents have to say.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Nine o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  EC Research Programmes
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster following his letter of 15 July to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will list the actions taken to ensure the effective management of EC research programmes.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Her Majesty's Government consistently pressed for proper assessment of proposals and rigorous evaluation of results to ensure effective management of research programmes. The EC Council of Research Ministers on 12 October welcomed the evaluation of the second EC R and D framework programme carried out by CREST—the EC science policy advisers' committee. The report was prepared under United Kingdom chairmanship, and a copy will he placed in the House of Commons Library. The Council considered that this report should help to determine future EC R and D priorities, and underline the need for regular and independent evaluations.

  EC Biomedical and Health Programme
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the result of discussions between Vice-President Pandolfi and the advisory committee on the biomedical and health programme of the EC, to which he referred in his letter of 15 July.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The immediate problems with the scientific evaluation process were resolved without the need for direct discussions with Vice-President Pandolfi. The Commission is now considering which proposals to approve for funding, in the light of the advisory committee's views.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Property Speculation
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if the Church Commissioners will establish an inquiry into their loss on property speculation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  The Archbishop of Canterbury, as Chairman of the Church Commissioners, recently announced that he has:

  (1) asked Coopers and Lybrand to examine and report upon (a) the Commissioners' borrowings and (b) the information flow required for the management of their assets; and
  422
  (2) appointed a group to consider that report and related matters in the light of recent experience, and to make such recommendations as they think fit to the Commissioners.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Technologies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to his Russian and Chinese counterparts, in regard to the recently announced sale of missile guidance technology, rocket engines and nuclear technologies from Russia and China, in the context of the permanent five's commitment to control proliferation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We regularly raise our concerns about missile and nuclear non-proliferation matters with the Russians and Chinese, in the context of the permanent five process, bilaterally and with our EC partners.

  Middle East
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decisions were taken on the application of the International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards in the middle east during the 36th annual general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency in September.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Resolution GC (XXXVI)/1045 on application of International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards in the middle east was adopted by consensus at this meeting. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Languages
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will grant funding from his Department to the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have no intention of doing so at the present time.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to make representations to the Council of Ministers to enable the European charter on regional or minority languages adopted by the Standing Conference of European Regional and Local Authorities to become adopted as a European convention.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Committee of Ministers has already taken the decision to adopt the European charter on regional or minority languages as a convention. It will be open for signature from 5 November 1992.

  Romania
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current state of the United Kingdom's relationships with Romania; and if he has any plans to carry them forward.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom enjoys satisfactory relations with Romania. We look forward to
  423
  developing these with a new Romanian Government which will carry forward reform in that country. As presidency of the European Community, we are working for the early signature of an association agreement between Romania and the Community.

  UN Peacekeeping Reserve Force
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support proposals by the United States of America for the establishment of a permanent United Nations peacekeeping reserve force.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is our view that the appropriateness of UN forces to a country or a conflict and the size and shape of those forces are best addressed on a case-by-case basis. We do not therefore support the establishment of a permanent UN peacekeeping reserve force, although it should be noted that, by completion of our deployment to UNPROFOR in Bosnia, some 3,500 British troops will be on UN service making us the third-largest troop contributor to UN operations.

  Mordechai Vanunu
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Israel over the continued imprisonment in solitary confinement of Mordechai Vanunu in Israel.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no formal locus to raise Mr. Vanunu's case with the Government of Israel. He has been treated in accordance with normal Israeli judicial process. We are in touch with the Israelis privately about some aspects of his imprisonment.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has had from(a) Belarus, (b) Ukraine and (c) Kazakhstan to his recommendations on accession to the NPT.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 14 July 1992, at column 587. The three states in question have since given further assurances that they will accede to the NPT as non-nuclear weapons states, and we continue to press them to do so rapidly. We welcome the recent accessions of Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan.

  Rent Officer Statistics

  (a) HA tenancies

  (b) Other tenancies

  Mean registered rent £ p.a.

  Mean percentage change on previous rent

  Mean RAC determined rent £ p.a.

  Mean percentage change to registered rent

  Mean registered rent £ p.a.

  Mean percentage change on previous rent

  Mean RAC determined rent £ p.a.

  Mean percentage change to registered rent

  Northern

  1988

  1,199

  13

  NA

  NA

  1,032

  15

  NA

  NA

  1989

  1,202

  13

  2,048

  0

  1,008

  17

  1,258

  2

  1990

  1,396

  18

  1,849

  1

  1,134

  22

  1,267

  6

  1991

  1,494

  22

  1,717

  3

  1,193

  27

  1,405

  5

  1992 H1

  1,650

  22

  2,052

  -3

  1,345

  27

  1,278

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1988

  1,235

  15

  NA

  NA

  1,098

  18

  NA

  NA

  1989

  1,343

  18

  1,753

  2

  1,061

  20

  1,308

  8

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for the purposes of article 3b of the Maastricht treaty, which areas of responsibility fall within the exclusive competence of the European Community.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 23 October, at column 409.

  The European Community has exclusive competence where that is conferred upon it by treaty provision or measures taken under the treaty. It is not possible to draw up an exhaustive theoretical list. Current examples include the common agricultural policy, the common commercial policy and the external tariff.

  Poland
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in respect of Polish citizens refused entry to the United Kingdom, how many such refusals there were in the last available year; and how many of those refusals were subject to appeal proceedings.

  Mr. Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the 12 months to the end of August 1992, 445 nationals of Poland were refused leave to enter and removed at United Kingdom posts. Information on the number who exercised their right of appeal is not available centrally.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rents
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the actual rent levels set, and the percentage increase on previous registrations, where applicable, for(a) housing association tenancies and (b) other tenancies, (i) where the rent was subject to appeal to the rent assessment committee and (ii) where the rent offices' registration was not subject to appeal, in each region of England over the period 1988 to 1992; and if he will publish figures on the retail prices index and the index of house prices over the same period.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information is given in the table on means registered rents and those which were determined after appeal to the rent assessment committee.
  425

  (a) HA tenancies

  (b) Other tenancies

  Mean registered rent £ p.a.

  Mean percentage change on previous rent

  Mean RAC determined rent £ p.a.

  Mean percentage change to registered rent

  Mean registered rent £ p.a.

  Mean percentage change on previous rent

  Mean RAC determined rent £ p.a.

  Mean percentage change to registered rent

  1990

  1,513

  22

  1,697

  -1

  1,251

  24

  1,364

  6

  1991

  1,646

  23

  1,811

  -2

  1,347

  26

  1,381

  7

  1992 H1

  1,746

  22

  1,862

  -3

  1,472

  24

  1,498

  3

  East Midlands

  1988

  1,326

  15

  NA

  NA

  1,116

  19

  NA

  NA

  1989

  1,381

  17

  1,564

  -5

  1,071

  20

  1,439

  1

  1990

  1,567

  19

  1,7:52

  1

  1,334

  25

  1,491

  2

  1991

  1,668

  21

  1,757

  0

  1,450

  24

  1,594

  7

  1992 H1

  1,871

  23

  1,740

  4

  1,537

  23

  1,662

  3

  East Anglia

  1988

  1,318

  14

  NA

  NA

  1,396

  21

  NA

  NA

  1989

  1,428

  17

  1,141

  4

  1,437

  22

  1,838

  4

  1990

  1,515

  17

  1,916

  2

  1,528

  21

  1,889

  3

  1991

  1,757

  21

  3,696

  1

  1,630

  19

  1,876

  6

  1992 H1

  1,709

  20

  2,059

  6

  1,717

  19

  1,900

  3

  Greater London

  1988

  1,372

  18

  NA

  NA

  1,658

  18

  NA

  NA

  1989

  1,508

  19

  1,414

  16

  1,634

  18

  1,911

  9

  1990

  1,677

  21

  1,850

  9

  1,859

  20

  2,264

  9

  1991

  1,868

  23

  2,043

  10

  1,987

  22

  2,502

  9

  1992 H1

  1,952

  23

  2,169

  10

  2,160

  23

  2,578

  12

  Rest of South East

  1988

  1,499

  16

  NA

  NA

  1,436

  20

  NA

  5

  1989

  1,607

  17

  1,803

  6

  1,503

  21

  1,835

  5

  1990

  1,811

  21

  2,162

  1

  1,692

  25

  1,915

  4

  1991

  1,981

  24

  2,033

  1

  1,946

  31

  2,124

  3

  1992 H1

  2,189

  27

  2,262

  -1

  2,112

  32

  2,296

  4

  South West

  1988

  1,495

  19

  NA

  NA

  1,481

  22

  NA

  NA

  1989

  1,664

  21

  1,996

  5

  1,573

  25

  1,839

  7

  1990

  1,876

  25

  1,839

  -2

  1,686

  26

  1,872

  5

  1991

  2,076

  27

  2,228

  0

  1,906

  27

  2,151

  6

  1992 H1

  2,210

  26

  1,985

  -6

  2,103

  29

  2,402

  5

  West Midlands

  1988

  1,222

  15

  NA

  NA

  1,096

  16

  NA

  NA

  1989

  1,297

  16

  1,628

  0

  1,051

  16

  1,321

  3

  1990

  1,444

  20

  1,641

  1

  1,276

  19

  1,266

  3

  1991

  1,584

  23

  1,834

  3

  1,359

  23

  1,419

  7

  1992 H1

  1,732

  23

  1,762

  4

  1,469

  23

  1,558

  4

  North West

  1988

  1,107

  14

  NA

  NA

  974

  14

  NA

  NA

  1989

  1,186

  16

  1,425

  3

  972

  16

  1,227

  5

  1990

  1,289

  18

  1,457

  3

  1,025

  19

  1,070

  6

  1991

  1,379

  19

  1,523

  5

  1,091

  20

  1,125

  4

  1992 H1

  1,501

  19

  1,302

  4

  1,216

  19

  1,172

  3

  England

  1988

  1,302

  16

  NA

  NA

  1,330

  18

  NA

  NA

  1989

  l,395

  17

  1,554

  7

  1,321

  19

  1,572

  6

  1990

  1,557

  20

  1,729

  2

  1,519

  22

  1,669

  6

  1991

  1,702

  22

  1,747

  4

  1,665

  25

  1,878

  7

  1992 H1

  1,832

  23

  1,866

  4

  1,827

  25

  2,040

  7

  United Kingdom

  Retail price index

  Mix adjusted house price index

  1988

  106.9

  167

  1989

  115.2

  202

  1990

  126.1

  199

  1991,

  133.5

  196

  1992 H1

  137.7

  191

  Figures for 1992 refer to the first half year.

  Figures for Rent Assessment Committee appeals for 1988 are not available separately for housing associations.

  Rents are registered for a period of two years. The percentage changes on previous rent quoted in the answer refer to
  426

  427
  the change over the two year period.

  The percentage changes to registered rent refer to the change arising from the rent assessment committee's decision.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his Department's latest estimate of the total sum set aside by local authorities in England derived from capital receipts not available for reinvestment.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  About £5 billion of the total of £5½ billion set aside by local authorities as provision to meet credit liabilities at 31 March 1991 is likely to have originated from set aside capital receipts.

  Thames House
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements the London Docklands development corporation is making to replace Thames house as a training centre in the royal docks.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The London Docklands development corporation is asking consultants to evaluate the training requirements of the area, as a first step to securing permanent accommodation for Newham community college, which currently uses this building.

  EC Life Programme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make representations to the European Community to increase available funding under the European Community's Life programme for land management work and monitoring.

  Mr. Maclean
  The priorities agreed by the management committee for Life funding in 1993 include actions relating to land use planning and management, and to environmental monitoring networks.

  The indicative allocation of resources for each of the five "fields of action" is given in the Life Regulation—Council regulation (EEC) No. 1973/92. The precise level of resources allocated to land management or monitoring projects will reflect the number and quality of applications.

  Poop Scoops
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to speed up local poop-scoop byelaws by allowing all local authorities to designate areas en bloc at the time of contract service planning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Whilst we are keen to speed up the byelaw-making process, designation in the manner suggested is not possible under the present enabling legislation.

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress being made in setting up a national environmental protection agency.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the 428
  Environment to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), at columns 857–58.

  Improvement Grants
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to make changes to the improvement grant system to spread the available cash to more applicants and to take account by disregard in calculating income of mortgage payments and all disability benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The changes to the house renovation grant system announced on 16 July—Official Report, column 1047—are designed to enable help to be given to more low income grant applicants by, among other things, making higher allowance in the means test for the general costs, including housing costs, they face. It would complicate an already necessarily complex system to make specific allowance for mortgage costs in the means test. The test already disregards disability benefits on the same basis as housing benefit.

  Municipal Mutual Insurance Company
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will include in the calculation of local authority standard spending assessments increased insurance premiums as a result of the collapse of the Municipal Mutual Insurance Company.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There is no separate provision for insurance premiums within standard spending assessments. In setting total standard spending for local authorities for 1993–94 proper account will be taken of all authorities' spending needs.

  Urban Land
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hectares of land in Britain have become urbanised so far this year; what were comparable figures for 1989, 1990 and 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is not available.
  The Government recognise the need for information on land use change to inform planning policy and to contribute to the wider debate on national land use policy issues. In 1985 the Department of the Environment established a new series of land use change statistics—LUCS—which are collected by Ordnance Survey as part of its map revision process. Recent research has confirmed the value of these data, especially for monitoring land changing to urban uses. The LUCS data show that in England during the period 1985–87 there was an average net transfer of 6,000 hectares a year from rural uses to urban uses, as defined for LUCS purposes. At present, the Ordnance Survey is testing new procedures with the objective of providing consistent information for all urban areas across the country within one year of any change occurring.

  Recent research on rates of urbanisation has concluded that the overall area of land likely to change to urban use between 1981 and 2001 in England is in the order of 105,000 hectares, representing 0.8 per cent. of England's

  429
  area. By 2001 it is forecast that around 11 per cent. of England is likely to be in urban use. The Department has also recently carried out research to investigate ways of improving information on land use stock and is proceeding to develop the methodology and carry out pilot work for a land use stock system.

  Opencast Coal
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those sites where British Coal is(a) prospecting for opencast coal and (b) actively applying for permission to opencast coal; and what assessment he has made of the damage to wildlife should opencast coal mining proceed on each of these sites.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally. MPG 3 advises mineral planning authorities to consider in detail the environmental and other effects of every proposal for opencast coal mining. It also makes clear that environmental assessment is required in appropriate cases.

  Air Monitoring
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evaluation he has made of the effectiveness of air monitoring conducted by local authorities under the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  Local authorities are not specifically required to undertake air monitoring by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Normally the operator of a process prescribed for local authority air pollution control under part I of the Act will be required to carry out any monitoring needed to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of the plant's authorisation. Local authorities may, exceptionally, decide to carry out such monitoring themselves.

  Recycling
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further encouragements he intends to announce to get industry more involved in recycling and especially the down-stream line of recycling; and how his targets are being met.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's policy is that manufacturers, distributors and retailers should take their share of responsibility for what ultimately happens to products which they place on the market. I therefore welcome the recent initiative announced by the vehicle manufacturers in this area. A full statement of Government policy on recycling and an account of progress against targets is set out in "This Common Inheritance: the Second Year Report" (Cm 2068).

  Environmental Protection Act 1990
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what study his Department has done on the cost implications for local authorities of enforcing and administering the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Discussions between my Department and the local authority associations about the local government finance settlement have covered the cost 430
  implications of administering the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Act provides in some cases for local authorities to charge to recover their costs.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to establish a centralised data bank of successful prosecutions conducted under the duty of care provisions in section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office keeps records of the numbers of prosecutions in England and Wales and the number resulting in convictions, as notified to it by the courts. Statistics to be kept for offences under the Environmental Protection Act will include separate figures for offences under section 34 of the Act.

  I understand that waste regulation authorities, through the co-ordinated local authority database of registered waste carriers (CLADWAC), have set up a system for the exchange of information about convictions for offences prescribed under the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, for the purposes of waste carrier registration. These prescribed offences include offences under section 34 of the 1990 Act.

  Wildlife Habitat
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take during the United Kingdom presidency to ensure that the United Kingdom complies with assurances already given on the protection of wildlife habitat.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom has an excellent record in Nature Conservation. We have built steadily on the framework for conservation provided by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to implement our declared policies and meet our international commitments. The Government are considering what additional measures are necessary to fulfil its obligations under the recently agreed Habitats Directive. Members are required to introduce the necessary legal measures by June 1994.

  European Economic Area
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the criteria to be adopted to judge whether environmental difficulties arising from the economic area agreement are persistent; and how intervention will be judged as appropriate, in regard to the safeguard measures set out in article 112 of the "Agreement on the European Economic Area", Cm. 2073.

  Mr. Maclean
  Decisions on environmental difficulties which might arise under the agreement would need to be addressed in the light of the circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take as President of the European Environment Council to achieve the objectives set out in article 73 of the "Agreement on the European Economic Area", Cm. 2073.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government strongly support the objectives set out in article 73, which reflects paragraph 1 of article 130R of the treaty of Rome. However, since the agreement on the european economic area has not yet entered into force, and will not do so during the United Kingdom presidency, there is no role for my right hon. and learned Friend under the agreement in his capacity as President of the Environment Council.

  Waste Brokers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of the departmental consultation paper on the draft registration of waste brokers scheme, pursuant to EC directive 91/156/EEC, have been issued; and what responses have been received to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  In England and Wales approximately 1,850 copies of the consultation paper on the draft registration of waste brokers scheme have been issued and 68 responses have been received to date.

  EC Environment Report
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the report by the president of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities concerning the environment—Fin 249–dated 21 September.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government attach importance to such reports and will ensure that it is followed up effectively. It was raised at the Environment Council on 20 October and will be taken into account in our approach to the review of the structural funds. We shall be issuing an explanatory memorandum shortly.

  Environment Research Programme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response has been made to the report of the environment research programme by the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology issued in May.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government today published their response to the Advisory Council of Science and Technology (ACOST) advice on environmental research programmes.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has, on behalf of the Government, welcomed the report as a very helpful contribution to the Government's developing policy on science and technology research.

  The Government's response to the ACOST report is published by the Office of Science and Technology (Office of Public Service and Science).

  Newt Colony, Barnfield Pond
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 649, what proposals he now has for protection of the newt colony at Barnfield pond.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The consultant's assessment requested by English Nature indicated that realignment of the new road in the vicinity of the Barnfield pond would significantly increase the cost of the scheme and delay progress. Following further discussions with English Nature and Dr. Cummins a suitable new habitat for the newt colony was identified close to the existing site. The Department will be working closely with them on the detail of the revised habitat area.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Fraud
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about prosecutions in serious fraud cases.

  The Attorney-General
  The current caseload of the Serious Fraud Office is 53 cases. Of these, 25 are being tried or are awaiting trial in the Crown court, 14 are awaiting committal or transfer to the Crown court and 14 cases are under investigation.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the staffing of the Crown prosecution service.

  The Solicitor-General
  In the last 12 months the Crown prosecution service has recruited 194 lawyers, bringing the total complement of lawyers in post to 2,068. The number of administrative staff in post is 4,094.

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Attorney-General what action the Director of Public Prosecutions is taking to speed up criminal justice.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service has taken a leading role in the working group on pre-trial issues whose report is now being implemented. Its recommendations cover all stages of cases and offer benefits in efficiency and effectiveness for the entire criminal justice system.

  Court Cases
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps his Department is taking to speed up the progress of cases coming to court.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). The Serious Fraud Office and the Crown prosecution service have also been participating in a working group on long criminal trials and ways to reduce their length. I expect a consultation paper to be published shortly.

  Serious Fraud Squad
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General how many times in the past year officers of the Serious Fraud Squad have visited Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

  The Solicitor-General
  Since 1 January 1992 staff employed by or seconded to the Serious Fraud Office have made four separate visits to Switzerland or Liechtenstein in the course of inquiries. In addition, a number of visits to these countries have been made by police officers working in conjunction with the Serious Fraud Office.

  British National Party
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 13 July,Official Report, column 399, if he will institute an independent review into the level

  433
  of evidence required for a realistic prospect of conviction for offences contrary to part III of the Public Order Act 1986.

  The Attorney-General
  No. I am satisfied that the correct criteria are being properly applied by the Crown prosecution service to cases involving allegations of such offences.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Kurds
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for further helping the Kurds in Iraq.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have spent £52.4 million since April 1991 on aid for Iraqi civilians. Further relief assistance is urgently needed before the onset of winter. We are therefore making available today a further £2.75 million, of which £2.5 million will be provided to the World Food Programme for urgently needed edible oil and pulses, and £0.25 million to British non-governmental organisations for relief activities in northern Iraq.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking in relation to the drought in southern Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend, the Minister for Overseas Development, has so far committed more than £51 million of bilateral aid in response to the drought in southern Africa. Taking into account our share of the EC special food aid programme, estimated at £11.3 million, this brings our overall response to around £63 million.

  Malawi
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what pressure the Overseas Development Administration is bringing to bear on the Government of Malawi to encourage progress towards democracy.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At the Paris consultative group meeting in May, bilateral donors and the EC imposed restrictions on new aid. The United Kingdom has withheld balance of payments support, suspended new training awards and restricted certain other kinds of assistance. Humanitarian aid is not affected by these conditions and has continued to be provided both for Malawians and for Mozambican refugees in Malawi. At a political level, and in concert with our EC partners and others, we continue to stress to the Malawi authorities the need for a material and permanent improvement in human rights.

  Earth Summit
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been achieved towards the developmental goals discussed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The sustainable development commission will he established at the current United 434
  Nations General Assembly session. We expect the global environment facility replenishment discussion to start early next year. Sustainable development is the central aim of our aid programme; we shall focus further on Agenda 21 priorities, to reflect the important agreements reached at Rio.

  Caribbean
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on Britain's bilateral aid programme to the countries of the Caribbean.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  For the financial year 1991–92 expenditure on the bilateral country programmes for the Commonwealth Caribbean exceeded £40 million. In addition, the Commonwealth Development Corporation—CDC—maintains a substantial investment programme; new CDC investment there in 1991 totalled £33.5 million. This year bilateral country aid is expected to remain at approximately the same level.

  Bananas
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the availability of aid for Caribbean producers during periods of low market prices for primary produce like bananas.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We contribute to the EC scheme for the stabilisation of export earnings—Stabex—under Lomé IV, through which 1.5 billion ecu—£1.2 billion—is available during the period 1990–95 towards offsetting any shortfalls for a number of commodities including bananas.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to support economic diversification as a replacement for the banana market in Caribbean ACP nations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our bilateral aid programmes in the Commonwealth Caribbean, as elsewhere, aim to assist long-term economic and social development. In deciding country aid allocations and how funds are used, we take into account all aspects of the individual country's economic development. In the Caribbean our aid has been used to improve the physical infrastructure and human skills needed to help the economies to diversify. We have given particular support to agricultural diversification in these countries in the past and expect to continue to do so. The Commission proposal on the common organisation of the market in bananas is under discussion in the Community. It reflects the commitments to Caribbean and other African, Caribbean, Pacific—ACP—producers contained in Lomé IV.

  South Africa
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in the past 10 years the Government have made formal or informal representations to the South African Government about illegal activity by their employees or agents in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since 1984 there have been six incidents involving South African diplomats on which we
  435
  have made representations. These incidents involved drinking and driving and public order offences. Representations were also made over a break in at the African National Congress offices in 1982 and an attempt in 1989 to obtain the design for the Blowpipe missile and the arrest in April this year of two South African intelligence agents.

  UNCED Agenda 21
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place in the European Council meetings since June on the implementation in Europe of Agenda 21 agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The implementation of Agenda 21 was discussed at the informal Environment Council at Gleneagles on 19 September and the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 20 October. Discussion focused on the establishment of the sustainable development commission—SDC—which will have a central role in ensuring effective implementation of Agenda 21. As agreed at the Lisbon Council in June, the Community has taken the lead on this. The SDC will be established by the UN General Assembly this autumn.

  Humanitarian Services
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how much money the Overseas Development Administration has paid the Ministry of Defence as a cost of providing humanitarian services in each of the last five years;

  (2) on what occasions and for what purposes the Overseas Development Administration has paid the Ministry of Defence for providing humanitarian services in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: The following amounts have been paid:

  1988: Total £891,536

  Treatment of victims of a Pakistan explosion in a United Kingdom military hospital £154,054

  Army medical teams and supplies—earthquake relief in Nepal £621,467

  RAF airlift, HMS Active. RFA Oakleaf and Royal Engineers—Hurricane Gilbert in Jamaica £116,015

  1989: Total £181,092

  RAF airlift and Royal Engineers—Hurricane Hugo in the Caribbean £181,092

  1990: Total £79,443

  Royal Engineers and RAF aircraft—Cyclone in Western Samoa £79,443

  1991: Total £7,294,040

  Provision of army ration packs for UN in Liberia £11,145

  RAF aircraft to deliver relief goods for landslide victims in Chile £12,897

  Use of RFA Fort Grange, helicopters and boats for cyclone relief in Bangladesh £616,000

  Operation "Safe Haven" (Army) and air supply (RAF) for Kurdish refugees from Iraq £6,653,998

  1992 (to date): Total £134,708

  Royal Engineers and RAF transport for cyclone relief in Western Samoa £127,583

  RAF flights in Turkey for Erzincan earthquake £7,125

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the formula 436
  used for calculating the cost of humanitarian services charged to the Overseas Development Administration by the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: The Ministry of Defence raises charges on an extra cost basis. This comprises those costs which would not have otherwise been incurred as a result of undertaking a task.

  Iraq
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on humanitarian conditions in northern Iraq; and what representations he has made to the United Nations to alleviate the conditions of the Iraqi Kurds.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: The situation in northern Iraq gives cause for the gravest concern. The continuing blockade of Kurdish areas by the Government of Iraq has resulted in serious shortages of food, fuel and other essential supplies. A major international relief operation, led by the United Nations, is needed to ensure that stocks of relief supplies are moved into these areas before the onset of winter.

  We provided two members of a joint EC/US needs assessment mission which has just returned from northern Iraq. We await their full report.

  We have pressed the United Nations to hasten its relief operation, to which we are ready to contribute. We therefore welcome the recent announcement of the signing of the latest memorandum of understanding between the United Nations and the Government of Iraq, which will form a basis for further United Nations action.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the impact of flooding in south-eastern Zimbabwe; and what action the Overseas Development Administration has taken in the area.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: Localised flooding occurred over the weekend of 17–18 October due to violent thunderstorms in part of Zaka and Bikita Districts of Masvingo Province. According to reports received so far, one person was killed by lightning and severe structural and other damage sustained to a number of buildings, including schools. The Zimbabwean authorities have advised us that they are to await detailed damage reports before considering whether any external assistance is needed. The area is one which has been particularly affected by the drought in the region and where we have been assisting with emergency drought relief. As a result of the storms, a number of dams are now filled to capacity.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Probate Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take steps to ensure that the quality and level of service provided by the Probate service in England and Wales will continue to be maintained; and if he will make a statement.
  437
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In his report of February 1992 "Probate—Service to the Public" the Comptroller and Auditor General commented favourably on the standard of service provided. The report indicated a number of areas where the service could be further improved and these are being pursued within the Department.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report column 5, which consultants have been appointed to carry out research on behalf of his Department and advise on aspects of the national lottery; and when they are due to provide their report.

  Mr. Brooke
  The GAH Group of 4–6 Arne street, London WC2E 9NB are the consultants appointed to advise the Department on aspects of the national lottery. Their final report was submitted on 7 October.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the names and addresses of the professional advisers he has engaged in connection with the planning, operation and marketing of the proposed national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  In August the Department appointed the GAH Group of 4–6 Arne street, London WC2E 9NB to advise on aspects of the proposed national lottery. Further advice will be sought as necessary.

  Control of the Press
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage ( 1 ) what plans he has to introduce legislation giving greater effective sanctions, including fines, to the Press Complaints Commission against newspapers found to have violated Press Complaints Commission regulations concerning decency in the press;

  (2) what plans he has to establish a statutory independent press authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I shall consider what, if any, action needs to be taken when I have received and studied Sir David Calcutt's report on press self-regulation. Meanwhile, I have no plans for legislation.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the progress of the Calcutt commission concerning privacy and the press.

  Mr. Brooke
  I understand from Sir David Calcutt that he hopes to present his report to me early in 1993.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial provisions, and how much, he has made within his Department in order to look at the potential for deregulation of each of the regulatory measures for which he has responsibility.
  438
  Mr. Atkins
  There has been no financial provision made in respect of programme expenditure for deregulation in Northern Ireland. The Department of Economic Development has however allocated approximately £20,000 in staff time and resources to the deregulation initiative in 1992–93.

  Examiner of Statutory Instruments
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who now holds the post of Examiner of Statutory Instruments in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mates
  Mr. P. L. Oakey.

  General Election
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the general election to public funds in each of the Northern Ireland constituencies ranking them from lowest to highest.

  Mr. Hanley
  The chief electoral officer is required to submit accounts to the Secretary of State within 12 months of the election. The figures set out in the table are based on an initial examination of those accounts.

  £

  South Antrim

  51,630.06

  Belfast West

  52,400.10

  Belfast East

  55,658.89

  East Antrim

  57,788.27

  Newry & Armagh

  63,898.16

  North Antrim

  64,072.67

  North Down

  64,539.11

  Belfast South

  65,202.40

  Strangford

  65,632.01

  Upper Bann

  66,756.61

  East Londonderry

  67,858.27

  Lagan Valley

  67,912.93

  Belfast North

  68,017.46

  Foyle

  74,711.92

  South Down

  78,638.68

  Fermanagh & South Tyrone

  79,216.99

  Mid Ulster

  90,100.38

  Total

  1,134,024.91

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland Ministers last met within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and when they will next meet.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The last meeting of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference was held on 27 April 1992 and the next will be held on 16 November.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many planning applications have been(a) approved and (b) refused in each year since 1980 in areas of outstanding natural beauty in the constituency of South Down;

  (2) how many planning applications have been (a) approved and (b) refused in each year since 1980, in areas of special scientific interest in the constituency of South Down.
  439
  Mr. Atkins
  The information in the form requested is available only from January 1987 and is as follows:

  Constituency of South Down

  Areas of outstanding natural beauty

  Areas of special scientific interest

  Period

  Approvals

  Refusals

  Approvals

  Refusals

  1987

  294

  63

  2

  0

  1988

  313

  69

  0

  0

  1989

  234

  70

  2

  0

  1990

  232

  51

  2

  0

  1991

  274

  80

  0

  1

  11992

  224

  61

  0

  0

  TOTAL

  1,571

  394

  6

  1

  1 To date.

  Electricity
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the standard costs of electricity installation in each year in respect of domestic properties since 1 April 1980 to 31 March 1992 in the constituency of South Down.

  Mr. Atkins
  NIE's standard charges for electricity installation for housing developments of 12 houses-flats or more in the period from 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1992 were:

  Connection charge £

  per house

  per flat

  1987

  150

  113

  1988

  160

  120

  1989

  170

  130

  1990

  184

  140

  1991

  245

  184

  1992

  257

  193

  Reliable figures for earlier years are not available. Supplies to smaller developments or individual properties are charged at 60 per cent. of the estimated cost of providing supply.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the current standard costs of electricity installation in respect of domestic properties in the constituency of South Down.

  Mr. Atkins
  NIE's standard charges for electricity installation for housing developments of 12 houses-flats or more are £257 and £193 per unit respectively. Supplies to smaller developments or individual properties are charged at 60 per cent. of the estimated cost of providing supply.

  Lords Lieutenant
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the names and (b) the occupations of each lord lieutenant and deputy lord lieutenant currently in post; who is responsible for their nomination; and what (i) salary and (ii) honoraria, allowance or expenses each receives.

  Mr. Mates
  In Northern Ireland lord lieutenants are appointed by Her Majesty under article 2 of the Northern Ireland (Lieutenancy) Order 1975, on the advice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Deputy lieutenants are nominated by the lord lieutenants and subject to Her Majesty's non-disapproval
  440
  which is signified by the Secretary of State, are appointed under article 3 of the same order. There are currently some 147 deputy lieutenants. A list of their names is set out in the table. Details relating to the occupation of each are not known and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Lord lieutenants and deputy lieutenants are unsalaried. Lord lieutenants—but not deputy lieutenants—may claim from central funds reimbursement of travel, postage, telephone calls and other non-entertainment expenses incurred in the course of their official duties.

LIEUTENANCY

  County of Antrim
  Deputy Lieutenants

  Leslie, Major James Francis, TD, MA, JP, DL

  Reade, Major R. H., MC, DL

  Massereene & Ferrard, The Viscount, DL

  Stewart-Moore, Commander James, DL

  Windsor, Colonel R. F. M., DL

  O'Neill, Lt-Colonel, the Right Hon. The Lord, TD, DL

  Kinahan, Mr. C. H. G., CBE, DL

  Vandeleur, Major W. D. B., DL

  Cooke, Mr. V. A., OBE, DL

  Dixon, Major, the Hon. T. R. V., MBE, DL

  Sherlock, Mr. B. OBE, JP, DL

  Campbell, Commander Peter, MVO, DL

  Cooke, Mr. J. P., DL

  Frazer, Mr. J. W., OBE, VRD, DL

  O'Neill, the Hon. H. D. T., DL

  Shillington, Mr. C. J. G., DL

  Stewart-Moore, Mr. A. W. H., DL

  Macnaghten, Sir Patrick Alexander

  Cramsie, Lt-Colonel Alexander J.

  Traill, Richard S.

  Mackie, Leslie S.

  Cunningham, Josias

  Moore, Sir William R. C.

  Cunningham, Mrs. A. J. Carol

  Mackean, Mrs. Patricia May

LIEUTENANCY

  County of Armagh
  Deputy Lieutenants

  Armstrong, Henry Napier, Esq., DL

  McCaw, Captain George Edwin, ERD, JP, DL

  Henning, Major William John, JP, DL

  Grew, James, Esq., JP, DL

  Gillespie, Colonel W.F., OBE, TD, JP, DL

  Ward, Dr. Patrick Joshua, MBE, JP, DL

  Gillespie, Dr. John Fitzroy, JP, DL

  Cowdy, Major Ralph Edward Cope, DL

  Reid, Colonel Arthur, OBE, TD, JP, DL

  Adams, Lt-Colonel John Reid, MBE, JP, DL

  Armstrong, Mrs. Kathleen Mary Perceval, DL

  Hamilton-Stubber, Richard, DL

  Seager, Mr. David P. R.

  Thompson, John Daniel

LIEUTENANCY

  County Borough of Belfast
  Deputy Lieutenants

  Madocks, Col. Robert George, CBE, TD, DL

  Hurst, Charles T. Esq., DL

  Porter, Col. Henry Jones, OBE, TD, JP, DL

  Foreman, Sir Philip Frank Esq., CBE, DL

  Henderson, Captain O. W. J., OBE, DL

  Creaney, Col. John A., OBE, TD, QC, DL

  Bailie, Lt. Col. John A., OBE, DL

  Cochrane, Commander Keith, RD, DL, RNR

  Humphreys, Sir Myles, JP, DL

  Anderson, Mr. C. A. J., OBE, DL

  Hogg, Col. C. T., MBE, UD, DL, JP

  Bryson, Mr. John Buckby, DL

  Malley, Mr. Jim Y., DSO, DFC, DL

  Rolston, Mr. Robert Dewar, CBE, DL

  Ferguson, Mr. Alfred H., CBE, DL

  Donnelly, Mr. Thomas, MBE. JP, DL

  Conlon, Dr. William Arthur, CBE, DL

  Maclaran, Mr. Michael Walter Savage, DL

  O'Sullivan, John Francis, DL, FRCS, FRCOG

  Eakins, Dr. William Arthur, CBE, QHP, DL

  McCollum, Lady Anne Bernadette, DL

  Allen, Professor Ingrid Victoria, DL, DSc, FRCP

  Wilson, Robert Ian Elliott, DL, MA

  Weaver, Iris M. E. (Mrs.), DL

  Steele, John Martin, OBE, TD

LIEUTENANCY

  County of Down
  Deputy lieutenants

  Dunleath, The Rt Hon The Lord, TD, DL

  Kingan, T. J. A. Esq. DL

  Gough, John Hubert Esq, DL

  Hall, William Joseph Esq, JP, DL

  Rowan-Hamilton, Lt-Col, D. A., MVO, JP, DL

  Pollock, Major John Stuart, DL

  Wright, Major Michael, JP, DL

  Weaver, Dr. John Andrew, OBE, DL, MB, MD, FRCP

  Forde, Patrick Matthew Desmond Esq, JP, DL

  Gorman, John Reginald Esq, CVO, CBE, MC, DL

  Kingan, D R S Esq, DL

  Ferguson, N. G. D. Esq, CBE, DL

  Charley, Lt-Col, W. R. H., OBE, JP, DL

  McNeill, W. A. Esq, CBE, DL

  Blakiston Houston, R. P. Esq, DL, JP

  Orr, Capt Arthur Sidney Porter, VRD, DL, RNR

  Faulkner, Col. Sir James Dennis Compton, CBE, VRD, UD, DL

  Sandford, Major Ernest Ruscombe, MBE, UD, JP, DL

  Maxwell, Cmdr John David, DL, (Ret'd)

  Cunningham, Samuel Barbour, DL

  Thompson, Mrs. Mina Elizabeth

  Kirkpatrick, Miss Diana Mary Cecilia

  Shillington, David Graham, DL, JP

  Shaw, Sir Barry, CB, DL, QC

  Barnett, Robert, DL

  McKelvey, Dr James Moorehead, DL, MD, BCH, BAO

  Hall, Mrs. Maeve Patricia, MBE, DL

  Potter, Major H. John F., MBE, DL

LIEUTENANCY

  County of Fermanagh
  Deputy Lieutenants

  Hamilton, Lord Claud Anthony, DL

  Moore, William, Esq., DL

  Fawcett, David, Esq., DL

  Loane, Simon Folliott Warren Thomas Barton, Esq., DL

  Eadie, Roland Rennie Alistair, Esq., ARICS, DL

  Fawcett, John Edward Claude, Esq., DL

  442

  Plunket, Charles Patrick Benjamin, Esq., ARICS, DL

  Winslow, Mr. Mervyn Wade, DL

  Sloan, Mr. Cecil Garland, DL

  Baird, Miss Lavinia Enid Muriel, DL

  Scallon, Mr. William Michael, JP, DL

  Brookeborough, Viscount, DL

LIEUTENANCY

  City of Londonderry
  Deputy Lieutenants

  Guckian, Francis Gerrard, Esq., DL, JP

  McCorkell, Patrick Evelyn, Esq., TD, DL

  Hill, Mr. Donald Alexander, DL

  Johnston, Mr. Alick Baird, DL

  Stewart-Liberty, Mrs. Joan, DL

  Harvey, Ronald Marsden, Esq., OBE, FRCS, MB, DL

  McCaul, David Woodburn Wilson, Esq., DL

  McCarter, William Scott, Esq., DL

  O'Doherty, Paul Ignatius, Esq., OBE, JP, DL

LIEUTENANCY

  County of Londonderry
  Deputy Lieutenants

  Moyola, Major, The Rt. Hon. Lord, DL

  Davidson, Lt. Col. K. B. L., DL

  Clark, H. Wallace, Esq., MBE, DL

  Hezlet, Vice-Admiral, Sir Arthur Richard, KBE, CB, DSO, DSC, DL

  Stevenson, W. B., Esq., MA, DL

  Temple, Dr. R. W., DL

  Boyle, Mr. E. A. H., DL

  MacLaughlin, D. B., Esq., RM, DL

  Sandford (Nee Clark), Mrs. D. M., OBE, DL

  Christie, D. M., DL

  Craig, W., OBE, DL

  Baxter, J. L.

  Mark, Mrs., Anne F., (Widow)

  Nichol, Colonel, Marcus, E. W., TD

  Mulholland, Richard, Mr.

  Desmond, Mr. Denis, F., CBE

LIEUTENANCY

  County of Tyrone
  Deputy Lieutenants

  Smyth, William Daniel Esq., DL

  Stewart, Major Sir Hugh Bt., (retired)

  Herdman, Commander C. A., DL (retired)

  Watson, John Esq., DL

  Gibbon, Major Acton Henry Gordon GM JP, DL

  Archdale, Mervyn Talbot Esq., DL

  Scott, Richard Thorold Maddin Esq., DL

  Stevenson, Henry Frederick Dougan Esq., DL

  Lowry, Major Robert Hugh, DL

  Reilly, Lt. Col. John Stiles Tempest, OBE, DL

  Rountree, Capt. Charles Nelson Meredith, OBE, DL

  Dunbar, Major John James, MBE, DL

  Hamilton-Stubber, Mrs. Fiona, DL

  Herdman, Mr. James Emerson, DL

  Hadden, Mr. John Richard, DL

  Scott, Mr. Robert William Lowry, DL

  Darling, Lt. Commander Gerald Ralph Auchinleck, RD, QC, DL, MA

  Cassidi, Lady Deborah Marion, DL

  Newtownbreda Forensic Laboratory
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the level of security at the forensic laboratory, Newtownbreda, on Wednesday 23 September; and if he will make a statement.
  443
  Mr. Mates
  For obvious reasons, it is not the practice to disclose security arrangements.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the latest estimates by the Registrar General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each district council area and parliamentary constituency, together in each case with the equivalent year's electoral registration figures.

  Mr. Hanley
  Electoral registration figures for 1992 were given in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 12 May 1992 Official Report, columns 75–76. Population estimates based on district council areas will not be available until the results of the 1991 census in respect of Northern Ireland become available shortly. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Local Government Staff Commission
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the expenditure of the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland for the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and the budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Atkins
  The expenditure of the Local Government Staff Commission during 1990–91 was £88,977 and during the year 1991–92 was £122,431. The estimated expenditure for 1992–93 is £326,700.

PRIME MINISTER

  Environment Policy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish an interdepartmental co-ordinating committee to monitor the environmental impact of EC policies.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have already taken steps to ensure that in the United Kingdom the environmental consequences of their policies, wherever they arise, are properly considered through, inter alia, the setting up of a ministerial committee on the environment and the appointment of Ministers with responsibility for green issues in each Department. The United Kingdom also works for the integration of environmental needs into other policies in the EC.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to satisfy himself that the working of the social security system with regard to applications for mobility allowance, attendance allowance and disability living allowance fall within the guidelines laid down by him for his citizens charter; and if he will clarify departmental responsibilities on this matter.

  The Prime Minister
  The chief executive of the Benefits Agency is responsible for the administration of social security benefits and is accountable to the Secretary of State for Social Security for his performance.

  The Benefits Agency has taken vigorous action through the summer to accelerate the processing of claims and to reduce significantly the amount of work outstanding in
  444
  relation to mobility allowance, attendance allowance and disability living allowance. The chief executive wrote to all hon. Members on 6 July and again on 19 October setting out progress.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list, by county, the number of people who have so far telephoned his response number at 10 Downing street in respect of the proposed pit closures; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a substantial number of representations on this issue.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will put to the Heads of Government a plan for a common coal policy on the lines of the common agricultural policy to be financed out of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EC budget.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: There is already an agreed Community policy on coal. The United Kingdom looks to the Commission, in its scrutiny of state aids for coal, to see that this policy is followed in all member states.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Conference
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans there are to hold a conference of Parliaments of EC member states during the United Kingdom presidency of the EC.

  Mr. Newton
  Heads of State and Government reaffirmed at the special European Council in Birmingham the importance they attach to the conference of Parliaments. Preparatory discussions are taking place under the United Kingdom presidency to do the groundwork for a conference, which may take place in 1993. Detailed arrangements are being discussed through the usual channels.

  Questions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to reply to the third report of the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1990–91, on partliamentary questions, HC-178.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on Thursday 22 October, at column 363.

EDUCATION

  European Computer Networks
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his reply of 13 July to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith),Official Report, column 443, if he will make a statement on the current provision of pan-European computer networks, and the progress of Super Janet.
  445
  Mr. Forman
  The information systems committee—ISC—of the Universities Funding Council is participating in a European multi-protocol project to connect European countries via high bandwidth computer networks. This project went live earlier this month. The United Kingdom and Germany were the first two countries to be connected. The ISC is continuing to promote a single pan-European infrastructure for networking.

  A formal invitation to tender has been issued to several companies for Super Janet, which will provide an advanced optical fibre network for the academic community. A pilot network is expected to be established in 1993 to enable early demonstration of applications over the network.

  A-level Teachers
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the different scales of pay between A-level teachers in schools, A-level teachers in sixth-form colleges and A-level teachers in further education colleges.

  Mr. Forman
  Teachers in secondary schools and sixth form colleges can be paid an incentive allowance, at the discretion of the governing body, for taking on extra responsibilities. In further education colleges lecturers are paid on one of two scales or on a management spine. In neither case are there separate scales or allowances for teaching A-levels. On 1 April 1993, further education corporations, including the former sixth form colleges, will have responsibility for determining the pay and conditions of their staff.

  Further Education (Funding)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what transitional funding was available and under what formula for polytechnics leaving the local education authority sector; and what are the equivalent figures and formulae for further education colleges.

  Mr. Forman
  Transitional funding of some £6 million was allocated in 1988–89 to polytechnics and colleges entering the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council sector. Each polytechnic and college transferring out of local authority control received a fixed sum of £40,000, plus a variable component relating to full-time equivalent student numbers.

  The Further Education Funding Council has announced allocations for transitional funding in 1992–93 totalling some £15 million for institutions joining the new further education sector. The allocation for each college transferring out of local authority control comprises a fixed sum of £25,000, plus a variable component relating to student numbers at the institution, calculated half by full-time equivalent numbers and half by enrolments.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if it remains his policy that the Further Education Funding Council should give priority equally to full-time 16 to 19 years courses and courses which provide for part-time students.

  Mr. Forman
  The Government's aim is that there should be an increase in both full and part-time participation. My right hon. Friend has told the Further Education Funding Council that, in particular, the 446
  Government attach importance to the achievement of an increase in the participation of 17-year-olds in full-time education and training.

  Prison Education Service
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the status of staff from further education colleges working for local education authorities in the prison education service where redundancy following compulsory competitive tendering is concerned.

  Mr. Forman
  The employment beyond 1 April 1993 of staff engaged in prison education depends on the terms of each individual's contract of employment. Both LEAs and colleges will have the opportunity to tender to the Home Office for the provision of education to the prison service after that date. Those who are successful will want to consider making use of staff previously engaged in prison education. We cannot know whether any staff will be made redundant until this process has been completed.

  Further Education (Buildings and Equipment)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he has now received the Further Education Funding Council's surveys of buildings and capital equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  My right hon. Friend has received and is considering both surveys. Allocations to the Further Education Funding Council for 1993–94 and the following two years will be determined in the course of the present public expenditure survey.

  Transport Budgets
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance he has issued to local education authorities to ensure a fair distribution of transport budgets between pupils and students attending maintained schools and colleges in the further education sector.

  Mr. Forman
  Local education authorities will have a duty from 1 April 1993 to treat full-time students who attend colleges in the further education sector no less favourably as regards transport than pupils of the same age who attend schools maintained by an LEA. Guidance on this new duty will be given to LEAs in a circular on the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, a draft of which was issued for consultation on 27 July.

  Japanese
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers qualified to teach the Japanese language are currently employed by local education authorities and teaching in(a) secondary schools to GCSE and (b) in sixth forms teaching to A-level; and if he will make a statement on the teaching of Japanese in English schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not collected centrally. All secondary school pupils will be required to study a modern foreign language as part of the national curriculum. Japanese is one of the 19 languages eligible to he a national curriculum foundation subject.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those schools which have applied for grant-maintained status from April 1993 and had their application approved but the commencement date deferred until September 1993.

  Mr. Forth
  There are no schools that fall into this category.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) primary and (b) secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Applied for GM

  Approved GM

  Applied for GM

  Approved GM

  City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hammersmith

  11

  —

  1

  1

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Lambeth

  1

  —

  2

  1

  Lewisham

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Southwark

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Wandsworth

  2

  1

  5

  4

  Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barking

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brent

  —

  —

  3

  2

  Barnet

  —

  —

  3

  2

  Bexley

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Bromley

  2

  2

  11

  9

  Croydon

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Ealing

  2

  2

  6

  5

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Haringey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Havering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  2

  2

  11

  8

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newham

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sutton

  —

  —

  7

  5

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1 Rejected

  Parents Charters
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consultations were undertaken with service users in the course of the production of the parents charter, the Welsh Office parents charter and the Scottish Office parents charter.

  Mr. Forth
  A number of surveys of parents' knowledge of the education system have been commissioned by the Government in recent years. These have showed that some parents were unaware of even their most basic rights in relation to their children's education and that most would welcome more information about schools. The parents charter for parents in England was designed to meet these needs. The charters produced for parents in Wales and Scotland are the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland.
  448
  schools have to date (i) applied for and (ii) received approval for grant-maintained status from his Department in each of the London boroughs.

  Mr. Forth
  There have been 13 applications for grant-maintained status from primary schools in the London boroughs, of which 10 have been approved and two are under consideration. There have been 57 applications from secondary schools in the London boroughs, of which 44 have been approved and 13 are under consideration. Details are given in the table.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current pupil-teacher ratio in England and Wales; and what was the ratio in 1982.

  Mr. Forth
  Provisional figures for January 1992 show an overall pupil-teacher ratio in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England of 17.45:1. In January 1982 the figure was 18.46:1. Information on schools in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education by how much teachers' pay has increased since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  We estimate that average teachers' pay at 1 April 1992 was £20,630. This represents an increase of 273 per cent. in cash terms since 1979 or a real-terms increase over that period of 46 per cent.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the percentage of gross domestic product spent by the United Kingdom on education; what are the comparable figures for(a) Germany, (b) the United States and (c) Japan; and what account is taken of private education in those figures.

  Mr. Forman
  The readily available information is as follows:

  Total Public Expenditure1 as a Percentage of Gross National Product (Calendar Year)

  1988

  United Kingdom

  4.6

  USA2

  5.3

  Germany

  4.2

  Japan2

  4.3

  Sources: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook 1991.

  Education Statistics for the United Kingdom 1991.

  1 Public subsidies to the private sector are included.

  2 Estimated. Includes some private funds, but excludes fees.

  Torquay Boys Grammar School
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for expediting the application made for grant-maintained status by Torquay boys grammar school in July.

  Mr. Forth
  The governing body of the school published proposals on 17 July 1992. My right hon. Friend will reach a decision on the proposals as quickly as possible, compatible with full and careful consideration or the educational issues involved.

  Teachers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers were in post in 1987 and at the most recent available date.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of school teachers in post in LEA-maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England in January 1987—full-time equivalents—is 402,300. The corresponding figure for 1992, which includes grant-maintained schools, is 394,900.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will specify the number of teachers in each local education authority who(a) are disabled, whether registered or not as disabled and (b) not disabled who have retired early on medical grounds in the last five years of which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested at(a) is not held by the Department. Again, the information requested at (b) is not held in relation to disabled teachers who have retired on medical grounds or on a local education authority basis, but the total number of teachers in England and Wales who have retired on those grounds, for whatever reason., over the last five years is as follows:

  Number

  1987–88

  2,528

  1988–89

  3,406

  1989–90

  4,041

  1990–91

  4,934

  1991–92

  4,545

  450
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give(a) the total number of teachers and (b) and the proportion of the total number of teachers who become disabled after appointment in each local education authority who left the profession in the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not held in the Department in relation to disabled teachers. However, the proportion of teachers in England and Wales who have retired on medical grounds during the last five years, for whatever reason, against the total number of teachers is as follows:

  Number of teachers

  Percentage retired due to ill-health

  1987–88

  647,619

  0.39

  1988–89

  607,279

  0.56

  1989–90

  605,815

  0.67

  1990–91

  594,494

  0.83

  1991–92

  581,424

  0.78

  Food Skills
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to ensure that food preparation skills, in relation to diet and nutrition, remain part of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  Aspects of food and nutrition are covered in national curriculum science and technology. My right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Education and for Wales, will give careful consideration to the recommendations of the national curriculum technology review group when its report is submitted at the end of October and its subsequent proposals for curriculum change will he the subject of extensive consultation. There are no changes planned to the national curriculum science order.

  Young Children
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on his Department's response to the emergency resolution from the National British Association for Early Childhood Education on the provision of publicly funded education and care for all young children, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Forth
  The BAECE has not yet submitted its resolutions to my right hon. Friend. When it does so they will be carefully considered.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what number and proportion of cautioned juvenile offenders in the latest available year had been cautioned on(a) one previous occasion, (b) two previous occasions, and (c) more than two previous occasions respectively;

  (2) what number and proportion of cautioned juvenile offenders in the latest available year in (a) the Metropolitan police district, (b) south Wales, (c) Greater Manchester, (d) Merseyside, (e) the west midlands, (f)

  451
  West Yorkshire, and (g) Northumbria had been cautioned on (i) one previous occasion, (ii) on two previous occasions, and (iii) on more than two previous occasions respectively.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is in the tables. This information has been produced from a study of persons cautioned during the week of 25 to 29 November

  Table 1 Juveniles in 1991 cautions sample by previous cautioning history

  Number of previous cautions

  Police force area

  0

  1

  2

  More than 2

  Total persons

  Metropolitan

  59

  25

  10

  9

  103

  South Wales

  24

  5

  2

  2

  33

  Greater Manchester

  92

  20

  5

  3

  120

  Merseyside

  23

  5

  1

  —

  29

  West Midlands

  62

  8

  3

  3

  76

  West Yorkshire

  108

  33

  13

  2

  156

  Northumbria

  36

  7

  5

  —

  48

  All police forces

  985

  202

  101

  46

  1,244

  Table 2 Juveniles in 1991 cautions sample by previous cautioning history

  Percentage previously cautioned

  Police force area

  0

  1

  2

  More than 2

  Total in sample (=100 per cent.)

  Metropolitan

  57

  24

  10

  9

  103

  South Wales

  73

  15

  6

  6

  33

  Greater Manchester

  77

  17

  4

  3

  120

  Merseyside

  79

  17

  3

  —

  29

  West Midlands

  82

  11

  4

  4

  76

  West Yorkshire

  69

  21

  8

  1

  156

  Northumbria

  75

  15

  10

  —

  48

  All police forces

  73

  16

  8

  3

  1,244

  Percentages may not add up to exactly 100 per cent, due to rounding.

  Asylum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the meeting on the Asylum Bill between Dr. Max Perutz, FRS and senior officials of his Department.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 14 October inviting Dr. Perutz to contact officials in the immigration department if he wished to arrange a meeting. To date he has not done so.

  Theft
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the percentage of annual retail turnover lost through unauthorised entry to premises by retailers in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on the percentage lost through similar crime by retailers in other EC countries.

  Mr. Jack
  It is estimated that retailers lose around two per cent of turnover annually through the disappearance of stock. This loss includes thefts of all descriptions; the proportion attributable to unauthorised entry is not known and cannot be ascertained. Information about losses elsewhere in the EC is not available.
  452
  1991 which will be analysed via the Offenders' Index for conviction history. Table 1 gives the number of juveniles by their cautioning history and table 2 gives the percentage of juveniles with their cautioning history for each relevant police force. Care should be taken with the percentages in table 2, where the actual number of persons in the category is small, as these are liable to some sampling error.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's contribution to the European centre for the validation of alternative methods in animal research.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government supported the establishment of the European centre for the validation of alternative methods at Ispra in Italy, and we shall, along with our partners, endeavour to ensure that the centre is a success.

  The United Kingdom has not been asked to make a specific financial contribution towards the work of the centre. Were Community-wide funding to be sought for the centre, any agreed United Kingdom contribution would be made as part of the United Kingdom's overall contribution to the Community's budget.

  Mid Glamorgan Regional Crime Squad
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to retain a regional crime squad based on South Glamorgan, Mid Glamorgan, West Glamorgan, Dyfed, Powys and Gwent, currently known as No. 8 regional crime squad.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. I believe that the region would be better served by amalgamating No. 7 and No. 8 regional crime squads.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the number of notifiable offences committed in each of the cities or areas covered by a safer city project in the 12 months ended(a) March 1990, (b) March 1991 and (c) March 1992;

  (2) if he will list the number of notifiable offences committed in each of the cities or areas now covered by a safer city project (a) in 1989, (b) in 1990 and (c) in 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  Figures available centrally are for calendar years only, and are contained in the table.

  Safer city areas—Notifiable offences1

  Safer city area

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Birmingham

  99,749

  111,881

  127,548

  Bradford

  46,533

  56,107

  70,267

  Bristol

  50,121

  61,806

  72,363

  Coventry

  31,296

  37,212

  40,331

  Derby

  17,124

  21,088

  26,566

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  20,044

  20,581

  16,113

  Hartlepool

  9,144

  11,112

  13,395

  Hull

  40,543

  47,501

  54,478

  Islington

  23,006

  26,253

  21,124

  Leicester

  30,718

  38,501

  48,311

  Lewisham

  25,305

  26,736

  19,153

  Middlesbrough

  20,674

  26,217

  25,876

  Nottingham

  48,535

  58,523

  67,765

  Rochdale

  20,322

  24,085

  28,282

  Salford

  29,454

  30,589

  33,594

  Sunderland

  33,186

  36,937

  41,155

  Tower Hamlets

  25,557

  24,857

  19,267

  Wandsworth

  26,407

  31,032

  21,429

  Wirral

  26,982

  25,503

  28,991

  Wolverhampton

  23,670

  28,045

  31,476

  1 Excluding criminal damage £20 and under.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on introducing the private sector into the running of prisons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Private sector involvement in the prison service is being introduced through the contracting-out and market-testing of both entire establishments and individual services within prisons. The aim is to raise standards and improve value for money.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the costs of privatising catering services in Her Majesty's prison service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The value of the contracts awarded to commercial companies for inmate catering services in Her Majesty's prison service is £1,940,263. The costs of letting and administering the contracts were met from a number of separate budgets and are not readily available.

  Railway Stations (Fire Inspections)
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, as part of his quality service objectives, he will require the publication of the results of all fire brigade inspections at British Rail stations commissioned since 1985 using public money.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  British Rail stations require a fire certificate in accordance with an order under the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The issue of such certificates is the 454
  responsibility of fire authorities, which are specifically forbidden under section 21 of the Act from disclosing, except in clearly defined circumstances, any information obtained by their employees during an inspection.

  Arson
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of arson were reported in Wales in 1990, 1991 and 1992; what was the estimated total property damage resulting from these fires; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  There were 1,123 notifiable offences of arson recorded by the police in Wales in 1991 compared with 904 offences in 1990. Information for 1992 is not yet available. Information is not collected centrally on total property damage resulting from these fires. I do not intend to make a statement.

  Metropolitan Police Commissioner
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to appoint a serving police officer as the next Commissioner of the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 23 October that the Queen has appointed Mr. Paul Condon, at present chief constable of Kent, to succeed Sir Peter Imbert as Commissioner.

  M25
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will detail the funding arrangements and level of service agreed between the Government and the forces policing the M25.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are no special funding arrangements between the Government and those police forces responsible for policing the M25. The level of service provided is an operational decision for the individual chief officers of the six police forces through which the motorway travels. Policing decisions are co-ordinated by the M25 chief constables committee.

  Fire Brigades (Fleet Maintenance)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the fire brigade authorities which have put their fleet maintenance tenders out to external companies indicating which tenders have resulted in split contracts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Only Hertfordshire fire brigade has contracted out its vehicle fleet maintenance; there is one contractor.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what research has been conducted by his Department on the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering of fleet maintenance of fire brigade vehicles upon brigades who currently utilise mechanics who also act as part-time fire fighters;

  (2) what steps are being taken to ensure that external companies granted fleet maintenance tenders for fire brigade vehicles offer a 24-hour service in a permanent site which grants around-the-clock access;
  455
  (3) if he will make it his policy to ensure that all persons involved in fleet maintenance of fire brigade vehicles are directly accountable both operationally and financially to their local chief fire officer;

  (4) what account has been taken by his Department on the effect of the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering of fire brigade fleet maintenance upon (a) the flexible use of vehicles in the course of an emergency and (b) the ability of each fire brigade to reach the required incident response standards.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Provision of services and equipment is a matter for fire authorities. All the representative bodies and the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council have been widely consulted on the question of compulsory competitive tendering. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to announce his conclusion on the issue in relation to fire brigades before long.

  Hostels
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage of site purchase and refurbishment costs which his Department grants for(a) probation hostel beds and (b) for bail hostel beds.

  Mr. Jack
  Site purchase and construction or refurbishment costs for both probation and bail hostels are met initially by a 100 per cent. capital grant from the Home Office. Over a period of time 20 per cent. of this cost is recovered from local authorities.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage of operating costs which his Department pays for(a) probation hostel beds and (b) bail hostel beds.

  Mr. Jack
  Eighty per cent. of the operating or revenue costs of probation and hail hostels are met by Home Office grant. The remaining 20 per cent. is provided by payments from local authorities.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions are currently placed on hostels taking in residents when those persons are not domiciled in the county where the hostel is sited.

  Mr. Jack
  None.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what audit checks take place in respect of probation hostels and bail hostels.

  Mr. Jack
  All claims submitted by probation and bail hostels are subject to audit by independent auditors approved by, and acting in accordance with instructions issued by, the Audit Commission.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rules govern salary levels, expenses levels and perks such as vehicles and promotion in respect of probation and bail hostels.

  Mr. Jack
  Probation officer grades working as wardens and deputy wardens at probation and bail hostels are employed under terms and conditions set by the joint negotiating committee for the probation service. Their pay is determined by the Secretary of State. Other wardens and deputy wardens, and all assistant wardens, are employed 456
  in accordance with terms and conditions set by the residential and allied staffs committee of the National Joint Council for the Local Authorities Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services. All other staff are either employed in accordance with terms and conditions set by the National Joint Council for Local Authority Services (Manual Workers), or are recruited on the basis of locally negotiated agreements.

  Michael Sams
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the route taken on 29 September when remand prisoner Michael Sams held at HMP Winson Green travelled to Skipton, Yorkshire; how many prison officers accompanied him; what form of transport was used; and what additional security cover was used.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not the practice to disclose the detailed security arrangements which are applied to the escort of category A prisoners outside a prison service establishment, or details of routes taken. In the instance referred to, the prisoner and a prison service staff escort travelled in a secure prison vehicle and additional security measures were taken by the police.

  HMP Bullwood Hall
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement in respect of the hunger strike held by inmates at HMP Bullwood Hall in October.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Between 25 September and 1 October a number of prisoners at Bullwood Hall intermittently refused prison meals as a protest against the small amount of evening association provided. Plans which were already in hand to increase evening association were in fact implemented on 24 September.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance as working holidaymakers have been(a) received, (b) granted, and (c) refused in (i) India, (ii) Bangladesh, (iii) Pakistan, (iv) Australia, (v) Canada, (vi) Ghana and (vii) Nigeria during 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Racial Harassment
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of local housing authorities in which racial harassment by one council tenant of another is currently a ground for eviction.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the content of tenancy agreements is not collected centrally. However, a survey in 1991 established that 88 local housing authorities experienced a problem with racial violence and harassment in council housing. Of these, about half—46—stated that they would try to deal with perpetrators of racial violence and harassment by use of notice of seeking possession, the initial step in legal proceedings which can ultimately lead to eviction if the case is proved in court.

  Motor Projects
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has allocated to motor projects for young people convicted of the offence of taking away a vehicle without the owner's consent in the current financial year.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: The Home Office has so far this financial year approved grants supporting motor projects totalling £263,375 through the probation supervision grant scheme, the aims of which include providing demanding programmes of supervision for dealing with offenders in the community. This brings the total allocation of grants to motor projects under this scheme since 1990, when such funding began, to almost £500,000. The main focus of motor projects funded through this scheme will be young offenders convicted of motor-related offences.

  The Home Office has also allocated about £59,000 to motor projects in this financial year through the safer cities programme.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many projects aimed at diverting young people from involvement in vehicle-related crime have been(a) wholly funded and (b) partly funded by his Department in England and Wales in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: Home Office funding of projects for diverting young people from crime, including vehicle-related crime, is provided under the safer cities programme which was set up in 1988, and the probation supervision grant scheme—formerly the young adult offender grant scheme—which was introduced in 1989.

  The information is as follows:

  Diversionary projects for young people funded or partly funded by the Home Office

  Vehicle-related projects

  Other projects

  Year

  Wholly funded

  Partly funded

  Wholly funded

  Partly funded

  1988–89

  —

  —

  5

  1

  1989–90

  7

  —

  93

  —

  1990–91

  9

  3

  273

  13

  1991–92

  13

  9

  300

  12

  Though final figures for 1992–93 are not yet available, between April and October of this year there were 22 partly or wholly funded vehicle-related projects and 312 partly or wholly funded other projects.

  Year

  Age-group all ages

  (a) Under 21 years

  (c) per cent.

  (b) 21 years-29 years (inc)

  (c) per cent.

  1989

  3,717

  165

  4.4

  722

  19.4

  1990

  3,950

  187

  4.7

  843

  21.3

  1991

  3,893

  171

  4.4

  794

  20.4

  Source: OPCS

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Currency Speculation
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to curb the activities of speculators in the currency market.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times per annum meetings take place of the full committee of the Standing Conference on Crime Prevention; when the last meeting took place; and when he expects the next meeting will be called.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: The last meeting of the Home Office Standing Conference on Crime Prevention took place on 18 December 1990. Previously the conference had taken place on an annual basis. A conference has not been planned for this year because, as part of our focused approach to crime prevention, the resources normally devoted to it have been channelled to support the national effort against car crime, through car crime prevention year and its national publicity campaign. Car crime currently accounts for nearly one-third of all recorded crime. Consideration is currently being given to future meetings of standing conference.

  By the end of this year as part of our crime prevention strategy Home Office Ministers will have supported and contributed to many local and national crime prevention conferences and meetings including the car crime prevention year launch and review conferences, Crime Concern's conference on "Young People and Community Safety", a conference organised by Crime Concern and the Community Development Foundation entitled "Towards Safer Communities" and the national neighbourhood watch co-ordinators conference planned for November.

  Suicide
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of suicides of young people(a) aged under 21 years and (b) aged between 21 and 30 years in 1991 and the two preceding years; and if he will express these figures as a percentage of the total number of deaths by suicide in those three years.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply. The information is shown in the table.

  The number of reported suicides (ICD* E950–E959) of young people (a) aged under 21 years; (b) aged 21–29 years; and (c) these numbers expressed as a percentage of the total number of deaths by suicides in each of those years. England and Wales 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  ICD* International Classification of Diseases; ninth revision.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have no plans to introduce controls aimed at curbing the activities of speculators in the currency market.
  459
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in regard to the inclusion by banks in their ethical policies of an undertaking not to speculate against the pound.

  Mr. Nelson
  This is a matter for the banks not the Government. But as a practical matter it would be impossible to distinguish so-called speculation from transactions driven by the genuine needs of customers such as fund managers and corporate treasurers who are taking investment decisions or hedging in the foreign exchange market to protect themselves from currency fluctuations. Moreover it would not be realistic to impose restraints on UK-based banks when sterling is traded worldwide.

  Currency Intervention
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will invite the National Audit Office to examine the question of the intervention in the currency market on 14 to 18 September.

  Mr. Nelson
  It is not for me to direct the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration has been given to sterling's institutional relationship with the single currency if the United Kingdom does not accept stage three of economic and monetary union.

  Mr. Nelson
  If the United Kingdom does not move to stage 3 of economic and monetary union as set out in the Maastricht treaty, the relationship of the pound sterling to the single currency would be a matter for decision at the time. The treaty does not prescribe the relationship between the currencies of those member states participating in stage 3 and those of non-participants.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present exchange rate of the pound sterling with(a) the United States dollar and (b) the German mark; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lamont
  The approximate sterling exchange rates at close of business on Friday, 23 October were US dollars 1.6145 and deutschemark 2.4702 respectively.

  World Bank
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the annual World bank meeting held in Washington in September, and on any decisions made at that meeting about additional environmental expenditure.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Finance Ministers reviewed the world economic scene, resource flows to developing countries and other issues including progress with the debt strategy and trade policy. On the environment, they welcomed the wide-ranging consensus reached at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. They noted that UNCED had called for additional funding to be channelled through existing institutions, including the global environment
  460
  facility. They also agreed that continuing consideration should be given to an "earth increment" for environmental purposes in the negotiations for the 10th replenishment of the International Development Association.

  International Development Association
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards increasing United Kingdom funding for the International Development Association.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom is playing a constructive role in the negotiations on the 10th replenishment of the International Development Association. The overall size of the replenishment and burden-sharing among donors are among the issues still to be resolved.

  Currency Trading
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total volume of currency traded from London in the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage is for(a) international trading requirements and (b) speculative currency deals, respectively.

  Mr. Nelson
  Total volumes of foreign currency traded in London are not monitored on a regular month-bymonth basis. The Bank of England does, however, conduct a wide-ranging survey of foreign exchange business in London every three years. The latest survey, conducted by the bank during April of this year, indicated average gross daily turnover of about $300 billion—around £190 billion at current exchange rates—in London. Within this total, it is impossible to distinguish so-called speculative deals from transactions carried out to finance flows of trade or for fund-management or hedging purposes.

  EC Economies
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the economies of the EC currently measure up to the convergence criteria of the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 20 October at column 245.

  Financial Reserves
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the levels of financial reserves on 10 April; and what they are at present.

  Mr. Nelson
  The levels of the United Kingdom foreign exchange reserves at the end of April and September 1992 were respectively $45,775 million and $42,677 million. The level of the reserves is not published on an intra-mensal basis.

  Cohesion Fund
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the United Kingdom qualifies for contributions from the EEC cohesion fund on 1991 and 1992 gross domestic product figures.

  Mr. Nelson
  The cohesion fund envisaged in the Maastricht treaty will be a structural fund; and the usual
  461
  method of calculating relative wealth for these funds is to use purchasing power parities. On that basis, the United Kingdom would not qualify on 1991 gross domestic product figures, the latest year for which outturn data are available, or forecasts for 1992.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the division of balance of payments figures into different categories so as to show the imports and exports of food, oil, manufactured products, goods for retail sale, cars and aircraft and also into categories which show import and export figures for European and non-European countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Central Statistical Office already publishes separate figures for the following categories of overseas trade in a monthly press notice and monthly "Review of External Trade Statistics":

  Food, beverages and tobacco;

  Oil;

  Manufactures;

  Consumer goods (as opposed to capital and intermediate goods within manufacturers);

  Passenger motor cars;

  Trade with European countries (distinguishing between the European Community, the rest of Western Europe and Eastern Europe including the former Soviet Union);

  Trade with non-European countries (distinguishing between various area groupings).

  Consolidated figures are not published for aircraft as the amount of trade in them is relatively small and highly erratic, but monthly data on exports and imports of individual types of aircraft are published by the CSO in a business monitor—MM20—"Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom".

  Agriculture
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a scheme to provide tax relief for companies and businesses providing services to agriculture to enable them to retain employees who would otherwise be made redundant.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for new tax relief for agricultural service businesses.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a scheme to provide increased tax relief on capital assets held by companies and businesses providing services to agriculture to enable them to retain employees who would otherwise be made redundant.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no plans to do so.

  Bloodstock Industry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance will be provided under the distance selling scheme and the flat rate scheme to vendors of horses selling for less than £15,000.

  Sir John Cope
  Bloodstock industry representatives have indicated that both schemes could be of some assistance when selling horses with a value of £15,000 or less. It is for individual vendors to assess the advantages of the new arrangements which will be able from 1 January 1993.
  462
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce regulations to enable race horse owners to be registered for VAT.

  Sir John Cope
  Eligibility for VAT registration is governed by both European Community law and United Kingdom law. Under the present rules of racing, race horse owners in the United Kingdom do not qualify for VAT registration because it is not a business activity making taxable supplies. This opinion has been upheld in individual cases by the independent VAT tribunals.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made of the financial effect on the domestic bloodstock industry of the new VAT required to be imposed as part of the EC single market changes on 1 January 1993.

  Sir John Cope
  It is not possible to make any reliable estimate of the financial effects future changes to the VAT regime will have on the United Kingdom bloodstock industry. VAT is only one of several factors which determine its finances, but, as long as the industry ensures that its members fully understand the new rules for the single market, they should not be significantly disadvantaged by them.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement outlining the ways in which the changes to be introduced on 1 January 1993 to the VAT regime affecting the bloodstock industry achieves parity of treatment between British breeders and their overseas counterparts.

  Sir John Cope
  The present VAT arrangements will in large part remain after 1992, although in some cases in a different form. British breeders should therefore maintain broadly the same position in relation to their overseas counterparts as now. The introduction of an agricultural flat-rate scheme in the United Kingdom in 1993 will be an extra scheme, not currently available, which will allow those breeders who opt to become flat-rate farmers to sell horses and nominations free of VAT, in exactly the same way as their European counterparts.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider introducing regulations to enable a low VAT rate to be applied to the United Kingdom bloodstock industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The Government's policy is to maintain a simple VAT structure with a single positive rate. Any concession for racehorses would inevitably bring pressure for a similar concession on a wide range of goods and services, where it was felt that the case was just as strong as that for bloodstock.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of public expenditure by region in each year since 1979–80(a) in overall terms and (b) in per capita terms at current and 1979–80 prices.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information on the level of general Government expenditure by region in England was published in the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement", Cm 1520, for 1987–88 and in the "Statistical Supplement to the 1991 Autumn Statement",
  463
  Cm 1920, for years 1988–89 and 1989–90. Information on the level of public expenditure by region in England on a consistent basis is not available prior to 1987–88.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to conduct an annual regional analysis of general Government expenditure within England.

  Mr. Portillo
  In response to a request from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee—fifth report for 1991, HC 290—a regional analysis of general Government expenditure within England is conducted annually. The results of the 1990 exercise were published in the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement", Cm 1520, and the results of the 1991 exercise were published in the "Statistical Supplement to the 1991 Autumn Statement", Cm 1521. The results of the 1992 exercise will be published in the "Statistical Supplement to the 1992 Autumn Statement".

  Financial Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each of the years 1974–75 to 1992–93 (planned),(a) in market price and (b) in constant prices (i) gross domestic product and (ii) public sector borrowing requirement, (1) including privatisation receipts and (2) excluding privatisation receipts, (iii) general Government expenditure, as defined in United Kingdom accounts, (iv) general Government receipts, as defined in United Kingdom accounts, (v) general Government expenditure, as defined in the European system of integrated accounts, (vi) general Government receipts, as defined in the European system of integrated accounts, (vii) borrowing as defined in the European system of integrated accounts, (viii) (ii) (1) and (2) as a percentage of (i) and (ix) (vii) as a percentage of (i).

  Mr. Portillo
  Most of the figures requested are available from the CSO database, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library. The identifiers are as follows:

  Identifier

  (a) GDP at current prices

  CAOB

  (b) GDP at constant market prices

  CAOO

  (c) PSBR including privatisation receipts

  ABEN

  (d) PSBR excluding privatisation receipts

  ABII

  (e) General government expenditure United Kingdom definition

  ABAB

  (f) General government expenditure, ESA definition

  see table

  (g) General government receipts, ESA definition

  see table

  (h) General government borrowing, ESA definition

  CSNK

  Items (c) to (h) are not available at constant prices.

  Items (f), (g) and (h) are available only for calendar years.

  General Government total receipts and expenditure on ESA definitions are not available on the database and are shown in the table.

  Forecasts for 1992–93 for gross domestic product, the public sector borrowing requirement, and general Government expenditure as defined in United Kingdom accounts were published in the 1992–93 Financial Statement and Budget Report in March. A revised forecast will be published in the autumn statement. There are no forecasts made on ESA definitions.
  464

  On ESA definitions: General government

  Receipts

  Payments

  (f)

  (g)

  1974

  56,702

  53,524

  1975

  76,442

  71,438

  1976

  89,524

  83,355

  1977

  97,516

  92,554

  1978

  110,410

  102,999

  1979

  127,123

  120,674

  1980

  156,531

  148,431

  1981

  181,710

  171,493

  1982

  194,156

  186,214

  1983

  211,558

  201,373

  1984

  226,991

  214,156

  1985

  240,509

  230,250

  1986

  255,840

  245,137

  1987

  269,908

  264,257

  1988

  288,880

  289,750

  1989

  310,317

  310,041

  1990

  350,391

  341,582

  1991

  383,220

  367,150

  These series are only calculated for calendar years. Forecasts are not available.

  Debt in Africa
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions on alleviating debt in Africa were held at the annual International Monetary Fund and World bank meetings in Washington in September.

  Mr. Nelson
  Discussions at the annual International Monetary Fund and World bank meetings in September covered the international debt strategy. Ministers welcomed the enhanced debt relief extended to the poorest and most heavily indebted countries by the Paris club, including to date the African countries of Benin, Equatorial Guinea, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda and Zambia, and urged the Paris club to recognise the special situation of some highly indebted lower-middle income countries on a case by case basis. The Paris club was also invited to maintain its continuing review of the debt strategy.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the target times within which Treasury Ministers aim to reply to letters sent to them by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents.

  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set the following targets for replies to ministerial correspondence:

  Letters for ministerial reply on matters concerning Her Majesty's Treasury: Reply to be posted within 15 working days.

  Letters for ministerial reply on matters concerning other Chancellor's Departments, including Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise: Reply to be posted within 18 working days.

  Letters for ministerial reply on matters requiring a report from a local Inland Revenue tax office: Reply to be posted within 23 working days.

  These targets come into operation from Monday, 2 November. The targets will be kept under review. Details of the extent to which they have been met will be published in the Chancellor's Department's departmental report.

  BCCI
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number of claims made to the deposit protection board by former depositors of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International by(a) number and (b) value; and how many are still to be processed.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 22 October 1992]: I understand that at 19 October 1992 some 16,500 claims had been lodged with the board. Of these some 5,500 claims are with the liquidators awaiting proof of debt forms to be lodged, and some 1,500 claims are in course of payment or awaiting responses to inquiries. No details are maintained of the total value of claims.

WALES

  Dentists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Danish dentists he proposes to allow to complete their training in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is not a matter in which the Secretary of State has any specific remit. The General Dental Council is responsible for determining the eligibility of EC qualified dental practitioners for employment in the United Kingdom, whether in training grades or as independent practitioners.

  Promotional World Tour
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each private or voluntary body or association or private individual from Wales or elsewhere in the United Kingdom associated by arrangement with either his Department, the Welsh Development Agency or the Wales tourist board with the current Wales promotional world tour; and if he will specify to which event on which leg of the tour the arrangement has been made.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My recent inward investment mission involved representatives of the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as well as many individuals in the companies concerned.

  Radioactive Substances
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has regarding the breaches of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 by Xidex (UK) Ltd. of Brynmawr, Gwent.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, the chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—HMIP—is responsible for deciding in which cases prosecution action may be appropriate. My right hon. Friend and I were informed of legal action planned by the inspectorate against Xidex (UK) Ltd. and the reasons for it.

  "Think Globally, Act Locally"
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of the Government booklet "Think Globally, Act Locally" issued in September, have been distributed in Wales; and what criteria have been adopted in drawing up the distribution list.
  466
  Mr. David Hunt
  This Department of the Environment booklet is being given a wide circulation throughout the United Kingdom. It is expected to be of general interest and DOE's initial circulation has included some 300 copies to local government, libraries, environmental groups, Members of Parliament and others in Wales.

  Environmental Research
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish his Department's study of environmental research priorities in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As is made clear in the Welsh chapter of "This Common Inheritance—The Second Year Report", this is an internal review of the Welsh Office's environmental research programme. I will be considering whether and in what form the review, when completed, might be published.

  Panteg
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department has spent to date funding the survey of polychlorinated biphenol contamination in Panteg, to which reference is made in chapter 18, paragraph 13.21 of Britain's Environmental Strategy, Cm 2068.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of £159,000.

  Nuclear Plants
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will invite European Commission safety inspectors to evaluate the radiation protection arrangements in place at the Wylfa and Trawsfyndd nuclear plants under the provisions of article 35 of the Euratom treaty.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The United Kingdom Government have agreed with the European Commission the procedures to be followed in carrying out, under article 35 of the Euratom treaty, verifications of the operation and efficiency of environmental monitoring facilities in the United Kingdom. It is for the Commission in the first instance to indicate which monitoring facilities it would wish to visit under these arrangements; it has not yet made any formal requests to so so.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in resolving the dispute over the allocation of EC RECHAR funds in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There is no dispute. The RECHAR programme for south Wales was adopted by the European Commission in February. A package of projects to take up most of the available funds has been agreed in principle by the programme co-ordinating committee. Full applications are now being assessed, and I anticipate that the first formal approvals will take place well before the end of the year.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if plans by the National Grid Company and the Irish Electricity Supply Board to develop an interconnector link between Ynys Môn and north Dublin are subject to European environmental impact directives.
  467
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Proposals for the transmission of electrical energy, other than by overhead cable, are not subject to directive 85/337/EEC which covers the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made to date with his departmental commitment to promote environmental education in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Environmental education has been given a place in the curriculum of all primary and secondary schools as a result of the introduction of the national curriculum. It is an integral element in a number of subjects including science, geography, history and technology. The Curriculum Council for Wales is currently producing guidance for schools on environmental education as a cross-curricular theme and this will be circulated to schools shortly.

  The Curriculum Council for Wales and the Countryside Council for Wales have held a joint conference on practical ways of teaching environmental education in schools and a successful environmental competition has been held for schools in Wales.

  An expert committee on environmental education in further and higher education has been set up to look at the provision of environmental education and will be reporting to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and my right hon. Friend shortly.

  Coal
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what calculations he has made of the effect upon the Welsh economy and communities of coal mine closures since 1984.

  Mr. David Hunt
  While I appreciate the immediate difficulties for individuals and communities that the closure of coal mines presents, over the past decade we have been able to diversify the Welsh economy to a point where it is much stronger and more resilient rather than being over-dependent on a small number of sectors as was the case in the past.

  Contaminated Land Register
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact on land values of the implementation of the contaminated land register in Wales under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In drawing up its revised proposals for contaminated land registers, the Government have sought to take account of the possible consequences for land values in England and Wales. This aspect will be considered further however, along with other relevant issues, in the light of the responses to the recent consultation exercise.

  NHS Trust Unit
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants of which grade work(a) full-time and (b) part of their time within the NHS trust unit within
  468
  his Department, and what is its estimated total establishment cost in the current financial year and next financial year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The complement of the Department's NHS trust unit consists of four full-time civil servants:

  Number

  Grade 7

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  1

  Executive Officer

  1

  Administrative Officer

  1

  Estimated total establishment cost for the current financial year amounts to £127,191. Figures for the next financial year are not available.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales(1) what tonnage of household waste is produced in each local authority area in Wales;

  (2) how many household waste landfill sites there are in each local authority area in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is available only from district councils which have responsibilities for investigations of controlled waste arising in their areas and for the licensing of disposal sites.

  Baglon Hospital Site, Port Talbot
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what effects have been undertaken by his Department to(a) research the quality of soil for heavy metal contamination, (b) consider the level of legal waste disposal and illegal tipping in the vicinity and (c) research the effect of toxic deposits in water-courses and emission levels into the air prior to the development of the Baglon hospital site in Port Talbot.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The interdepartmental committee on the redevelopment of contaminated land has published guidance on the assessment and remedial measures for these types of site. West Glamorgan health authority which has full responsibility for the new hospital scheme, are expected to follow these guidelines. There is also a statutory responsibility on the local planning authority under the planning and building regulation procedures to satisfy itself before approval to proceed is given that the proposal takes proper account of any contamination that may exist.

  Development of Contaminated Land
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are taken by his Department prior to the building of new hospitals in Wales, to(a) research the quality of the soil for possible contamination, (b) monitor the level of toxic emissions into the locality, (c) measure toxic deposits into the watercourse of the locality and (d) research the level of risk from localised waste disposal and tipping, both illegal and legal.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Welsh Office circular 22/87 provides guidance about the development of contaminated land. Responsibility for assessing whether land is suitable for hospital building, including whether it is contaminated,
  469
  rests primarily with the health authority concerned. The local planning authority also has a statutory duty under the planning and building regulations to satisfy itself before approval to proceed with any scheme is given that the proposal takes proper account of any contamination that may exist.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sites of special scientific interest in Wales have been damaged by(a) acid rain and (b) other agricultural damage in 1991; what are the names and locations of these sites and the total number of hectares; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are now 845 sites of special scientific interest in Wales. In 1991, 42 sites were subject to some damage from agricultural practices. Between 1988 and 1992, 41 freshwater sites were subject to some damage from acidification. Of these 83 sites, six have been subject to some damage from agriculture and acidification. Data on acidification to dry land sites should be available next year. I have placed copies containing details of these sites in the Library of the House.

  Exam papers (Welsh Language)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of students who submitted exam papers in Welsh in 1991; what was the cost of having these papers translated into English; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The latest available statistics from the Welsh Joint Education Committee show that in 1991 a total of 1,093 candidates submitted Welsh medium papers for A/AS level and 9,679 for GCSE examinations. There are no costs to students associated with translation as schools choose to enter candidates through either the medium of Welsh or English.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to review the system whereby students submitting certain exam papers in Welsh in the coming school year will have to pay to have them translated into English; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The principal examining body for GCSE and A-level examinations in Wales is the Welsh Joint Education Committee—WJEC. There are no translation costs, as examination papers submitted by pupils in the medium of Welsh are marked by the WJEC's Welsh-speaking examiners and are not translated into English.

  Urbanised Land
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares of land in Wales have become urbanised so far this year; if he will give comparable figures for 1989, 1990 and 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A limited amount of information on land-use change is provided by statistics derived from records compiled by Ordnance Survey during the course of its map revision work. A large proportion of changes of use are not collected until some time after the year of 470
  change, resulting in substantial time lags before there are adequate data to estimate total change occurring during a particular year. The latest available data suggest that between 1985–87, the average recorded net change of land from rural to urban use in Wales was 560 hectares per year. Information for later years is not available.

  Fishguard
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received to his consultative paper on assisted areas advocating the creation of development area status for the Fishguard travel-to-work area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Five.

  Japanese
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many teachers qualified to teach the Japanese language are currently employed by local education authorities and teaching in(a) secondary schools to GCSE level and (b) in sixth forms to A-level; and if he will make a statement on the teaching of Japanese in Welsh schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on teachers qualified to teach Japanese is not available.

  We have continued to promote the teaching of Japanese in schools in Wales through the Japanese in schools initiative launched in 1989. The initiative has established a sixth-form course of study and assessment scheme accredited by the Welsh Joint Education Committee and has supported teaching of Japanese in 14 schools participating in the initiative.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received in total to his consultation paper on assisted areas; and how many of these representations advocated(a) the creation of further development areas, (b) the creation of further intermediate areas, (c) the maintenance of the status quo, (d) the reduction of development areas and (e) the reduction of intermediate areas.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received 76 representations. Of these, 35 argue for the creation of further development areas; four advocate creation of further intermediate areas; and 37 are in favour of the status quo. I have received no requests for a reduction in assisted areas of either status.

  The division of representations does not correspond to the overall number received because a proportion of the submissions make a case for more than one travel-to-work area; others do not argue for or against any particular area, but confine their comments to the review itself.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in his review of assisted area status, how many submissions from within each Welsh constituency he has received; if he will extend the period for receiving submissions in relation to the current review of assisted area status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received 76 representations on the assisted areas review, the majority of which are from
  471
  local authorities. In most cases, the areas covered by these local authorities overlap constituency boundaries and it is not possible, therefore, to provide the information in the form requested.

  The deadline for receipt of representations from the various interested bodies was 30 September. This gave consultees nearly four months in which to respond. A few organisations gave us advance notice that they might over reach the deadline by a few days and we have, therefore, made allowances. In view of the number of representations already received, I do not believe it is necessary to extend the deadline.

  The information contained in the representations is currently being considered and we hope to be able to make a decision on the review by the end of the year.

  Power Station, Trawsfynydd
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the magnox power station at Trawsfynydd.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The nuclear installations inspectorate is currently examining Nuclear Electric's revised safety case for a resumption of electricity generation. The station will resume operations only if the nuclear installations inspectorate is entirely satisfied that it is safe to do so.

  Town and Community Councils
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to review the working of German communes—community councils—as part of his study into the role and function of town and community councils in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No, but I would be happy to receive any observations on such matters which the hon. Gentleman might wish to make.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many responses he has received to his Department's consultation paper on town and community councils; and how many of these advocate an enhanced representational role for the councils.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received 353 responses to the consultation paper. The detailed analysis of these responses is continuing, but, of those which have been examined, most support an enhanced representational role for local councils.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of Welsh farmers are included in the less-favoured area scheme; what is the average income of Welsh farmers included under this scheme; what is the average income of farmers under this scheme in the EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A total of 69 per cent. of Welsh farmers farm in the less-favoured area. They benefit from a wide range of support measures including hill livestock compensatory allowance, sheep and suckler cow premia and capital grants which together are worth over £123 million annually.

  The net income of Welsh farmers included under these schemes—averaged over the three years 1988–89 to 1990–91—is £10,200. Comparable income figures are not available for the EC.
  472
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average income of Welsh farmers under the less favoured area scheme in 1990, 1991; and what is expected in 1992.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Net farm income figures of LFA livestock farms for the years 1989–90 and 1990–91 were £10,100 and £7,600 respectively—Welsh Office press notice of 16 January 1992. Provisional results for 1991–92 suggest that incomes on these holdings have risen to around £11,600.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is(a) the number of coalminers in Wales who will be made redundant under recent closure plans, (b) the average number of tons per month produced by Welsh collieries and (c) the average comparable number in English collieries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  (a) Both Taff Merthyr and Betws collieries are due to close at the end of the 90-day statutory consultation period. This will result in the loss of approximately 500 jobs.

  (b) Based on the actual saleable outputs for the six months to the end of September 1992, the four Welsh collieries mined in total an average of 156,785 tonnes per month giving an average output per colliery of 39,196 tonnes.

  (c) During the same period the 45 English collieries mined in total an average of 4,636,149 tonnes per month giving an average output per colliery of 103,026 tonnes.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the freedom from closure of Tower colliery at Hirwaun, Mid Glamorgan over the next two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have been told by the chairman of British Coal that there are no plans to close this colliery.

  Dairy Farms
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of sampling visits to dairy farms in Wales by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in 1990, 1991 and 1992; what is the projected charge for 1993; and what is the criteria for any change of the charge.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On the basis of the latest information available, the cost in 1992 will be about £30,000. Separate figures for Wales are not available for 1990 and 1991. Charges are based on financial years and the proposed charge for 1992–93 is £63. The charge for 1993–94 will be decided prior to 1 April 1993. The objective of the charge is to recover the full cost of sampling and testing work; thus, any change to the level would be to reflect the effectiveness of meeting that objective.

  Valleys Programme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the annual spending totals for each year on the valleys programme since its inception.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The annual spending totals on the relevant central Government programmes for each year of the valleys programme since its inception are:
  473

  Financial year

  £ million

  1988–89

  139.330

  1989–90

  137.440

  1990–91

  148.810

  1991–92

  1171.033

  1 Estimated outturn.

  Economic Council
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish full details of the composition and structure of the Economic Council for Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As I announced to the House on 19 October, I issued on that day a consultation paper on the proposed Welsh economic council. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from National Power regarding the proposal to burn orimulsion at Pembroke power plant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. In order to proceed with its plans to burn orimulsion at Pembroke power station, National Power requires permission from the Department of Trade and Industry and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—HMIP—under the Electricity Act 1989 a nd the Environmental Protection Act 1990 respectively. No decisions have been taken; but I understand that HMIP has recently indicated to the company that it does not consider that orimulsion could be burnt at Pembroke without further measures to protect the environment.

  Point of Ayr Colliery
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make an early visit to the Point of Ayr colliery to meet management and unions.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I had several meetings on the subject of the Point of Ayr colliery on 23 October 1992, but I have no immediate plans to visit the colliery again.

HEALTH

  Central Health Monitoring Unit
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers she has to ensure that trusts and other providers of health care share information with the central health monitoring unit, regardless of commercial confidentiality; and what examples there have been of providers refusing to co-operate in statistical surveys initiated by the central health monitoring unit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Secretary of State has particular powers under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to require trusts to provide whatever information she requires to discharge her responsibilities. Information from the national health service is agreed through a joint Department of Health/national health service consultative committee and there is accountability through the management chain for 474
  the provision of that information from providers and purchasers of health care in the national health service. There have been no problems with the exchange of information.

  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what kind of data the central health monitoring unit is collecting; and what use it is currently making of such information;

  (2) what level of resources, including staffing, is being allocated to the central health monitoring unit;

  (3) if she intends to publish regularly the data collected by the central health monitoring unit;

  (4) if she will outline the role of the central health monitoring unit; and if she will make a statement detailing its current workload and its plans for future projects.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The central health monitoring unit was set up in March 1989 to provide the Department with epidemiological data to underpin its strategic. managerial and policy work. The unit, which is headed by a medical epidemiologist, comprises 12 posts including epidemiological, statistical and administrative support.

  A major function of the unit is to collate published statistics on health from a wide range of sources and to assess and present health trends in, for example, mortality, morbidity and risk factors. The health survey for England, a survey being taken forward by the unit, involves the collection of information from individual households and the results will be published annually.

  The unit is currently engaged in producing a series of epidemiological overviews on various aspects of the health of the population; in developing a health survey programme; and, in contributing to the development and monitoring of the health strategy. The series of overviews is being published. The first, on the elderly, was published in September 1992. Other assessments of health trends by the unit are published in the chief medical officer's annual reports.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to provide for free eye tests for people under the age of 40 years where(a) there is a family history of glaucoma and (b) they are from communities at greater risk from glaucoma than others.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have no current plans to alter the present categories of those eligible for free sight tests.

  Needles (Diabetics)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) of 13 July,Official Report, column 513, if she has now decided to make Novopen needles for diabetics available by prescription from general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are continuing to consider the case for authorising general practitioners to prescribe both insulin injection pens and needles but, in reaching a final decision, we shall need to take into account current public expenditure constraints.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the timing and scope of her proposed new regulations covering food handlers and food hygiene qualifications.

  Mr. Sackville
  We expect to issue a consultation document, as announced in July, before the end of the year on draft regulations which would require food businesses to train, instruct and supervise their staff in food hygiene commensurate with their task in the preparation or handling of food.

  Interleukin-6
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether she will set out the role of Mr. Stuart Ingham, then the district general manager of Leeds Western health authority, in the investigation into the alleged fraud at the Leeds general infirmary in 1989 in relation to the research project on Interleukin-6; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) whether she will set out the role of Coopers and Lybrand in the investigation into the alleged fraud at the Leeds general infirmary in 1989 in relation to the research project on Interleukin-6; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The 1989 inquiry considered Dr. Chapman's allegations concerning a consultancy arrangement between a Belgian pharmaceutical company and the head of the bio-chemistry department at Leeds general infirmary. A separate inquiry into Dr. Chapman's allegations concerning research into Interleukin-6 was conducted by the university of Leeds earlier this year and further inquiries are currently under way.

  Mr. Stuart Ingham, as district general manager of the then Leeds Western health authority, was responsible for the day-to-day running of the authority. Mr. Ingham had no direct role in the 1989 investigation which was carried out by a Member of Coopers and Lybrand staff and, with their agreement, a professionally qualified auditor of the then Leeds Western health authority who was responsible to the authority's director of finance.

  The 1989 investigation did not substantiate the allegations made by Dr. Chapman. This investigation has recently been reviewed by a partner in Coopers and Lybrand, who had not been previously involved. He concluded that the findings of the 1989 report were justified and that there would be little merit in reopening the investigation.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate has been made as to the financial loss to the national health service of the fraud in 1988–89 with the Interleukin-6 research project at the Leeds general infirmary; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Interleukin-6 research project is currently the subject of further inquiries by the university of Leeds. Until that inquiry is concluded there are no grounds for supposing that there has been an avoidable loss of funds to the national health service. Research cannot be expected always to result in a usable product or testing process.

  Ethical Standards
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to write again on ethical standards in medical research, as promised in her letter of 15 July to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Member on 20 October 1992 following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's letter of 15 July 1992.

  Smoking
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the health education authority's estimate of the number of premature deaths caused by smoking in the past year in the Stoke-on-Trent, North constituency; and what action she will take to reduce the number of such premature deaths in the future.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Health Education Authority estimates that, in the Stoke-on-Trent, North constituency, 225 people die each year because of smoking. The White Paper "Health of the Nation" commits us to ambitious targets to reduce smoking and sets out a detailed strategy to achieve them including action on price, health education and ensuring effective controls on advertising. It also sets out the key role of health authorities in leading action to improve the health of local people including action to reduce smoking.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the latest estimates by the Registrar-General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each district council area and parliamentary constituency in England and Wales, together in each case with the equivalent year's electoral registration figures.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information has been placed in the Library. The Registrar-General's provisional mid-1991 estimates of residents aged 17 years and over plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years in each local authority area of England and Wales are compared with roughly corresponding 1992 electorate figures. These population estimates are the first to be based upon information collected in the 1991 census. They include an allowance for census under-enumeration. There are no similar population estimates for parliamentary constituencies.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (I) if she will review her policy towards small residential and nursing homes to make it easier for bona fide private sector owners to register and operate homes with four or fewer beds;

  (2) if she will consider allowing discretion to local officers to register small residential and nursing homes with four or fewer beds in rural areas where inadequate numbers of beds are available in the public sector;

  (3) if she will make a statement outlining the reasons for refusing to register residential and nursing homes in the private sector with four or fewer beds.
  477
  Mr. Yeo
  All independent nursing homes, whatever their size, are required to register with the health authority in whose area they fall.

  At present private and voluntary residential care homes with fewer than four residents in need of care—small homes—are exempt from the registration requirement of the Registered Homes Act 1984. This exemption will be removed when the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 comes into force on 1 April 1993.

  The only ground on which a local authority will be able to refuse to register someone liable to register in respect of a small home will be that that person or someone else involved in running the home is unfit to do so. This lighter regulatory approach is further reflected in the Residential Care Homes (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1992 which were laid on 21 September 1992.

  Neither the Registered Homes Act nor the Department's guidance to local authorities differentiates between homes in rural and other areas. But they do provide scope for account to be taken of the particular circumstances of each home and the needs of its residents.

  Nutrient-based Products
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many product licence applications have been(a) received and (b) refused for nutrient-based products since 1 January 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding plans by South Birmingham health authority to close the Broad street site of the Royal orthopaedic hospital in Birmingham in advance of the completion of the formal consultation period; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for the West Midlands regional health authority and we have not received any such representations.

  Community Services, Birmingham
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the budget of the East Birmingham district health authority was spent on community services during 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  Details of health authority budgets are not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Nigel Thompson, chairman of East Birmingham health authority, for details.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of preparing NHS trust applications(a) nationally, (b) by region and (c) by district for the whole NHS trust programme to date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of employing management 478
  consultants and private agencies to assist in the preparation of self-governing trust applications (a) nationally, (b) by region and (c) by district for the whole programme to date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, West,Official Report, 18 May, column 63, if she will break down the details for expenditure on NHS trusts by (a) region and (b) district.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Expenditure on trusts is made centrally; to regional health authorities; and to trusts themselves through district health authorities. The information is shown in the table:

  Total expenditure on national health service trusts by region

  First wave

  Second wave

  Third wave

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  £'000s

  £'000s

  1£'000s

  Northern

  663

  1,590

  132

  Yorkshire

  651

  1,578

  192

  Trent

  651

  2,630

  204

  East Anglian

  434

  789

  120

  North West Thames

  892

  3,873

  151

  North East Thames

  1,314

  2,139

  187

  South East Thames

  265

  2,174

  194

  South West Thames

  1,531

  801

  84

  Wessex

  868

  1,841

  120

  Oxford

  217

  1,351

  108

  South Western

  1,953

  2,367

  84

  West Midlands

  868

  1,578

  192

  Mersey

  1,736

  2104

  84

  North Western

  434

  1,506

  84

  Other2

  230

  279

  164

  TOTAL

  12,470

  26,600

  2,100

  1 Denotes spending to date.

  2Denotes central spending not allocated through regions.

  Expenditure on NHS Trusts by district—first wave

  Health Authority

  Amount

  £000

  Northern

  Newcastle

  380

  Yorkshire

  Bradford

  190

  Leeds Eastern

  190

  Leeds Western

  190

  Trent

  Doncaster

  190

  North Lincolnshire

  190

  Sheffield

  190

  East Anglian

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  190

  Norwich

  190

  North West Thames

  Parkside

  190

  North Herts

  190

  Hillingdon

  380

  North East Thames

  Tower Hamlets

  190

  Hampstead

  190

  Haringey

  190

  Bloomsbury

  380

  Southend

  190

  479

  Health Authority

  Amount

  £000

  South East Thames

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  190

  South West Thames

  Croydon

  380

  Kingston and Esher

  190

  Mid Surrey

  190

  Merton and Sutton

  190

  North West Surrey

  190

  South West Surrey

  190

  Wessex

  Bath

  190

  West Dorset

  570

  Oxford

  Oxfordshire

  190

  South Western

  Bristol and District

  380

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  380

  Somerset

  380

  Cheltenham and District

  190

  Torbay

  190

  West Midlands

  Mid Staffordshire

  380

  Rugby

  190

  Walsall

  190

  Mersey

  Wirral

  190

  Liverpool

  760

  Crewe

  190

  Halton

  190

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  190

  North Western

  South Manchester

  190

  Central Manchester

  190

  Expenditure on NHS Trusts by district—second wave

  Health Authority

  Amount £000

  Northern

  South Tees

  452

  Gateshead

  226

  North Tees

  226

  Northumberland

  226

  Newcastle

  226

  Yorkshire

  Bradford

  226

  Airedale

  226

  Northallerton

  226

  Scarborough

  226

  York

  226

  Harrogate

  226

  Trent

  Doncaster

  226

  Bassetlaw

  226

  Nottingham

  452

  South Lincolnshire

  226

  Rotherham

  226

  Barnsley

  226

  Sheffield

  678

  East Anglian

  East Suffolk

  226

  West Norfolk

  226

  Huntingdon

  226

  North West Thames

  North Bedfordshire

  226

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  226

  480

  Health Authority

  Amount £000

  Ealing

  226

  South Bedfordshire

  452

  North West Hertfordshire

  452

  Harrow

  226

  East Hertfordshire

  226

  Parkside

  294

  Barnet

  452

  Hillingdon

  452

  North East Thames

  Basildon and Thurrock

  226

  Mid Essex

  452

  North East Essex

  678

  Waltham Forest

  226

  City and Hackney

  23

  Southend

  226

  South East Thames

  Brighton

  226

  Camberwell

  23

  Eastbourne

  226

  Hastings

  226

  Maidstone

  226

  Bromley

  226

  West Lambeth

  249

  Dartford and Gravesham

  226

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  226

  South West Thames

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  226

  North West Surrey

  452

  Wessex

  Bath

  904

  East Dorset

  678

  Oxford

  Aylesbury Vale

  226

  East Berkshire

  452

  Milton Keynes

  452

  South Western

  Bristol and District

  678

  Bristol and Western

  226

  Gloucester

  226

  Plymouth

  226

  Exeter

  452

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  226

  West Midlands

  Mid Staffordshire

  226

  Coventry

  226

  Herefordshire District

  226

  South Warwickshire

  226

  South East Staffordshire

  226

  East Birmingham

  226

  Mersey

  Wirral

  226

  Liverpool

  452

  South Sefton

  678

  Southport and Formby

  226

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  226

  North Western

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  226

  Rochdale

  226

  Oldham

  226

  West Lancashire

  226

  Lancaster

  452

  Child Care Schemes
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children were on holiday child care schemes in each year since 1979; and, of those, which were provided by local authorities and the voluntary sector, respectively;

  (2) how many children were receiving out-of-school child care in each year since 1979; and, of those, which were provided by local authorities and voluntary agencies, respectively.

  Mr. Yeo
  The inspection and registration of day care services for young children under the Children Act 1989, is a matter for the Department of Health. Information about the number of children under five provided with day care by local authorities and the numbers of local authority registered and exempt day care places is published in "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March …, England". The most recent publication is for 1991. A copy is available in the Library.

  New information on the number of children on the register of local authority out of school clubs and the numbers of local authority, registered and exempt places in out-of-school clubs and on holiday play schemes will be issued during 1993.

  The Department is currently funding an initiative to encourage the development of out-of-school care and I understand that work is well under way in the Department of Employment towards its new initiative to promote additional out-of-school schemes.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Passengers Charter
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect the rail passengers charter has had on British Rail's performance to date.

  Mr. Roger Freeman
  Published performance figures show that many of British Rail's lines have shown improvements in punctuality and reliability since the passengers charter was published on 4 March. The latest results show that 13 out of 15 network SouthEast route groups are now achieving or exceeding their 1992 charter standards for punctuality.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State 'for Transport if he will make a statement about progress on the crossrail link in London.

  Mr. Norris
  A Bill for the construction of crossrail was deposited in Parliament in November 1991 and is currently awaiting its Second Reading.

  Cyclists' Touring Club
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of the Cyclists' Touring Club to discuss road safety.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Officials and Ministers at the Department have regular contact with the Cyclists Touring Club through meetings and correspondence covering a broad range of issues. I last met with the CTC in July this year.

  Traffic Speeds
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial assistance he plans for 1992 to assist local authorities to reduce traffic speeds in residential streets.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  For 1992–93 over £42 million has been earmarked for local safety schemes, an increase of 38 per cent. over last year. Schemes to save road casualties by reducing traffic speeds in residential areas are eligible for transport supplementary grant.

  International Flights
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to liberalise transatlantic air services and encourage more international flights from regional airports.

  Mr. Norris
  In the past seven years, we have seen a 40 per cent. increase in the number of international routes served from regional airports. British Airways has recently proposed new routes from Manchester and Birmingham to the States. Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of state and the US Secretary for Transportation are taking a close interest in the progress of liberalisation talks. Difficult issues remain but work on them has been accelerated.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the effect of red routes on community life in London.

  Mr. Norris
  Communities along the pilot red route corridor have benefited from a 17 per cent. reduction in accidents, 11 new or improved crossing places for pedestrians and three for cyclists, 107 side road entries made safer, traffic calming measures in the surrounding area, 620 new free short term parking spaces, and faster and more reliable bus services including a new express service.

  Aviation Package
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has made further progress in the matters arising from the third aviation package.

  Mr. Norris
  The third air transport liberalisation package will come into effect on 1 January 1993. Work is now in hand to make the necessary changes to existing United Kingdom legislation.

  Under the United Kingdom presidency, work is going forward on other aviation issues including airport slot allocation and state aids.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the new channel tunnel Waterloo terminal to be completed.

  Mr. Freeman
  The new international terminal at Waterloo should be completed by the summer of 1993.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made to finalise plans for the second London channel tunnel station.
  483
  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail plans to develop King's Cross as the second London Channel tunnel terminal. The King's Cross Railways Bill is currently before Parliament.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the channel tunnel high-speed rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  Currently Union Railways—British Rail's subsidiary—is refining the easterly approach route to London selected by the Government last October. It will report at the end of the year on a reference case route and local options. The Government will then decide on a preferred route for full public consultation.

  Roadbuilding (Conservation)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration is given to conservation during the building of roads.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We shall continue to ensure that environmental considerations are given full weight in the development of trunk roads.

  We take account of the possible environmental impact of proposals even before they enter the roads programme, and we maintain that high degree of consideration throughout their development. A recent example is our delaying the construction of the A20 at Dover so that the Bronze age boat could be rescued.

  British Rail
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary. of State for Transport what representations he has received on his plans for the future of British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) earlier today.

  Second Severn Crossing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the consortium constructing the second Severn crossing.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department is in frequent discussion with the concessionaire, Severn River Crossing plc, on a range of issues connected with the existing Severn bridge and the new bridge now under construction by the company.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Government support for(a) underground and (b) riverbus services to London docklands.

  Mr. Norris
  (a) the Government have supported London Underground Ltd. in developing the Jubilee line extension, which would greatly improve access to London docklands. We have not authorised the start of construction of the JLE which would take total expenditure to over £1.8 billion, while talks continue on the promised £400 million contribution from the private sector.
  484
  (b) We have consistently maintained that Riverbus is, and should remain, a private sector project.

  Bournemouth Central Station
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the restoration of Bournemouth Central station to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that British Rail hopes work on the restoration of Bournemouth station can begin in 1994, and should take about 15 months to complete.

  Class 158 Rolling Stock
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the current performance of the Regional Railway class 158 rolling stock.

  Mr. Freeman
  Any such assessment would be a matter for British Rail. I understand that the teething problems experienced on introduction of this stock have now largely been overcome.

  Pedestrian Crossings
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve pedestrian safety at pelican and zebra crossings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Although existing types of crossings have a generally good safety record, the progressive introduction of a new type, the Puffin, is intended to improve both safety and pedestrian amenity.

  A1
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the safety standards of the Al between Newcastle and Edinburgh.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A large programme of safety improvement schemes has been instigated for this section of the A1. Some of the works are complete, and others are currently under construction or in planning.

  International Transport
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made to the European Commissioner for transport concerning the designation of key international road and rail routes by the Commission; and if he will make a statement on the implications of such designation on road and rail infrastructure funding in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  Department of Transport officials take part in Commission working groups developing guidelines for road and rail networks of Community interest. In the light of this work the Commission is putting a number of proposals to the Council of Ministers for eventual decision. Projects contributing to the networks may be eligible for EC funding under the current transport infrastructure programme or a future trans-European networks programme under the Maastricht treaty.

  Under Maastricht it is in any event agreed that it will be for each member state to approve the guidelines and projects of common interest relating to its own territory.

  Motorways
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce the length of time taken by contractors to complete road works on motorways.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Under the citizens charter my Department is committed to using the lane rental form of contract on all suitable major maintenance schemes from next April. Under this scheme the contractor receives a bonus for finishing early, and incurs a charge if he is late completing the works. At present about half of all major maintenance schemes are let on a lane rental basis. These contracts are completed approximately 30 per cent. faster than works under conventional contracts. Night time and 24 hour working are used wherever it is practicable and safe to do so.

  Bypass Demonstration Project
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to draw conclusions from the bypass demonstration project.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The conclusions will be available in the form of guidance for local authorities after the project is completed in 1994. Interim progress reports will be published at six-monthly intervals. The first is due to be published in November this year.

  InterCity
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requirements he has placed on InterCity regarding the need for InterCity trains to have back-up air conditioning when the main power unit fails.

  Mr. Freeman
  The exact specification of new rolling stock is a matter for British Rail's judgment.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the recent Central Transport Consultative Committee's findings on punctuality of the West Coast main line InterCity service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Central Transport Consultative Committee commented on the performance of West Coast main line InterCity services in its 1991–92 annual report. A copy of this report has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what notice was given to Her Majesty's Government by InterCity of the changes to plans to introduce InterCity 250 trains on the West Coast main line railway, the termination of direct WCML InterCity services to Blackpool and the withdrawal of services to Shrewsbury.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail advised the Government of its plans not to proceed with the InterCity 250 project for the West Coast main line, and to withdraw InterCity through trains 10 Blackpool and Shrewsbury, in advance of their official public announcements.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the reliability of the East Coast main line services provided by InterCity since the electrification of the route; and if he will make a statement.
  486
  Mr. Freeman
  I know that BR is disappointed with the reliability of services on the East Coast main line—for the year to date, 98.9 per cent. of scheduled trains have run. BR has been experiencing initial problems with the new InterCity 225 trains but these are now being overcome. The line has also been beset by vandalism and the theft of lineside cabling, but action taken by BR and the police has been effective and the incidence of vandalism has now been reduced.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has given to InterCity regarding the safety implications of train vestibules blocked by luggage in crowded trains.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate has not given any specific guidance about the storage of luggage on InterCity trains. It is for British Rail to safeguard the safety of all its passengers and it would certainly expect its staff to respond to any situation which they considered dangerous.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with InterCity about future plans for the West Coast main line railway.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is currently re-assessing all options for replacement rolling stock on the West Coast main line. However, it hopes to start work on re-equipping the infrastructure of the line shortly.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he proposes to have with InterCity regarding the provision of European night services via the channel tunnel operating from Edinburgh and stations south of Edinburgh when the tunnel comes into operation in 1995; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for European Passenger Services and its continental partners, whose current plans include only a daytime through service on the East Coast main line from Edinburgh. A night-time service is planned from Glasgow on the West Coast main line. Levels of service will be reviewed in response to demand.

  Foreign Drivers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission a study to see whether any reduction in accidents was achieved by the experiment conducted in Northumberland to provide stickers for foreign drivers to remind them to drive on the left; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have no knowledge of any such experiment in Northumberland, although I understand that such stickers have been distributed by the police to foreign drivers in Scotland.

  Rail Fares
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the criteria by which fares are adjusted or increased by British Rail; and what input his Department has.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail take account of many factors in setting fares. These include the level of investment required to maintain and improve services, market
  487
  conditions and the quality of service. Ministers are consulted in view of their role in setting the financial framework and objectives for BR.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to increase efficiency on the London to Tilbury and Southend line; and how much fares will increase on this line on average in the new year.

  Mr. Freeman
  Work on the resignalling project for the line is progressing. British Rail believes this project to be the key to improving the reliability of the line.

  Fares on the LT&S line—other than Travelcard—will rise by 5 per cent. compared with an average of 7.5 per cent. on Network SouthEast as a whole.

  Plutonium (Air Transport)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the current safety arrangements for the air transport of plutonium following the El-Al cargo plane crash in Amsterdam.

  Mr. Norris
  The transport of radioactive materials is governed by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations. The standards are stringent. They require containers to remain secure after severe impact and severe fire.

  The IAEA keeps its standards under review, and is undertaking a study of air transport aspects. Any resulting recommendations for changes to present regulations will be considered during the next major review of IAEA transport regulations.

  Bus Fares
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce regulations to entitle all children between the ages of five and 16 years to half price bus fares.

  Mr. Freeman
  Local authorities already have powers to include children under 16 years in a concessionary fares scheme, and decisions on whether to do so are for them. In addition, bus companies are free to offer cheap fares on a commercial basis to children of any age.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effects of bus deregulation on the price of children's bus fares.

  Mr. Freeman
  No separate assessment has been made of the effects of deregulation on children's bus fares. But a recent survey by my Department showed that the proportion of districts in England and Wales in which local authorities operate concessionary fares schemes for children is broadly unchanged since deregulation.

  Rail Travel
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the cost of mainline travel from London to South Wales since 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  The level of fares on InterCity services is a matter for the commercial judgment of British Rail.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the potential private operators who have expressed an interest in operating private rail freight services over British Rail tracks.
  488
  Mr. Freeman
  There has been a number of expressions of interest in the operation of private rail freight services.

  Discussions with individual companies have been on a commercially confidential basis.

  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the potential private operators who have expressed an interest in bidding for private railway franchises.

  Mr. Freeman
  Before the issue of the consultation document on 12 October we have received expressions of interest about running franchised passenger railway services from around 50 companies. I am sure that the consultation document will engender further interest. All approaches are being treated on a confidential basis and it would be inappropriate for me to name the companies or indicate their specific interests at this stage.

  Baggage Security
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to issue a directive to all airports and airlines to implement the mandatory ICAO annex 17 (4.3.1.) baggage security standard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We are satisfied that the standard is already being met.

  Bromford Viaduct, Birmingham
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the work on the parapet rail on Bromford viaduct in Birmingham will be completed.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Bromford viaduct parapet rail refurbishment contract on the M6 between junction 5 (Castle Bromwich) and junction 6 (Gravelly Hill) is due for completion towards the end of February 1993.

  Kidderminster-Blakedovm-Hagley Bypass
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many objections to the line of the Kidderminster-Blakedown-Hagley bypass have been received by his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Some 2,700 of which 2,500 are pre-printed postcards completed by individuals in response to a campaign launched by Friends of the Earth.

  Search and Rescue Service
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to involve the helicopter service from Belgium in providing a search and rescue service over part of the Dover straits, following his announcement about the future reorganisation of the search and rescue service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  There are no plans to change the current well proven liaison arrangements between Dover coastguard and the Belgian authorities.

  Under normal circumstances, the United Kingdom's air and sea search and rescue (SAR) resources will adequately meet the requirements of marine emergencies in United Kingdom waters.

  In the event of a major incident in the Dover strait, under existing arrangements, the co-ordinating authorities of whatever nationality may call for the assistance of SAR assets from across national boundaries.

  Train Safety
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of trains are equipped with(a) black box cab data recorders, (b) train radios and (c) automatic train protection devices.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not readily available in the format requested. Information is available as follows:

  (a) Data recorders

  All trains of type 319, 321, 322 and 456 had data recorders operational by April 1992. Class 442 trains are being equipped under a retro-fit programme clue for completion in 1992–93. New trains are being delivered with data recorders, including class 159, 165 and 465 vehicles.

  (b) Train Radios

  Driver to base radio is fitted on 85 per cent. of locomotives (including all HST power units) and 56 per cent. of Pacer and Sprinter units. All electric multiple units working in the Strathclyde PTE area are fitted. NSE is reviewing how best to meet the BR board's requirements.

  (c) ATP

  20 per cent. of HST power units have been fitted with ATP. 33 per cent. of the class 165 trains to be used on the Chiltern lines have fully commissioned ATP, and work is underway on the remainder of these trains. The two pilot schemes are still being evaluated.

  British Rail
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the oral answer by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 22 June,Official Report, column 12, what work British Rail has been awaiting from the European Commission prior to revising its conditions of carriage; and when he now expects them to be published.

  Mr. Freeman
  In revising its condition of carriage, British Rail needed to take account of the emerging proposals from the EC Commission for a directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Work on revising the conditions is, however, now nearing completion, and BR hopes to publish them in December.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Children
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the latest figures showing(a) the number of children living in families with an unemployed head and (b) the number of children living in families with a long-term unemployed head.

  Mr. Burt
  At the time of the May 1991 annual statistical inquiry, there were 638,000 children living in families headed by people registered as unemployed and claiming income support.

  Figures for the number of children living in families with a long-term unemployed head are not available. The number of long-term cases of people registered as unemployed and claiming income support for themselves and for a child or children are given in the table.
  490

  May 1991 annual statistical inquiry

  Registered unemployed income support claims involving children

  Length of claim

  Number of cases

  1–2 years

  175,900

  2–3 years

  63,300

  Over 3 years

  162,500

  Note:

  (a) The number of children in families headed by people claiming Unemployment Benefit (UB) is not available as UB does not pay an addition for a child dependent.

  (b) The figures given are for children up to the age of 15.

  Household Incomes
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, based on the households below average income statistics, he will publish figures which show the rise in real income for the top decile between 1979 and the latest available year, both before and after housing costs.

  Mr. Burt
  The real increase in income for the top decile, between 1979 and 1988–89 combined, was 44 per cent. before housing costs and 46 per cent. after housing costs. These figures relate to the United Kingdom and are based on income equivalised for household size and composition.

  Mining Industry
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the range of likely liability on the expenditure of Her Majesty's Government for unemployment and social security payments for the numbers of coal miners to be made redundant under the recent proposals, on the assumption that the median period of unemployment for those concerned is six months and a year, respectively, or on other assumptions; and what formula he adopts for calculations of liability for redundancies in similar productive occupations.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 21 October, at column 331. For the same reasons, it is not possible to make estimates of redundancies in other occupations.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) families with children, (b) pensioner households and (c) other households are currently receiving housing benefit in Great Britain, identifying separately those also receiving income support, and those respectively occupying (i) council tenancies, (ii) housing association tenancies and (iii) other tenancies.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information, for May 1991, is set out in the table.

  Thousands

  Housing benefit with income support

  Housing benefit only

  Total

  Local Authority Tenants

  Families with children

  657

  147

  804

  Elderly householders

  660

  922

  1,582

  Others

  347

  212

  559

  Total

  1,664

  1,281

  2,945

  491

  Housing benefit with income support

  Housing benefit only

  Total

  Private Tenants

  Families with children

  179

  40

  218

  Elderly householders

  194

  23

  428

  Others

  301

  137

  438

  Total

  674

  411

  1,085

  Notes:

  (a) Families with children are defined as couples (both aged less than 60), with at least one dependant child; and single persons, aged less than 60, with at least one dependant child.

  (b) Pensioner householders are defined as couples where claimant or partner is aged 60 or over; and single persons aged 60 or over. These have been termed "elderly".

  (c) Other households are defined as couples (both aged less than 60), without children; and single persons aged less than 60, without children.

  (d) Housing Association tenancies are included in the figures for private tenants.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend current severe disablement allowance regulations to permit young people on youth training programmes to requalify for SDA following the completion of the placement, if the individual is deemed to be unable to enter employment either due to his/her condition or experience of disability.

  Mr. Scott
  Special linking rules already exist to help young people who are incapable of work when their youth training programme finishes. Severe disablement allowance can be reinstated providing a fresh claim is made within eight weeks of the end of the course.

  School Ancillary Staff
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take the necessary steps to change existing regulations to allow school ancillary staff to claim unemployment benefit automatically as soon as they start the long summer period during which they are unable to work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to do so. To revise the existing regulations on "recognised and customary" holidays would be contrary to the main purpose of insurance against unemployment which is to insure against a risk, rather than a certainty, of unemployment.

  Age Addition
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement outlining the Government's plans for the future of the age addition paid to retired people over the age of 80 years;

  (2) what purpose the age addition paid to retired people over the age of 80 years is supposed to serve;

  (3) if he will estimate the cost involved in administrating the age addition payment to retired people over the age of 80 years;

  (4) if he will estimate the value of the 25p age addition payment at 1992 prices assuming it had increased in line with the RPI since it was introduced;
  492
  (5) what plans he has to increase the value of the age with income benefit addition payment paid to retired people over the age of 80 support only years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The 25p age addition paid to people who are over 80 was introduced in 1971, when the single person's pension was £6 a week, as a means of special help to the very elderly. No Government have increased the age addition since its introduction. Instead we have chosen to target resources on those pensioners with low incomes and have given extra help to poorer pensioners on income-related benefits in the sum of £700 million over and above normal upratings since 1989. There are no plans to increase the value of the 25p age addition.

  Some 2.2 million people receive the age addition at an annual cost of £28.6 million. If it had been increased annually in line with prices since its introduction, it would now be worth £1.45 at an additional cost of £137 million. The 25p is added automatically to the pension on the first pay day after the pensioner's 80th birthday. There are, therefore no additional administration costs involved.

  Maxwell Pensions Unit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to increase the level of funds available to the Maxwell pensions unit;

  (2) how many applications for assistance have been received by the Maxwell pensions unit at the DSS; how many pensioners have received assistance from the unit to date; and how many have been refused;

  (3) how much of the £2.5 million allocated to the Maxwell pensions unit remains undistributed; and what estimate can be made of the funds required to meet the pensions of existing pensioners and deferred pensioners in future.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Just over £1 million has been allocated by the Department's Maxwell pensions unit in grants to the eight Maxwell-linked pension schemes who have applied for assistance. These grants have enabled pensions to be paid to some 5,500 pensioners, deferred pensioners and ill health early retirers whose payments were at risk. Grants are made to pension scheme trustees and not to individual pensioners. It is not possible to project accurately future funding requirements as these are dependent on continuing work to rebuild pension schemes. We have no plans to increase the £1.5 million which remains in the emergency fund, and we are keeping the question of its further use under review.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate the number and proportion of residents in residential homes who are denied pocket money for personal needs because it is subsumed in the cost of the weekly fees charged; and what plans he has to discuss these matters with the representatives of local authorities and bodies representing private owners of residential homes;

  (2) if he will review the circumstances in which residents of homes are provided with pocket money for personal needs to ensure disposable income is available to them; and what plans he has to make future provision for pocket money for residents in homes;
  493
  (3) if he will set up a departmental inquiry into the extent to which residents of rest homes and nursing homes are being deprived of pocket money to meet basic care costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Personal allowances are intended to be used by residents for their needs as they see best. Some residents contract for charges higher than the income support limits and may use the personal expenses allowance to meet the shortfall. The numbers using their allowance in this way is not known.

  Such matters are regularly discussed with representative bodies and we have no plans to set up an inquiry.

  From April 1993, all residents placed in residential care or nursing homes by local authorities will retain an amount for personal expenses.

  Maintenance Payments
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will consider waiving voluntary maintenance payments paid by parents who exercise long periods of access to but do not have custody of their children, while they are looking after the children for whom the maintenance payments are made.

  Mr. Burt
  A voluntary payment negotiated by the Department with the absent parent can be re-negotiated if the absent parent's circumstances change. If the absent parent feels that the amount of voluntary payment is too high because he has contact with the children for significant periods of time, he can tell the child support unit and it will consider this in negotiating a payment level with him.

  The new child support system which comes into effect on 5 April 1993 has a clear rule to provide for cases of shared care. The maintenance payable will be reduced pro rata if the absent parent satisfies the condition that the child lives with him for a total of at least 104 nights a year.

  Smoking
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the amount paid in national insurance and means-tested benefits to those rendered chronically sick, temporarily off work or long-term unemployed as a result of illness induced by smoking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available.

  Income Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the financial position of parents on income support who have long periods of access to their children as laid down in custodial orders, but who are unable to secure any support from the parent with custody during periods of access.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to review the current entitlement conditions in these circumstances. After three weeks, child benefit can be transferred from the parent who normally has custody of the child to the other parent and income support is payable as appropriate.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce an extra cost allowance for blind or partially sighted people.
  494
  Mr. Scott
  Disability living allowance, introduced this April, provides help with the extra costs of disability. The benefit is awarded on the basis of the level of help needed, rather than the medical condition giving rise to that need. The new lower rates in particular provide benefit that was not available previously under mobility allowance or attendance allowance. We expect people with impaired sight to be amongst the chief beneficiaries of the new rates.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the criteria for eligibility for disability living allowance and disability working allowance to give blind and partially sighted people access to the higher rates of the new benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Blind and partially sighted people who have care or mobility needs have equal access to disability living allowance as other disabled people, based on the level of help they need. Disability working allowance is paid according to the person's resources rather than at a set rate. We have no plans to change the eligibility criteria for either benefit.

  Standing Charges
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the current cost of abolition of all standing charges for telephones, domestic electricity and gas bills for people over the state pension age for retirement and eligible for income support; and how the estimate was arrived at.

  Mr. Burt
  It is estimated that the total cost of abolishing gas and electricity standing charges for households where at least one person is over 60 and on income support, at 1992 levels of prices and incomes, would be approximately £150 million. The total cost of abolishing telephone rental charges for these households would be about El 10 million at 1991–92 levels of prices.

  Notes:

  1. The information provided is based upon imprecise data and a series of assumptions about the level of standing charges and the numbers of households with gas, electricity and telephones.

  2. The estimate also takes no account of behaviourial and disincentive effects.

  Blind People (Benefits)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve levels of means-tested benefits available to blind or partially sighted people.

  Mr. Burt
  The income-related benefits currently have a number of features which raise the levels available to blind people. Registered blind people automatically qualify for the disability premium or higher pensioner premium in income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit on the basis of their blindness alone. A blind person who has the disability premium is able to earn up to £15 a week before their benefit is affected. In addition, where a blind person or their partner is responsible for rent or other housing costs no deductions are made in respect of any non-dependents living with them, as would otherwise be the case. These special rules do not apply to partially sighted people. They can, however, benefit from the help available to disabled people generally if they meet the standard conditions. We have no plans to change this policy.
  495
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now conduct a survey to investigate whether new benefits replacing attendance allowance and invalidity allowance for blind people are succeeding in meeting the mobility needs of blind or partially sighted people of all ages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We continue to monitor carefully awards of disability living allowance-attendance allowance for people over 65 following the introduction of the new benefits in April.

  Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will review the maximum duration of unemployment benefit disqualification.

  Mr. Burt
  While the duration of unemployment benefit disqualification is kept under review, we have no plans to change the current maximum period of 26 weeks.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the numbers of people dependent on supplementary benefit/income support in each region of the United Kingdom; and what proportion of each region's population they made up in 1979, 1987, 1988 and the latest available period.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest available information for England, Scotland and Wales is in the table.

  Number of supplementary benefit/income support claimants partners and dependants as a percentage of the population

  Number of claimants

  Number of partners

  Number of dependants

  Percentage of population receiving supplementary benefit

  1979

  England

  2,396,000

  472,000

  784,000

  8

  Scotland

  286,000

  53,000

  112,000

  9

  Wales

  172,000

  36,000

  59,000

  10

  1987

  England

  4,073,000

  909,000

  1,880,000

  14

  Scotland

  535,000

  102,000

  225,000

  17

  Wales

  287,000

  63,000

  131,000

  17

  1988

  England

  3,594,000

  696,000

  1,830,000

  13

  Scotland

  499,000

  92,000

  236,000

  16

  Wales

  259,000

  53,000

  129,000

  15

  1991

  England

  3,743,000

  647,000

  2,110,000

  14

  Scotland

  487,000

  69,000

  249,000

  See note 2

  Wales

  257,000

  46,000

  138,000

  15

  Notes:

  Source: Supplementary Benefit/Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiries 1979, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991.

  2. Percentage cannot be derived because population figures have not yet been published by the Office of Population and Census Survey.

  3. All figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. Population statistics for DSS regions are not available. Social Security information based on other definitions of United Kingdom regions also not available. The tables therefore focus on England, Scotland and Wales.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish a table showing by county the levels of unemployment in April and on 15 October.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  The latest available claimant unemployment data, released on 15 October, relate to the unemployment count date of 10 September.

  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list by parliamentary constituency the number of people in employment, both as a total number and as a percentage of those registered as available for work broken down by gender and whether employment is part time or full time.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The latest available information about employment in parliamentary constituencies is from the September 1989 census of employment and relates to employees in employment only, by gender and whether part or full time. Figures for the claimant unemployed by gender are available for the same date. This information can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women were unemployed on 10 April; and what is the current figure.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The April 1992 claimant unemployment figure relates to the position on the 9th of the month. On that date, on the consistent seasonally adjusted basis, there were 2,065,900 male and 629,400 female unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom. This compares with 2,175,200 and 668,100 respectively in September 1992.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the changes made since 1979 in calculating the number of people officially unemployed, including the date and estimated effect of each change.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In October 1982, when registration at jobcentres became voluntary and could therefore no longer provide a meaningful measure of unemployment, the monthly unemployment statistics changed from a count of jobcentre registrants to a count of claimants at Employment Service local offices. Both counts, in common with all statistics based on administrative systems, have inevitably been subject to changes in coverage whenever there have been changes to the administrative procedures on which they are based. However, these changes have been taken into account in the consistent, seasonally adjusted series published by the Employment Department.

  A list of the changes since 1979 affecting the coverage of both the former registrant series and the claimant count, together with an estimate of the numerical effect was published in an article in the December 1990 issue of Employment Gazette. A copy of this article is in the Library.

  Multiple Unemployment
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information she has on the number of families who experience multiple unemployment.
  497
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The labour force survey shows that, in spring 1992, the estimated number of families in Great Britain in which two or more people were unemployed (on the ILO definition) was 210,000. This represented 1.4 per cent. of all families in which there were at least two people aged 16 or over.

  Wages
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give the average hourly wage of male manual workers adjusted for inflation, for(a) 1974, (b) 1979, (c) 1983, (d) 1987 and (e) 1990 and 1991, respectively.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The average gross hourly earnings of full-time male manual workers, for each year requested, can be found in table 1 of part A of the "New Earnings Survey" report for that year. The data necessary to adjust these figures for inflation—that is retail prices index, all items—can be found in table 6.4 of the Employment Gazette for April 1992 and in table 26 of the annual supplement to Economic Trends for April of earlier years. Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

  Unemployment (Counselling)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed received counselling through arrangements provided or paid for by her Department in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available.

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

  Letter from Mr. A. G. Johnson to Mr. Frank Dobson, dated 26 October 1992:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer Parliamentary Questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Employment about counselling for Unemployed people.

  Through our network of local offices we now provide a structured and coherent information and advisory service which intensifies as the duration of unemployment increases. We try to ensure that all unemployed people know about, and get access to, the employment and training opportunities that are available. This process begins with an interview with one of our client advisers when a person first becomes unemployed. A review takes place at thirteen weeks for those who have not found work. If people remain unemployed, interviews are provided at six months and regular intervals thereafter under the Restart programme. In addition clients can arrange to see an adviser at any time to discuss ways of getting back to work.

  In the twelve month period ending 25 September 1992, our advisers conducted 8,170,691 counselling interviews. Of these 4,481,298 were with people making new claims to benefit, 646,540 were with people who had not found jobs after thirteen weeks out of work and 2,192,760 were under the Restart programme. The remaining 850,903 interviews were to follow up clients who were judged to need further advice to help them get back into work and with people who asked to discuss their employment prospects with an adviser.

  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Job Interview Committees
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people placed in work through the job interview committee scheme are no longer in work.

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

  Letter from Mr. A. G. Johnson to Mr. Frank Dobson, dated 26 October 1992:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mr. Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer Parliamentary Question about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Employment about the Job Interview Guarantee (JIG) initiative.

  You asked how many people placed in work through the job interview committee scheme are no longer in work. I assume the scheme that you are referring to is the Job Interview Guarantee (JIG) initiative.

  We do not collect statistics to provide the information that you ask for. To do so would require expensive tracking mechanisms as a disproportionate cost. However, we did undertake a small scale survey of JIG participants towards the end of 1991. This showed that 64 per cent. of people placed in permanent employment were still in work at the time of the survey. The majority of these would have been in employment for at least 6 months.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Mining Areas
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many extra staff are to be taken on by the Employment Service in mining areas(a) before Christmas 1992 and (b) before 31 March 1993.

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

  Letter from Mr. A. G. Johnson to Mr. Frank Dobson, dated 26 October 1992:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer parliamentary questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Employment about how many extra staff are to be taken on by the Employment Service in mining areas.

  The Employment Service will of course play its part in assisting to alleviate the problems of the newly unemployed in the mining districts by offering a full range of services. These include help in finding new employment, counselling, guiding people to training courses, and ensuring that all due benefits are paid promptly and correctly.

  However until such time as more positive information is available on where and when all the redundancies will fall I am unable to say how many extra staff will be deployed in the mining areas. I can nevertheless assure you that our regional Directors will make sufficient staff available to meet the immediate needs of the newly redundant miners.

  As decided by the Administrative Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.
  499
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether the additional sum promised to training and enterprise councils in mining areas comes from the overall training and enterprise councils budget;

  (2) what is the total additional sum promised to training and enterprise councils in areas affected by the recently announced pit closures.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  An additional £75 million has been made available in areas affected by potential colliery closures. The TECs concerned have been asked to co-ordinate action plans for new measures to alleviate the effects of closures. The net effect on TEC expenditure of this extra provision will depend on what is proposed in the action plans.

  London Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response she has made to the report prepared by Coopers and Lybrand for the London TECs on the degree of their underfunding.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has considered the case put forward in the report "London—a Capital Deficiency". Her conclusion is that this report is flawed in a number of important respects and fails to understand the basis of budget allocation for the TECs.

  Specifically, the report gives a figure of £43.3 million as the 1992–93 youth training budget whereas the budget is in fact £61.3 million. London has 8.4 per cent. of the YT budget for England and Wales, not the 5.7 per cent. which the report puts forward.

  Similarly, London has 14.4 per cent. of the total employment training budget, not the 13.3 per cent. claimed by the report.

  Nonetheless, my right hon. Friend has asked her officials to meet TEC representatives to discuss how best they can tackle some of the labour market issues raised in this report.

  Trades Union Congress
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State or Employment if she will list the occasions she has met representatives of the TUC, through British and European institutions, respectively.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the general secretary and deputy general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) on 9 June 1992.

  As President of the Council of Social Affairs Ministers, she met representatives from the European Trades Union Confederation (ETUC) on 27 July 1992 to discuss the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community. The president and general secretary of the ETUC were also present at the opening session of the informal meeting of the EC Employment and Social Affairs Ministers on 12 October 1992.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I also met representatives of the ETUC on 15 September to discuss priorities for the United Kingdom presidency.

  I also met the General Secretary of the TUC at the International Labour Organisation Conference in June 1992, and I have also had meetings with individual trade union leaders over recent months.

  Union Subscriptions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment is she will list the cases known to her Department of employers who deducted union subscriptions from the wages of their employees without their prior consent.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not keep records on this matter. However, as the Green Paper "Industrial Relations in the 1990s" (Cm 1602) pointed out, at present the payment of union subscriptions through the check-off may become part of an employee's contract of employment simply by virtue of an agreement made between the union and the employer; and there have been allegations that some employees who are not union members have nonetheless had union subscriptions deducted from their pay by check-off.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the previous Secretary of State announced in January of this year that legislation would be introduced to ensure that the deduction of union subscriptions from an employee's pay would be unlawful without the written authority of the employee.

  Public Holidays
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the public holidays in each country in the European Community including the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no standard definition of a public holiday for European Community countries. The table following gives United Kingdom bank holidays for 1992.

  Bank holidays in the United Kingdom 1992

  Date

  New Year's Day

  1 January

  Bank Holiday (Scotland)

  2 January

  St. Patrick's Day (Northern Ireland)

  17 March

  Good Friday

  17 April

  Easter Monday (except Scotland)

  20 April

  May Day Bank Holiday

  4 May

  Spring Bank Holiday

  25 May

  Battle of the Boyne (Northern Ireland)

  13 July

  Summer Bank Holiday (Scotland)

  3 August

  Summer Bank Holiday (except Scotland)

  31 August

  Christmas Day

  25 December

  Boxing Day

  26 December

  Bank Holiday

  28 December

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the current number of job vacancies in the travel-to-work areas which include the coal mines which British Coal has announced will close; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Pursuant to my answer of 20 October 1992, columns 280–81, the chief executive of the Employment Service has written further to the hon. Member.
  501
  Letter from Mr. M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Max Madden, dated 26 October 1992.

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the number of current job vacancies within the travel to work areas for the coal mines which British Coal has announced will close. This is something which falls within the responsibilities she has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Unfortunately, my reply of 20 October contained an error in the table. The Cotgrave and Claverton collieries in the Nottingham travel to work area should have read 1,174 unfilled vacancies on 2nd October. The following reply now contains the correct information.

  I attach a table showing the number of vacancies unfilled at Jobcentres on 2nd October 1992, the last statistical count date, for each of the relevant travel to work areas. All of the travel to work areas are included as requested although following the statement by the President of the Board of Trade on 19th October only 8 of these areas have a colliery now designated for closure after the statutory consultation period has been completed.

  It is not possible to provide information on the total number of job vacancies available in the labour market but it is estimated that about one third of all vacancies are notified to Jobcentres.

  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Colliery

  Travel to work area

  Number of unfilled vacancies at local Jobcentres on 2 October 1992

  Easington

  Vane Tempest

  Durham

  313

  Wearmouth

  Sunderland

  603

  Westoe

  South Tyneside

  146

  Wigan and St.

  Parkside

  Helens

  742

  Prince of Wales

  Sharlston

  Wakefield and

  Frickley

  Dewsbury

  705

  Rossington

  Bentley

  Hatfield/Thorne

  Markham Main

  Barnsley, Doncaster,

  Houghton Main

  Rotherham and

  Grimethorpe

  Mexborough

  879

  Rotherham and

  Maltby

  Mexborough

  Kiveton

  Sheffield

  1,190

  Silverhill

  Bevercotes

  Bilsthorpe

  Worksop, Alfreton

  Clipstone

  and Ashfield,

  Rufford

  Retford, Mansfield

  551

  Cotgrave

  Calverton

  Nottingham

  1,174

  Bolsover

  Markham

  Shirebrook

  Chesterfield

  352

  Trentham

  Silverdale

  Stoke

  571

  Betws Drift

  Llanelli

  351

  Shotton, Flint and

  Point of Ayr

  Rhyl

  574

  Merthyr and

  Taff Merthyr

  Rhymney

  452

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Livestock Auctioneers
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the implication of the administrative and financial practice of livestock auctioneers to hold in trust any moneys from livestock sales for the farmers whose animals had been sold in markets, and the effect of the insolvency of livestock auctioneers upon this practice.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to compensate farmers whose money for livestock sales at market had been taken in trust by livestock auctioneers facing insolvency and invested in bank accounts which were overdrawn prior to the completion of the transaction at auction.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps in the EC to ensure that the new potato regime will not adversely affect current area controls and direct intervention systems utilised in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  There is as yet no Commission proposal for a potato regime. We wish to see what the Commission proposes before taking any decisions about the future of the potato marketing scheme in Great Britain. The Government's objective under any regime will be to ensure that our growers can supply what the market needs and operate on equal terms with growers elsewhere, and in particular that the processing sector should be able to find adequate sources of potatoes in Britain.

  Rabies
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the holding period powers of local authorities in relation to dogs and the minimum incubation period of rabies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Under the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974 local authorities are given the power to seize dogs where there is reason to suspect that the dog may have been landed in contravention of the order. Animals seized may be immediately exported or detained in quarantine for six months. However, if exportation is chosen and there has been a biting or scratching incident the local authority must detain the animal for 15 days observation: an animal may become infective shortly before the disease manifests itself clinically, and it is important to establish whether there is any possibility that the rabies virus may have been introduced into Great Britain.

  Inspection Services
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department will carry out a study of the cost and staffing implications of the timing of his proposals for red and poultry meat inspection services; and if he will make a statement.
  503
  Mr. Soames
  In March this year the Government announced their intention to transfer the responsibility for meat hygiene inspection and enforcement from local authorities to a new national meat hygiene service, following a detailed independent study which looked at the financial, management, staffing and other aspects of various options. The Government will work closely with the local authorities to ensure that the new arrangements, which will be dependent on the availability of parliamentary time for the necessary primary legislation, are introduced as smoothly and cost-effectively as possible.

  Agricultural Employment
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the number of people working in industries allied to agriculture for the most recent five-year period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Curry
  I regret that the information requested is not available. Details of the number of persons employed in each primary industrial group are published monthly in the Employment Gazette.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the number of on-farm jobs that will be lost from agriculture as a result of the introduction of the 15 per cent. EC set-aside scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  The impact on farm labour of the new set-aside arrangements will depend on a range of factors, including the extent to which set-aside land is used to produce crops for non-food purposes.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of jobs in industries allied to agriculture that will be lost as a result of the introduction of the 15 per cent. EC set-aside rule.

  Mr. Curry
  It is not possible at this stage to make any realistic assessment of the likely impact of the new set-aside arrangements on industries allied to agriculture. However, we shall keep the position under careful review.

  Farm Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the representatives of companies and businesses allied to agriculture about the prospects for those businesses following reduction in farm support via the CAP; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is in regular contact with the representatives of companies and businesses allied to agriculture to discuss issues of interest to the industry including CAP reform.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for the last three years for which figures are available the total amount of subsidy paid by EC or United Kingdom budgets for each category of livestock and arable crop eligible for subsidy within the United Kingdom, showing the actual amount in cash paid to producers in each case.
  504
  Mr. Curry
  Table 9.1 of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom: 1991", a copy of which is available in the Library, gives details of public expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies. The main livestock and arable aid payments are in section I and IV of the table. A breakdown of payments between producers and other recipients is not available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the total cost of the administration, monitoring and enforcement costs of the United Kingdom and EC departments responsible for paying farm subsidies over the last three years, showing each figure as a percentage of the total subsidies and a percentage of the subsidies actually received by producers.

  Mr. Curry
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Energy-producing Crops
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to provide schemes to grow crops that can produce energy.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the new EC arable area payments scheme which comes into operation this year, growers will be able to claim area or set-aside payments on land used to produce eligible crops for a range of non-food uses, including biofuels and crops for direct combustion.

  Short rotation coppice is eligible for establishment grants under the woodland grant scheme, which is operated by the forestry authority. Grants are also available under the farm and conservation grant scheme to help farmers meet the cost of straw and coppiced wood burning boilers and furnaces for their farms.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates have been made of the financial cost to the livestock producing industry of reducing the maximum permitted transport time to eight hours.

  Mr. Soames
  I am not aware of any such estimates. British legislation requires livestock in transport to be offered food and water at intervals not exceeding 15 hours. These arrangements have served us well. In EC discussions we shall be seeking to persuade the Community to adopt rules which reflect our own high standards.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having with the groups involved in the consequences of transportation of live animals.

  Mr. Soames
  We have regular discussions with a wide range of interested bodies about the transportation of live animals.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what steps he is taking to ensure adequate inspection, lairage and rest for animals in transit;

  (2) if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's position on the transportation of live animals within the EC, indicating where the United Kingdom Government's position is different from the current EC directive.
  505
  Mr. Soames
  The Export of Animals (Protection) Order 1981 provides for inspection and rest, at an approved portal lairage, for food animals exported from Britain. This order also implements the current EC directive on the protection of animals during international transport. These arrangements are due to be superseded by a new directive which needs to be supplemented by additional rules on which Commission proposals are awaited.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the number of live animals exported from the United Kingdom to the EC over the last five years for each type of livestock transported.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of live animals that have been exported from the United Kingdom to other member states of the EC over the last five years can be found in the annual volumes of the "Overseas Trade Statistics for the United Kingdom", copies of which are in the House of Commons Library. Details of their classification within SITC 00 can be found in the "Guide to the Classification for Overseas Trade Statistics", which is also in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will estimate how long it would take to make the necessary changes to allow all livestock for slaughter to be slaughtered within the United Kingdom to prevent any animals being exported for slaughter from the United Kingdom to fellow EC countries;

  (2) what steps he is taking to increase the proportion of animals slaughtered within the United Kingdom prior to export as opposed to being transported live to other EC countries for slaughter.

  Mr. Soames
  It would not be possible, under the treaty of Rome, to impose a general prohibition on the export of livestock.

  The capacity of the United Kingdom slaughtering industry is a matter for commercial judgment.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department takes to ensure that health, hygiene and veterinary standards are being maintained on an equal basis throughout the EC.

  Mr. Soames
  It is already standard practice for EC animal health and welfare legislation to provide for on-the-spot inspections by Commission veterinary experts to ensure the uniform application of Community rules. The United Kingdom Government welcome the continued development of the Commission inspection role to promote this objective.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the number of live animals exported from Scotland to the EC over the last five years for each type of livestock.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no official statistics dealing with purely Scottish trade of live animals. The overseas trade statistics from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are available only on a United. Kingdom basis.

DEFENCE

  Air Crash, Chivenor
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement in respect of the incident to an RAF Hawk jet trainer which crashed at RAF Chivenor in September; and if he will send to the hon. Member a copy of his Department's military aircraft accident summary relating to this incident when it is published.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The accident in question took place on 30 September. The Hawk aircraft, carrying two qualified pilots, crashed on the runway at RAF Chivenor while the aircrew were conducting a simulated engine failure after take-off. Tragically, one of the pilots was injured and later died in hospital. The other ejected safely. An RAF board of inquiry has been convened. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will forward a copy of the military aircraft accident summary to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

  Z-Berths
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost to his Department for the upkeep of Z-berths for emergency use by nuclear powered submarines at United Kingdom ports.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Z-berths may be established within particular ports, at mooring buoys or anchorages which have been assessed as suitable for short operations or recreational visits by nuclear powered submarines. The berths in question are not exclusively for the use of nuclear powered submarines. The cost of their maintenance as z-berths relates mainly to periodic surveys and liaison with the relevant local authorities to ensure the continuing suitability of the berths; cost figures are not held centrally.

  European Union
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what contribution his Department made to the declaration on Western European Union included in the annexes on the treaty of European Union (Cm. 1934);

  (2) what contribution his Department made to the drafting of the title V, articles JI to JII of the treaty of European Union, (Cm. 1934).

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department was fully consulted in the preparation of both.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent complaints his Department has received from British Nuclear Fuels plc over breaches of the low-flying exclusion zones around their nuclear plants.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since January 1991 my Department has received four such complaints, one of which was subsequently withdrawn.

  WE177 Warheads
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expected timetable for dismantling of WE177 warheads now declared to be surplus to requirements.
  507
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The weapons in question will be dismantled as quickly as possible, consistent with the demands of security and safety.

  Vulcan XH558
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the most recent annual running costs to his Department of the RAF Vulcan XH558; on how many occasions it has been flown on public display in the last full year; what estimate he has made of the cost of servicing the aircraft to enable it to continue flying; if he has any plans to facilitate the transfer of the RAF Vulcan XH558 aircraft to a public collection; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the state of sale of the Vulcan XH558.

  Mr. Aitken
  Annual running costs for Vulcan XH558 will amount to some £250,000 in financial year 1992–93. The servicing and modification required for the aircraft to continue for a further display season after 1992 would cost at least £2.5 million. The Vulcan performed 30 displays and five flypasts during the 1992 display season. A number of expressions of interest have been received from potential buyers with a view to preserving the aircraft for the future, and I hope that these might result in the aircraft being transferred to a public collection.

  Recruitment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the costs of recruitment in each of the armed forces in each of the last five years; how savings have been made in the costs of recruitment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Armed Forces (Reviews)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the reviews of various aspects of the role of the armed forces which are(a) being reviewed and (b) have had their reviews completed in the last three years giving the dates by which they are more likely to be completed in each case.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Our plans for a major restructuring of the armed forces were set out in detail in both the 1991 Statement on the Defence Estimates, "Britain's Defence for the 90s" (Cm. 1559-I) and "Britain's Army for the 90s" (Cm. 1595). These were updated in the 1992 Statement (Cm. 1981). We will continue to keep these plans under constant review.

  Agricultural Produce
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the agricultural produce which is grown on land owned or leased by his department giving the amounts produced in 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records are not maintained of the agricultural produce grown on land owned or leased by my Department.

  Munitions (Disposal)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement about the alternative methods and locations that he will introduce for the disposal of munitions;

  (2) if he will list the regulations that control the dumping of munitions (a) on land and (b) in the sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence does not deposit redundant munitions, explosive waste or residues in land. Land based disposal methods such as detonation and open burning are conducted in accordance with departmental regulations which reflect the requirement of both the Explosives Act 1875 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The provisions of the London dumping convention apply to the dumping of waste at sea world wide and those of the Oslo convention regulate this activity in the north east Atlantic. The Ministry of defence has undertaken its sea dumping programmes in a manner consistent with the requirements of both these conventions but has no further plans to dispose of redundant munitions or explosives in this way. In the future, such material will be disposed of on land at suitable MOD sites where this is safe and environmentally acceptable and under contract by industry. The Ministry of Defence plans, also, to construct a purpose-built ammunition disposal facility.

  Surplus Land and Buildings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the procedure adopted by his Ministry for the sale of surplus land and buildings including the method of binding potential purchasers, and any targets that might be set as an annual basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The MOD's general policy is to sell surplus land and buildings for the highest return for the taxpayer and the usual procedure is to sell by competitive tender. Agents are engaged to place advertisements seeking tenders and purchasers are normally expected to provide a non-returnable 10 per cent. deposit when a sale is agreed.

  Special provisions apply however to the sale of housing, namely, the discounted sale of surplus married quarters and civilian houses to service personnel and sitting tenants respectively and also the bulk sale of surplus married quarters to housing associations at a discount in return for nomination rights for service personnel leaving the services over the next few years.

  No formal targets are set for disposals though assumptions have, of course, to be made for the purpose of the public expenditure survey, and the long-term costings process.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give(a) the amount of money realised to his Ministry from the sale of surplus land and (b) the valuation of that land in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In each of the last five financial years the following receipts have been realised from the sale of surplus land and buildings:
  509

  Year

  £ million

  1987–88

  76.6

  1988–89

  15.0

  1989–90

  71.2

  1990–91

  80.6

  1991–92

  102.3

  The amount of money realised represents the market value of the property sold, with the exception that some service married quarters and civilian houses have been sold at a discount in line with departmental policy.

  Privatisation and Agencies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the parts of his Ministry that have been(a) made into executive agencies, (b) privatised, giving the dates in each case, and (c) the parts of his Ministry he intends to privatise or make into executive agencies, giving the estimated dates in each case.

  Mr. Aitken
  Four executive agencies have been established:

  Meteorological Office—1 April 1990

  Defence Research Agency—1 April 1991

  Duke of York's Royal Military School—1 April 1992

  Queen Victoria School—1 April 1992

  We have also created 10 defence support agencies:

  Hydrographic Office—1 April 1990

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment—1 April 1991

  Defence Accounts—1 April 1991

  RAF Maintenance Group—1 April 1991

  Military Survey—1 April 1991

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)—1 April 1991

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation—1 April 1992

  Defence Analytical Services Agency—1 July 1992

  Defence Postal and Courier Service—1 July 1992

  Defence Operational Analysis Centre—1 July 1992

  Both executive agencies and defence support agencies are run wholly on next steps lines.

  The only parts of the Ministry which have been privatised are the Royal Ordnance factories on 2 January 1985.

  There arc no other parts of the Ministry which it is currently intended to privatise, although industry is being invited to express interest in purchasing the Royal Navy dockyards at Rosyth and Devonport.

  Current candidates for agency status within MOD include the Ministry of Defence police, central services, the test and evaluation organisation, human factors research, some communications systems and elements of the logistic support and training organisations of the services. Looking ahead, we aim to identify all potential agency candidates by the end of next year. Areas under study include the balance of service logistics and training functions and the wider defence support area.

  D Notices
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his review of the D notice system including the scope of his review, the period of time it will take and the organisations that will be consulted.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The management of the D notice system is the responsibility of the defence press and broadcasting committee. I understand that the committee,510
  which is composed of representatives of Government Departments and of the press and broadcasting media, decided at a recent meeting to enlarge its annual review of the 'D' notices. It will consider the purpose, scope and operation of the system in the light of the changed international scene and of the Government's commitment to greater openness. The committee intends to complete this work by the spring of 1993 and is inviting those who wish to do so to contribute to its secretary by the end of the year.

  Army Board of Inquiry
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the rules covering the Army Board of Inquiry's reports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Service boards of inquiry are internal inquiries held in private, to establish the facts of the matter under investigation and where appropriate to make recommendations to avoid a recurrence. The rules governing Army boards of inquiry and their reports are set out in the Board of Inquiry (Army) Rules 1956 (SI 630/1956). Related administrative instructions are included in annex A to chapter 5 of the Queen's Regulations for the Army. Both publications are available in the Library of the House.

  The distribution of the reports of service boards of inquiry is normally limited to those service or Ministry authorities whose function and responsibilities require them to see the findings of the inquiry. My Department has discretion to release to others on an exceptional basis.

  Helicopters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the number of(a) EH101, (b) Lynx, (c) Sea King and (d) NH90 helicopters that have been ordered since 9 April 1987, giving the date the order was placed and the delivery or expected delivery date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Fourty-four EH101 anti-submarine warfare helicopters were ordered in 1991 for delivery phased over 1996–2001. Sixteen Lynx helicopters were ordered in 1988 and were delivered between 1990 and 1992. Seven Sea King helicopters were ordered in 1987 and delivered between 1989 and 1990. Negotiations for the procurement of six Sea King helicopters announced by my predecessor on 19 February this year (Official Report, column 332) are almost complete. No NH90 helicopters have been ordered. The former Secretary of State for Defence explained on 9 April 1987 (Official Report, col. 470) that we were no longer participating in the NH90 programme.

  Search and Rescue
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his announcement about the future of the search and rescue forces on 21 October, what steps he is taking to ensure that the standards for rescue at sea as set by the United Kingdom search and rescue committee will not be breached; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The future RAF search and rescue (SAR) helicopter force will make virtually the same
  511
  contribution as now to meeting the helicopter coverage group criteria for SAR helicopter coverage around the United Kingdom for civil marine and aviation purposes. The rationale for and implications of the changes in the force are set out in the open Government document "The Future Provision of Royal Air Force Search and Rescue Helicopters", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the bases where he expects to deploy the six Sea King HAR 3 helicopters for the search and rescue service, which were ordered in 1991–92 with the in-service date of 1996; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the open government document "The Future Provision of Royal Air Force Search and Rescue Helicopters", a copy of which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the organisations with whom he consulted about the review of the search and rescue service and the subsequent decisions announced by him on 21 October.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The organisations consulted were the Government Departments with a functional or regional interest in search and rescue matters: the Department of Transport and Home Office, the Welsh, Scottish, Northern Ireland and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, and the Treasury.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of the industrial study for the European fighter aircraft, commissioned by Eurofighter, in the Library.

  Mr. Aitken
  I regret that this is not possible. The report the hon. Member requests is a NATO classified document. I have however placed in the Library a copy of an unclassified synopsis produced by British Aerospace.

  Dismounted Public Duties
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who were the members of the working party who advised him on the future of dismounted public duties in London.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Membership of the interdepartmental public duties working group was drawn from the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, the Royal Household, the Metropolitan police, the Ministry of Defence Police, the Historic Royal Palaces Agency and the Tower of London.

  Household Cavalry
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he proposes to mounted ceremonial duties by the Household Cavalry.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's energy policy.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is the Government's energy policy to achieve, through promoting competition and developing competitive markets, secure energy supplies at the lowest possible prices, diversity of supply and in decision making; meeting the customers' needs with maximum efficiency; and maximising the economic exploitation of the United Kingdom's energy resources, while at the same time meeting the growing requirements of environmental policy.

  EC Competition Commissioner
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with the European Commissioner for competition on(a) energy pricing policy in the United Kingdom and (b) the United Kingdom semi-conductor manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has had no recent discussions with the European Commissioner for competition on either United Kingdom energy pricing policy or the United Kingdom semi-conductor manufacturing industry.

  Mining Industry
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances Her Majesty's Government have the right to pay subsidies to British Coal without first seeking the approval of the European Commission.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under decision 2064/86/ECSC, all state aids by member states to their coal industries must be approved by the European Commission.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice has been given by the European Commission on its policy relating to future requests from the member states of the EC on subsidies to coal mining; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The agreed policy under which the Commission may give authorisation for state aids to member states' coal industries is set out in current decision—2064/86/ECSC. This decision stipulates that such aid must help to achieve one or more of the following objectives:

  Improvement of competitivity of the coal industry, which contributes to assure a better security of supply.

  Creating new capacities provided that they are economically viable.

  Solving the social and regional problems related to developments in the coal industry.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what public expenditure will be involved in the measures required to safely seal and to protect against future aquifer contamination the 31 coal mines the closure of which has been recently announced.

  Mr. Eggar
  The total level of expenditure involved will depend on the decisions eventually taken on the future of these pits. The expenditure at any particular pit that is closed depends on the geological circumstances.

  Fuel Cells
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute a study of legislation in the state of California relating to zero pollution emissions, and the use of fuel cells in hydrogen.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has already undertaken a number of studies on fuel cells and I refer the hon. Member to my answers to his other questions on 13 July at column 508. On the matter of Californian state emissions regulations, these are well documented in technical publications and are available to the public.

  Property Misdescriptions
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress which has been made in implementing the Specified Offences Order under the terms of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department circulated a draft Specified Offences (No. 2) (Amendment) Order, to be made under the Estate Agents Act 1979, for consultation last December. We intend that implementation should coincide with that of the proposed Property Misdescriptions (Specified Matters) Order, which my hon. and noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms intends to lay before Parliament as soon as possible.

  Electricity
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what action is currently being taken by the European Commission in order to ensure a free and fair market in electricity throughout the European Community;

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that other European Community electricity generating companies do not benefit from state subsidies or cross subsidies.

  Mr. Eggar
  The European Commission has brought forward proposals designed to open up markets in electricity and natural gas throughout the Community. Discussion on the proposals is continuing. They provide for greater transparency in the operation of EC electricity utilities and should eliminate any state subsidies or cross subsidies from which such utilities or their customers may currently benefit.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made since his statement to the House on the future of Parcelforce.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Since my announcement to the House on 15 July 1992, my Department has been working with the Post Office and our advisers to consider a range of issues, including the timing and method of sale. I have received several expressions of interest in Parcelforce and look forward to its transfer to that private sector as soon as possible.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish the outcome of his review of the assisted areas map; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The public consultation paper on the assisted areas map review issued in June stated that the Government's aim was to implement a revised map early in 1993, following the necessary clearance with the European Commission. This remains our intention.

  Uranium Mining, Namibia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has received on the findings of the special safety monitoring commission sent to inspect the Rio Tinto Zinc Rossing uranium mine in Namibia in September to evaluate the health effects of mining uranium exported to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government of Namibia has made a report in the form of a press report on this International Atomic Energy Agency mission. A copy of the press release has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish the sixth annual plutonium production and storage figures.

  Mr. Eggar
  The annual plutonium figures are being compiled and the information will be published shortly.

  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the Commonwealth of Independent States.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I visited Azerbaijan and Russia from 27 to 30 September, leading a team of 13 senior business men. In Azerbaijan I had high-level meetings with President Elchibey and his Government, supported BP's recent success in securing exclusive negotiating rights for the exploration and development of two potentially very large oilfields under the South Caspian sea, signed a joint declaration on economic co-operation and helped to pave the way for other companies to win further business.

  In Russia, I met Vice-President Rutskoi, acting Prime Minister Gaidar and a number of other Ministers, particularly deputy Prime Minister Shokhin with whom I held the first meeting of a new steering committee on trade and investment. I signed the terms of reference of this committee and a joint declaration on economic co-operation. I discussed the question of appropriate guarantees and priorities for the Export Credit Guarantees Department cover which the Prime Minister recently announced that we would be making available to Russia.

  Nuclear energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the annual United Kingdom contribution since 1979 to(a) the International Atomic Energy Agency, (b) the nuclear energy agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

  515
  Development, (c) the European Atomic Energy Community and (d) the joint research centres of the European Community's nuclear research programme, respectively; and if he will make a statement on the benefits that have accrued from these respective contributions.

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of the United Kingdom's contributions to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the nuclear energy agency of the OECD are published annually in the supply estimates, currently at class V, vote 2, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. For contributions prior to 1987–88 reference should be made to written answer of 16 May 1988 at column 300.

  The Community budget is published annually in the Official Journal of the European Communities, also held in the Library of the House. The United Kingdom's contributions to the European Atomic Energy Community and to the nuclear programmes of the joint research centres of the European Communities form part of the single United Kingdom contribution to the European community's budget made under article 207 of the treaty of Rome. National contributions to individual programmes are not identified separately.

  These contributions have been obligatory since the United Kingdom's accession to the respective organisations. Over the years there have been many benefits from them, not least the worldwide effort in the field of non-proliferation and nuclear safeguards, and work on radiation protection and public health.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the annual United Kingdom contribution to the European fusion nuclear energy research programme since its inception; and what contribution Her Majesty's Government intend to make to future fusion programmes including(a) the Joint European TORUS and (b) the next European TORUS.

  Mr. Eggar
  80 per cent. of funding for the joint European TORUS—JET—project is provided by the European Atomic Energy Community Euratom—through the Community budget. Member states contribute to the Community budget as a whole, not individual elements. The United Kingdom's gross contribution before abatement is around 16 per cent. of the total. Information on the Community's annual expenditure on fusion research, including its contribution to JET, is

  Year

  Nuclear Reactor Research

  Nuclear Waste Research

  Nuclear Decommissioning Research

  Radiation Protection Research

  Clean Coal Burn Research

  Renewable Energy Research

  1979–80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.8

  8.2

  1980–81

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.7

  11.3

  1981–82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4.9

  15.3

  1982–83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.4

  12.7

  1983–84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.4

  11.9

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.9

  14.9

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.8

  13.6

  1986–87

  114.6

  —

  —

  —

  1.9

  12.5

  1987–88

  93.1

  3.3

  —

  0.3

  1.4

  16.1

  1988–89

  130.5

  2.8

  —

  0.6

  0.9

  16.3

  1989–90

  119.3

  4.7

  —

  0.6

  1.7

  17.9

  1990–91

  85.0

  —

  5.8

  0.6

  11.4

  20.8

  1991–92

  60.3

  —

  7.2

  0.5

  4.7

  24.6

  All figures are in £M in money terms.

  Nuclear fuel research is not separately identified.

  Nuclear Waste Management programme is subsumed within decommissioning research after 1990.

  There was no expenditure on gas gathering and distribution research or on gas fired power plant research during the period.

  516
  contained in chapter B6–55 of the "General Budget of the European Communities', published in the Official Journal of the European Communities—OJ L 26 of 3–2–92—a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  A further 10 per cent. of the funding is shared out between the members of the JET joint undertaking, including the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, whose share of this component is around 1 per cent. of the total. In addition, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority meets the remaining 10 per cent. of the funding, in recognition of the United Kingdom's status as host nation.

  In 1991–92 the United Kingdom's total contribution in respect of these two elements was around £8 million.

  The United Kingdom contributes directly to the Euratom fusion programme via the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's "Contract of Association" with Euratom. This amalgamates the fusion R and D programme undertaken at Culham laboratory with the wider programme undertaken by Euratom fusion research laboratories as a whole. The annual cost of this work is also around £8 million.

  Decisions on future funding of the Community's fusion programme, and hence on the funding of JET and the next European TORUS, are a matter for the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Llewellyn Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table of annual investment made in each year since 1979 by his Department and the Department of Energy in(a) nuclear reactor research, (b) nuclear waste research, (c) nuclear decommissioning research, (d) nuclear fuel research, (e) radiation protection research, (f) gas gathering and distribution research, (g) gas fired power plant research, (h) clean coal burn research, (i) renewable energy research and (j) energy efficiency and conservation research.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is given in the table, to the extent that it is readily available within the DTI. Prior to 1986, nuclear programmes were funded by a block grant to the Atomic Energy Authority, which was responsible for their detailed content; a breakdown along the lines requested is thus not available in the Department. Energy efficiency and conservation R and D is now a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  517
  1981–82 to 1988–89 non-nuclear figures are taken from the "Annual Review of Government-funded R & D", and relate essentially to Frascati R 2 D, without including technology transfer and dissemination expenditure.

  Figures from 1989–90 to date are final outturn, and do include technology transfer and dissemination expenditure.

  Trentham Colliery
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of all existing and proposed development plans at other collieries which it is intended will be classified under expenditure at Trentham colliery.

  Mr. Eggar
  The issues which the hon. Member raises are matters for British Coal.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 221, if he will give details of the profits lost to the Trentham complex arising from the decision made by British Coal to cancel development work from September 1992; in respect of which coal faces orders have been given to stop production; and if he will give details of the subsequent profit loss in each case;

  (2) pursuant to his statement of 19 October, if he will give details of all coal reserves left at Trentham colliery, north Staffordshire;

  (3) pursuant to his statement of 19 October, what was British Coal's estimate of the anticipated tonnage for 1992–93 at the Trentham complex; and what is his estimate of the effect on this original target of the postponement of committed developments;

  (4) pursuant to his statement of 19 October, if he will give details of the development costs of introducing future workings at Trentham colliery including the two major roadway drivages into new seams;

  (5) pursuant to his statement of 19 October, if he will give details for 1990–91 and 1991–92 of capital investment at Trentham colliery designed to incorporate management administration costs incurred as a result of pit closures elsewhere;

  (6) pursuant to his statement of 19 October, if he will give details of the profits earned by Trentham colliery for 1990–91 and the projected loss budgeted for the period 1 April to 20 September in the current year;

  (7) what information he has on British Coal's plans for future developments to introduce pillar and stall work at Trentham colliery.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 22 October 1992]: In my statement on 19 October, I said that we had concluded that, for the time being, British Coal should be allowed to proceed with the closure of only 10 pits—including Trentham—which it had told me were currently making a loss and had no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future.

  The issues which the hon. Member raises are matters for British Coal.

  The hon. Member may wish to pursue this issue in the context of the statutory consultation procedure.

  £ per kwh

  ECU per kwh

  National currencies per kwh

  Industry

  Belgium

  0.0346

  0.0493

  2.0802

  Francs

  Denmark

  0.0369

  0.0527

  0.4165

  Crowns

  France

  0.0306

  0.0435

  0.3036

  Francs

  Germany

  0.0499

  0.0709

  0.1455

  Deutschmarks

  Ireland

  0.0374

  0.0533

  0.0409

  Irish pounds

  ITER Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the three engineering design teams, and their location, which have been agreed under the future ITER programme; and if he will list the number of staff, and the total project cost of the JET at Culham, projected for 1992–93, and established for the three preceding years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The plasma vessel work for ITER—international thermonuclear experimental reactor—will be undertaken by the engineering design team in Garching, in Germany. Other plant engineering work will be undertaken by the team in Naka, in Japan. The design integration team will be based in San Diego, USA.

  JET—joint European torus—is a Community project. Information on its staffing and funding is available from the annual reports of the JET joint undertaking, which are held in the House of Commons Library.

  Euratom
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made since 28 November 1991 in implementing European Community Directive 89/618/Euratom in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following public consultation by the Health and Safety Commission which ended on 28 February 1992, final proposals for regulations implementing European Community directive 89/618/Euratom were approved by the HSC on 7 July. These proposals were then communicated to the European Commission, as required by article 33 of the Euratom treaty. The European Commission recommendations on these proposals have now been received and arrangements are in hand for making the implementing regulations and laying them before Parliament.

  Electricity Costs
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average cost of electricity delivered to(a) industrial consumers, (b) service sector consumers and (c) domestic consumers in each of the member states of the European Community calculated in (i) ecus, (ii) pounds and (iii) currencies of each respective country.

  Mr. Eggar
  The average prices of electricity in 1991 to industrial consumers combined, in the member states of the European Community are set out in the tables. Prices of electricity to the domestic and commercial sectors are not available separately. 1991 prices for electricity in Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Spain are not available. All prices in the tables include taxes, where applicable, including VAT to the domestic/commercial market where it is not refundable.
  519

  £ per kwh

  ECU per kwh

  National currencies per kwh

  Italy

  0.0578

  0.0847

  129.9000

  Lira

  Portugal

  0.0726

  0.1036

  18.5090

  Escudos

  United Kingdom

  0.0405

  0.0578

  0.0405

  Pounds

  Domestic/commercial sector

  Belgium

  0.0941

  .01340

  5.6563

  Francs

  Denmark

  0.0981

  0.1397

  1.1050

  Crowns

  France

  0.0805

  0.1147

  0.7999

  Francs

  Germany

  0.0902

  0.1288

  0.2642

  Deutschmarks

  Ireland

  0.0748

  0.1068

  0.0820

  Irish pounds

  Italy

  0.0981

  0.1397

  214.2000

  Lira

  Portugal

  0.0924

  0.1314

  23.4700

  Escudos

  United Kingdom

  0.0680

  0.0970

  0.0680

  Pounds

  Source: International Energy Agency: Energy Prices and Taxes.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last discussed gas prices with the director of the Office of Gas Regulation; and what decisions were taken.

  Mr. Eggar
  I meet the Director General of Gas Supply from time to time. Decisions on gas tariffs are a matter for him.

  Perfume Companies
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the Director of the Office of Fair Trading the actions of perfume companies in relation to discounting by Superdrug.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Director General of Fair Trading is already investigating complaints about restrictions on the distribution of perfumes.

  Nuclear Plant
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what would be the saving to the Exchequer of mothballing every nuclear power station.

  Mr. Eggar
  There would in fact be significant net costs to the Exchequer if Nuclear Electric's stations were closed or mothballed. The substantial loss of revenue from electricity sales and, in the case of closure, the bringing forward of expenditure on decommissioning, reprocessing and waste disposal, together with redundancy costs, would far outweigh any savings in operating costs.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the addition to the landed cost, in terms of pounds per tonne of transporting imported coal to power stations compared to the cost of transporting British coal.

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

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish figures showing the percentage of electricity which is produced from renewable sources in the United Kingdom.
  520
  Mr. Eggar
  The electricity produced from renewable sources of energy in the United Kingdom in 1991 was equivalent to 2 per cent. of total electricity generated in that year.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will, at 1992 or other price datum, give the comparable capital cost and full fuel costs, respectively, for production of one kilowatt hour of electricity from the most efficient power stations now available, using atomic, coal and gas fuel, respectively.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish his latest comparative list of the range of costs per kilowatt of generating electricity from(a) coal, (b) nuclear, (c) hydroelectric and (d) gas sources.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: The comparable capital and full fuel costs per kilowatt hour of power stations using different fuels depends significantly upon the contractual terms of fuel purchase, and the contractual terms under which the power station is to be constructed and operated. These are commercial matters for the companies concerned. As far as electricity is concerned, it is up to the Director General of Electricity Supply to ensure that the regional electricity companies comply with their economic purchasing obligations. My Department will be assessing the evidence available on comparative costs as part of the Government's review.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much subsidy was given to support nuclear power in Britain in 1981 and 1991; and what were the comparable figures for the coal industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  No Government subsidies have been paid to Nuclear Electric plc or British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Both these companies have since April 1990, been recipients of the fossil fuel levy paid by electricity suppliers. In 1991–92 the amount of money raised through the levy was £1,324 million, about 1 per cent. of which went to renewable generators in England and Wales. Nuclear Electric was a net lender to the Exchequer of £84 million in 1991–92.

  The Government have been the customer for research and development and other programmes undertaken by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and has funded those programmes and their consequences.

  Responsibility for Scottish Nuclear Limited rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  In 1981–82 and 1991–92 the Government made available to the coal industry financial assistance of

  521
  £623 million and £585 million respectively. This is made up of deficit grant, operating grant—1981–82 only—social and restructuring grant and payments under the redundant mineworkers payments scheme.

  Cashmere
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the negotiations being held between EC officials and the Republic of China regarding the bilateral agreement covering cashmere and fine animal hair imports into the EC; and what restitution is to be offered in compensation for recent overshipment of cashmere garments to EC markets.

  Mr. Needham
  The European Community has only just opened negotiations with China on renewal of the bilateral agreement on textiles and clothing. The Commission, prompted by the United Kingdom, is taking a resolute line on the future level of cashmere imports and on compensation for past overshipments. It is too early to forecast the outcome on those points.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations seeking to roll over the multi-fibre arrangements terms pending a successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  On 6 October the Foreign Affairs Council agreed a mandate for the European Commission to open negotiations with signatories to the multi-fibre arrangement with a view to extending the MFA, as an interim measure, until such time as the GATT Uruguay round agreement on trade in textiles and clothing is ready to implement. The aim is to conclude bilateral negotiations with individual supplier countries by the end of this year.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to announce an extension of the multi-fibre arrangement, on existing terms, by the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 22 October 1992]:
  On 6 October the Foreign Affairs Council agreed a mandate for the Commission to open negotiations with certain third countries with a view to securing an agreement for an extension of the multi-fibre arrangement. Bilateral negotiations with individual supplier countries have begun and the Commission hopes to conclude these by the end of this year.

  European Funding
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria will be used by the United Kingdom Government in recommending regions within the United Kingdom for consideration for directive 5(b) status within the review next year of the European regional development fund and the European social fund.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Until the European Commission's proposals for the review of Community structural fund regulations are received, and the Council has considered them, it would be premature to anticipate which criteria will apply.

  EC Industrial Funds
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he expects the draft regulations relating to EC industrial funds to be published; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how far he expects negotiations on reform of the EC industrial funds to proceed during the United Kingdom's EC presidency.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I do not expect to receive the European Commission's proposals for revised structural funds regulations until after the Edinburgh European Council on 11 and 12 December. It is therefore unlikely that substantive negotiations on them will begin during the United Kingdom presidency.

  Technical Innovation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Segal Quince Wicksteed report on technical innovation, to which he referred in his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 29 July.

  Mr. Leigh
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 19 October 1992, at columns 233–34.

  Energy Review
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on his plans for the energy review announced on 21 October.

  Mr. Heseltine
  As I announced to the House on 21 October, I have put in hand a full and wide-ranging review of the prospects for the 21 pits proposed for closure by British Coal but not subject to the statutory consultation currently being undertaken by British Coal. This review will consider views and evidence on the future of each of the pits in question, in the context of the Government's energy policy, including the consequences of that policy for British Coal and the employment for the industry.

  It will decide whether the case for closure at each of the pits in question has been fully made and whether it is sensible to mothball some of these pits. It will consider whether the market prospects for coal have been correctly assessed and, in consultation with the Director General of Electricity Supply, whether any company is abusing its position in the market place. It will look at the level of coal stocks, both at the pithead and the power stations, and whether plans to run them down are sensibly phased.

  It will consider the consequences of the switch to gas in power generation and the relative costs of gas and coal-fired generation. It will look into the latest estimates of likely reserves of gas and draw conclusions. It will consider the present scale of gas-generated power stations in production, being built and in the planning process. In this connection, it will review the use of my consent powers under the Electricity Act 1989.

  The review will consider the implications of the statutory obligation on electricity suppliers to purchase non-fossil power, including that from nuclear sources.

  The review will explore the opportunities for the private sector in the production of coal. It will consider the existing and anticipated level of imports and the wider economic implications of this.

  The review will give due regard to Scottish and Welsh interests and will also give consideration to the particular needs of Northern Ireland.
  523
  Consultation will take place with all the principal providers and consumers of energy, the trade unions and other interested parties. I have already announced that I have invited Boyds, an international mining consultancy to report to me on the viability of the 21 pits. I also intend to appoint consultants to report on the prospects for British Coal, including any alternative markets that may exist for coal and to comment generally on the competitiveness of British Coal as an organisation. I may wish to commission further independent studies.

  My intention is to publish all evidence and the findings of the review to the fullest extent possible except where information has been provided in confidence and is commercially sensitive. I shall be discussing with the Trade and Industry Select Committee the means by which such confidential information might be made available to it.

  Early in the new year, I shall publish a White Paper setting out the results of the review in the context of the government's energy policy, and making clear the consequences of that policy for British Coal, the implications for individual pits and the employment prospects for the industry. Before then the Select Committee will have a full opportunity to consider all the issues as it thinks fit. I shall present the conclusions and the Government's future decisions to the House, which will have an opportunity to debate the issues fully.

  In order that I can give due weight to all the views expressed, I am asking those who wish to provide evidence to the review to do so as soon as possible and in any event not later than 1 December 1992. Evidence should be sent to Dr. J. M. Bird, Department of Trade and Industry, Room 3.4.4., 1 Palace street, London SW I E 5HE, making clear whether the evidence may be published.

  Research, Development and Innovation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the European Council decision to establish a programme for the collection of Community statistics on research, development and innovation has yet been made; and what further action is proposed during the British presidency.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  No decision has yet been made. Discussions are currently proceeding in the relevant Council working party.

  Point of Ayr Colliery
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will visit the Point of Ayr colliery to meet management and unions.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: I have no plans to do so.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated loss in the balance of payments, and increased public expenditure consequent on the reduction in the output of, and employment directly in, the coal mining industry, and indirectly on the associated suppliers of equipment and services.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 October 1992]: The level of contraction of the coal industry and the implications for
  524
  the balance of payments and public expenditure, if any, would depend upon decisions reached in the light of the review announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Industrial Strategy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the criteria by which he will evaluate the success of his industrial strategy.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: The key criterion I will use is the extent to which, over the long term, the demands of customers, both at home and abroad, for goods and services are met by United Kingdom firms.

  Coal Exports
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on research undertaken by British Coal to secure markets for British coal in Europe.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 October 1992]: This is a matter for British Coal.

SCOTLAND

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding radioactive leakage from the corroded low-level nuclear waste drums at pits numbers three and four at the nuclear power development establishment at Dounreay.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Routine site monitoring carried out in the vicinity of tips three and four has confirmed that the drums stored above these filled tips have not resulted in any increased levels of radioactivity either in the atmosphere or in the ground water pumped from the pits.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what report he has received from AEA Technology or Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate on the environmental pollution consequences of the fire at the intermediate-level waste silo at Dounreay in July.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My Department was informed by AEA Technology on 22 July 1992 that a small fire had taken place in the intermediate level waste silo at Dounreay on the evening of 21 July 1992 and that some smoke had been released to the atmosphere. Radioactive material was not released and there were therefore no environmental consequences.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the cost of decommissioning all of the radioactivity-contaminated buildings at AEA Technology's Dounreay nuclear plant; and what level of funding his Department will provide for the decommissioning work.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am replying in view of my responsibility for matters relating to AEA Technology.

  The current estimate of the cost of decommissioning the nuclear facilities at Dounreay and dealing with the

  525
  associated wastes is around£1.2 billion (in 1992 prices and in undiscounted terms). As most of the expenditure lies well in the future, actual costs will remain very uncertain until nearer the time when individual projects are developed and costed in detail.

  My Department will meet the costs of all decommissioning and waste management liabilities arising from work done at the site before AEA Technology was established as a trading fund in 1986. It will also meet the costs of all such liabilities arising from its own programmes (and those of the former Department of Energy) since 1986.

  Undergraduates
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new undergraduates have been enrolled at each university, other than former polytechnics, in Scotland for the academic year 1992–93; and how many of them are from Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, Wales, Republic of Ireland and other European Community countries.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Final figures for undergraduate enrolments at Scottish universities for the academic year 1992–93 will not be available until early next year. I shall reply to the hon. Member at that time.

  Electoral Arrangements
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will estimate the cost of the second statutory review of electoral arrangements for the districts of Roxburghshire and Berwickshire; and to what use the fruits of the review will be put;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the decision to proceed with the second statutory review of electoral district boundaries in Roxburghshire and Berwickshire;

  (3) what use is to be made of the Local Government Boundary Commission reports following the second statutory review of electoral arrangements in Roxburgh and Berwickshire in the light of the Government proposals to reform local government in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland has a statutory responsibility under section 16 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to undertake regular reviews of electoral arrangements of local government areas in Scotland. In the case of Roxburgh district and Berwickshire district this must be completed before local government restructuring will be implemented. It is imperative that local electoral arrangements are kept up-to-date and reflect changing local circumstances. Whatever structure of local government is adopted following the Government's present review, it is likely that the district ward boundaries will be of assistance in devising the electoral divisions in the new authorities. It is therefore sensible on all counts that the reviews should proceed.

  It is not possible to estimate the costs of the review in Roxburgh and Berwickshire districts separately from the reviews which are taking place simultaneously in other parts of the country.
  526
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now cancel the second statutory review of electoral arrangements for Roxburgh and Berwickshire districts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Recycling
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance already exists to enable local authorities in Scotland to set up recycling schemes.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There are no schemes for Government financial assistance in Scotland specifically for local authority recycling projects. However, the Government, through exchequer grant, finance the majority of local authority revenue expenditure. Capital expenditure for local authority recycling activities is not identified separately within overall capital expenditure allocations. It is for the authorities to determine expenditure priorities within their overall allocations. Authorities planning to set up recycling schemes should identify such expenditure in their financial plans, and such projects are given priority in determining allocations.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the proportion of household waste which is currently recycled in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The percentage of household waste which is recycled in Scotland was estimated at about 2 per cent. in 1990, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Beer
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints have been made to procurators fiscal or the Crown Office in the past two years in respect of allegations of short measures of beer poured by publicans.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Prisons Estate
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the review of the prisons estate; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Over the past three years a thorough appraisal of the prisons estate in Scotland has been undertaken, in order to establish and prioritise the range of improvements and upgrading work required to provide modern accommodation and facilities for prisoners and staff alike. A programme for implementation will be determined in the light of the outcome of the 1992 public expenditure survey.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what authorisation he has given to NHS hospitals currently directly managed by health boards in Scotland and to national health trusts in Scotland to enter into contracts or arrangements with private medical insurance companies.
  527
  Mr. Stewart
  None.

  Prime Health Limited
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish details of the contract and arrangements between Aberdeen Royal hospital NHS trust and Prime Health Ltd;

  (2) if he will publish details of contracts and arrangements between Woodend hospital, Aberdeen and Prime Health Ltd;

  (3) if he will publish details of the contracts and arrangements between Woodend hospital, Aberdeen and SAGA Services Ltd;

  (4) if he will publish details of the contracts and arrangements between Aberdeen Royal hospital NHS trust and SAGA Services Ltd.

  Mr. Stewart
  No such contracts or arrangements exist.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the latest estimates by the Registrar-General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each district council area and parliamentary constituency, together in each case with the equivalent year's electoral registration figures.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is given in the tables. For clarity of presentation, the first table includes regions and islands areas and the whole of Scotland. The population figures in table A are the Registrar General's provisional census based 1991 mid-year estimates. Those in table B involve additionally a certain degree of approximation and should therefore be treated with caution.

  Table A: Local Government Areas

  Local government area

  Estimate of population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent, of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 19911)

  Parliamentary electors on the 1992 electoral registers (qualifying date 10 October 1991)

  Scotland

  4,052,549

  3,929,064

  Borders region

  83,995

  83,908

  Berwickshire

  15,322

  15,402

  Ettrick & Lauderdale

  27,748

  27,547

  Roxburgh

  28,673

  28,599

  Tweedale

  12,253

  12,360

  Central region

  216,646

  211,273

  Clackmannan

  37,835

  36,796

  Falkirk

  114,054

  110,698

  Stirling

  64,767

  63,779

  Dumfries & Galloway region

  118,235

  116,750

  Ammandale & Eskdale

  29,743

  29,421

  Nithsdale

  45,529

  44,624

  Stewartry

  19,033

  18,990

  Wigtown

  23,932

  23,715

  Fife region

  273,614

  264,644

  Dunfermline

  100,116

  96,177

  Kirkcaldy

  116,700

  114,223

  North East Fife

  56,797

  54,244

  Grampian region

  407,600

  397,745

  Aberdeen City

  175,619

  170,178

  528

  Local government area

  Estimate of population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent, of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 19911)

  Parliamentary electors on the 1992 electoral registers (qualifying date 10 October 1991)

  Banff & Buchan

  66,501

  65,631

  Gordon

  58,537

  58,006

  Kincardine & Deeside

  41,168

  39,986

  Moray

  65,875

  63,944

  Highland region

  159,427

  157,449

  Badenoch & Strathspey

  8,858

  9,130

  Caithness

  20,751

  20,629

  Inverness

  49,250

  48,042

  Lochaber

  14,984

  14,817

  Nairn

  8,362

  8,372

  Ross & Cromarty

  37,561

  36,778

  Skye & Lochalsh

  9,158

  9,137

  Sutherland

  10,503

  10,544

  Lothian region

  607,777

  591,233

  East Lothian

  68,320

  67,581

  Edinburgh City

  363,756

  351,327

  Midlothian

  62,632

  61,189

  West Lothian

  113,069

  111,136

  Strathclyde region

  1,815,739

  1,745,684

  Argyll & Bute

  51,713

  48,436

  Bearsden & Milngavie

  32,204

  31,626

  Clydebank

  36,589

  35,239

  Clydesdale

  45,616

  44,379

  Cumbernauld & Kilsyth

  48,754

  47,155

  Cumnock & Doon Valley

  33,684

  33,246

  Cunninghame

  108,374

  105,235

  Dumbarton

  60,882

  57,894

  East Kilbride

  66,547

  64,824

  Eastwood

  47,441

  46,745

  Glasgow City

  553,151

  523,259

  Hamilton

  83,365

  80,652

  Inverclyde

  72,154

  70,761

  Kilmarnock & Loudoun

  64,195

  62,777

  Kyle & Carrick

  90,918

  89,062

  Monklands

  80,519

  77,699

  Motherwell

  113,247

  108,617

  Renfrew

  159,135

  153,818

  Strathkelvin

  67,251

  64,260

  Tayside region

  314,138

  305,526

  Angus

  75,172

  73,376

  Dundee City

  138,949

  134,858

  Perth & Kinross

  100,017

  97,292

  Orkney Islands area

  15,297

  15,404

  Shetland Islands area

  17,097

  16,433

  Western Isles Islands area

  22,984

  23,015

  1Provisional

  Table B: Parliamentary Constituencies

  Parliamentary constituency

  Estimate of population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent, of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 19911)

  Parliamentary electors on the 1992 electoral registers (qualifying date 10 October 1991)

  Aberdeen North

  62,500

  60,623

  Aberdeen South

  61,100

  59,230

  Angus East

  65,300

  63,637

  Argyll & Bute

  51,700

  48,436

  Ayr

  67,700

  66,284

  529

  Parliamentary constituency

  Estimate of population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent, of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 19911)

  Parliamentary electors on the 1992 electoral registers (qualifying date 10 October 1991)

  Banff & Buchan

  66,500

  65,631

  Caithness & Sutherland

  31,300

  31,173

  Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley

  56,900

  56,024

  Central Fife

  57,700

  56,495

  Clackmannan

  50,800

  49,441

  Clydebank & Milngavie

  49,400

  47,773

  Clydesdale

  64,500

  62,684

  Cumbernauld & Kilsyth

  48,800

  47,155

  Cunninghame North

  57,100

  55,490

  Cunninghame South

  51,200

  49,745

  Dumbarton

  60,900

  57,894

  Dumfries

  62,800

  61,773

  Dundee East

  61,100

  59,328

  Dundee West

  62,200

  60,386

  Dunfermline East

  52,400

  50,452

  Dunfermline West

  53,400

  51,310

  East Kilbride

  66,500

  64,824

  East Lothian

  68,300

  67,588

  Eastwood

  65,900

  64,560

  Edinburgh Central

  58,800

  56,839

  Edinburgh East

  47,800

  46,157

  Edinburgh Leith

  59,100

  57,073

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  58,400

  56,433

  Edinburgh South

  64,200

  61,999

  Edinburgh West

  61,800

  59,702

  Falkirk East

  54,000

  52,387

  Falkirk West

  52,200

  50,631

  Galloway & Upper Nithsdale

  55,500

  54,977

  Glasgow Cathcart

  47,700

  45,149

  Glasgow Central

  51,100

  48,383

  Glasgow Garscadden

  44,100

  41,675

  Glasgow Govan

  48,800

  46,199

  Glasgow Hillhead

  60,900

  57,586

  Glasgow Maryhill

  51,600

  48,791

  Glasgow Pollok

  49,300

  46,655

  Glasgow Provan

  39,100

  36,986

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  56,400

  53,325

  Glasgow Shettleston

  55,400

  52,381

  Glasgow Springburn

  48,900

  46,216

  Gordon

  82,400

  81,097

  Greenock & Port Glasgow

  53,700

  52,661

  Hamilton

  64,400

  62,347

  Inverness, Nairn & Lochaber

  71,000

  70,164

  Kilmarnock & Loudoun

  64,200

  62,777

  Kincardine & Deeside

  69,300

  67,216

  Kirkcaldy

  53,300

  52,191

  Linlithgow

  63,200

  61,979

  Livingston

  63,300

  62,122

  Midlothian

  62,600

  61,178

  Monklands East

  50,800

  49,059

  Monklands West

  52,000

  49,935

  Moray

  65,900

  63,944

  Motherwell North

  60,600

  58,106

  530

  Parliamentary constituency

  Estimate of population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent, of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 19911)

  Parliamentary electors on the 1992 electoral registers (qualifying date 10 October 1991)

  Motherwell South

  52,800

  50,674

  North East Fife

  56,700

  54,196

  North Tayside

  57,900

  56,353

  Orkney & Shetland

  32,400

  31,837

  Paisley North

  48,500

  46,867

  Paisley South

  50,100

  48,385

  Perth & Kinross

  67,700

  65,826

  Renfrew West & Inverclyde

  60,700

  58,897

  Ross, Cromarty & Skye

  57,200

  56,112

  Roxburgh & Berwickshire

  44,000

  44,001

  Stirling

  59,700

  58,814

  Strathkelvin & Bearsden

  64,300

  61,924

  Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale

  40,000

  39,907

  Western Isles

  23,000

  23,015

  1Provisional

  Offensive Weapons
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to introduce legislation relating to the carrying and possession of knives and similar offensive weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government are committed to changing the law to make it more difficult to carry knives. We shall bring forward specific proposals as soon as we have worked up the details and secured a suitable legislative opportunity.

  Consultants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the names of the consultants commissioned to inquire into(a) the privatisation of the Scottish bus group, (b) the Skye bridge and (c) options for the future of Scottish Water; and if he will give the expenditure for each.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 October 1992]: Expenditure incurred by the Scottish Office on consultancy work in connection with the projects in question is as follows:

  £

  (excluding VAT)

  Scottish Bus Group

  Quayle Munro (financial advice)

  408,690

  Bell-Ingram (property advice) (to date)

  19,403

  Government Actuary (pensions advice)

  6,158

  Skye Crossing

  JMP Consultants (engineering advice)

  554,574

  Quayle Munro (financial advice)

  107,614

  Chartered West LB (financial advice)

  38,724

  531

  £

  (excluding VAT)

  The Ash Partnership (environmental advice)

  42,650

  Scottish Water and Sewerage Services

  Quayle Munro (advice on options for future structure of services)

  50,000

  New dwellings started and completed in Scotland for the period 1979–80 to 1991–92

  Financial year

  Agency

  Started

  Completed

  Private sector

  Local authority

  Housing associations

  New town

  Total

  Private sector

  Local authority

  Housing associations

  New town

  Total

  1979–80

  15,226

  4,578

  1,019

  1,104

  21,927

  15,272

  4,818

  740

  2,081

  22,911

  1980–81

  9,586

  2,694

  1,335

  1,247

  14,862

  11,730

  5,199

  1,286

  1,217

  19,432

  1981–82

  11,422

  2,030

  1,192

  552

  15,196

  11,018

  3,141

  1,617

  1,408

  17,184

  1982–83

  12,794

  2,372

  2,368

  602

  18,216

  11,990

  2,222

  1,133

  678

  16,023

  1983–84

  15,374

  2,175

  991

  158

  18,698

  13,346

  2,470

  1,597

  564

  17,977

  1984–85

  14,192

  1,705

  1,449

  144

  17,490

  14,158

  2,024

  1,764

  261

  18,207

  1985–86

  14,300

  1,672

  1,403

  139

  17,514

  14,364

  1,880

  1,091

  141

  17,476

  1986–87

  14,301

  1,867

  1,575

  288

  18,031

  14,601

  1,678

  1,347

  150

  17,776

  1987–88

  13,520

  1,988

  1,991

  374

  17,873

  14,174

  2,021

  1,281

  183

  17,659

  1988–89

  15,576

  1,078

  2,414

  589

  19,657

  14,646

  1,818

  1,512

  224

  18,200

  1989–90

  18,416

  1,143

  2,698

  722

  22,979

  16,884

  1,243

  1,357

  612

  20,096

  1990–91

  117,154

  2757

  3,260

  2451

  21,622

  115,406

  2953

  1,866

  2631

  18,856

  1991–92

  115,267

  2683

  2,390

  2333

  18,673

  116,002

  21,003

  1,487

  2465

  18,957

  1Includes estimates for outstanding returns.

  2Returns are outstanding.

  Fife Child Care Inquiry
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report of the Fife child care inquiry will be published.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: I plan to seek the approval of the House to publish sheriff Kearney's report very shortly.

  Right-to-buy Scheme
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of income received from the sale of(a) local authority houses and (b) new towns houses in each of the years since the inception of the right-to-buy scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: The information requested is shown in the table as follows:

  £ million

  Income received from the sale of:

  Local authority houses

  New towns houses

  1980–81

  19.9

  12.1

  1981–82

  62.7

  16.5

  1982–83

  102.3

  16.0

  1983–84

  123.2

  22.0

  1984–85

  119.2

  20.4

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of starts and completions for(a) new houses, (b) private houses, (c) local authority, (d) housing associations and (e) new towns for each of the years 1979–80 to 1991–92 inclusive.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: The information requested is set out in the table:

  Income received from the sale of:

  Local authority houses

  New towns houses

  1985–86

  105.6

  17.1

  1986–87

  120.0

  21.2

  1987–88

  168.8

  28.1

  1988–89

  243.5

  30.7

  1989–90

  308.7

  45.6

  1990–91

  258.3

  45.2

  1991–92

  1247.3

  32.5

  1 Provisional outturn.

  Euratom Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on plans by the European Commission to inspect the radiation monitoring arrangements at Dournreay under the article 35 provisions of the Euratom treaty.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Agreement has been reached with the European Commission on the procedures to be followed in the United Kingdom for verifications under article 35 of the Euratom treaty of the operation and efficiency of environmental monitoring facilities for radioactivity. We have not yet received a formal request from the Commission for such a verification visit in respect of Dounreay or elsewhere.

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

Lord Ewing of Kirkford
Harry Ewing, Esquire, having been created Baron Ewing of Kirkford, of Cowdenbeath in the District of Dunfermline, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Kirkhill and the Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.

Lord Williams of Mostyn
Gareth Wyn Williams, Esquire, QC, having been created Lord Williams of Mostyn, of Great Tew in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mishcon and the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
Lord Martonmere—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.
The Duke of Argyll—Took the Oath.

Wessex Regional Health Authority: Computer System
3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Under what circumstances over the last 10 years the Wessex Regional Health Authority incurred a financial deficit of £40 million on the purchase and operation of a computer system which proved unsatisfactory, and what measures Her Majesty's Government have taken or are taking to deal with the situation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Wessex Regional Health Authority has stated that mismanagement led to that problem. The National Health Service management executive has issued revised guidance to health authorities concerning the control of such contracts.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for the information given by the noble Baroness in her reply. However, is she aware that the regional authorities are managed by people appointed by the Secretary of State, including the chairmen, who, we are told, possess special qualities and have the special knowledge to manage this kind of organisation? Does she agree that not enough attention was given to this matter by these people or that not enough knowledge of the subject was available to them? Or was it complete incompetence that allowed the situation to continue for 10 years? Would the Minister care to take
902
to the Secretary of State the suggestion that these people are not up to the job that they were given and that other people ought to be found to do it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is right up to a point. But the people concerned in the letting of these contracts are no longer involved with the regional health authority.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, what kind of financial control enables such a deficit to build up over 10 years? Does the noble Baroness agree that this is a matter which ought to be of concern to Ministers? There is no suggestion that the noble Baroness is in any way responsible for this situation. But will she confirm that in respect of such a sum the Minister ought to have been involved to ensure that there was proper control'?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the department was concerned. Although the scheme was very much a regional one and the region has taken responsibility for the mistakes that were made, the department on a number of occasions, through its regular review system, raised the issue with the region. The Secretary of State quickly appointed a new chairman, who in turn appointed a new regional general manager, whose first act was to call for an inquiry into the scheme and to abandon the project.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this sum of £40 million squandered, in her own words by "mismanagement", would have paid for the hospital for which my former constituents in Bristol South have been waiting since 1932?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to make it absolutely clear that £23 million of the expenditure has been put to good use. In addition the regional health authority has recovered a significant amount of money. It is also taking legal action to recover further amounts from the other companies involved.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that a substantial proportion of the £40 million expenditure referred to a contract let to a company formed by former employees of the health authority? Can she inform the House whether her department, the management executive or the Audit Commission have the power to investigate and if necessary stop the so-called "sweetheart" deals between health authorities and former employees for the supply of goods or services?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it was that very concern which led the regional general manager to institute an inquiry. He involved the district auditor, who has now said that he is satisfied with the financial and management arrangements that have been introduced by the region.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, one of the most exciting and sensible things that my noble friends on the Front Bench have done has been to introduce the National Health Service reforms. Does my noble friend agree that the corollary is that if someone makes a mistake—I put it as mildly as that—of this

903
calibre, someone's head ought to be on the block? Have there been any resignations or sackings and if not, why not?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the present regional general manager arrived in 1990, by which time the officers concerned had either moved to other jobs or retired. Two former senior members of staff were dismissed by the regional health authority in 1991 for gross misconduct, following its own investigation into the circumstances surrounding the placing of contracts for certain IT services. Those former officers are currently under investigation by the police for alleged fraud. All the evidence that the regional health authority possesses, including the district auditor's report, has been shared with the police and the RHA's own legal advisers.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the Minister feel that the district auditors should be fired as well?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, fortunately that is not a matter for me.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, apart from sacking the chairman, can my noble friend say what other steps have been taken to rectify the situation so that it will not happen again? Is she satisfied that all appropriate steps have been taken?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I am satisfied that all steps have been taken. In addition, the NHS management executive issued fresh guidance to the NHS on 9th September on the standards of management and conduct. That included advice on the tendering, management and monitoring of contracts with management or information technology consultants.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in reply to my first question, the Minister referred to the wrong people. She spoke about management staff and officers moving from the authority. My question was targeted at the people who were appointed as members of the regional management committee; it referred not to officers but to regional members, including the chairman. Are we to assume that they do not have any responsibility in this matter? Will not people think otherwise? Does the Minister agree that if a local authority had acted in that way, the council members would have been surcharged'?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should explain that the scheme was launched in 1984. In 1986 core tender invitations were issued and the contract awarded. In 1988 the facilities management contract was awarded. The new chairman was also appointed in 1988 but that was after the contract had been awarded.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will the Minister confirm that in a case of this kind the health authorities receive advice from government departments which, after all, have much experience of computer systems? I had intended to ask whether they
904
received advice from the Treasury but, judging by the Treasury's computer operations recently, maybe that would not be very appropriate.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is the case. I think I spelled out in an earlier Answer that the management executive issued fresh guidance on 9th September.

The Maastricht Treaty and the Arts
3.8 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, whatever the eventual fate of the Maastricht Treaty, they will seek the inclusion of culture in the area of competence of the European Commission.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government are committed to securing the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. Article 128 in that treaty formalises and puts on a clear legal base the co-operation in the cultural area which is already taking place. Without Maastricht ratification there would be no legal basis for any extension of Community competence to this area.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that Answer in so far as I understand it. Will he give a commitment that the future activities of British arts associations, which, after all, contribute some £8 billion to the nation's balance of payments, will be vigorously promoted and fully protected by Her Majesty's Government in any future European Community arrangements?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we certainly hope so, but we must wait and see when the Maastricht Treaty arrives in this House.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the letter in today's Times from the heads of a number of leading art firms in this country pointing out the folly of the latest set of directives from Brussels and the likelihood that they will ruin London's position as a leading place for arts sales? Does that not suggest that the further we keep culture away from Brussels the better?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have indeed read the letter that appears in The Times today. We appreciate the anxiety about the proposed directive and regulation. We have been involved in negotiations to achieve movement away from the originally overly-restrictive proposals. Much has been achieved both in the legal requirements in the body of the instrument and in the composition of the annex.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, my question arises from that put by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Is the noble Viscount aware that the proposal to impose VAT on imports of works of art and antiques into the Community from outside the Community will have an adverse effect on our art trade since over half the imports come from outside the Community? Will the Government take up that issue?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, yes, we are aware of the worries about the seventh VAT directive. It is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the Secretary of State for National Heritage will meet with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Paymaster General this week to discuss the future of the proposal.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would it not be far more productive for Her Majesty's Government to encourage the Commission to do the work that it is already supposed to have in hand? Is the noble Viscount aware that in particular since the departure of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, from the Commission, it has nothing to offer in the cultural field?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are today discussing Article 128 of the treaty which means that, at this country's insistence, action can be taken only on the basis of unanimity. Article 128 also lists a limited number of specific areas for Community cultural action and therefore excludes many others. I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome that.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the various nations and peoples of Europe have successfully managed to produce countless magnificent examples of art, architecture, literature and music over many centuries without feeling the need for assistance or interference from bureaucrats or Eurocrats? Moreover, does he agree that the principle of subsidiarity, which his right honourable friend the Prime Minister supports so strongly, must effectively remove perhaps 98 per cent. of what might loosely be described as culture from the competence of the European Community?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Community has been increasingly involved in cultural activity. Article 128 of the Maastricht Treaty establishes that position for the first time on a clear legal basis. The text underlines the importance and respect for national and regional cultural diversity. It makes clear that Community action is to support and supplement action by the member states.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, as the Minister pointed out, under the Maastricht Treaty the promotion of culture and heritage conservation is spelt out clearly in Articles 92 and 128. However, if the Maastricht Treaty falls, does not come before Parliament, or disappears, does the Minister agree that the Council of Ministers can take action on culture under Article 235 of the Treaty of Rome if acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission? Will the Government vigorously pursue that route if it becomes necessary?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Culture is covered by Article 235 of the Treaty of Rome, and action by the Commission by Article 36 for national treasures. The important factor about Article 128, about which we speak, is that it provides a legal framework for what already happens and an appropriate framework as to what should be pursued at European level rather than member state level.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that an increasing number of people in this country are anxious about the competence that the Commission already has in this country over many areas? They are worried that that competence may be increased. Is he further aware that Community competence has caused disaster to the farming industry, the fishing industry, our balance of payments and to our public sector borrowing requirement? Who on earth would want the Commission's competence to stray now into cultural matters?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord has read Article 128.5. The last sentence states that the Commission shall adopt only recommendations that have been unanimously approved.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that in informing the House about Article 128 of the treaty, he has just enunciated a powerful argument against ratifying that treaty?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is an intriguing question. I shall have to consider it before I answer.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, if I understood the Minister correctly, Article 128 makes legal what has occurred until now. Does that mean that the previous position has been illegal?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, no, the proposal defines the area of competence that the regulation will cover in future. It will be restricted to matters that are important at a European level rather than member state level. That is what matters.

Strategic Nuclear Missiles
3.16 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is now the theoretical military justification for strategic nuclear missiles; and how many of them there are.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, NATO's new strategic concept says:
"The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance".
The United Kingdom's strategic force currently consists of three Polaris submarines, each capable of carrying 16 missiles. Details of the strategic nuclear forces of other nations are provided on page 20 of this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates, Command Paper 1981.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the completeness of that Answer. However, is he aware that the arguments against the existence of strategic inter-continental missiles are growing and the arguments in favour of the continuation internationally of such missiles are declining? Not only are such views held in Scotland where Trident is being manufactured but they have even penetrated the columns of The Times and the

907
Daily Telegraph. Does he agree that it is time to consider a plan of diversification? If the present tendency continues, people will no longer be able to continue working on Trident. It is necessary for the Government to prepare for the possibility that Trident may have to be put out to grass.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we have always made it clear that the British nuclear deterrent is based on the minimum deterrent. Conventional weapons alone cannot prevent war, and certainly nuclear weapons can be a force for peace and stability.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that at a time of immense unpredictability in international affairs the test of a relevant defence policy is its ability to meet situations such as the grim events in Yugoslavia rather than situations such as were characteristically foreseen in the days of the cold war? With that in mind, is there not a danger that an overemphasis on strategic nuclear weapons is dangerously unbalanced? Will he therefore indicate what the preconditions would be for Her Majesty's Government to include British weapons in future strategic nuclear arms reduction talks?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am not certain whether the noble Lord was present last week when we discussed a number of matters. I hope that I made it perfectly clear to your Lordships' House that the nuclear deterrent underpinned the breadth of our overall strategic approach in matters of defence. At present it is perfectly clear that we have gone for the minimum possible nuclear deterrent, as I stated to your Lordships a moment ago. We foresee that as being the basis of the underpinning of our nuclear and strategic approach for the foreseeable future.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the noble Viscount realise that the small group of unilateral surrenderors who protested against the arrival of HMS "Vanguard" in the Clyde yesterday are but a small proportion of our population? The great bulk of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are wholly behind a policy of a unilateral deterrent which has kept the peace in Europe for 50 years and ensured the end of what President Reagan called the evil empire.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, in particular because I know that he is well aware of the state of public opinion in Scotland. He represented part of that country with distinction in another place when I was also made a Member. I have grown to accept his judgment of the state of public opinion in that country.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, if our present deterrent is a minimum deterrent, what world events made the Government decide to increase it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that I have understood the noble Lord's question. It is a minimum deterrent. There is no doubt that not only is it the minimum that we are able to deploy at the moment but, as I have made perfectly clear in
908
parenthesis, we have a declared maximum of 128 warheads per boat. That deterrent will provide a clear underpinning for the whole breadth and balance of our policy in the strategic field.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some Members on this side of the House are delighted that we retain an independent nuclear deterrent because it is not so much a question of what we would do about Yugoslavia but what we would do about Iraq and other countries of that ilk which undoubtedly would build such nuclear weapons if they were allowed?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has always taken a strong and constructive interest in these issues. He is well aware, as are all your Lordships, that Russia has a remarkable strategic nuclear capability to this day and that the disintegration of the Soviet Union has led to the leakage of a number of sophisticated weapons systems. There is always a strong danger that nuclear proliferation could occur in third world countries, as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that he will not accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, to take the views of The Times and the Telegraph as a reliable guide, because nowadays those journals appear to be somewhat unreliable?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord's experience of Fleet Street is considerably greater than mine and therefore I am happy to take his advice about the reliability or otherwise of the nation's newspapers.
Lord Rea: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, would it not be more logical to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, an article of which states that nuclear powers should take steps to reduce their nuclear armamentaria?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we are subscribers to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, as the noble Lord knows. At the same time we are well aware that our present posture in no way contravenes the provisions of that treaty.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, there has been a suggestion that the United States does not intend to continue the development of the Trident missile. Is that true and, if so, what will then happen?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we are clear and have received assurances that the agreements under which the United States has supplied the Trident missile remain in good order and still stand. I can reassure the noble Lord on that score.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Minister accept that in this Question we are not discussing general nuclear disarmament but in particular the strategic inter-continental missile, which has a potential for evil greater than that of any preceding empire?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I always listen to the noble Lord's comments with keen attention. However, I find it extremely difficult to support his contention that a strategic policy which has protected this country so effectively during the past 50 years is one based on evil. The events which would follow a nuclear explosion could be described as nothing else but evil, but the noble Lord has failed to distinguish between the explosion of a nuclear weapon and its deterrent effect.

London Hospitals: Future
3.25 p.m.
Lord Desai Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the operation of the internal market will be the only criterion in deciding the future of the London hospital service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, no. Sir Bernard Tomlinson and his team have supplied a strategic view of London's health services and medical education, taking account of a whole range of factors. The Government welcome his broad conclusions and intend to respond with detailed proposals early in the New Year.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she satisfied that enough will be done in implementing the proposals of the Tomlinson Report so that London's health services are not harmed in any way?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the whole purpose of the report and the Government's intention is to maintain high standards of health care for Londoners and to ensure that medical education and research is strengthened and that future developments in primary and acute care are further progressed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister make herself aware of the breaking up of high calibre clinical research teams which are part of some of the famous London hospitals?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the current position is that within a six mile radius of central London there are 11 major teaching hospitals,14 cardiac specialist units,13 neuro-surgery units,13 cancer units,11 renal units and nine plastic surgery units. That level of specialism cannot be sustained. Indeed, we know that as a result of the problem of having so many units we are falling behind in the international expertise which is necessary.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the primary health care services, which the Tomlinson Report advocates as needing strengthening, will be in place before the hospital service is dismantled in the way that is suggested?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is a difficult question to answer because the Government have not yet reached any decisions about Sir Bernard Tomlinson's report. They will consider the proposals, take advice and consult many interested parties during the next three months. At the end of that period the
910
Government will certainly make their decisions. I am sure that one of the questions that they will wish to consider is how to strengthen primary care.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware, and will she note, that if she or that Ministry of hers interferes in any way with Guy's Hospital she will be subjected to a row the like of which she has never heard?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have the great misfortune that both my brother and my father trained at Guy's; therefore, I know the strength of feeling in that hospital.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when the Government consider what to do about the recommendations in the report will they add to their list the provision of casualty and life support services within reach of the centre of London in crowded traffic conditions?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I can give my noble friend that undertaking.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her first supplementary answer will bring considerable rejoicing because she said that the Government have rejected the internal market as a mechanism for solving the problems of London's health service? The Government have said that there will be wide-ranging consultations following the Tomlinson Report. Will those consultations include patients? Furthermore, do the Government accept the main thrust of both the Tomlinson Report and the earlier King's Fund Report that substantial new resources must be invested in primary and community care in London before the closure of hospitals?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to clarify my first Answer. I was asked whether the internal market was the only criterion in deciding the future of London hospital services. I said that it was not; it was one of other criteria. On the question of consultation, no hospital can possibly be closed without going through the formal procedures. Those are lengthy. They involve community health councils and consultation with others before any decision by the Secretary of State. With regard to resources, on Friday in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health said that we cannot make any commitment on the level of expenditure until the current public spending round is over. However, we have stressed time and again that our main objective must be to improve health services for Londoners. We cannot achieve that without radically improving primary care.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that this is the greatest opportunity for improving the health care of London? Florence Nightingale complained that St. Thomas's should not have been opened because there were too many hospitals in central London. I believe Florence Nightingale died in 1910. Surely the Government have been offered a way of improving the bottom layer of London health, which is bad, compared to the top layer, which is oversubsidised.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Anyone who has any knowledge of London health services will recognise that the services are out of balance; that primary health care needs to be strengthened and that we must change a system that was coping with, and providing services for, a population which was at its height in inner London at the turn of the century or, if one includes outer London, in the late 1930s. The population has drifted away from London and we must tailor a service to meet the needs of the people of London both for this century and the next.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have passed the 30th minute on the digital indicator. At a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Astor will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on English Heritage.

Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
3.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Today we are debating two fisheries matters, the Second Reading of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill and the report of the European Communities Committee inquiry into the common fisheries policy. Our consideration of the Bill will undoubtedly be assisted by taking it together with a review of the common fisheries policy. The CFP, as it is known, has provided the framework for the development of UK fisheries conservation policy for the past nine years and a number of issues in the committee's report have a direct bearing on the Bill and associated policies.
The common fisheries policy has three broad aims: to regulate trade in fish and fish products through the common organisation of the market; to conserve and manage the common fisheries resource by controlling fishing activity; and to improve and adapt the structure of the fisheries sector. But the CFP—unlike the CAP (common agricultural policy)—leaves member states with considerable freedom to devise their own detailed policies. That is why my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was able to announce a national package of fisheries conservation measures on 27th February which was aimed at the special problems of the UK industry and which included the measures contained in the Bill.
The problem which this package and indeed measures emerging from Brussels seek to address is that of declining fish stocks. Fishing is a traditional industry in this country and many coastal communities depend on it for their livelihoods. But its survival is absolutely dependent on the availability of fish. Scientific advice indicates that many important stocks are seriously over-exploited; for example,
912
North Sea cod, haddock and whiting, and some stocks have reached critical levels. Although TACs and quotas are a useful management tool they have not prevented excessive fishing because they encourage discarding of both immature fish and over-quota fish in mixed catches which depresses stock levels while not counting against quota. Action is needed now to secure a long-term future for our fishing industry.
To put the Second Reading of the Bill in context, I should like briefly to describe the main elements of UK fisheries conservation policy. I shall start by describing what we are doing on technical conservation. I shall then go on to describe each part of the February conservation package and show how each part will contribute to achieving the targets which we are negotiating with the Commission under our multi-annual guidance programme (or MAGP) for reducing fishing effort and capacity during the period 1993– 1996. I hope that that will demonstrate that what we have is a package of related and interdependent measures of which the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill forms a vital part. As I describe each measure I shall respond to any issues that have been raised in the European Communities Committee report. After I have explained the provisions of the Bill in more detail, I should like to finish by addressing the wider aspects of the CFP covered in that report.
Fisheries conservation is being addressed through so-called technical measures where minimum mesh sizes and types of gear are laid down to ensure that juvenile fish escape capture and survive to maturity. We have agreed significant new Community measures, including different minimum mesh sizes for different areas, and the UK has taken its own unilateral measures following consultation with the industry to supplement the Community measures. The UK's national measures include the compulsory use of square mesh panels in the nephrops fisheries. The Government have noted the concern of the committee about the one-net rule and are aware that it may bear harder on certain sections of the industry than others. We will keep that, and all conservation measures, under review. I should nevertheless remind committee members and other noble Lords that the rule was introduced to stop the cheating and heavy discarding prevalent in certain sections of the industry. Fisheries departments are following with great concern the indications that these problems are worsening.
I should also like to remind your Lordships that technical measures cannot provide a complete answer in mixed species fishing grounds. For example, net sizes which allow juvenile haddock to escape will still catch immature cod. We nevertheless acknowledge that those measures can make an important contribution to fish conservation; that is why we will be continuing discussions with the industry next year to look for further improvements. I must stress however that they will not substitute for measures in the Bill.
Turning to the February conservation package, the first measure is to extend the licensing system to all vessels fishing for profit. Until now vessels of 10 metres overall length or less have not been licensed. But that sector of the fleet has expanded significantly

913
and is having a marked impact on some stocks. We need to limit that if we are to achieve our MAGP targets. We. are particularly keen to halt the development of the "metre beater" vessels whose dimensions are designed specifically to avoid the restrictions currently applying to larger vessels. We are pleased that the committee welcomes that move. We have also noted the committee's suggestion that licence charges should be introduced to cover the cost of administration. We shall bear that suggestion in mind but the Government have no plans to charge at present.
Secondly, we are considering measures which will allow producer organisations flexibility to take their own steps to help rationalise the fleet and thus meet our MAGP targets. We propose that in future producer organisations will be free to make whatever quota swaps they think are in their members' interests. The rules which restricted such swaps to quantities of different fish of the same notional value would be abolished. We have also consulted the industry about other ideas for further rationalisation through increased flexibility, such as buying and selling quotas. That has brought a mixed reaction and fisheries departments are still considering the way forward.
The third plank of our capacity and effort reduction policy addresses the fact that, quite simply, the fleet is too large for the amount of fish that can be taken if stocks are to be maintained. The Government plan to make up to £25 million available for a cash limited decommissioning scheme to help industry bring effort and capacity into balance with fish stocks. We do not agree with the committee, however, that this is too little too late. Decommissioning cannot be effective on its own because it would leave those vessels remaining in the fleet free to increase their fishing effort either by increasing the time they spend at sea or through the technological improvements which are made year by year.
This is why, before we introduce a decommissioning scheme, we are taking powers in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill to limit the time that fishermen may spend at sea. This is the only part of the package of measures announced in February that requires primary legislation and it will enable us to restrict fishing effort to the level necessary to conserve fish stocks, taking into account the effects of the other measures in the package.
We do not agree with the committee that tie-ups should be simply an interim measure until effective decommissioning schemes are in place. For the reasons I have already given, decommissioning on its own does not prevent the remainder of the fleet from increasing its effort. We already have powers to control fishing activity but, as noble Lords will realize, it is quite impractical to control the activities of some 4,000 vessels fishing across thousands of square miles of sea. What the Bill does is to refine the powers we already have in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 to enable us to control fishing effort in the only practicable and enforceable way—by limiting time vessels may spend at sea.
I know that there is widespread and deep concern in the fishing industry about the Bill and, before I deal
914
with its provisions in detail, there are two specific points that I would like to address. First, it is said that days at sea restrictions will ruin the livelihoods of many fishermen. That is simply not true. Our aim is to start by freezing effort at last year's levels. This should not seriously affect levels of profitability and we believe that all fishermen will be able to take up their full entitlement of fish. Moreover, fishermen will continue to be permitted to transfer licences and will therefore have the opportunity to acquire additional days at sea if they wish.
In future years we cannot rule out the possibility of having to make reductions in some sectors of the fleet to meet our MAGP targets. But the figure of 30 per cent. that has been widely reported by representatives of the industry is a considerable exaggeration. We are still negotiating in Brussels but it is already clear that member states regard that figure as too high and want the Commission to reduce it. In any event, there will be different rates of reduction for different sectors of the fleet. Moreover, the scale of days at sea reduction also depends on the extent to which the industry plays its part in reducing capacity by taking up the other parts of the package, including decommissioning. It is clear that the other measures I have described will together make a substantial contribution towards the targets set by Brussels. Noble Lords will also be pleased to know that I intend to introduce an amendment to the Bill at a later stage which will require the Government to make an affirmative resolution order each time they intend to make overall reductions in days at sea allocations. Parliament will therefore have an opportunity to consider the size of the reductions.
Secondly, I know a great deal of concern has been expressed on the question of whether other member states are intending to impose similar controls on their fleets and also whether we can enforce our restrictions in respect of the quota hopper vessels. I would like to repeat to noble Lords the assurance that my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food made in another place in July. He said:
"We should not introduce such a resolution [to reduce days at sea] unless we are satisfied that member states which share our fishery stocks are taking effective steps to meet their multi-annual guidance programme targets".—[Official Report, Commons,14/7/92; col.1027.]
The Government will stand by that commitment. We are aware of the concern about quota hoppers. As UK-registered vessels they will of course be subject to days at sea restrictions and it may be possible to use satellite technology to monitor their compliance more closely. That would be in line with the Commission's recent proposals for a new control regulation. I hope to table an amendment concerning the use of this type of information for control and enforcement at a later stage.
I should now like to explain the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 enables Ministers to restrict the time that licensed vessels spend at sea by imposing a new condition in sea fishing licences. It will also enable them to determine, by way of licence conditions, what time at sea will mean in practice. Our intention is to restrict the days that fishermen may spend at sea and

915
to use licence conditions to set down precisely how they will be defined, notified and controlled. We intend to allow as much flexibility as possible in operating the scheme including leaving fishermen free to choose when to fish and when not to. This should allow them flexibility to observe any religious or other traditions and to avoid putting to sea in bad weather.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl for interrupting so early in his speech. I thank him very much for giving way. There is a very important point. Are the restrictions on putting to sea to be levied vessel by vessel, by classes of vessel, by ports or how?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the intention is to impose them vessel by vessel. Clause I also gives Ministers a broader power to require information from fishermen by enabling them to require the provision of non-statistical information and to specify the form it should be provided in. This provision will ensure that fisheries departments have all the information necessary to enforce the new time at sea restriction. Subsection (5) amends the evidential status of certain documents under Scots law. The documents affected are all vital to the successful prosecution of breaches of licence conditions and in each case the author is under a legal obligation to complete them and to complete them accurately.
Finally, Clause 1 enables Ministers to revoke or suspend licences when licence conditions or prohibitions, including time at sea restrictions, have been breached. All sea fishing licences are issued at the discretion of the Minister. Furthermore, Ministers already have and exercise powers to revoke and suspend licences for the purposes of regulating fishing. This provision simply extends those powers to individual licences whose owners have breached licence rules. The main purpose of this amendment is to enable Ministers to take action in the case of persistent offenders who, by blatantly disregarding the law, are putting not only fish stocks but also the livelihoods of law-abiding fishermen at risk. We all know that there is widespread disregard for fishing rules by some fishermen: we intend to do everything we can to put a stop to it.
Clause 2 establishes the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal to hear appeals from fishermen against their initial time at sea allocation. It also provides for regulations to be made on the principles on which time at sea allocations will be based, on how appeals should be made and on the procedural arrangements for the tribunal. Ministers will appoint the members of the tribunal and will make provision for their remuneration and expenses and for the staff, accommodation and expenses of the tribunal. Clause 6 brings the tribunal under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals.
Clause 3 applies the provisions of the Bill concerning information, evidence status in Scots law and licence revocation and suspension to fish transhipment licences.
Clause 4 enables Ministers to make regulations concerning how fishing and transhipment licences will
916
be granted and how licence variations, revocations and suspensions will take effect. The regulations will also cover the persons to whom such documents must be delivered and the time when they will be effective. The purpose of these regulations will be to clarify how and when licences take effect so that fishermen cannot avoid being bound by their terms by claiming that they had not received a licence because they were at sea.
Clause 5 increases the maximum penalty on summary conviction for breach of a licence condition from £5,000 to £50,000. This increase will bring the penalty for breaching a days at sea restriction into line with other similar fishing offences, such as fishing without a licence, which already attracts a maximum fine of £50,000.
Clause 7 deals with commencement. The provisions relating to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal and to the regulations on the granting of licences will come into effect immediately on Royal Assent. The remaining provision will come into effect one month after Royal Assent. However, because time at sea restrictions will not apply initially to vessels of 10 metres or less in length, Ministers will be required to specify a commencement date for the introduction of such restrictions for this sector in an affirmative resolution order. This will provide Parliament with an opportunity of debating the extension of the time at sea policy to smaller fishing vessels.
We must take action to ensure that we take no more fish from the sea than can be replaced by remaining stocks. The February package of measures will go a long way to achieving that goal but the measures will not work unless Ministers have the powers contained in this Bill. They are essential to the long-term future of the fishing industry in this country and I commend the Bill to the House today.
Turning to the wider issues I am grateful to the European Communities Committee for its report on the common fisheries policy. I have already addressed the important questions of fleet structure and capacity addressed in that report but there are a number of other important recommendations which it makes to which I feel I should respond now. The Government have also submitted a memorandum.
Noble Lords, I know, share the Government's view that relative stability is one of the cornerstones of this policy. It ensures that the fishing industry in each member state is guaranteed annually the same percentage share of total allowable catches. The shares are based on historic track records and account is taken of lost long-distant water fisheries and communities highly dependent on fisheries for their livelihoods. In this way the system safeguards traditional fishing patterns. Any reopening of the basis for these national allocations, except as may be necessary to deal with further enlargement of the Community, could upset this complex balance.
We know that the application of Hague Preference in the Irish Sea is felt to be unfair, but the Hague Preference is inextricably woven into the fabric of relative stability and overall it brings substantial benefit to the United Kingdom. Any changes to it would probably have far-reaching and unwelcome

917
consequences for our industry. Recognising the real concerns expressed, however, the Government will continue to seek to reduce any disadvantages to Northern Ireland and Wales, for example, by utilising the system of quota exchanges with other member states which has traditionally enabled the United Kingdom to obtain additional quantities in the Irish Sea.
I fully endorse the committee's view that the weaknesses in the system of total allowable catches and quotas are not fatal. I agree that the system and its enforcement can and should be improved. Total allowable catches serve two important functions; first, ensuring management of the amount of fish stocks which should be caught and, secondly, enabling fishing opportunities to be divided between member states and third countries on an equitable basis. Total allowable catches—alongside effort control—as the quantitative controls on fishing are reinforced by qualitative controls such as the prescription of minimum mesh sizes and minimum fish sizes. But all of these controls need to be developed or improved further. Changes to the system of total allowable catches need to be considered very carefully as it would make no sense to introduce changes where these would exacerbate the problem of discarding. The Community is now looking at ideas for rolling multi-annual total allowable catches and multi-species total allowable catches to see if these might have advantages over the present system of annual single-species total allowable catches. We will play a full part in those discussions.
The Government are very aware of the concerns of noble Lords and the public in general about the possible adverse effects of industrial fishing. We want to ensure that constraints applied to industrial fishing are every bit as stringent as those which apply to fisheries for human consumption and that in any event the latter type of fishery must always take precedence over the former. Only last week we pressed the Commission to produce the much awaited report on industrial fishing in the North Sea which, we hope, will provide us with a means to take matters forward during our presidency.
The Government also share the Commission's deep objections to discards. Indeed, that is why we have been taking the lead in the EC both in monitoring them, in pressing for more selective gear and in adopting national measures, including square mesh panels in the nephrops fisheries, over and above what the EC requires. We are less sanguine about the scope for a discard ban as suggested by the committee. Any system we set up to encourage fishermen to keep undersize fish may end up actually encouraging them to catch it: this is the dilemma. They will not necessarily encourage fishermen to move to other areas to avoid high catches of small fish; hence the importance we attach to technical conservation measures.
Turning further afield, the committee's report supported fisheries agreements with third countries. Noble Lords may know how much our distant water fleet depends on reciprocal fisheries agreements with third countries in the north Atlantic. These provide
918
valuable opportunities additional to those available in Community waters. But we arc concerned that other agreements with third countries, which involve fishing rights in exchange for financial compensation or the establishment of joint ventures, should always provide value for money and that there should be clearer reports on the uptake of such agreements by the Community fleet. Tariff reductions on imports are likely to be an increasing feature of these agreements and the trend in international negotiations generally is towards long-term tariff reductions.
The committee also addressed regional socioeconomic problems. The Government have an open mind on the Commission's proposal for the creation of a new Objective 6, as an addition to the present system for targeting the Community's structural funds, to address the socio-economic problems arising specifically from the fishing cutbacks. We note the committee's support for these proposals. However, it is not yet clear what measures the Commission has in mind, nor has it been clearly demonstrated that there is a need to set up a new objective rather than using the existing objective suitably amended to cater for fisheries-dependent areas.
Finally, enforcement is an important key to the success of the common fisheries policy. Strict enforcement of the rules is essential wherever Community vessels operate and improved surveillance and enforcement must be a priority for the Community. Measures to improve control are now being addressed on the basis of a newly proposed control regulation, issued earlier this month, and also a specific proposal relating to waters covered by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation. We very much share the committee's views that, wherever possible, rules should be simplified to assist enforcement and we note the committee's wish for harsher penalties. We hope to take discussion forward on these issues during our presidency.
In the next few weeks as we discuss the future of the common fisheries policy we shall be taking on board as far as possible the various views expressed. We shall be seeking to emerge with an improved common fisheries policy with practical and enforceable management tools and with the correct balance of responsibility between member states, the Council and the Commission. But the key elements of the CFP, the key planks of Community policy, must remain—namely, relative stability between member states, TACs and quotas, and access within Community waters. That framework has served us well over the years. Within that framework, the Government and UK fishermen must play their part in fostering and maintaining the long-term viability of our fishing industry. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Howe.)
4 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for introducing the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill with his customary clarity. I take this opportunity to express our appreciation of the fact that the noble Lords, Lord Amherst of Hackney and Lord Moyne,

919
are to make their maiden speeches on this important subject this afternoon. I should like to say briefly to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, how much we on this side of the House appreciate the excellent report on this topic which the sub-committee has produced at a very important time. I hope that, by taking the Bill and the report in tandem, so to speak, we shall derive benefit from the wisdom contained in the report.
We are all agreed on the need for accepting advice from scientists on areas and species for conservation purposes. I hope, in view of the high price of acceptance of that advice, that the advice is correct and sound. Fishermen also accept conservation advice yet they see the Bill as basically a scheme for decommissioning. They do not like either its financial provisions, which they regard as inadequate, or the powers it gives to Ministers regarding licence conditions, especially days at sea, which we are told could be both oppressive and, in certain respects, as matters now stand, unworkable.
Past generosity in granting licences has caught up with Her Majesty's Government as total allowable catches of certain fish have recently decreased sharply; for example, in 1988 haddock had a TAC of 128,500 tonnes which, by 1992, had decreased to 45,000 tonnes; in 1988 the figure for cod was 71,490 tonnes, which has now decreased to 43,320 tonnes. The severity of reduced quotas has affected the livelihood of fishers. It has led also to alleged scams—another word for evasions—about which I hope to say something later.
Her Majesty's Government's decision to decommission contrasts with refusals when the industry requested such a scheme. On 21st January 1991 I asked a supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who then had responsibility for Scottish affairs. I asked him:
"in view of the major and continuing reduction in Great Britain's total allowable catches under the common fisheries policy … Will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food consider the introduction of a decommissioning scheme to allow fishermen over middle age and operating older vessels to give up fishing, subject to Community and government assistance towards the funding of such a scheme"?
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, replied:
"We have always made plain the fact that the decommissioning scheme is not a good use of taxpayers' money. It would be expensive and would not help to reduce the overall capacity. Against that background is the fact that white fish prices have increased by 15 per cent. during the past 12 months".—[Official Report,21/1/91; col.2.]
Yet in February 1992, as the noble Earl told us, the Government announced their decommissioning plans. February 1992 was close to certain events in April 1992 and it may be that the Minister's intentions were something of an electoral gambit. If so, the hostility of the industry to the Bill is yet further evidence of the Government's error at that time.
How much of a reduction in the size of a fleet will a £25 million decommissioning scheme produce? Paragraph 106 of the Select Committee report calls for four or five times that sum. Whatever scale of reductions the Bill achieves, will quota hopping increase? That too is discussed by the Select Committee at page 55.
920
At col.200 on 19th October 1992 in the other place, Her Majesty's Government announced that 57 Spanish,21 Dutch and two Danish fishing vessels were registered in the UK. Will those increase under the Bill's provisions? Do the Government consider that quota hopping is compatible with conservation? Will the satellite technology which the Government are proposing as an amendment to the Bill really meet the case of dealing with quota hoppers.
Clause 1(2) gives Ministers powers to specify the time—that is, the number of days—which a licence holder may spend at sea. That power is compounded by the power giving Ministers authority in Clause 1(3) to say what is a day at sea. That definition is a vital issue as regards fishermen.
In some ways those provisions are at the heart of the Bill. As the noble Earl recognised, fishermen are rightly apprehensive about them, not least because United Kingdom fishing practices differ by areas. Other speakers will doubtless have queries, but for now questions about pre-consultation, flexibility and enforcement of days at sea are provisions fundamental to the operation of the Bill.
Present ministerial powers to regulate fishing by suspension or revocation of licences are to be extended by the Bill so that those powers become penalties for breaching licence limitations. That extension of use will enable fisheries departments to take enforcement action administratively and is to complement existing arrangements for summary conviction through the courts. Such administrative action, even for breach, is a heavy hand. Will there be any appeal system when it is used?
The Sea Fish Licence Tribunal is a quango-like creation, reminiscent of the machinery quickly devised to deal with milk quotas. Fishers would like to be as well treated under the Bill as farmers expect to be under the new CAP rules for set aside. However, the tribunal is necessarily an adjudication body to hear appeals against initial time at sea allocation. It was created following all-party pressure in Committee in another place. As the noble Earl said, the tribunal will be supervised by the Council on Tribunals. Is there any place in that for the European Court of Justice to intervene in continuing and unresolved disputes? It may be necessary to table a probing amendment to determine that question.
Financial penalties are heavily increased by the Bill from £5,000 to £50,000 for a licence breach. That emphasises the importance of days at sea restrictions. As has been said, the Bill is not to apply initially to vessels of 10 metres or less in length. The date of commencement for that category is to require an administrative order. We shall want to discuss that restriction when it is introduced, not least because of the apprehension concerning it. Can the Minister say when Her Majesty's Government expect to implement Clause 7(2)?
The administrative costs of the Bill's provisions are significant when added to present costs. Yet one wonders whether the enforcement proposed, including licence fines and deterrents, will be adequate if limitations on catches increase, as seems likely.

921
Discussions began in the Fisheries Council in Brussels on 19th October on draft regulations to replace the basic common fisheries policy regulations and control legislation. That is likely to be a lengthy process. In the course of discussions, will Her Majesty's Government seek to make quotas truly national? If tougher rules lie ahead, should we not think about landing white fish only at designated ports where inspectors are on duty?
The Select Committee report rejects on grounds of prohibitive cost the idea of licensing fish buyers. However, there is a view that such a system is necessary so that licences can be withdrawn if there is evidence of illegal dealings. Have the Government considered the position of fish buyers in a conservation exercise? Further, is the idea that fishermen should sell their fish only at public auctions too onerous to be practical either now or in the future?
If total allowable catches are further reduced, pressures to fish illegally may increase, so protection for legal fishing must be strengthened. Failure to ensure that will disadvantage those who observe the rules, as well as reducing the conservation value of the Bill.
No one should underestimate both current and future problems of fishermen. Letters from all parts of the United Kingdom show the realities of present difficulties as well as fears about the effect of further limitations on families and small communities. If home fishermen are not allowed to fish often enough to make a living, how are they to be compensated, especially under the share fishing system which now applies widely in the industry?
As it stands, the Bill is still capable of amendment. Despite a prolonged Committee stage in another place, Her Majesty's Government resisted changes. In view of the interval between the Third Reading there and the introduction of the Bill here, will the Minister say whether the Government have had any second thoughts, apart from those to which he referred in his speech, particularly of an amelioratory kind, following discussions with fishermen's organisations? We shall seek amendments but it would be helpful to know whether the Government will listen sympathetically to at least some of those.
We recognise that the Bill is necessary. Nevertheless, we express anxiety about the aspects of the Bill to which I have referred in this brief speech. During the passage of the Bill, both in Committee and on Report, we hope that there will be some disposition on the part of the Government to look at some of the problems which have been bought to our notice since the Bill received a Third Reading elsewhere. I am not without hope that, apart from what has been said regarding an affirmative order to amend the reductions for clays at sea and the use of satellite technology to restrict quota hoppers, that there are other aspects of the Bill to which intelligent amendments, vigorously pursued, will produce a sympathetic response from the noble Earl.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, in thanking the Minister for his explanation of the Bill and in saying how much we look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Amherst and Lord Moyne. I hope it is in order to ask the Minister whether at the end of the debate we can be told anything about the explosion or fire which I understand has swept through Sullom Voe and possibly be assured that there has been no loss of life. That may be out of order, but if the Minister has any information I am sure the House would like to have it.
I am slightly out of date over fishing. It is some years now since I was out in a fishing boat. The industry is changing but there are certain things which I think are still common to all fishing communities and differentiate them from other communities. Fishing communities have a very specialised type of life. The most extreme example is probably a little community, Out Skerries, in Shetland. Skerries, as they are known, are a few rocks in the North Sea yet they have the same population as they had in the middle of the last century. Over the same period the agricultural communities have shrunk almost out of sight. The reason they have maintained their population is that the people fish.
There are two or three fishing boats on Skerries and they have been there for a hundred years. Boys on Skerries want to fish and the whole population of Skerries depends on fishing. There is nothing else to do and nowhere else to go. There is no land. With regard to other occupations it is said,"Give people compensation and they can find other employment". One cannot do that in Skerries. It would finish the whole Skerries community. That is an extreme case but it is only an extreme case of what is true of many fishing communities. The communities are as specialised as mining communities. In fact they are more specialised. In Cornwall, Northern Ireland and Wales there are communities which have depended on fishing for generation upon generation. The boys want to go to fish. If there is no fishing, a way of life will be ended.
The other feature of these communities is that fishing is a gamble. To my mind, sociologists have grossly neglected the fishing industry. Fishing suits many human beings. It is far less dull than agriculture. It gets the men out of the house—that is extremely important—and enables different forms of life to be carried on across the sea, amicably and without problems. But it is above all a gamble. Therefore, it is peculiarly resistant to bureaucratic control.
I do not understand much about the report, excellent though it is, but I should like to ask noble Lords to look at pages 43 and 44. Another feature of fishing is the extreme difficulty of collecting statistics or knowing how to interpret them. On page 43 noble Lords will find a list of the top 12 ports in the United Kingdom. The top port is Lerwick. More fish were landed at Lerwick than anywhere else. It is only 20 years since I was told that the Shetland fishing industry would probably be finished, that the big trawlers would be landing in Hull—Hull is not on the

923
list—that North Sea fishing would be badly affected by oil and that the outlook for Shetland was poor. Shetland is now the chief port in Britain. Third on the list is Ullapool. That might lead one to suppose that suddenly in the west of Scotland there is a very large local fishery, but I suspect that nearly all the fish in Ullapool are landed by east coast boats. Therefore one has to be very careful how one interprets these statistics.
On page 44 there is a list of the numbers of people employed in fishing. I am extremely surprised to find that more people are employed in fishing in the Western Isles than in Orkney and Shetland put together. Indeed, almost one-third as many people are employed in Orkney as in Shetland. I do not mind betting that that is strictly right but wholly misleading. I simply do not believe that there are all those numbers of people in the Western Isles toiling away at fishing. One may notice that Stornoway does not appear on the previous list of the 12 major ports in Britain. That is not to say that people do not go to sea or that they do not have boats but to suggest that it is a major fishing port in the Western Isles—as big as Shetland—would be wrong.
Another point I wish to mention is the Shetland box, to which reference is made on page 297 of the report. The Shetland box is an area off the north of Shetland which is being protected by licensing with the idea of protecting the breeding stocks. During the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons the Government said they intended to maintain the box. However, as the Government will see from pages 295 to 297 of the report, the Shetland fishermen think that the box should be extended. Have the Government any further information about the box? Do they intend to maintain it or even to extend it?
One feature of the fishing industry, as the Minister rightly said, is the great increase in catching power arising from industrial fishing, which I wholly agree should be looked on with some suspicion. I know that a large and well-equipped boat has appeared in Orkney. I wonder where it is going to fish. It may be going to fish in the southern Atlantic. It may be going to look for all the kinds of little fish which make up industrial catches. I take it that there will be a subsidy. In addition to the subsidy I understand that it is eligible for a grant of £280,000 from the local authority. I should like to be reassured that our policy of trying to restrict catching power, particularly of edible fish, is not at loggerheads with our policy of subsidising very large vessels for purposes of which I am ignorant. It may be, as I say, that they are outside the range of this Bill and are intended for the south Atlantic. I do not know.
I now come to the Bill. The first thing that struck me about the Bill is that it will be extremely dictatorial. As far as I understand it, the Minister is saying that if necessary the Government will bring in regulations which will enable someone simply to tell a particular boat—not a class of boat—that it cannot go to sea. I understand that if this regulation is passed by Parliament someone will be able to go along to a small port in Cornwall or in the Shetlands, name a
924
particular boat and say,"You cannot go to sea". I suggest to the House that that is an extremely dictatorial act and requires a great deal of justification. I should like to know on what evidence this decision will be made. Will it be made on the basis that a particular boat has caught too many fish, or will it be made on the basis that it can best afford not to go to sea? How will the decision be made? I am told that the general curfew will be dated 1991 but it is the future with which I am concerned. Next year, or the year after, decisions may be made forbidding boats to go to sea. Who will make them? There will be an appeal system but it cannot possibly work quickly enough to save any boat that is affected.
Further, fishermen have to plan ahead. A fisherman from Cornwall wrote to me. He has a mortgage to pay. If he has hanging over his head a threat that an official can come along and say "No, you cannot go to sea", it will make life impossible. I do not know the answer to that problem. However, the alternative of restriction class by class is even worse.
The Minister in another place made a very curious statement:
"We face the possibility of multinational guidance programme targets".
Legal libraries in fishing ports are rather scant and one can envisage the fishermen anxiously going along and saying, "Are we the target of a multinational programme?" However, I gather that there are no plans for multinational guidance programmes and that at least is something to be thankful for. However, we are left with an extremely unsatisfactory method and I cannot see how it will be applied.
What power will Parliament have? There will be an affirmative resolution entitling the Minister to choose the boats that cannot go to sea. That is the end of Parliamentary control.
What is the bureaucratic aspect of the matter? The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill states:
"Restricting days at sea for some 3,800 vessels over 10 metres in length will require a significant increase in enforcement posts".
My God, I should say that it would. Is the length confined to over 10 metres or does it refer to all boats, in which case the figure is much more than that? It could be 6– 7,000 vessels. The Memorandum continues:
"Provisional estimates suggest that the Sea Fisheries Inspectorates will require an increase in man years of around 30 in England and Wales, over 25 in Scotland and around 5 in Northern Ireland-.
Why does the Bill refer to man years? Does that not simply mean employees? Will the whole staff be sacked every year and then re-engaged? Perhaps we can have further information on that matter.
Who will interpret what is the time spent at sea? The Bill contains a very curious phrase in Section 1 (3):
"A licence containing a condition restricting the time which a vessel may spend at sea may make provision as to the circumstances in which time is, or is not, to count as time spent at sea".
There is no restriction on time. According to the Bill, time spent in port may be reconciled with time spent at sea. That is another example of misuse of the

925
English language. It is extremely misleading. Who will decide what is the time spent at sea, and what does the phrase mean?
The alternative is the decommissioning scheme. It is true that that may not be the entire answer, but it is a better answer. I should like to know whether the Government can do more to improve it.
The total amount set aside is £25 million. That is an extremely small amount. Every day in the papers one sees that top executives who are sacked for incompetence receive anything from half a million pounds to £2 million by way of a golden handshake; and that is for incompetence! The wretched fishermen will have to share £25 million among 6–7,000 people, or those among them who are stopped from going to sea. That is a very odd of example of treatment of the poor compared with the treatment of the rich. The sum should be greatly increased. I understand that the EC offered to increase that amount and I should like an assurance from the Minister that that is not the case because I cannot believe that the Government would have been so foolish as to refuse it.
The decommissioning scheme should be improved. As it stands it will not solve the difficulties of the fishing communities and it may not solve difficulties of conservation. I do not say that survival of the fishing communities and the inshore communities is more or less important, but it is important and it was not mentioned in the objectives with which the Minister commenced his speech. It can be achieved in various ways. It is an important matter and requires very special thought because the communities cannot be dealt with by bureaucratic methods. Those communities differ all over the land with the different kinds of fishing that they undertake.
I do not as yet wholly oppose the Bill because the Minister may be able to convince me on how it will be enforced. However, I beg the Minister to look again at the decommissioning scheme, which I believe is a better method. It is extremely difficult to understand how on earth the Bill will be administered.
4.25 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the Minister for the way in which he introduced the debate. I am particularly pleased that we have had the opportunity to debate not only the Second Reading of the Bill but also our committee's report. The two work well together in debate. We are looking at the wider review of the common fisheries policy. As the Minister has explained, he is bringing to us today just one part of a multi-prong strategy to deal with a problem that is recognised to be very serious.
The committee, faced with a technical matter such as this with many different and obscure aspects, was enormously grateful for a specialist adviser, Mr. Boyd Gordon. I should like to thank him and our clerk, Mrs. Mary Bloor, for all the help that they have given
US.
Other members of the sub-committee will be speaking today and I am sure that they will address a number of the issues which by force of time I cannot address. I regret that my noble friend Lady Carnegy
926
appears to have been omitted from the list due to some misunderstanding. I hope, however, that she finds an opportunity to intervene in the debate.
The report from the Commission forms the basis of our investigation and is what one might call a half-term report. After 10 years it was written into the common fisheries policy that there should be a review. The report was initiated in 1983, so this year we are approaching the Council of Ministers' deliberations. I hope that our report has helped to put the recommendations and the report itself into context.
The review does not pull any punches. It is quite damning in its indictment of the failure of its own common fisheries policy to achieve what it set out to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, stated, the first and most important objective was to secure a livelihood for fishing communities which are so much at risk if that one source of livelihood fails them.
Fishing stocks are failing. One has only to look at the statistics—which I hope are more readily understandable than those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond—that deal with the decline of cod and haddock stocks in the North Sea. Those are two of the most significantly economic stocks and they are declining. The fish stocks are in danger of collapse. With their demise go the fishing communities. The two are inextricably linked. What the Bill seeks to achieve, what we commend and what the review of the common fisheries policy tries to achieve is a balance between capacity, effort and stock.
The evidence of the failure is not just declining stocks and increasing pressure on fishing communities. There is also evidence of grievance from other countries, which is not unjustified. They are addressing the same problems. Norway, Iceland and Canada share fisheries with us and they have all had to address very real problems. Sometimes they have been more effective. At times they have introduced draconian measures, but they have faced up to the problems.
There is the environmental impact which is dealt with at some length in the report. There is evidence that there is damage to the food chain going well beyond the fisheries stocks, themselves caused by the take, and there is damage to the marine environment as a whole.
What are the causes of such failure? One has to say, fairly and squarely, that it has been the inability of successive Councils of Ministers to tackle the problem. They have had scientific evidence, year after year, which has demonstrated that stocks are at risk. There has been the usual fudge and compromise which there always is on these occasions where one national government compromises with another and we end up with figures which are not supported by the scientists. There has then been the failure to allow for the implementation of new technology which means that we become ever more efficient. Some clever measures have been taken to avoid the rules. There is a whole new fleet of ships called the "rulebreakers". They are either 10 metres long or marginally less. They do not have to be licensed and are therefore not taken into account when the total allowable catches are fixed. They represent a significant proportion of the

927
capacity. We welcome the measures the Government propose to take to license them, but nevertheless they represent a large contributory factor in the failure to control the common fisheries policy and the stocks.
There are then the illegal landings. The Minister was right when he said that that represents an enormous problem which is worsening. As legislators, we should be worried. We are trying to legislate in a way which we believe will address the problem but there is a whole sector which feels that it can no longer abide by the rules and, quite frankly, breaks them and acts illegally. It seems to be an accepted way of life in a large part of the fishing community."Black fish" is a widespread phenomenon.
The last reason one must list is the lack of Community-wide enforcement. Some countries, notably the United Kingdom, do more than others. The fact that other countries do less causes grievances and no doubt adds to people's unwillingness to abide by laws which they feel are enforced unevenly.
I turn now to the measures which the committee recommends to achieve stability of the stock. We recognise—we are at one with the Minister here—that the principle of relative stability between nations is an important concept. We accept that it cannot be put at risk. I say that because the memorandum which the ministry has published seems to imply that the committee wants to make some radical changes to the allocation. There is one aspect to which the Minister referred about which we agree with him. It is that the Hague preference which sought to protect fishing communities in the extremities of Europe—that includes the northern part of the United Kingdom—gave a degree of preference to those communities, but it seems to have borne unfairly on Northern Ireland as compared to the Republic of Ireland. Without opening the Pandora's Box about which the Minister is so worried, we hope that that issue can be addressed in the context of the review that is to take place at the half-term stage.
The multi-annual guidance policy has not been conspicuously successful in the past. It set unrealistically low targets. The United Kingdom has not sought to participate and the policy has not sought to make adjustments relating to improvements in efficiency. We recognise that "tie-up" as part of the package is essential at this stage of the game. It is described in our report as a necessary interim measure because it is economically inefficient. After all, some member states have spent a great deal of their taxpayers' money grant-aiding new capacity as part of the deal under the multi-annual guidance policy. What on earth is the point of the taxpayer spending that money on new capacity if we then say that there must be tie-up and it is no longer used? It is clearly a waste of resources.
Ultimately, we hope to be able to balance fleet capacity with stock. When we achieve that happy state, tie-up will not be necessary. That should he the Government's objective. We should not accept that tie-up will be a necessary part of the policy for ever and a day, although it will be for the time being. We welcomed the flexibility to which the Minister referred which suggests that the tie-up proposals can be
928
tailored to individual circumstances. That will be important, although, like the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I do not envy the man who has to do the tailoring.
We suggested that licences should be charged for and should apply to ships under 10 metres in length. Clearly it is not possible to have a decommissioning proposal if people spend their money on the small rulebreakers. We achieve nothing, and so we welcome the proposal to license ships of under 10 metres. If, as is clearly the case, the Government believe that they cannot afford anything more generous than £25 million for decommissioning, which comes in next year we hope, then the Government might have to study the proposal for charging for licences as a further source of funds. We do not make such a proposal in our report. We merely suggest that licences should be charged for in order to cover administrative costs.
Such licences, which are issued free, change hands for enormous sums of money. We were told that it might be up to £1 million. It therefore seems not unreasonable that if the taxpayer is to fund part of the cost then there is an effective opportunity to levy tax when those valuable properties change hands. That is a suggestion which should be examined. Incidentally, one of the witnesses who gave evidence to us, Mr. Holden, who used to work for the conservation department of DG14, advanced the theory, which we did not pursue very far, that licences should be used as a control measure.
The Minister referred to industrial fishing. We were worried as to whether we could justify taking 2 million tonnes each year of sand eels, Norway pout and sprats. Those organisms are rather modest forms of life, but they are the bottom of the food chain. Although research is still in progress, instinct told us that that considerable effort was bound to have an effect on larger fish, seabirds and mammals. As it did not seem to be an industry which needed to be carried out in fishery areas as exploited as those around the United Kingdom, we felt that there may be an opportunity to trade elsewhere where fisheries were less under pressure and might be keener to produce this type of low-use product than we are.
Again—we agree with the Minister on this point, or perhaps I should say that the Minister agrees with us in this case—we believe that the common fisheries policy's environmental objectives should be strengthened. In the Single European Act we have seen the hope expressed that all the legislation should take on board the environmental effect. This is a policy in which the environmental objectives form an important part. We should like therefore to see them listed as a fifth objective in the Commission's review.
I shall not deal with technical matters because they become complicated and I do not believe that I have time to do so. I should like however to deal with socio-economic measures. I was a little saddened to hear that the Minister felt that the case for Objective 6 of the Structural Fund has not yet been made out. When the message is understood that capacity will have to be reduced in relation to available fish stocks and that that will inevitably mean that there will be

929
fewer jobs and some of the vulnerable communities will be at risk, it will be some small palliative at least to know that that has been recognised in Objective 6 of the Structural Fund. I urge the Minister to reconsider that point.
I shall end by saying, as the Minister did when he finished his speech, that unless we can achieve consistent monitoring and enforcement of the fishing effort there will continue to be grievances and it will be difficult to make people who earn their living from fishing in the United Kingdom understand the justification for the half measures that will be necessary.
We would certainly not suggest that the principle of subsidiarity should be breached. That is a matter for national enforcement but national enforcement must he carried out in an even fashion and the Commission must be prepared to take infraction proceedings before the European Court of Justice where national enforcement of Community rules is deficient. The Minister's evidence in the committee's report makes it clear that many national governments were far from conscientious in fulfilling their responsibilities.
However, the failure of the common fisheries policy cannot be attributed just to other countries in Europe. We must all share in that failure. In many ways we have been no more successful than other countries in this regard. I for one welcome the Bill as only part of the Government's commitment to address the fundamental issues. I commend the committee's report as a contribution to an informed debate on a difficult but urgent problem.

English Heritage
4.40 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I now wish to repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer made to a Private Notice Question by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage in another place.
"English Heritage has today published its forward strategy for the rest of the 1990s. The strategy sets out 20 key policy objectives. English Heritage proposes a new priority programme for restoration of the most important monuments in its care and new partnerships for local management of other monuments. Grant resources will be better targeted on areas of greatest need. There will be vigorous private sector fund raising to widen support for key projects. There will be a restructuring of the organisation to meet those objectives. Our Citizen's Charter principles will be applied to raise standards of service. Proposals for London which would redefine relationships between English Heritage and the boroughs will be the subject of full consultation.
"This is a positive forward-looking strategy which recognises both the opportunities and the constraints which lie ahead. It confirms English Heritage's central role in the protection of our heritage. That role will continue with my full support".
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer in this House. I have a personal interest in the matter as a former Minister in the Department of the Environment who was responsible for Britain's heritage until it was hived off to English Heritage. I am delighted to hear that so many plans are to be implemented after full consultation has taken place. In the past few days the chairman of English Heritage has dramatically outlined the plans of that organisation. That may have obscured the important strategies that English Heritage is trying to implement.
As I view the position, English Heritage has two strategic aims: one is to achieve a closer partnership with local authorities and local bodies and the other is to attempt to obtain better value for money. Clearly, those aims are to be welcomed. However, I am still puzzled about the secrecy surrounding those aims. I am puzzled that English Heritage's senior archaeologists, architectural historians and important committees were not consulted on the proposals. Therefore I hope that the Government will press for consultation on the plans.
English Heritage proposes to achieve its objectives of better value for money and closer partnership with local authorities with a diminished staff. It has been said that 80 staff will go by 31st March. It is not clear whether 380 to 400 staff will leave in the next three years. It has always been a problem replacing some of the staff who work for English Heritage as a number have extraordinary skills, for example, stonemasons and people who are skilled in handling lead or caring for windows of awkward shape. It is important to retain those people. In a period of mass unemployment the issue of redundancy is a serious one. How many compulsory and how many voluntary redundancies are forecast? Will 450 to 500 staff go in the next three years? I hope that the Minister can reply to my point on skilled staff.
Asking local authorities and local trusts to take on management responsibility, in effect the stewardship, of half the monuments in English Heritage's care has a great many advantages. However, the main problem is that English Heritage will merely export its own financial problems to local authorities. All local authorities are now capped and are having to make huge cuts across the board in all their services. Unless English Heritage obtains a great deal more funding it will have great difficulty in funding the strategies it wishes to implement.
From what has been said and reported so far the position in London remains unclear. After the demise of the GLC, the London advisory committee, the body dealing with heritage matters, has played a central role. That body has been praised by people associated with all political parties. I shall not lengthen this discussion by giving a complete list of the bodies the London advisory committee has managed to save; suffice it to say that it has saved a great many. If it had not been for the intervention of the London advisory committee, many of those bodies would have been lost or would have been dealt with shabbily.
The success of the strategy will be measured in terms of the adequate care of buildings, the

931
availability of public access to those buildings and educational input. The latter factor is increasingly important with regard to our historic monuments. The Government will have to ensure that both English Heritage and local authorities receive more adequate funding if we are not to lose our heritage. If we lose many of our fragile monuments and buildings we shall not be able to replace them. They are irreplaceable. The proposals should be studied carefully; they should certainly not be rushed through. I know that we often blame the Government for not acting quickly enough. However, I do not wish to see these proposals rushed through to the detriment of our heritage. I hope that the Minister can be more reassuring on these proposals than the present chairman of English Heritage has been.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, first I wish to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, for the fact that I shall be unable to hear his maiden speech as I have a train to catch. I regret that fact greatly. I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question that was given in another place. I associate myself with many of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
Is it really the case that the drastic changes in the policy of English Heritage were undertaken without any consultation with the ancient monuments advisory committee or the historical buildings advisory committee or the specialist archaeology advisers whom English Heritage has hitherto employed? If so, that is a totally irresponsible state of affairs. I must confess that until I read, not the Answer to the PNQ, but the statement issued by English Heritage at its press conference this afternoon, I had always supposed that the purpose of English Heritage was to preserve our heritage, not to dispose of it. Nor had I thought that the purpose of English Heritage was to make a profit; rather I had thought that it was to spend money to preserve that heritage. There seems to be a radical change of policy which deserves a fuller explanation than that given in the Minister's statement.
Is it really the case that at a time of high unemployment English Heritage proposes to dispose of 80 skilled craftsmen by March,380 skilled tradesmen in the next three years and 100 skilled people from its headquarters? Is that really the policy of the Government in the middle of a recession, the policy of a government which is going for growth? It is an extraordinary move to make, particularly when—I think I am right in saying—the National Audit Office last summer expressed the opinion that the private sector did not possess the skills to perform those tasks. I appreciate that in its press statement English Heritage says, not that it will dispose of the skilled tradesmen or make them redundant, but that it will privatise them. That is a new euphemism for compulsory unemployment.
English Heritage also proposes to dispose of half of the properties for which it is responsible to the private sector and local authorities. As the noble Baroness asked, what evidence is there that the local authorities have the financial resources to undertake those
932
responsibilities? Local authorities are hardly flush with money at the moment. How will they find the resources for that task? What expertise do they possess? Some have no conservation officers and will certainly not be able to afford to train and recruit them. Those are questions which deserve serious answers.
It is suggested that the properties retained should be managed as joint ventures by English Heritage with the private sector. Stonehenge is an example. The loss makers will be off loaded, if not on to the local authorities then on to the private sector. What evidence is there that the private sector will be more interested in preservation than profit, which is after all its purpose?
I find the statement deeply disturbing. The introduction given to it in the PNQ was inadequate in the sense that it does not cover the very wide implications of what is intended. We have not had an opportunity to read the report Managing England's Heritage on which I take it the statement is based. I should like to know when that will be available and when, having read that document, we shall be able to discuss the matter at greater length.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is right to say that there was considerable press speculation over the weekend about English Heritage and its future. Today English Heritage announced its proposals, which are rather different from much of the speculation. The noble Baroness asked me a number of questions, which I shall attempt to answer.
First, the noble Baroness asked me about consultation. The chairman of English Heritage announced today that consultations will now begin. This is a programme of strategy for the future. It does not relate to individual sites or cases or to tactics. It sets out how English Heritage wishes to go ahead in the future.
The noble Baroness also asked me about the staff. I do not belief that their skills will be lost. I believe that they will be taken up by the private sector. She also asked about the numbers involved. English Heritage believes that probably the majority of the 100 headquarters staff will opt for voluntary redundancy or early retirement, but that is obviously a matter for negotiation. The position of the 380 members of the directly employed labour force is also a matter for negotiation. I must point out that that is a matter for negotiation between now and 1996. That is three and a half years. Therefore it is not sudden and there is no rush.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. It is an important question. If the purpose of the statement was to indicate that there was to be consultation, why were specific figures given in the hand-out about the number of staff who are to go? How could that come about if there has not yet been any consultation on the subject?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to add that the hand-out refers to privatising, over a three-year period, the directly employed labour force

933
of 380 skilled tradesmen. There is no suggestion in the statement that any negotiation is to take place. It is a statement of intention.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. When I mentioned consultation I was not referring to consultation with the direct labour force. I was talking about consultation with the headquarters staff and whether the reductions might be achieved by voluntary redundancy or early retirement. That is a matter for English Heritage. English Heritage has announced that 380 jobs are to go between now and 1996, the first 80 by next March. That is a matter for English Heritage to negotiate with its staff. We are confident that English Heritage will do its utmost to ensure a smooth transition. There may be opportunities for the privatised workforce to bid for contracts. It would be very odd if we did not apply to English Heritage the same principles of competition which we have successfully applied to many local government services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, also asked about the transfer of sites to local authorities. No local authority will he forced to take on responsibility for sites. Sites can be transferred to local authorities if they wish to take them on. Some local authorities have already expressed the wish to look after certain sites. Indeed, some have been negotiating for a number of years to look after a number of sites. They are often well able to do so.
The noble Baroness also referred to the announcement in relation to London. English Heritage proposes to withdraw from its role in relation to ordinary Grade II sites. It would still be closely involved in all Grade I and II style building casework. That would merely put London on exactly the same basis as any other city in England, such as historic cities like Bath, Chester, Oxford and Norwich. It is a matter for English Heritage to negotiate with the London boroughs. The boroughs will not be forced to take on the role. Indeed, English Heritage announced today that it will consider offering grants to London boroughs in order that they can establish expertise in those areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned profit. There is no mention in the statement of profit. Profit does not enter into it. English Heritage is still responsible for preserving our heritage. That will always be the same. However, it does not mean that local authorities, local trusts or groups of local people might not wish to take on sites and be able to look after them better.
Some sites do not have any staff. They may be merely something on the top of a hill; there may be nothing there but an open site. There is no cost involved in looking after them. If they were looked after by a local organisation that might improve access and facilities. We are seeking to improve the way in which we look after our heritage.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Government, when considering the matter further, will bear in mind the fact that the
934
Government themselves, every year, add to the tasks and difficulties of preserving our national heritage by the imposition of death duties—or whatever they are now called—whenever the owner of a historic and splendid house dies? Surely my noble friend is aware that inheritance tax, falling as it does with particular weight on historic and splendid houses, every year increases the task of preserving them. Will my noble friend convey particularly to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one of the best and most sensible ways of helping to preserve ancient and splendid houses would be to do away with inheritance tax when their owners die?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I certainly take note of the points made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Of course, much of what he has talked about is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, one of the things English Heritage is trying to do is to organise its resources better so that they go to the places that really need the money.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, are we not presented here with a moderately remarkable situation? It is reported that English Heritage proposes suddenly to hand over a large number of sites entrusted to its care to private charities, trusts, local councils and private commercial companies. If that is so, what reasons has English Heritage to believe that any substantial number of local councils will cheerfully and happily assume responsibility for any monuments that English Heritage does not need and wants rid of? At the moment most local councils want an ancient monument on their books like they want the proverbial hole in the head. They will have got rid of the very staff—the conservationists—who could conceivably cope with this kind of thing and most, surely, will not welcome such additional responsibility. Can the Minister name, say, the first half dozen who have signified so far in writing their eagerness to acquire one of these sites? Or does this plan not simply mean that English Heritage is attempting to offload its own cuts on to anyone and everyone in sight? Will resources be made available to any local council which agrees to take on anything that will cost any money at all and, if so, where will the money come from?
Perhaps the Minister can also indicate which bodies, if any, were consulted before this extraordinary plan was promulgated? It is reported in the press that neither the senior archaeologists and architectural historians of English Heritage nor its ancient monuments advisory committee or historic buildings advisory committee were consulted. One wonders to what extent the Department of National Heritage was consulted before the proposal came out. That may be held to be an internal matter. However, is it not the case that there was no consultation with the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the chief adviser to the Museums and Galleries Commission or the Council of British Archaeology who have described the plan as outrageous?
The backwards way of doing things—that the statement is issued and consultations will now take place—seems a trifle odd. But if the forthcoming

935
consultations do not support the strategy as we have had it can we reasonably expect a moratorium on anything happening? If these reports are accurate, should the Government not advise the very new chairman of English Heritage to do what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York advised the Government to do over the closure of the coal pits, namely, to think again?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the simple answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, is no. He is under the impression that English Heritage will go out and hand over lots of properties saying, "Here is one for you and one for you." That is not the case. I do not know whether the noble Lord has managed to read the announcement today. What he says is absolutely not the case. It is a matter of negotiation with the local authorities. No local authority will be forced to take on any site whatsoever. If it does not want to take on a site it need not do so.
The noble Lord asked me to cite examples. I cannot give him half a dozen but I can certainly give one. The local authority in Hampshire is very keen to take over a fort now run by English Heritage which sits in the middle of the Solent. It is almost impossible to get to it; it is quite dangerous to get on to it. The local council has some great plans for it and will be able to do with it much better things than English Heritage.
As for the point about consultations, it is a strategy and it will go to the various advisory committees for detailed consideration. Most of the quotes I have seen about the proposals were made over the weekend long before anyone had a chance to look at them.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, as a previous chairman of English Heritage perhaps I may say that the strategy document has my full endorsement. Indeed, many of the proposals were formulated during my chairmanship. But does the noble Viscount agree that local authorities already administer an enormous number of historic houses and sites—just as many as English Heritage? Therefore it seems to me there is no reason why they should not, if they wish, administer them in future. There is no question of sites being given away or sold. Is my noble friend aware that during my chairmanship English Heritage negotiated with Hampshire County Council with a view to taking over Calshot and Fort Cumberland? It also negotiated with private people who were living in guardianship properties which their families had given some years ago.
I ask my noble friend to agree that there would not be a queue of local authorities to take over these properties. Indeed, it would be a question of persuading them to do so. I hope the House and others will allow the document to be sensibly looked at, because a lot of hysteria and inaccuracies in the press are causing a deal of concern.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. I must pay tribute to his chairmanship of English Heritage. He did an extremely fine job which is welcomed on every side of this House. He built it up
936
to the great state in which it is today. One has only to look at the English Heritage membership figures. In 1984 the figure was 13,000; it has recently signed its 300,000th member. That in itself is a tribute to the chairmanship of my noble friend.
Nobody will be forced to take on properties. Some people actively want to take them on. For example, we are not going to dictate a timetable to London boroughs. It will be a matter for full and open negotiation with them. English Heritage hopes to work with them to help them set up expertise which, after all, is the same expertise that exists everywhere else in the country.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the performance of local authorities in this matter is likely to be very uneven? Perhaps I may assure him that I know of one local authority in Huntingdon that has given generous grants to local voluntary bodies for the restoration of ancient monuments. But there are other local authorities which may agree to take on responsibility but will be incapable of fulfilling it and find that they do not have the resources. In those cases, where will the ultimate responsibility lie for getting things done?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton makes an important point. Some local authorities have a much better track record, if one may call it so, in looking after some important sites in their areas. Some look after a great many important sites at the moment and do an extremely good job. It will be a matter for negotiation between them and English Heritage. Obviously, it will be important for English Heritage to establish that public access is guaranteed and that the site will be looked after at least better than it is looked after at the moment. I feel that in many cases local management will probably do a much better job than having things run from London.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, with the world facing the greatest deflation for 60 years and the recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the need to deal with the deepening recession in this country, this would be an ideal moment to increase very considerably the funds available to English Heritage for the restoration of many buildings which are sadly falling into disrepair? Will he further agree that that would be a most useful, non-inflationary, non-import-inducing stimulus to the local economy? It could be widely spread and stimulate craftsmen, perhaps rescuing a lot of small building firms which otherwise could go under in the next 12 months or so.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely important point. One purpose of the whole operation is to produce savings in English Heritage which can be targeted on grants to support various projects, whether they be grants to private owners, local authorities or whatever. It is a matter of targeting resources as well as can be done.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, perhaps I may underline the point which was referred to briefly by the noble

937
Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. Is it not the case that properties now managed by English Heritage have been assembled from a variety of sources over a long period of time? It seems to me important that there should be consultation not merely with local authorities but with those who may have been involved in the ownership and management of those properties in the past. A number of public bodies will have entrusted properties to English Heritage in the belief that they would be looked after in perpetuity. I sincerely hope that the noble Viscount can give an assurance that previous owners who may have given such properties to English Heritage will be consulted fully and not merely the local authorities where those properties happen to lie.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is important that the properties are properly kept up and maintained and that they are available for the public to see. The many properties of English Heritage are owned in a variety of ways. I believe that the majority are owned by the Secretary of State. A number are owned under rather complicated guardianship arrangements. Indeed, sometimes the original ownership or provenance is not entirely clear. English Heritage also looks after a number of properties on behalf of the National Trust. I believe that English Heritage itself owns a minority of the properties. Obviously, these are issues which it will have to consider very carefully before coming to any decision.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister consider asking that part of the Department of the Environment which deals with the standard spending assessment and delivers grant whether money could be made available in the grant to help those authorities with historic buildings—authorities such as Bath, Norwich, Cambridge and so on—which otherwise would not have specific moneys to spend for that necessary purpose.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks a question which is rather outside the area of English Heritage which I am answering at the moment. I take note of her point and will pass it on to the department.

Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
5.14 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Amherst of Hackney: My Lords, I seek your kind indulgence for my maiden speech. The necessity for fish conservation, so far as I am aware, is not contested by anyone anywhere. However, conservation must surely be achieved in a manner that is both fair and equitable to all those who earn their living from fishing in the waters of the EC.
The Bill requires our fishermen to live with the other EC fleets in the same seas on totally inequitable terms. Those fleets are to be voluntarily pruned by the availability of an EC decommissioning scheme which pays the sterling equivalent of some £750 per gross registered tonne. That is a scheme to which the United Kingdom is a non-contributor. Those EC fleets, as a consequence, are to be permitted unlimited sea time.
938
On the other hand, the United Kingdom fleet is, as we have heard, likely to be compelled through this Bill to reduce its sea time, possibly up to 30 per cent., in lieu of a comparable decommissioning scheme existing in the United Kingdom.
I ask the Minister to consider the position of the skipper of a typical 40 metre stern trawler based on Hull or Grimsby. Her fishing ground could well be off the Shetland Islands, some three or four days' steaming from her home port, and her likely voyage duration would be 16 to 18 days. In the winter in that area of the North Atlantic gale force conditions are recorded as prevailing for 17 per cent. of the time. I understand that it is customary practice to suspend fishing operations when conditions deteriorate to storm force 9. Conditions therefore frequently require a decision by the skipper on whether or not to continue to fish. He must put the safety of his ship and her crew first. However, imagine a situation in which he and his 10-man crew have already lost valuable days of rationed sea time owing to bad weather on previous voyages. They, being remunerated on a no-catch no-pay basis and being pressed to meet financial commitments, would inevitably find themselves under tremendous compulsion to continue fishing regardless of deteriorating conditions.
That skipper would be called upon to go beyond the shadowy line of good seamanship when assessing the risk of injurious gear failure or the possibility of a broach and capsize. The Danish, German, Dutch, Belgian, French and Spanish skippers in the vicinity, being without the constraint of sea time, would suffer no such dilemma. They would just heave to and wait for the weather to moderate.
Does the Minister agree that the Bill poses an inherent risk to life and limb by the imposition of blanket sea time restrictions? Permitted sea time must surely exclude gale force conditions for the offshore fishermen. The existence of such conditions is readily proven by the weather facsimiles which are issued daily to shipping from both Bracknell and Northwood and then recorded.
The consequences of the Bill as it stands will be that only the older and less capital intensive units in our fishing fleet will survive. The vessels that remain in the United Kingdom fleet will therefore rapidly become outdated, less efficient, less safe, less well maintained and less competitive than those of our unfettered competitors.
Our fishing industry sees itself as having already played the role of sacrificial lamb on the altar of the EC. An oft quoted example is that the United Kingdom furnished the EC with two thirds of its fish resources and received back only one third of the fishing quotas. As we have heard, our fishing fleet has also suffered the influx of 80 Spanish, Dutch and Danish controlled trawlers. They have driven a coach and horses through the United Kingdom fishing vessels register and thereby obtained a share of the United Kingdom's precious quotas.
There is a very real feeling in the fishing industry that the ball is being tampered with. As noble Lords may have seen, "Panorama" recently depicted undersized—and therefore illegal—fish happily being

939
sold in the La Coruna fish market. I am assured that the same can be found occurring in the Boulogne fish market. I understand that the Spanish have appointed 17 full-time fishery officers to supervise what is by far the largest EC fleet and that they all reside in Madrid. The United Kingdom has 180 full-time fishery officers who do not live in London. Furthermore, it is well known that the French fishermen receive a fuel subsidy and grants for new trawlers, which are built under the guise of research vessels.
Surely we can and should afford support for our fishermen which is equitable to that received by their counterparts in Europe? In the event that this most unfortunate Bill becomes law, will the Minister ensure, as he has stated that he will, that both the permitted sea time and the associated licences can be aggregated. Those who are forced out could therefore sell for some further consideration over and above their portion of the proposed minuscule United Kingdom decommissioning budget while the few who can afford to aggregate can at least stay in and stay fishing.
Lastly, I urge the Minister that no legislation be enacted until it is absolutely clear that every other EC Fishing Ministry is properly enforcing the same rule book. I thank your Lordships for your patience.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I congratulate most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, on his maiden speech in this House. I do so on my own behalf and on behalf of the whole House. He has expressed clearly his apprehensions over the Bill. His sincere concern for and interest in the fishing industry, together with his experience in maritime affairs generally, will add to the resources of this House. We shall look forward to hearing from him many times during our debates.
I wish to thank my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Selborne for introducing the Bill and the report of the Select Committee respectively. In the time available for an acceptably short speech I shall comment on the Bill and make reference to the report where it is relevant.
All the principal fishermen's organisations appear to be opposed to the main proposals in the Bill because they are worried about the likely consequences. The EC is providing for national schemes of decommissioning. The UK is exercising its right of subsidiarity and has opted for a scheme of tying up, limiting the days in the year when boats can be at sea fishing. It is not a scheme for reducing the British fishing fleet. The British fishermen's organisations have always supported conservation. They are in favour now of reducing the British fishing fleet. I make that clear because some of the media have misunderstood the position in recent days. I give as an example a television news report last Friday evening showing a demonstration concerning a ferry entering Plymouth. The commentator at the time stated that the fishermen were demonstrating against proposals to reduce the British fishing fleet. That is exactly the opposite of what they were doing. Even in their
940
demonstration they seem to have been misunderstood. They are in favour of reducing the British fleet. They are against the tying up scheme.
Most of the difficulties arising from the Bill are because the UK has adopted a different system from the other EC countries: a system of restricting days at sea. Although a small decommissioning scheme was announced earlier this year, it will have little effect and is not comparable with the schemes of the other countries. It will not start for several months. Will my noble friend who is to reply confirm that the other fishing nations of the EC have decommissioning schemes except for the Republic of Ireland? Will he indicate whether he knows what the intentions of Ireland are?
The Select Committee made it clear in its report that it is in favour of decommissioning and regards a tie-up scheme only as an interim measure. The main difficulty with having a different scheme is in judging whether equal treatment will apply to fishermen of different countries, in particular those within the EC. At present British fishermen are worried that they will be worse off than their foreign competitors for reasons I shall seek to explain.
First, the Bill is an enabling Bill. There is no indication of how many days will be defined for the boats to be tied up. That is left in the hands of Ministers and may be promulgated at short notice. The system will be based on the year 1991. Boats were engaged in a variety of different tasks and fisheries during that year. Some were not fishing for protected species for which there was a quota and therefore did not need to keep records. Others were doing so. How will it be possible to work out a scheme which is fair to all boats if it is based on arbitrary behaviour during that year?
When the boats are tied up in harbour their expenses will continue. For example, the Decca navigation scheme which most boats have has to be hired; it cannot be bought. The cost of that hiring will continue whether or not the boats are at sea. A skipper whom I met among others in northern Scotland a few days ago told me that it will cost him about £1,000 a week just to keep the boat tied up. Will there be any funds to meet those continuing expenses? Since it is not a commissioning scheme, will the scheme lose the EC financial aid available to other EC countries? I hope that my noble friend will give me some answers today.
Of course I welcome the announcement which my noble friend Lord Howe made today about the amendment: that proposals for the number of days a year in which boats have to be tied up will come before Parliament as orders.
Technical advances have greatly increased the catching power of fishing vessels. A new boat will probably have four or five times the catching ability of the boat which it replaces. To me that is an overriding argument for reducing the numbers of boats in an orderly and equitable manner. The alternative—to have no restriction on numbers but a regime of staying in harbour for unknown lengths of time—gives rise to uncertainty, erosion of confidence in individual enterprises and inability to formulate any kind of

941
business plan. Virtually all British fleets in the EC area are individual or family businesses, or they are operated by "share" fishermen whose wages depend on the success of their boat in its catches. Gone are the days when the crews of the large trawlers, operating in distant waters, were employees of companies. The few of those who remain have different factors also to consider which need not concern us today. The British fishermen affected by this Bill are working in many private enterprises of no great size.
The quota system in the EC continues for those species which need protection. So far as I know the quotas for the coming year are still to be announced. They are supposed to be based on scientific research. Can the Minister tell us more on how the scientists and governments reach conclusions? By what methods do they keep up-to-date with changes in the fish populations?
A few months ago I stated publicly that I was receiving information direct from fishermen that stocks of some protected species are recovering. Recent reports that I have received from skippers bring further good news. They state that some of the fish of the protected species are no longer scarce and are of good size. Conservation measures have been succeeding and certain fish quotas can with caution be increased. Decisions on total allowable catches and quotas need great care. If the quotas are too small and appear to the fishermen to be unrelated to the quantities that they observe in the sea, they are regarded as unrealistic. That encourages the black market in landed fish. During the past year or two there has been an illegal black market in this country of regrettable size—secret landings of "black" fish without records or the benefit of fishery officers. This is a development which I deplore.
Quotas and regulations should be such as to discourage the discarding of unwanted or small fish. After being caught in nets and then thrown overboard those fish do not survive. That is a lamentable waste which could be reduced, as our Select Committee points out in its report. British fishermen are asking for level fishing grounds, to adapt a much used metaphor. I am sure that the Government mean well. Everyone, including the Government, is in favour of conservation—there is no argument about that. What is at issue is the method chosen, because it is different from that of the rest of the EC and it raises doubts and difficulties.
I do not claim any metaphysical powers as a medium but I have been reflecting on what the late Lord Boothby would have said about the matter. I have a fair idea of what it would have been. He was a champion of fishermen and at the same time was dedicated to European ideals of European nations working closely together. Your Lordships may remember that in the last two or three fishery debates in which he spoke, from that Cross Bench, he stated, much too generously, that I had saved the British fishing fleets in the negotiations in 1971 and 1972 before we entered the Common Market. That was an overstatement but was in character for him to say. My noble friend Lord Rippon, who was then involved in
942
the direct negotiations, will remember that I as a fellow member of the Cabinet was pressing hard for what I felt to be necessary in sea fisheries.
When the United Kingdom joined the EC in January 1973 I believe that we obtained the best conditions possible. Later, when Spain and Portugal acceded, I was a member of the sub-committee of the Select Committee which dealt with that enlargement. I was also co-opted to the sub-committee which reported on the fisheries side of the matter. Again, I believe that the results were as good as any that we could have hoped for. With that background, but with all modesty, I find it most disheartening that the present rift between the fishermen and the Government should have occurred. The quarrel is not about objectives; it is a disagreement about the method, which gives the fishermen great anxieties and worries over their future livelihoods. I hope that those differences can be narrowed during the passage of the Bill.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, Cornwall is a depressed area male unemployment runs at about 25 per cent. for most of the time. Tin mining has disappeared. Agriculture is out on a geographical limb and in most parts suffers from sour land. Tourism is seriously blighted by the recession. However, there remains one bright spot; that is, the fishing industry. The grants and receipts are good and people are still making money. How long will that continue?
I have talked to fishermen in Cornwall. I do not agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that the fishermen do not accept the Bill. There is a feeling that they can live with the Bill as it stands but as it is an enabling Bill other measures can be taken—for example, a further restriction of fishing days—with which they say they cannot live. That is their main anxiety.
The report on the common fisheries policy was reassuring in theory. It was intelligent and dealt well with the national quota of ships, the possibilities of decommissioning and the limitation of days at sea. The report appears to recognise the total lunacy of the discarding policy. However, it does not mention the fact that when many tonnes of fish are discarded not only are they killed but they can pollute a wide area of the sea bed. That makes the discarding problem more urgent than the report implies. However, the "wrongness" of discarding is certainly realised.
The report also realises in part the unfairness of what is referred to as "quota hopping"; that is the arrangement under which Spaniards and others can finagle their way into the English quota. That madness is compounded by an unfortunate decision of the European Court that such ships which make it on to our quota cannot be kicked off. In fact, if we kick them off they have the right to reapply.
The trouble is not so much the theory as the practice. The report states in so many words that the UK spends far more time and money on enforcement than any other Community state and adds that some states seem to carry out no policing at all. In the introduction to the Bill we are informed in quaint

943
language that we are to receive 60 more man years. I believe that in English that means 60 more inspectors. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst, stated that we already have 180 inspectors but my information is that there are 200. However, in Spain there are only 17. Our inspectors sit in our ports and are very active. The Spanish inspectors sit in Madrid and go upon notice to the ports. They have a drink of brandy with the skipper, presumably, who has made everything shipshape in anticipation of the visit. I do not call that fair and even as between states.
The Bill will not help fish stocks in Area 7, which is the Cornish area. Foreign ships, including those which have fiddled their way onto our quota, will carry on in exactly the same way because of the inadequacy of their inspections. The foreign ships carry out 85 per cent. of the fishing in that area.
Satellite technology has been mentioned. It was described in the report as being uncertain and probably too expensive. Surely the possibility of satellite technology alone is not adequate.
I am afraid that what has happened is that the Bill has been hurried on rather too quickly. It should have been in parallel with similar measures elsewhere and it is not. I am afraid that the Government's attitude to this measure must be contrasted with that of France. The other day the French fisheries Minister, Mr. Josselin, faced with an EC order that France should reduce its fleet by 27 per cent. said, in so many words, that France would not accept that. When did a British Minister last say, in that kind of language, that Britain would not accept something? I await that happening because, paradoxically, when it does we shall be full and proper members of the EC.
The European Community, like all human communities, is competitive as well as co-operative. It is an arena as well as an alliance. We must fight our corner as the others do otherwise we shall have no fish left and unemployment in Newlyn will rise from 25 per cent. to 75 per cent.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, it is my pleasure and privilege on behalf of the whole House warmly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, on his excellent maiden speech. It was an extremely challenging and probing speech but I feel that it carries on in the tradition of his late father, whom I knew very well. He was an extremely caring and respected Member of this House.
I note that the noble Lord has been a journalist, an author and a banker. He is also a director of a well-known company which makes a product connected with the waves and sea breezes with which we are closely associated on this Bill. I wish the noble Lord every happiness and success and I hope that he will participate often in our debates.
I wish to commend the business managers of this House, the legal department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Printed Paper Office for the considerable amount of relevant background information which has been made available on the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill. When
944
the Bill was in Committee on 19th June the proceedings had to be adjourned for five days because essential documents were not available to Members of the Standing Committee. We know that the Bill had a rough passage in another place when some 4,000 fishermen lobbied Parliament and government party Members joined Opposition MPs in the Lobbies to vote against the Bill's Second Reading. That was in spite of strong whipping instructions.
This enabling Bill was considerably, but in my view somewhat equivocally, amended by the Government in another place. Those amendments seem to me to indicate that the proposed legislation was hastily drafted. The Bill raises matters of principle as regards essential sea-fishing conservation needs and a truly equitable common fisheries policy. It appears to me that the legislation's proposals were framed without due and full consultation with the sea fisheries industry.
The Bill now commences its passage through this House. Since July there have been considerable political and social attitudinal changes throughout the EC, including the United Kingdom, which will bear on the general outcome of our debates in this House. I believe that we are now in a much better position than were Members of another place to take a reasoned and informed approach to the critical sea-fish conservation problems and the sea-fish industry's policies. Those are problems and policies which this Bill should effectively and remedially address.
However, we know that the Bill is not welcomed by the fishing industry throughout the United Kingdom. The fishing communities throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are still strongly opposed to the Bill's present amended form. It is stated to be draconian in its approach to the livelihood of fishermen as well as being unfair and unworkable. It gives to Ministers virtually unlimited powers to restrict the number of days on which fishing boats may go to sea. If the Bill is enacted in its present legislative form, it will create much social distress in already hard-pressed sea-fishing communities and it will create chronic upheaval in family life in seaports and towns throughout the United Kingdom.
I noted and welcomed with pleasure the Minister's opening remarks when he said that further amendments will be tabled during Committee stage. He referred to the Hague Convention in connection with Northern Ireland and Wales. I am certain that his remarks and his intended proposals will be warmly welcomed both in Wales and in Northern Ireland.
I noted also that the Minister proposed that parliamentary approval would be sought for changes in respect of the days at sea and how that system should operate. Again, I look forward with pleasure to seeing the Marshalled List of amendments. At least some progress has been made during the Bill's passage through this House.
Like many men and women of my age group in Northern Ireland, I am one generation only removed from the farming and fishing communities. I have friends and relatives whose livelihood is closely linked with fishing ports and communities in the Province. I

945
know at first hand how anxious those people are about the serious social implications which this Bill could have for sea-fishing ports like Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie. In those towns and fishing village communities in Northern Ireland the main source of earned income and employment is derived from fishing. I must say that I cannot agree with the remarks made in this House that people will be protected from the social consequences which will arise as a result of the Bill. I do not see that and nor do the fishing communities and the industries directly involved.
I have met and discussed the Bill with officials of the two producers' organisations—the Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation and the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers' Organisation. While both those organisations address distinctive Northern Ireland sea-fishing problems and operational policies, they both firmly support the United Kingdom fishermen in their opposition to the Bill. In other words, they are not making special pleadings for Northern Ireland affairs. They see themselves as part of the whole of the United Kingdom and its fisheries problems.
I should emphasise that all the fishermen and organisations who have contacted me and with whom I have had discussions support fully effective, efficient and equitable sea-fishing conservation measures. There is no dispute whatever that such measures are needed. Fishermen are realists. They know that their future lies with the effective nurture—and I do not use the word "nurture" in a scientific way—of sea-fish stocks. The fishermen realise that and they have adopted attitudes which take cognizance of those problems.
Principles of equity will be much to the forefront during our discussions in Committee. There are various opinions and conclusions as regards decommissioning by means of tendering. I feel that the matter requires full debate and exploration. In that connection, provision needs to be firmly enshrined on the face of the Bill; it should not be left to the whims and fancies of some form of discussion or regulation. The decommissioning must be fully understood and accepted.
The helpful benefits of having the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal under the supervision of the Council on 'Tribunals are important. Those are measures that should have been clearly stated when the Bill was first drafted. However, there is still a need for a considerable amount of detailed information regarding the appointment of members and how the tribunals will work, notwithstanding that they will work under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. I hope that during the debate the Minister will give us some detail on the effective use of tribunals. It is an important aspect of the whole operation.
There are many features of the Bill which I should like to raise, some of which have been mentioned during the debate. But I should like to deal particularly with a matter mentioned by the Minister of State, Mr. David Curry, when he spoke in the House of Commons on 14th July. Forgive me for
946
quoting in full but it is relevant to the matter with which I wish to conclude. At col.1053 of the Official Report, Mr. Curry said,
"During the Second Reading debate and in Committee I explained that the Bill is enabling legislation which makes provision for the broad principles of a certain course of action. There will be very detailed consultation about how it should apply specifically. I have made it absolutely clear that we hope that the industry will come to us with its views on how we should apply particular measures. We are still open to that course of action. Several hon. Members have asked me whether I will consult on this, that and the other. The answer is that if the industry is in a consulting mood I shall consult, but I cannot compel it to consult. It is known that my door is always open to people who want to see me, and that will remain the case. I have never taken up any contrary position".
In some respects I understand the Minister's point of view. But from long experience I know that open-door consultations and that form of diplomacy are not the way to conduct business of this nature. I feel that matters should be taken in hand to provide a proper consultative machinery for the industry. Northern Ireland is regional and does not have the full exploratory needs, but there is a sound constructive working relationship between fishermen of both organisations and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.
The Minister said that there are some mischievous people. However, I could go to some length to show that in Northern Ireland, as the report indicates, compliance with EC and UK legislation is almost 100 per cent. There is no attitude of trying to put a quick one over on somebody else by cheating, although I know that does go on. In fairness I must say that during the period of the report—1991—seven vessels were prosecuted for violating the specific agreements. Along with that, the report goes on to say that,
"Two members of the EC Fisheries Inspectorate paid a week long visit to Northern Ireland to examine performance of the Department in carrying out its responsibilities and were satisfied with their findings".
In other words, it is important to have supervisory and monitoring arrangements, but they should be properly vetted and conducted. This cannot be done on an ad hoc basis. It must be done by sound consultative machinery. I suggest that the Minster should take away and consider the establishment of a sea fish industry consultative council representative of all the fishing organisations in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to enable the Bill to be concluded in a proper and constructive way.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, if anyone in any doubt that the fishing industry in Scotland was in difficulties had been listening to an early morning radio programme last week his doubts would quickly have been dispelled. An indignant tourist was complaining that she had been to Arbroath and could not find an Arbroath smokie. It is therefore reassuring to see my noble friend on the Front Bench who I am sure would have gone into action in another place.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, can probably recall many parliamentary Questions and debates on fishing matters in the Scottish Grand Committee during the early 1960s, in those days with more emphasis on herring than on white fish. I well

947
recall the then Member of Parliament for Caithness and Sutherland, Sir David Robertson, using the word "conservation" over and over again. He said that it is no use trying to work out policies for this or that, conservation is everything. Sir David should therefore be pleased, wherever he is. The herring stocks have enormously improved, at least so we were told in the Select Committee, thanks to sensible methods undertaken.
As the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, said in what I thought was an extraordinarily authoritative and excellent maiden speech, no one argues against the principle of conservation, although I recall in my days in the Ministry of Agriculture that it can clash with calls for efficiency. I have in mind the beam trawler which is a thoroughly efficient way of fishing but is not the best instrument of conservation.
Is the Bill considering conservation in the right way? I am bound to say—and slightly sad to say so—that it is not. It places most emphasis on limiting days at sea. As has been frequently said, it enables Ministers to take unlimited action in that area.
Boats of under 10 metres are to be licensed, quite rightly. There is no immediate intention to restrict their activities but power to do so is requested. In my senility—and my hearing is perhaps not as good as it was—when my noble friend the Minister was telling us about the affirmative resolution I thought I heard him say that the Bill would enable him, each time he required to do so, to call for a further restriction on days at sea. If that is what he did say, it looks to me as though the outlook is even less rosy than one might otherwise believe.
What are other nations going to be doing while our boats are tied up? To again quote the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, one has the bad weather prospect. I believe that probably one has worse weather off the North Sea around the Pentland Firth than one has further south. Therefore, one would have discrimination against the boats up there. What do they do if the weather is so rough that they cannot go out or, if they do, they are caught halfway?
Supposing that several nations have already decommissioned and taken the action which is thought wise. Are they to be able to ignore the need to tie-up, while we have to? That brings me to the subject of decommissioning. It is accepted on all sides that one must have regulation in order to conserve: license all our boats; keep mesh sizes for nets; keep the TACs and quotas, but reduce the capacity to catch. Then the existing available catch is shared out among fewer boats which become more viable.
I am not for one moment saying that there is no case for tie-ups but that should be secondary to the limitation of effort by decommissioning. In my view reducing capacity is much preferable to limiting effort. My noble friend will say that we are offering £25 million for the decommissioning scheme, but alas that is calculated to reduce the fleet only by 5 per cent. when about four times that reduction is needed. Therefore, I fear we shall have a situation in which £25 million will have been paid out to little effect and we shall have had the worst of all worlds.
948
European Commissioner Marin wrote the following words:
"The British face the problem that their fishing grounds are badly depleted and Britain is the one country in the Community that has the worst problem with too large a fishing fleet. Had they only reduced their fleet, say, five years ago, as did many other countries, the situation would not be so critical today".
Despite my noble friend's protest this afternoon, that amply justifies the expression of the Select Committee that the scheme was too little and too late.
That brings me to the subject of the report on which I wish to make two points. As the first member other than the chairman to speak, I must put on record my view of his outstanding feat of navigation. This is one of the best reports of its kind to have been submitted to your Lordships. As I say, on many occasions we managed to sail by Scylla without hitting Charybdis. There are only a few points in the report on which I wish to dwell. First is the subject of discards. I wonder how many people realise that a discarded fish thrown back into the sea is a dead fish. It applies not only to small fish, and that I believe has been emphasised this afternoon. If someone goes out to fish and he still has a quota for cod to fill, it is very difficult to keep the haddock out of the net. He is not allowed to take haddock so overboard go all the haddock. It was horrifying to be told by the Sea Fish Industry Authority that in 1985 500 million individual haddock were landed alive in this country while 460 million had to be thrown back. It strikes me that whoever did the counting of the haddock had his hands pretty full—but no doubt my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish was put up to it.
Being quite serious, it is indefensible treatment of good food. Norway wishes to ban discards and at least to use the smaller fish for industrial purposes. Our reply seems to be that it would be too expensive to put inspectors on to large vessels in order to enforce that. I question whether it will be more expensive than the value of the 460 million haddock alone which were discarded.
As regards industrial fishing, to which my noble friend referred, the Select Committee recommends a general phasing out in Community waters. That was advocated by several of the bodies which gave evidence to us. In response to that I received a letter from the secretary of the Shetland Fishermen's Association protesting at the idea of a blanket ban when there was,
"a very large fishery for blue whiting to the west of the United Kingdom".
I must confess that I am the biggest bore in the country on the subject of blue whiting. Twenty years ago I was provided with a brief by MAFF. It might be interesting for my noble friend to go into the archives and look out that brief. It was prepared immediately after the debacle of the Icelandic cod war in which I was involved. It is worth digging that brief out of the files because I was told (I followed the instruction) to inform the Cabinet that there were millions of blue whiting off the west coast of Scotland and that that was at least a partial stemming of the haemorrhage which the fleets had suffered as a result of the dispute with Iceland. Admittedly, the fish swam very deep

949
and, alas, were full of bones although, so the brief said, the Germans were reputed to have solved the problem of filleting them.
The Prime Minister of the day expressed the greatest interest in blue whiting and asked if he could have some specimens. The Torry Research Institute was contacted and sent down 144 blue whiting, which were immediately sent round to Number 10. It happened to be the day of the final meeting between the Prime Minister and the miners. I have often wondered whether the gnashing of teeth that was caused by trying out those blue whiting as canapes led to the breakdown of the negotiations.
At any rate, here we are 20 years later with the secretary of the Shetland Fishermen's Association talking about a very large fishery. But how large? He says that in 1990 the Faroese caught 45,000 tonnes and the Norwegians 300,000 tonnes. That is a large fishery considering that in the most recent year for which figures are available the total fish landeddemersal, pelagic, and shellfish—in the United Kingdom by United Kingdom vessels was 608,000 tonnes. That means that those two nations are taking a tonnage equivalent to half of the United Kingdom's total landings. The secretary went on to say that one Shetland boat has caught 5,000 tonnes in each of the past three years. Is this the start of the successful blue whiting fishery which MAFF heralded 20 years ago?
I end with a reference to what noble Lords may have heard described as the "Scottish question". There is a general consensus at least on giving Scotland the maximum amount of administrative devolution and an immense amount has been done in that area. Indeed, so little is left in the administrative area that there is now a call for legislative devolution. There is one obvious candidate for administrative devolution. The Forestry Commission moved north because the bulk of the new planting was going to be done in Scotland. The Secretary of State leads on forestry matters, supported by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Secretary of State for Wales. Twenty years ago 52 per cent. of all the United Kingdom's fish landings took place in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with 48 per cent. in Scotland. Today Scotland's 48 per cent. has risen to 75 per cent. while landings south of the Border have dropped from 52 per cent. to 25 per cent. I mean no reflection whatsoever on the Ministers concerned, but I have had the privilege of serving as what today would be called the Fisheries Minister in the Scottish Office and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I am quite convinced that not only is it logical that fisheries should follow forestry into the Scottish administration, but that it would be thoroughly desirable.
6.14 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I live near Fraserburgh, in Grampian region. It is a fishing port with a population of about 13,000 people. Forty-five per cent. of employment there is fish-related and in Grampian region over 10,000 people derive a living directly or indirectly from the fishing industry, operating out of 14 ports, large and small, around its
950
coasts. Fifty per cent. of the total value of the fish landed in Scotland between January and October 1990 was landed in Grampian ports.
In 1991, over 8,000 people were employed full-time catching sea fish in Scotland. In the United Kingdom, over 19,000 people were employed full-time catching sea fish, while nearly 80,000 were employed full-time in ancillary industries such as selling and processing fish and in working in fish and chip shops and fish restaurants. Those figures take no account of the number of people employed in building boats, in manufacturing nets and other equipment and in repairing and servicing them. Indeed, it is estimated that for every fisherman fishing at sea eight shore workers depend on fish for their jobs. In 1991, we exported nearly £470 million-worth of sea fish (fresh, frozen or processed) of which £224 million-worth was white or pelagic fish.
I have bored your Lordships with these dreary figures in order to demonstrate that sea fishing is an important industry—smaller perhaps than farming or coal-mining—but nonetheless a large industry on which a large number of people depend for their livings and which contributes substantially to Britain's exports. Nearly half of those people live in Scotland, which has only about one-tenth of the total population of the United Kingdom. Your Lordships will therefore have realised that the fishing industry employs a much larger proportion of the total population in Scotland than in England and is of correspondingly greater importance to the Scottish economy and the Scottish people.
In recent years, diminishing stocks of herrings and more recently of haddock and cod have made conservation measures and a reduction in the size of catches a very necessary part of European Community and United Kingdom fishery policy. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation is keenly aware of the importance of conservation measures to the future of the industry. The problem lies in ascertaining which measures will be both the most effective and the least damaging to the industry. The federation believes that a combination of the licensing of all fishing boats—not just of those over 10 metres in length, which is the good thing in the Bill—combined with a decommissioning scheme, the introduction of a one-net rule, the use of nets with a square mesh window, a ban on certain forms of industrial fishing and the licensing of all salesmen and buyers of fish would be the most effective way of conserving fish stocks while preserving the industry and would make tie-up periods unnecessary.
The research that has been carried out into the effect of using a purse net with a 90mm diamond mesh, with an 80mm square mesh window to facilitate the escape of small fish from the net, is interesting. Some of your Lordships may have seen a video showing how that works. The use of such a net would greatly reduce the number of small fish being caught and discarded. As the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, said in his excellent and interesting maiden speech, the practice of discarding fish, mostly by then dead, is the greatest enemy of the conservation of fish stocks, besides

951
polluting the fishing grounds, and may ultimately lead to unhealthy or diseased stocks and possibly even to no stocks at all.
One of the disadvantages of total allowable catches is that fishing in a mixed stock fishery, such as the North Sea and the west of Scotland white fisheries, may have to be halted because the quota of one species has been used up. That is what has just happened. Our quota of haddock is finished until next year. So the fishermen have two options: one is to cease fishing until January if the Government cannot negotiate an increase in the quota and the other is to continue fishing for other species such as whiting. But, as several noble Lords have said, when you are fishing for whiting you cannot prevent some haddock entering the nets. Under present rules you have a choice. Either you throw them back into the sea, mostly dead, or else you sell on the black market and risk a huge fine, besides taking business away from the legitimate markets, which of course depend financially on selling as much fish as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, in a most distinguished maiden speech, has given us a marvellously clear and lucid outline of decommissioning versus tie-up. A properly worked out decommissioning scheme, such as the European Community operates, for which grants of 70 per cent. are available from the EC, would result in a sizeable reduction in the capacity of the fishing fleet. The arguments Ministers have used against it are simply not valid. They have said that they do not believe it represents value for money because it would not necessarily secure the withdrawal of the right vessels. They also say that, because of the way the United Kingdom contribution to the Community budget is arranged under the Fontainebleau Agreement, the Chancellor would end up paying around two-thirds of the Commission's 70 per cent. contribution to a scheme plus the remaining 30 per cent., which would produce a 70: 30 per cent. ratio instead of a 30: 70 per cent. ratio. This takes no account of the revenue from tax that will not be collected from fishermen who have gone bankrupt, as many of them will if the 135-day tie-up continues for long, or the cost of paying them the dole.
In the September before last, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation proposed to Government Ministers an alternative approach to decommissioning to that provided under European Community regulations. I have read the federation's proposals and they seem to me eminently sensible and workable, although I should like to know how the crews of the decommissioned boats will be cared for. The proposals are to be found on pages 36 to 39 of the evidence in the report which we are also debating today. I understand that the European Commission would be prepared to pay the grants towards the cost of this scheme. However, the Government will not accept it and have offered one of their own for which they are prepared to make available only £25 million and which will only reduce the catching capacity by
952
about 5 per cent. When one takes into consideration that a large purse-netter can cost up to £5 million, this really is quite ludicrous.
At present, fishermen are obliged to accept the 135-day tie-up rule, with an alternative of using 110mm mesh size nets and half the number of days tie-up, or 120mm mesh size nets and no tie-up. On the east coast of England, where the principal fishery is for cod, this may be a viable alternative, but in north-east Scotland, where the fishing is mainly for haddock and whiting, this is not a viable alternative because they are smaller fish than cod and with 110mm mesh nets you would catch few haddock and no whiting. Thus they are forced to opt for the 135-day tie-up scheme. As a result, they are obliged to fish not only in all reasonable weather, weekdays or Sunday, but often in dangerously stormy weather on the remaining days in order to meet their commitments.
Fishing boats are expensive: a large purse-netter costs up to £5 million; a herring drifter around £1.5 million; a 60-foot trawler from £600,000 to £1 million. In order to purchase their boats the owner or owners will have obtained a considerable loan from the bank, and those loans have to be serviced and repaid, whether the boat is fishing or tied up. In the same way fishermen often have a mortgage to service as well. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has spoken of the cost of hiring Decca navigational equipment. Where the boat belongs to a person or a company who engages a crew, the crew still have to be paid during the time the boat is tied up if their services are to be retained. If they are not, then if they can find other employment they may very well not be available when the tie-up period expires. Most usually, the crew do not receive wages but have a share in the proceeds of the catch. If there is no catch they get nothing; and as they are self-employed I am not sure whether they get unemployment benefit. I think they do if they pay a special stamp. Perhaps the Minister knows the answer to that.
I hope I have now explained why it is that fishermen will find it necessary to go out in bad conditions to make up for lost income, however much Government Ministers blithely say that they are not obliged to. Of course the result is that the catches are not really being reduced much; they are just being caught in more dangerous conditions which put men's lives and equipment at even greater risk than they usually run. That is not in the interests of conservation. It is also a cause of great concern to their wives and families, who are very unhappy about it. It has occurred to me, having listened to speeches earlier this afternoon, that a further result of this will be that the occasions on which the crews of lifeboats have to risk their lives to rescue the crews of fishing boats which have got into difficulties may well increase considerably.
As well as introducing the licensing of boats under 10 metres in length, the Bill seeks to perpetuate the tie-up regulations and impose draconian penalties on anyone who infringes them. I think it is a bad Bill and I am sorry that any Scottish Member of Parliament voted for it in another place. It is tempting to defy

953
convention, vote against it and ask the Government to think again. Although I shall not do that, I shall certainly try to amend it at Committee stage.
Mr. Alex Salmond, Member of Parliament for Banff and Buchan, leader of the Scottish National Party, wrote an article about the present plight of the fishing industry in Scotland in the Scottish supplement of The Sunday Times yesterday, which is for the most part excellent and explains the situation very clearly. I do not think the Library here has the Scottish edition, but I can give any noble Lord who is interested a copy of it. I am not a Scottish Nationalist; I never have been. It is a sad day for me when I find myself in agreement with their leader. But I have to say that unless the Government put far more money and effort into producing an adequate decommissioning scheme so that the limitation on fishing time can be phased out very soon, they can forget all about reforming local government and other measures designed to make the Union more acceptable to the people of Scotland, for it will be too late.
6.28 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I have no particular connection with the fishing industry and therefore I speak with not nearly as much authority as others who have spoken this afternoon. However, I was privileged to sit on Sub-Committee D under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Selborne and so perhaps I learnt a little then. I do not have my fingers on a great many statistics and therefore simplicity in this case may be advantageous in that it may lead us to one or two conclusions which are perhaps less distressful to the fishing industry than those that are suggested in the Bill.
The seas around our shores are shared by vessels from all Common Market countries. I heard during the committee's proceedings and at other meetings that a net in the North sea is allowed to be two and a half miles long. That was news to me. I asked what such a net could contain. Mr. Holden said that it could contain whole shoals of fish—and certainly the Houses of Parliament. It is a very large net indeed. One could get quite a number of Houses of Parliament in it. The way in which the problem has been tackled has obviously not worked because the stocks are going down.
I visit Billingsgate frequently because I am a fish farmer—which has nothing to do with sea fishing. It is amazing to see the number of foreign fish at Billingsgate. One sees no big cod at all. All the traders will state that there used to be great cod there. I can remember well—and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will probably recall—Folkestone in the days when monstrous cod were caught from the end of the pier. That is no longer the position. Speaking from personal experience, I believe that there is now only one transport company which carries fish in my part of England up as far as Grimsby and Hull, because there are not the fish to be carried any more.
We should look at what has gone wrong so that we can learn what to do right in the future. The matter has been dealt with by total allowable catches—a quota system. There are two fundamental faults with
954
that system, and possibly three, if one adds in the discards, a waste which I find it disgusting to think about. I should like to mention the least important point first, which concerns policing, ensuring that people do not cheat, black fish and all the matters that have been mentioned this evening. That is a serious fault and it makes forecasting the numbers of such massive species into the following year extremely difficult.
The most important fault is that, however good the scientists are and however clever they are at Lowestoft and Weymouth, or wherever they forecast on the Continent, there is no way whatsoever that the forecasts can be considered to be accurate, except by luck, given that they are taking information from catches. That is an awkward area to forecast. Very often it must produce the wrong answer. As we know, the only calculation attempted is on the main species and the other limits are precautionary TACs which I would describe as complete guesswork in scientific terms.
The Bill is an enabling Bill which enables the Government to lock in, tying up restrictions to licences. That appears to be the major complaint of the fishing industry. I admit that I have a great deal of sympathy, having received a certain amount of post and listened to the fishery federations, but there are all kinds of difficulties attaching to a system of reducing the effort for catching fish. Such a method achieves the worst of two worlds. If vessels are tied up long enough to help fish stocks recover and become sustainable, then the fishermen will not make enough money to survive. If the vessels are tied up for a short enough time to allow the fishermen to survive, then the fish will not. We are the losers whichever option is taken because, if there are no fish, there will be no communities, there will be unemployment and there will be all the downstream difficulties that will arise from that.
That brings me to the subject of decommissioning. It must be a matter for regret that we did not join in what I call the multi-annual guidance party and take benefit from the Community budget when it was available. I should like to ask my noble friend whether we can still join in and obtain funds to help us with decommissioning. I believe that, in order to achieve sustainable fisheries, a reduction of 25 to 30 per cent. should be aimed for. As many noble Lords have stated, licensing throughout to below 10 metres is absolutely vital. Otherwise, as some person put it to me in a letter, decommissioning takes place and the skipper or the owner has the opportunity to enter the industry by another door. Obviously that door must be closed.
The Bill is an enabling Bill. All the other powers are already incorporated in the 1967 Act. We cannot throw the Bill out or do anything dramatic. I suggest that the Bill should be kept as an enabling measure but not used; that we should use Clause 10 of the 1967 Act to activate a thorough decommissioning scheme with any bonus or money that may be available from the Community.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, noble Lords may think it rather fishy to find my name on the list of speakers in the debate. I confess at once that I have no piscatorial qualifications. My sole reason for detaining your Lordships quite briefly is that I have been written to by fishermen from fishing communities which are otherwise unrepresented in the debate and on the Select Committee—the small fishing communities of South-East England. Having failed to get their case accepted by another place, they thought perhaps that a Peer living in the area might be a suitable vehicle for their views.
What are those views? I am speaking of representations that I have received from Dungeness, Hastings and Norman's Bay. The latter two concern small boats that launch from the beach. These are not fishing ports such as the ones we have heard about in Scotland and the North East of England. However, they have provided a livelihood for many years for a number of individuals and families. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred to the fact that the services of lifeboats may be required more often if fishermen have to go out in stormier weather. They also provide the lifeboat crews which are very important in one of the most crowded shipping areas of the world. In war time they have had other uses. If people of that kind state that the proposals—and once the tie up is extended to smaller boats it will cover them all—mean the
destruction of their livelihood, we ought to take the matter very seriously.
These fishermen are concerned with conservation, a point that has been made in relation to other fishing communities. They admit that there must be conservation if the fishing industry is to survive. However, they feel that to limit the fishing capacities of our own fleet is to give freer play to the fisheries of other countries. They claim—and I thought that it was an extravagant claim—that this is the only country that seriously polices adherence to the targets laid down by the fisheries policy. However, on reading the Select Committee's report I find that the Commission itself admits that Britain is the only country which carries out a full inspection. The fishermen of the South East feel that there are constant violations of the limits on mesh and the other technical ways in which greater catches than are allowed for can be taken. Both our maiden speakers, to whom we have listened with great interest, made that point in one form or another. This is not unusual in our relations with the European Community, because we know that Britain takes a totally different view of its obligations under community law. Other countries have Ministers who, as the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, pointed out, defend unashamedly their refusal to do things which might damage their own producers—fishermen or
even farmers who take part in the burning of our lambs when we export them to France.
We believe that we are in honour bound to fulfil every letter of our obligations. Their Ministers go to meetings to defend their national interest. Our Ministers appear to go to meetings to bring back what the Commission would like us to do. Therefore there is no level fishing ground. That explains why those
956
who have protested about the Bill are so bitter about it. If there were a general understanding; if there were equal monitoring of restrictions in respect of conservation, they might feel differently, but, knowing that the monitoring is ineffective—that appears in more than one place in the Select Committee's report—they feel that they are being singled out to sacrifice their livelihood, and to sacrifice small communities of fishermen who have been there for centuries, for matters which are beyond their reach and against which, apparently, their own government are not prepared to protect them.
If those fishermen had heard, as I and some noble Lords have heard for the first time, the appalling story of the discards and knew that, at a time when fish prices for our own people are rising and the world is in great need of protein, fish is being destroyed in the name of some kind of conservation policy, they might feel that there was no point in protesting because the kind of people who produce the regulations might be beyond reason.
I have said what those fishermen would like me to say. I hope that those who are more expert in these matters than I am will find amendments to limit the impact of the Bill upon the fishing communities in the South East as well as in the other parts of the United Kingdom that have been mentioned, and, if they do, I look forward to supporting them.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, f apologise for the fact that I will not be present for the end of the debate due to a prior commitment. It is the first time that I have had to leave a debate, and I hope that it will be the last. The number of speakers taking part shows how worried noble Lords are about the issue, and rightly
so.
I welcome the fact that the Bill is being debated with the ECC report although I shall confine my remarks to the Bill. It is important to look realistically at the state of fish stocks when tackling the problem of fishing because without fish conservation there will be no fish industry. Fish are a finite resource. Competition for that resource will not increase it. I listened with interest to noble Lords' complaints of European fishermen taking our stocks. I agree with them. However, if we go to Europe and say that we are doing something for conservation, we may be able to force them to do something also.
Over-fishing in European waters has reached such an extent that stocks are seriously threatened. That has a profound impact upon the marine ecosystem and, if not addressed, will fundamentally change the animal community of our seas. To date, conservation measures have been insufficient, often because they are unenforceable. Much faith has been placed in technical measures such as special net designs and ever larger mesh sizes. However, fishing with sieves does not go far enough to safeguard our precarious stocks. Technical measures are no substitute for a reduction in the total fishing effort and that is what we need urgently. Enforceable and extreme controls need to be placed on the fishing effort now. Restricting access to vulnerable stocks—the proposal for limiting days at

957
sea contained in the Bill—is a means of keeping fishermen away from fish. It is enforceable and controversial but it is likely to put fishermen out of business.
The Bill may warrant our support merely because of the urgency of the situation. But it is a short-sighted approach and a had Bill. The only long-term solution is a reduction in the size of the fleet. The UK has been slow to adopt a realistic decommissioning scheme. It is as if the Government see the crash in fish stocks as a temporary problem and believe that the fish will return in a year or two when they will be able to release the fleet again. The fleet is too effective. No foreseeable stock recovery will be able to support the present fishing effort. There is no magic recovery of cod in sight without a long-term commitment drastically to cut the size and effectiveness of the fishing fleet.
The crisis in our fishing industry needs to be addressed urgently, but I do not believe that the Bill provides a suitable long-term solution. The motivation behind the Bill seems to be a desire to avoid the expenditure necessary to tackle the root problem—the over-capacity of the fishing fleet. No doubt the bankruptcies which will result from the Bill will reduce the fleet's capacity to an extent, but that will inevitably inflict hardship on many families and decimate many fishing communities.
A major, well-founded decommissioning scheme has been called for widely. That seems to be the sensible long-term solution to the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, pointed out, it is estimated that the £25 million decommissioning scheme that the Government propose will reduce the fleet by approximately 5 per cent. I have been informed that a 25 per cent. reduction is needed five times that which
the Government are offering. If further decommissioning is the answer, when will it be done?
That brings me to another flaw in the Bill. It will allow the Minister a free hand to impose further restrictions on licence holders. The Minister will be able to tighten restrictions on the number of days boats may fish, so leading to more bankruptcies. In order that the fleet size is not cut by creeping restrictions, the Minister should be required to report annually to Parliament on the state of the fish stocks and what effect our EC partners are having.
If stocks are low and the restrictions are clearly not working, Parliament must have the opportunity to assess the options, decommissioning being the obvious one. Such an annual review would avoid our setting in train fleet reductions through bankruptcies rather than a reasonable decommissioning scheme. For those small fishing communities where unemployment is predicted as a result of bankruptcies the market in fishing licences poses a worrying long-term threat. How will they compete for licences against those able to raise large sums of capital? Surely they will not be able to do so. Are we not in danger of seeing the concentration of fishing rights resting in fewer and fewer hands?
For those boats that remain viable under the restrictions there are many problems. Not least among them is the short notice on which the annual restrictions are given. In a period of slim margins for
958
many fishermen, that makes planning even more vital. A three-month warning, which has been suggested by fishermen, seems reasonable. I reiterate the need for an appropriate decommissioning scheme to deal with the over-capacity of the fleet head on. The problem of over-capacity will clearly have to be dealt with at some time as there is not a sufficient increase in fish stocks on the horizon.
I hope that the Minister will look closely at conservation of the more vulnerable members of the marine ecosystem. The fishermen who cannot fish for stocks such as cod and haddock may turn to more vulnerable members of the marine ecosystem such as sharks and rays. Those fish have not been properly studied and the effect of fishing on them may be devastating. I hope the Minister will consider those species carefully and will limit the numbers that fishermen can take before irreparable damage is done.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, there is a desperate need to conserve our fish stocks. However, in common with many noble Lords, I find it difficult to support the Bill. It will not conserve our fish stocks, as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stodart. Further, it will disadvantage and demoralise our fishermen, as has been ably pointed out by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. It will also increase the risk of accidents. A number of noble Lords have pointed that out.
I believe that we have the best maritime rescue services in the world, but it is best not to tempt providence. The Bill will encourage law breaking because its provisions will not be enforceable. That is the most important aspect of the Bill. I believe most noble Lords have referred to the matter.
The law has been broken with regard to the common agricultural policy. The law is being broken and will continue to be broken in the fishing industry. The way forward—as has been proposed by your Lordships' Select Committee and other noble Lords—is a comprehensive decommissioning scheme and the phasing out of industrial fishing. Unfortunately, I understand that a decommissioning scheme would cost five times the amount of money the Government have pledged. I suspect the main reason for the Government's reluctance to adopt as comprehensive a decommissioning scheme as that of other countries is the Fontainebleau Agreement, which, I believe, will claw back approximately 80 per cent. of the 70 per cent. EC grant.
The Fontainebleau Agreement may have been hailed as a victory for the United Kingdom; I doubt that it will he so proclaimed by British fishermen. This Bill, aided and abetted by a so-called common fisheries policy, will do for British fishermen what the so-called common agricultural policy has done for the British farmer and indeed for the British housewife. It will wreck the fishing industry in more ways than one. Noble Lords cannot throw out this impractical Bill on Second Reading—I repeat it is impractical—but I hope that they will do their best to amend it in such a way as to mitigate its worst effects. I feel sorry for my

959
noble friend Lord Howe who has to steer the Bill through the House against what I hope will be a force 10 wind against tide.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the hardest part of fishing used to be finding the fish and fighting the weather. Now the greatest threat to the livelihood of fishermen is felt by them to be the blunt and bureaucratic regulations imposed by the Government and the EC.
To conserve the stock of fish the EC introduced the quota system. That was intended to be a convenient distributive arrangement. However, it was never intended to be the primary means of conservation. That was to be fulfilled by technical measures such as the shape and size of the mesh. The industry has supported a range of conservation initiatives which, allied to decommissioning, would address the conservation problem without forcing boats to the wall.
Then the EC introduced a decommissioning scheme by which many Danish, Dutch and Belgian vessels were scrapped. The scheme offered 75 per cent. of the cost of reducing the UK fleet provided the British Government offered the balance, which they for long refused to do. The Government have at last done so, but the grant is linked to tie up days. The UK fleet is about 30 per cent. over capacity for the available stocks. That figure includes Spanish owned British registered vessels, mentioned already in the debate, fishing our quotas and landing in Spain. But while the measure is damaging to the British fleet, lack of enforcement in Spain means that there will be no effect on its flagships. That point should be addressed by the Government as it constitutes a glaring anomaly in the system.
The latest EC proposals aim to reduce fishing days by up to 30 per cent. on the 1991 base which would allow only 140 fishing days. As an example the average Scarborough vessel fishes some 200 days in the year, the remainder of the time being taken up with repairs, maintenance and holidays. All crews are self-employed and their pay is based solely on the value of the catch less expenses. There is no doubt that crews could not live on the earnings of 140 days at sea, nor could ships be maintained.
The fittest to survive in the industry would be those with older vessels which are now paid for. Those with newer vessels would be unable to fish enough to repay loans to the very government who issued the loans in the first place to build the vessels. That imbalance of ship ages would spell trouble for the future and it is due to the failure to limit the size of the fleet early enough. It would be a tragedy if the British fishing industry were to be decimated while other nations fish and laugh at the British tied up in their ports.
Redundancy is rife throughout industry and farmers and fishermen must, and do, expect to suffer their share. Fishermen do not want charity: they recognise the need for conservation. In recent years they have increased the size of meshes to avoid catching immature fish. They have pleaded in vain for
960
the closure of the central North Sea spawning grounds. They would like to see a ban on industrial fishing by which the Danes take at least 100,000 tonnes of immature white fish. I do not believe that the Bill provides the solution to the problem. It is fundamentally flawed; in particular it does not deal with the main problem of conservation. And it does not apply to other EC states. That is a highly emotive point particularly as the French and Spanish do not adhere even to existing conservation rules.
The Bill will encourage fishermen to abandon selective methods in order to fill up their ships in the shortest time. It also undermines the climate of opinion necessary for conservation to work by creating antipathy between government and fishermen. That is a difficult matter to quantify but even the Minister has admitted that it is important.
Amendments were proposed at various stages of the Bill in another place in an effort to improve the Bill. However, all those amendments were rejected. Therefore the industry now has to hope for the complete rejection of this Bill. In another place the Minister, under pressure from Members, agreed to lay before the House an amendment to ensure that the restrictions on the EC countries would be as stringent as those imposed on the UK fleet. However, in a letter to the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations the Minister stated that he would not introduce the amendment unless the UK was satisfied that member states which share our stocks were taking effective steps to meet their fleet capacity targets as defined by what the EC calls the multi-annual guidance programme.
The assurances given to MPs and the NFFO's chairman are not the same. Thus the industry does not have much confidence that the government amendment to be tabled at Committee stage in this House will be adequate. It is strongly resented that the UK fleet should be subject to more stringent regulations than our Community partners fishing the same stock which place our industry at a competitive disadvantage.
The UK fishing industry is ancient and traditional. It has provided the seafaring experience which manned the navy and shaped British history. This is not the time—and the time will never come—for it to be cast out of existence.
7 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I was privileged to be a member of the sub-committee which conducted the review of the common fisheries policy we are considering today. It was, in my view, a timely and important inquiry. It was certainly a very thorough one, during which all of us learnt a great deal. I know that I did. I pay tribute to our admirable chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, to our very knowledgeable and helpful specialist adviser, Mr. Boyd Gordon and our excellent clerk.
Our recommendations are set out clearly in the report. I hope that the Government will consider them carefully because I believe that they point to a very necessary reform of the CFP and are realistic and constructive. We know from the Parliamentary

961
Secretary's Written Answer of 21st October (Official Report,21/10/92; col. WA90)) that the Fisheries Council has had a first discussion of the new draft regulations. I hope that we can be given some more information about that discussion and about the way in which policy is likely to develop.
I subscribe to all the conclusions of the report. I should like simply to draw attention to one or two points which seem to me particularly important. First, I believe that our recommendation that the CFP should have a new additional objective—namely, to protect the whole marine environment from damage caused by fishing—should be taken very seriously. This was not mentioned by the noble Earl in his opening speech.
It was clear to us that at present some fishing practices, especially beam trawling, are often very destructive. Page 17 of our report spells out the concerns of conservationists. I for one had no idea that the entire bed of the North Sea was trawled every year and that of the Irish Sea three times a year, or that, according to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, for every kilogram of commercial fish caught by beam trawlers, which scrape up the sea bed in an appallingly destructive way, between two and four kilograms of dead and damaged fish are thrown back into the sea.
I think it essential that, as the sub-committee recommends, more use should be made of closed conservation boxes and marine protected areas. That again was a matter not mentioned by the noble Earl. The Shetland box must be maintained and perhaps extended, and other conservation boxes should be established.
Everyone agrees that the Community has far too many fishing boats and that fishery effort is excessive, resulting in enormous pressure on fish stocks, especially cod and haddock. Our recommendation was for decommissioning as an essential long-term measure. We need something much stronger than the scheme announced by the Government last February. Tie-up restrictions should, as we said, be only a short-term solution, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, explained earlier in the debate. Against that background the tie-up proposals in the present Bill seem to me unfair and unsatisfactory. I have been impressed by the eloquent letters I have received from trawler skippers and their wives about the serious effect on them of a permanent tie-up scheme. However, I think that it is right that Ministers should have powers to revoke the licences of those who persistently break the rules.
We came down in favour of reforming rather than abolishing TACs, and I think that that is right. Since monitoring and enforcement are clearly far stricter here than in countries such as Spain, we argued that the Commission's inspectorate should be given powers to carry out spot checks, followed up if necessary by infraction proceedings.
I should like to lay particular stress on our recommendation that industrial fishing should be phased out. I know that Mr. Gummer has raised his voice against that practice, and I found what the noble Earl said on the matter reasonably encouraging.
962
However, against the background of the serious situation in the North Sea, we must demand that the Community addresses the problem more vigorously. It is not acceptable that half the tonnage taken from the North Sea should be tiny fish, the basis of the food chain for many important species—birds and mammals as well as fish—and including many juvenile cod and haddock, all destined for fish meal factories or even, in Denmark, to provide oil for power stations. The problem must be addressed urgently.
I think that all of us were horrified by the fearful waste of fish produced by the practice of discards at sea, which is described in paragraphs 48 and 49 of our report. The quantities of fish killed in that way are scarcely credible. I very much hope that we can investigate alternative policies, as proposed in paragraph 116 of our report, although I fully understand the difficulties which the noble Earl described.
In present circumstances it is clearly important that technical measures should be strengthened, as recommended in paragraph 119 of our report, to enable more young fish to survive. The Government should press vigorously for the compulsory introduction throughout the Community of square mesh panels, not merely for nethrops but for all fish.
Good research is clearly essential if we are to come to sensible and realistic conclusions about fisheries policy. I was impressed by what we saw and heard when we visited MAFF's research laboratory at Lowestoft but I was struck by the fact that, because of limited resources, that laboratory was unable to do any research on some species—for example, turbot and lemon sole, which are important in the market. I believe that the laboratory ought to be given the modest extra resources necessary to enable it to look at the state of stocks of those species. I hope that the Government will address that point.
We have all heard of the problem of quota hopping and the consequences of the Factortame judgment, which will allow 100 or so essentially Spanish boats, manned by Spanish crews, to fish our British quota, and now a dozen or so Dutch beam trawlers to operate out of Aberdeen. The Government tried manfully to avert that situation but lost the battle and seem now to think that nothing more can be done. I do not believe that we can leave the matter there. The CFP, rightly or wrongly, is based on national quotas and the coming of foreign boats to fish our limited quotas makes nonsense of that policy. The Government must roll up their sleeves and tackle the problem, difficult though it may be, in Brussels. The present situation is clearly not acceptable.
As vice-chairman of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, I should like to draw attention to the memorandum from that trust submitted to the sub-committee and printed on page 178 of the written evidence. The sub-committee addressed the problem of industrial fishing but the other points made in the trust's memorandum—the lack of a Community policy on wild Atlantic salmon, the acceptance of the principle that wild salmon should only be taken in their rivers of origin and their estuaries and that interceptory fishing for mixed stocks should be banned, the need

963
for more research, the better control of illegal high seas fishing and the introduction of carcass tagging on a Community basis—are important. I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, whether the Government will encourage the Commission to introduce a policy for salmon. It is badly needed.
In my view the CFP is not nearly as bad as the common agricultural policy, but it is very important that Western European countries should act quickly to reduce their fishing fleets to a size which will enable fishing effort to be substantially reduced—by at least 30 to 40 per cent.—so that the fish can survive and reproduce and a sustainable fishery, giving a secure living to a reasonable number of fishermen, can continue. If the stocks are destroyed the fishermen will lose their jobs anyway. The Commission has, to its credit, recognised the seriousness of the problem, though some European countries have not. It is essential that we should play our part in securing a realistic and sensible policy for European fisheries. I believe that our report indicates how that objective may best be secured.
7.9 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, the Bill addresses a difficult problem. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Howe on his clear exposition of how the Bill intends to tackle it, although I am not happy about many of its provisions.
As other noble Lords have said, there is no dispute about the need to conserve fish stocks. British fishermen accept the necessity to reduce the capacity of European fishing fleets if fish stocks are to be conserved in the long term. They also accept that the UK fleet must play its part. But they rightly insist that inevitable restrictions and sacrifices should be shared as fairly and equitably as possible. In particular, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, they want level fishing grounds for all EC fishermen.
At this late hour many of the points I had intended to raise have already been well made and I shall not repeat them, but I would like briefly to draw attention to ways in which the Bill seems to me to need amendment. It has several objectionable features. First, it gives the Minister very wide powers under delegated legislation. There is virtually no indication of how he will use those powers or of the criteria on which his decisions will be taken. Those decisions are subject only to an appeal to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal, the members of which are appointed by the Minister. How will the boats be chosen for restriction of the days at sea? Will all of one type have the same restrictions or will all boats in specified areas have the same restrictions? How will restrictions relate to the principle of total allowable catch? How will days at sea be defined? All those are matters which should be more clearly indicated in the Bill.
Secondly, the Bill will cause a major increase in bureaucracy. It will require fishermen to provide much detailed information, again at the Minister's discretion. As the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has
964
indicated, that is most unwelcome to fishermen. It is difficult for them to carry out bureaucratic processes in the conditions under which they work.
Thirdly, the Bill is excessively draconian. Licences, which represent the fisherman's livelihood, will be revocable at the whim of the Minister not only, as now, to regulate fishing but in future also for breach of the new days at sea limitation regulations rather than, or perhaps as well as, punishment in the courts.
Fourthly—and worst of all—the Bill does not attack the basic problem of too many boats—that is, the size of the fleet—unless, as fishermen fear, it is the intention to make fishing so unattractive by the restrictions of days at sea that they will have no alternative but to accept decommissioning at knock-down, inequitable prices.
We must look closely during the Committee stage at several points, particularly the Minister's accountability to Parliament, how he will use his powers and what reports he will have to make to Parliament to indicate how the scheme is progressing. We must ensure that there is a provision in the Bill that advanced warning is given to fishermen of the restrictions which will be imposed upon them about days at sea. We must ensure that proper compensation is paid for loss of earnings due to being tied up in harbour. We need to look at the composition of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal which is set up under Clause 2. I do not think it is entirely satisfactory that all the members should be appointed by the Minister when they are going to have to judge the decisions taken by the Minister. Finally, there should be a date set after which the Act will cease to have effect.
The fact is that the Bill is widely and intensely disliked by British fishermen. Their concern must be recognised and not ignored, as must the effect on local fishing communities so well put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. Fishermen fear that the major new restrictions on days at sea will put them at a serious disadvantage compared with their foreign competitors and so will destroy their livelihood. There is also concern that the restrictions will make fishing so unprofitable that they will be forced to decommission and sell out at unfair, depressed prices.
I could not quite understand the logic of my noble friend Lord Howe. He seemed to be saying that since days at sea would be maintained at the 1991 level, there was nothing much to worry about because it would not unduly affect the economy of the fishermen's activities or their livelihood. But how does that line up with the objective of reducing their catch? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord in his reply can explain that apparent anomaly.
Fishermen have served their country well in peace and war. They are not whingers. They want to go on doing a hard, difficult and often dangerous job, and we must listen to their views. Some 50 years ago I had the privilege of serving with the fathers and grandfathers of today's fishermen, catching mines. They earned our gratitude when we had our backs to the wall. There is no doubt that today's fishermen are no less courageous, hard-working and deserving of

965
our gratitude and support, which I hope we will demonstrate in our treatment of the Bill at its subsequent stages.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I have no connection with the sea fishing industry but I consider myself to be lucky to have served on Sub-committee D under the excellent chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Selborne. Our problem today is lack of stocks of most species of fish. The only way to allow them to recover is to reduce the number being killed. That can be achieved only by legislation, and this Bill may be part of it. However, the fact remains that our fishing fleet, not the numbers of vessels but the fishing effort available within it, is too great by over 25 per cent. The types of measures contained in the Bill may be used in the very short term but even in the medium term decommissioning should be used to reduce the fishing effort. Measures such as those in the Bill should then be used for fine tuning towards achieving the TAC targets.
I do not feel that the arguments for the Government's reluctance to bring in a large decommissioning scheme in the near future are sustainable. I am not ignoring the welcome announcement recently made of the £25 million decommissioning scheme which will begin next year and go on for three years. Before we applaud that we must put it into perspective. As can be seen in the evidence, the natural increase in fishing effort due to technological advances is slightly over 2 per cent. a year. That is not an increase in the number of vessels. Therefore, the size of the proposed scheme will only halt that increase. It will do nothing to reduce total effort. Effective policing of measures such as those before us today will be almost impossible. Discards at sea—which are always dead fish—will continue or even increase as fishermen throw away one species in favour of another. As we see on page 57 of the report, globally the discards are horrific, often exceeding the numbers of fish actually landed. There are obviously problems with the tie-up scheme. Those have been illustrated in the report and by other speakers.
We come back to the basic problem: why will the Government not introduce an effective large-scale decommissioning scheme? We and the Republic of Ireland are the only two nations in Europe which seem to shrink from doing it. Now that boats of under 10 metres are to he licensed it removes the one practical problem of decommissioned boat owners transferring their fishing effort to unlicensed boats of less than 10 metres. It is accepted that it would cost a large amount of money to decommission and that it would go to the fishermen. The fishermen seem to be all for it. We could not find any who were not. As Mr. Curry said, so would everybody about to be given money by the taxpayer. But do we not already compensate farmers for conservation measures left, right and centre?
There is some doubt about the effectiveness of certain measures, such as mesh size and tie-ups. However, there can be no doubt about the effectiveness of a 25 per cent. reduction in fishing effort by decommissioning. There is not much policing to be
966
done if the vessels do not exist. The mechanics of decommissioning the right vessel capable of catching certain species in certain areas is obviously complicated. But it looks as if the fishermen would co-operate. So it is possible that it would he successful.
The setting of a price at which fishermen would go is difficult. There are a number of suggestions in the report as to how it might be done. However, in answer to question 429 on page 141 Mr. Curry talks about having to change rules within the European Community if the tenders are above those grant aided by the Community. He seems to be at odds with Mr. Van Depoele, head of the task force from the European Commission, who points out in answer to question 547 on page 170 that there is only a limit to the pay back from the Community. If the tenders are low, then the Government and the Community save money; if they are high, government would be allowed to top them up. That does not involve a change of rules, as I understand Mr. Curry to have suggested.
In the final analysis, too much dependence by the Government on measures such as tie-ups will entail an inefficient fishing fleet. Boats will go out of business because they will not be financially viable. Fishermen will lose their jobs without special provision being made for them. That would be uncontrolled and quite uncaring of our hard pressed fishing communities, especially the outlying ones in Northern Ireland and the islands of Scotland. Decommissioning could take care of those problems by virtue of targeting and compensation.
I hope that it is not too late for the Government to realise that, although decommissioning on its own will not work, it must be the basis for future management. The measures in this Bill, though necessary, should be used for fine tuning and further control. I hope that amendments placed at a later stage will be accepted in order to make the Bill much more user friendly.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Saint Levan: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for very long this evening. I came ashore yesterday from an island off the west coast of Cornwall in a force 9 gale and I plan to return tonight, leaving on the midnight train.
For many years I have been on the council of the Fishermen's Mission at Newlyn. As noble Lords will know, if there is a disaster at sea it is always the man from the mission who has to tell the families. It is the mission which, for many years afterwards, looks after the welfare and the spiritual needs of the fishermen and their families. I know that the fishermen in Newlyn fully accept the need for conservation and are fully aware that difficult and unpopular decisions have to be made. However, they want to have more consultation and very much hope that the Bill will be amended in this House.
There are many families who have fished for generations. They might be forced into bankruptcy and leave the industry which they love. Fishing is part of our Cornish heritage and tradition. There is enormous sympathy for fishermen in every part of the Cornish community. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, even

967
with restrictions on the days at sea, many fishermen will have to carry on with the only way of life they know. That will be despite economic hardship and the enormous capital and repair costs of the boats and fishing gear, and with the worry of incurring bank loans which it may be impossible to repay.
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, reminded noble Lords that 50 years ago he served on a minesweeper. I was First Lieutenant and then Captain of a minesweeper for some years during and after the war. Trawling for mines seemed much the same sort of life as trawling for fish. What I remember most about those days was that we were not nervous about being blown up by mines but we had the constant strain, worry and responsibility of working at sea with powerful high-speed winches and strong steel wires which could cause a terrible accident if they parted. A lapse of concentration from any man for a moment, either because he was tired or sea sick, could lead to death or being maimed for life.
I wonder whether decommissioning could be targeted at the particular types of vessels which extract valuable stocks of fish from parts of the seabed which other fishing boats cannot reach. Perhaps more compensation might be paid to gill netters or beam trawlers. The present decommissioning scheme seems to the industry to be little more than a competition to see which vessels will take less money.
I do not know very much about the technical problems of fish conservation. However, I wonder whether other boxes and sea areas free from fishing could he established while fish could spawn. Perhaps scientists could designate the fishing grounds which might be chosen. Off the coast of Cornwall there might be a fishing free zone of 70 square miles off the Lizard and another 70 square miles off the north coast. I know that there are difficulties in policing. It would be necessary to have the agreement and co-operation of other European states.
Last week I received a letter from the skipper of a fishing trawler. It was written while he was fishing five miles off Land's End at intervals between his other duties of keeping watch, hauling and stocking. Certainly his biro ran out and I only received half the intended letter. He said, like every other fisherman who has written to me about this Bill, that he felt very strongly that most of Britain's fish had been given to Europe and the pittance that was left was being swallowed up by flags of convenience vessels of other countries.
I hope that this Bill will be amended along the lines suggested by the fishing associations. The port of Newlyn used to be a very prosperous fishing port. Only a few years ago Her Majesty the Queen opened a new pier so that more fishing boats could berth alongside it. One of the main reasons for building the Penzance bypass was so that Newlyn fresh fish, with an excellent EC grade, could be transported to other ports for export. Also, many fish are brought from the smaller Cornish ports to Newlyn for sale.
It is estimated that in the port of Newlyn there are about five ancillary workers behind each fisherman. About 5,000 people could be affected by any serious
968
decline in the fishing industry. I hope that more money can be found to pay for other methods of conservation which might even be more expensive. Newlyn used to be a prosperous fishing port.
Finally, I should like to endorse what has already been said about the compensation which should be paid on decommissioning to the crews of fishing boats as well as the owners and skippers. Many fishermen will have left school at the age of 16 and will have only a few GCE qualifications. West Cornwall is one of the most depressed areas of the country. It would be very sad to see so many excellent English seamen join the tin miners on the dole.
7.25 p.m.
The Earl of Iddesleigh: My Lords, I came from Devon today because in the past month I have received between 30 and 40 agonised letters from fishermen in the South West. I have listened to the debate and have learnt a lot. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, put most succinctly and well the points which I wanted to make. I shall therefore concentrate only on the one message that came from the many letters that I received. That is the problem of all our fishermen who are forced to keep their boats tied up in port knowing that fishermen from our EC partners are happily fishing sometimes even in sight of our coasts. I have every possible sympathy with such a complaint.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining so clearly to us his reasons for the need for such an arrangement. I must confess that I am only very slightly happier now than I was when the debate started. I hope that the number of days that our West Country boats have to be tied up will not be too numerous. I fear that we are almost giving the Government a blank cheque in that respect. To my mind the tie-up scheme is an iniquitous arrangement.
As has been said already, it will make very little difference to the conservation goals if the number of days that one has to tie up one's boat is small. I should have thought that a combination of an agreed increase in the size of mesh, perhaps additional special panels to allow through immature fish or even more areas of conservation boxes would be a happier arrangement and certainly far easier to police.
We know that the French are or soon will be compensating their fishermen for laying up their boats. I wonder whether we could be told, perhaps at the end of the debate, the amount of money that has been allocated by the French for that and perhaps the maximum sum that they are giving to their fishermen. It may be that those figures are not available but I suspect they are.
I appreciate that individual EC countries are at present being allowed to do their own thing. To my mind that is a great pity. When it comes to fishing, this is such a very important issue to so many individuals as well as local communities that I feel it must be highly desirable for all the EC fishing interests to come closer together. We badly need the level playing field, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has already said.

969
I can add nothing to the debate that has not already been said. I only dread the additional letters that will arrive on my desk from Wednesday onwards.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I confess that I have to catch an even earlier train than other noble Lords—at 8.35. I hope therefore that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not remain to the end of the debate.
I congratulate the Minister on his presentation of this difficult Bill, parts of which I am glad to support. Even the most partisan will confess that it has some imperfections. However, they are as nothing to the imperfections in the fishing industry which the Bill seeks to regulate.
The fishing fleet capacity has expanded enormously in response to technological advances. Together the combined fleets of the European seas are able to fish out beyond the level of natural recovery the whole of the Western Approaches of the North Sea and West Atlantic fisheries in the course of two years.
The fishermen agree on the vital need for conservation. However, they find a conflicting interest in their traditional rights to fish home waters while we have granted such overwhelming rights to our European partners to fish our own waters. Some believe that all we obtain in return is poaching and disregard of Community rules, as many other noble Lords have stated.
Fishermen have responded to approaches from the Ministry with demands for decommissioning grants. Noble Lords from all sides have supported the suggestion that decommissioning should be adopted. However, the fishermen are under the impression that the European Community will apply a 70 per cent. grant. As we have been told, as a result of the Fontainebleau Agreement that grant is reduced to only 25 per cent. for the United Kingdom. It makes decommissioning much too expensive for the British Government in the present circumstances. There must be some other way; or we must modify the Fontainebleau Agreement.
Your Lordships' committee, which produced an incisive report of great clarity and depth—for which we thank noble Lords—rightly concludes that the effort put into fishing needs to be controlled. The Bill sets out to achieve that objective in the light of the fact that decommissioning is considered by the Government to be too expensive, although no one doubts that it is the most desirable.
I also greatly admired the evidence in the report of Mr. Holden and the ideal of a quota per boat. That has limitations. Whole quotas can be snapped up in early days, with a devastating effect on stocks. It also has disadvantages since today's boats are highly specialised and designed to fish in only one configuration.
However, perhaps I may dare to make a suggestion to your Lordships. There may be a way of granting licence quotas not to one boat but to a group—a flotilla of four boats, each one designed to fish with its own specialised gear, and fishing from and landing at designated ports. Each boat would be granted its own
970
quota in the activity of fishing for which it was designed. There would still be a required reduction in effort. But that would be achieved by allowing a limited nominated crew complement for the flotilla, sufficient perhaps to provide three crews for four boats. Thus with limited crew levels the boats would effectively be decommissioned for a percentage of the time. Fishermen would have flexibility of choice of boat and catch according to the markets and the season. The reduction in manning levels would require heavy compensation. It would be a reduction of perhaps 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. But that is intended, and is necessary. Presumably there may be EC help for that.
The fishing industry is largely a family and community affair. I suggest that such a plan fits the need. Those employed would enjoy higher catches and wages and fuller employment. Any plans for conservation of fish stocks require the agreement and co-operation of owners, skippers and crews—people who are rightly renowned as fierce defenders of their way of life, which is hard and dangerous, as noble Lords have pointed out, and as I know from my own experience.
I suspect that the plan to fit boats with transponders would be received with considerable scepticism. However, the Monicap system may also be seen as the thin end of the Brussels wedge. Nevertheless in the important area of safety at sea, especially in the crowded waters around our coasts, the Monicap system deserves serious consideration so that all ships navigating those waters may have access to vital information about neighbouring activities in their immediate vicinity. This is an international maritime need as well as a means of fishery control and should be costed accordingly. Obviously it would also give us the opportunity of monitoring fixed boxes designated at specific times of the year to allow fishing to be prevented in areas where spawning was taking place.
The plan is largely based on statistics. The fish stock levels, as quoted through landings, are irrelevant, as has been clearly pointed out. They cannot take account either of discards or of illegal, unnotified landings. It is only if there is seen to be a fair and effective control system that we shall receive the essential co-operation of fishermen which is needed to achieve the preservation of the species so that we may have a vital, natural resource and continue to answer the country's daily needs.
At present there is great suspicion that foreigners, supposedly our partners in the European Community, are cheating. As noble Lords have said many times over, that is used by our own men as an excuse to bend the rules. Unfortunately we, the British, are seen to be more effective at controls and that exacerbates the resentment. Controls are more and more disliked. I am very glad to hear the Minister's affirmation of the intention to use the intervening time—a whole year until 1994—to reassure the industry that a level playing field, or fishing ground, will be enforced.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Harvey of Tasburgh: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence because, although I wish to speak about the impact of the Bill on the Cornish fishing community, I do not pretend to be an authority on the fishing industry. Nor am I a Cornishman. I lack the credentials of my noble friends Lord Falmouth and Lord Saint Levan. However, I have lived in Cornwall on the waterfront for 30 years or so. Having been part of the sailing community I see a good deal of the fishing community. It is a measure of the intensity of their feeling against the Bill that they should urge a foreigner to stand up for them. At first I thought that they were really scraping the barrel in looking to me for help. But then I realised that few of your Lordships live permanently in Cornwall. I hope that among them we may number the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, who spoke so eloquently about the problem of Cornwall. I also thought that, if an outsider spoke for the people concerned, he would not be suspected of special pleading. Therefore I concluded that I should be failing in my duty to this House as well as letting down my friends and neighbours if I did not try to express their anxieties.
As has been well described by many noble Lords, the principal concern is the restriction on days at sea, the tying up, backed by very severe penalties, when there are no restrictions on foreign fleets. I consider that a form of rationing. I believe that any rationing damages competition or creates the wrong competition, such as black markets for smuggling. Even worse is to have rationing imposed unilaterally on our own fishermen while others are left free, or their misdeeds connived at by their authorities. Aggravating that situation are the foreign-owned British-registered boats whose catches come out of our quota even if landed abroad.
The time restriction might be acceptable if it were applied and were seen to apply to all nationalities. But rightly or wrongly that is not believed to be the case. Even if it were, it is not regarded as the most efficient or fair means of conservation because it would encourage a scramble for the higher-value fish and lead to the dangers vividly described by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst. I know that the following is not a true parallel but I ask how farmers would react if they were ordered to restrict their harvesting to 10 days a month in August and September. Would anyone suggest protecting the pound sterling by limiting only British foreign exchange dealers to a three-day week?
I do not wish to give the impression that the criticism is purely hostile and destructive. On the contrary, for obvious reasons the fishing community is entirely persuaded of the need for conservation. There are constructive ideas floating around which are considered to be safer, fairer and more efficient. I am not qualified to explain them technically but many have been described by other noble Lords this afternoon. For instance, there is the box system, or closed ground, where, in order to protect spawning grounds, there is an absolute prohibition on fishing in designated areas during particular periods of the year. That is fair, effective and easily enforced. Another idea
972
is the specification of minimum limits on mesh size and the shape of nets; for example, the box and diamond. Of course, in the background is the necessity for a proper decommissioning scheme such as was carried out some years ago by the French. The best method of conservation is that adopted in my area, the Fal Estuary, where the working boats are allowed to dredge for oysters only under sail. Regretfully I admit that that cannot be applied to the offshore fleet.
Speaking again as a detached outsider, I do not wish to imply that all fishermen are saints. They have a tough life and they are a forceful lot, as they must be in their profession. They are often at loggerheads with each other and with those around them. In fact, it is remarkable how strongly this Bill has united the fishing interests and aroused the sympathy of the rest of the community. The fishermen are vigorous and courageous characters. In this context "the salt of the earth" is an inappropriate phrase but "the salt of the sea" does not seem right either. I shall only say that there are not many people these days whose main complaint is that they are prevented from working as long as they want to. I know that they try to bend the rules when they have the chance, as do many people today. However, they believe that the theme of the Bill, as they understand it, is, "Find out what they are doing and tell them to stop it! "
I noticed with amusement that the Bill was passed in another place on Bastille Day, the quatorze juillet. Certainly it seemed to tilt the balance in favour of the other side of the Channel. But many circumstances, and in particular our relations with the European Community, have changed dramatically since then. Surely that justifies a new look at some of the provisions of the Bill, a new study of alternative methods of conservation and a new attempt to urge other EC countries the need to impose comparable restrictions and disciplines on their own fleets. The Minister has given me some reassurance on all those points. I shall try to convey that to my friends in Cornwall.
It would have been pleasant to have restored the balance by Trafalgar Day, which was a couple of weeks ago. Personally I would plump for St. Piran's Day, as I am speaking from a Cornish point of view, but no doubt that would be too parochial. Perhaps I may say without being chauvinistic—on the contrary, with genuine European unity and co-operation in mind—that I hope the Bill, which is an enabling Bill with admirable objectives, will no longer drift by accident into becoming a British Sea Fisheries Disabling Act and that we shall have in place a real Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act by St. George's Day.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Falmouth: My Lords, I congratulate the two excellent maiden speakers who spoke to the point and showed great knowledge of the subject. I thank the Minister for explaining the Bill fully and I thank my noble friend Lord Selborne for the excellent report of the committee which he chaired successfully. I too come from the fringe or end county of Cornwall. It is a fishing county; therefore, I have a certain experience of fishing problems in that area.

973
The hour is late and I shall not detain your Lordships too long. Perhaps I may be allowed to make one or two points that have not yet been mentioned. My noble friend Lord Saint Levan mentioned Newlyn. That is an important port which has the highest value of landed fish in England. It is not, therefore, a negligible part of the country. In Cornwall there are about 1,300 fishermen who have craft of all shapes and sizes; for instance, potters, toshers, trawlers, beam trawlers, long liners, those with nets and so forth. I shall not elaborate on the county; I shall return to the principle of the Bill.
Everyone in your Lordships' House and elsewhere is agreed that fish stocks must be conserved. We have before us the dreadful example of the North Sea where large species such as halibut, ling and turbot are rare and the size of cod and haddock are much smaller. Whatever else we may say or think, conserving fish means killing fewer fish. All methods of conservation, therefore, affect the incomes and earnings of fishermen, especially when they are first introduced. Fishermen in this country are to be congratulated on being united in realising the importance of conservation. I shall not deal with the various methods of conservation which have been explained eloquently today; for instance, large mesh nets and blocks controlling spawning areas which are difficult to enforce. It is clear that we are concerned with the limitation of fishing effort; that is the number of days at sea. It is the hook on which we are all attached today.
Like noble Lords on all sides of the House, I too have received a large number of letters expressing the fears of honest and upright fishermen, in particular those from the west of England. They fear that fishing effort will be substantially curtailed. It springs from what the scientists have said—that most fish stocks in the North Atlantic are over fished. In some cases stocks are believed to be close to the point of collapse. The need for reduced effort is evident.
The choices for management produced by scientific advisers focus on the progressive reduction of fishing effort, usually in the region of between 10 and 30 per cent. The figure of 30 per cent. has stuck in the minds of fishermen. Perhaps I may quote from a letter that I received from the wife of a fisherman based on Newlyn. She said:
"He owns a 36 ft fishing vessel… We employ one man. A reduction of time spent at sea would result in a drop of income as our income is solely dependent upon the amount of fish we catch… The effect of a 30 per cent. reduction to our income would be disastrous. In today's climate we are struggling not to become one of the numerous small businesses going bankrupt each week".
The figure of 30 per cent. has frightened fishermen tremendously. If the fisherman I have mentioned has to stand off his one crew member, the fear expressed—the English Channel being one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world—is that with one less crew member on board to take a shift on watch the possibility of collision is increased.
Another extremely valid point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, is that it may be necessary
974
to put to sea in weather conditions in which one would not normally sail were the restriction on days at sea to be carried through.
The Bill is spoken of as a means of conserving our fish stocks. In reality, we do not have exclusive rights over fish stocks. So while the Government force the UK fishing fleet to stay in port, any of the EC countries, in particular the French and Spanish who have no such restrictions, will be able to fish without competition from the United Kingdom.
The letter from the fisherman's wife goes on:
"Daily we encounter the French and Spanish fishing fleet. Their vessels are larger, more modern and better crewed than Ours".
It is feared that when our fishing boats are in port, our seas—the common seas—will be fished by our European partners all the more, with scant respect for the fishing laws and quotas of their own countries, and with no restrictions such as we have on their fishing effort. That will make a complete nonsense of our attempts at conservation by limiting effort. That fear has been expressed to me time and time again both in the fish market at Newlyn and in a wide range of letters which I—and I am sure other noble Lords—have received.
I shall give two examples to explain the grounds for those fears. The first is the obvious one of quota hoppers. In July there were about 77 such vessels, mostly large craft from other countries in the Community. They are landing in ports on the Continent their fish and probably our fish beyond quotas. This country does not even receive the benefit of the exchange which might be won from the fish which they land.
Let us look for a moment at the staffing of the inspectorate of fisheries in Europe. It was, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, who mentioned Spain which has 17 inspectors to cover a very large seaboard. Those inspectors are all based in Madrid. What could be a more inefficient way of managing an inspectorate? Presumably, they ring up the port to say, "We will be arriving to inspect the fleet on Tuesday. Be ready for us." We know how they would be ready for them. Therefore, can anybody in our country have faith in the way in which fishing laws are enforced in other parts of the Community?
My noble friend, who made an excellent speech in introducing the Bill, may think it a very good thing to set an example in paving the way for conservation in this manner. However, I suggest that he should beware of giving away too much—perhaps giving away everything—at the start of any negotiations because there is then absolutely nothing left with which to bargain. It is perhaps naive to believe that where we lead, others will follow. Our fishermen believe that other member states will take full advantage of our absence. The Bill will do nothing to conserve our stocks. When those other countries have fully trained inspectors of integrity on the scale that we have, then perhaps it will be possible to control fishing effort to conserve stocks. I am glad that Government have undertaken in another place to introduce no resolution under the Bill unless they are

975
completely satisfied that member states which share our fishery stocks are taking effective steps to meet their multi-annual guidance targets.
I do not believe that such a provision will do much to satisfy the industry that other member states are really playing their part. But it is a step forward. To reduce fishing effort there is a long voyage ahead of us. We must see whether our European partners can change their attitude as regards obeying laws which do not suit their interests. It is a great fear, which goes right through the fishing industry, that our European Community partners will not obey the fishing laws and that it will be a long time before they do so.
I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will do everything that they possibly can to protect the interests and efforts of our fishermen. If fishing efforts are kept down for a few years, some benefits may accrue, but the scientists advise that those benefits may not be permanent. However, benefits will arise only if all states keep down their fishing efforts and if laws are enforced. If that is not the case and only one country—Britain—restricts its efforts, and no conservation will result.
As has been mentioned before in your Lordships' House, the importance of fishermen to this country is considerable. We are still an island race in spite of a tunnel. A very wise Member of another place said a long time ago in a fishery debate—indeed, he was a seaman of great distinction—that if you give up the fishery, you lose your breed of seamen. Conservation of fish stocks must sail side by side with a proper and fair administration of a common law for the common seas. That law must be made and kept by the members of the EC and not made and kept by one country only. Otherwise this Bill can have no hope of success in its long term objective of preventing the seas around Europe from being fished out.
8 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, this has been one of the most interesting debates that I have heard in the House for a long time. There may have been some feeling that there was repetition in the debate, but it is important to note that everyone was giving experience from their own areas. I have seldom taken part in a debate and heard people speaking about Orkney and Shetland and others speaking of Cornwall, the North-East of Scotland and the Western Isles all with the same basic argument in regard to the specific problem of conservation of fish.
Perhaps I should first say something in regard to the noble Lords who today made their maiden speeches. Both were extremely interesting and thoughtful. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, could not be described as non-controversial. I should prefer to call it inquisitorial. He expressed a great deal with which I agree.
Around 20 years ago I took part, with others, in a couple of radio programmes debating the EC in which I confessed that I was not an authority on fish but felt in my bones that the Scottish people would not do well in the EC in relation to fish. I am glad that that is on
976
record so that it can be seen that I am not inventing something or trying to raise a point that was not true. The comments of the noble Lords, Lord Amherst and Lord Moyne, fully justified my early fears.
The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, raised a point which I hope to mention later; that is, that it is an enabling Bill with powers that are far too wide. The references made by the noble Lord to some aspects of European legislation would be funny in an Ealing comedy script. But in the situation where British fishing communities are at stake they are anything but funny.
Perhaps the most pertinent point made by the noble Lord was that in Cornwall he found that the fishermen were not so much against the Bill but more against the possibility of it ever being properly policed. In other words, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said earlier, we are back to the level playing field. I am sure that the House will be privileged to hear from both noble Lords in the future. I am hopeful that we shall hear from them during the Committee stage of the Bill.
From what has been said today I know that we are all well aware and concerned about conservation. Having met the Scottish and Northern Ireland fishermen last week, I am convinced that they have an even stronger sense of the importance of conservation than the rest of us. They see at first hand the depletion of stocks, the lowering of their catches and the threat to their standards of living or even their very livelihoods.
No one could claim that fishermen, or for that matter farmers, are easy for governments to deal with. There is always uncertainty in the work of both groups of people and their incomes can vary greatly. When legislation comes before the House they will always try to include in it a belt and braces protection. The Government's proposed scheme contains neither of those. I believe that it would have been apparent if before drafting the Bill the Government had had meaningful consultations with the industry. Perhaps the Minister can say just how much consultation with the industry there was. Our information is that there was very little. Many people who have spoken in the House today also seem to take much the same view.
The Government proposed a decommissioning scheme and that is where I find it difficult to see a thread of logic. The proposed scheme is rather pathetic in terms of the problems of conservation. The noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, said that around 5 per cent. of the fleet would go on the basis of £25 million compensation. I believe that that is correct. That will not make a great deal of difference. However, even that is compounded by the proposal that fish producer organisations may be given the power not merely to buy up the boats of those wishing to quit the industry—which would be logical—but also to buy up the fishing track records of those boats.
Unless I am totally misinterpreting the situation, we will have a decommissioning with no element of conservation. If fishing effort is to be curtailed boat by boat, the judicious purchase of track records would logically mean that the blank fishing days of one boat could be filled by the fishing track record of a purchased boat. That may be wrong. but that was my

977
interpretation of the Bill. Thus the whole effort of a most complicated bureaucratic scheme would be nullified. I hope that the Minister will be able to help by answering that point.
Can the Government give any help in trying to assess the viability and economics of the British fishing industry? Has an overall picture ever been produced which includes the effect of what the industry calls "quota hoppers"—that is, people who come into British waters, catch the fish and then go to another port? I believe within some of the European rules that is permissible. I can see that we cannot keep people out of our waters when they are registered. But in order to preserve our stock they should at least land the fish in a British port to enable us to learn how much fish has been taken out.
I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, in his place. A point was raised in another place and not satisfactorily answered. It referred to foreign fishing vessels coming into our waters. I wonder whether the Minister has had time to look at the point raised in another place where there appeared to be a loophole in the 1976 Fishery Limits Act. It did not seem to contain any sanctions against foreign vessels entering and fishing in UK waters. The Minister will he aware that that defect was first pointed out in 1983. But in June of this year, just before the Bill went to Second Reading in another place, the charge against a foreign vessel was found not to be viable at Stornoway sheriff court. There was a technical flaw in the 1976 Act. I was asked by people from the Western Isles and other parts of Scotland to ascertain from the Minister whether that loophole has now been closed.
Perhaps the most important feature of the Bill—a subject of importance to us all and vital to the fishing industry—is the fact that it is basically an empowering Bill. A number of noble Lords referred to this in the debate. It gives the Minister and the Government great powers to do by regulation what could be more difficult to do by a more comprehensive and better thought-out Bill. The House should be told what scope the Minister proposes to give to the proper discussion of licence conditions which may become part of a licence before they are enforced.
It is a great pity that the Government felt unable to await the publication of the report of your Lordships' committee under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. It was published a matter of only a week or two after this Bill was given a Second Reading in another place. The report is very comprehensive and it is one of the best that I have ever read. A very large volume of evidence was taken. Thirteen groups gave oral evidence and about 30 gave written evidence. I believe that noble Lords will agree that the report has a great deal more behind it than the Bill before us. That would appear to be so from this debate and the speeches which we have heard from people who know a great deal about the industry.
As is frequently the case, the report is exhaustive, authoritative and most thoroughly researched. It is long, with evidence which runs to about 300 pages. Its recommendations should give the Government food for thought and perhaps the incentive to think again
978
before implementing the more controversial aspects of the Bill. I recommend to any Member of the House who has not read the report and who is perhaps not totally immersed in the fishing industry merely to read the summary and the conclusions. If those are read, when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill there will be a great many more people supporting the amendments which have been promised will be put down by a number of those who have spoken in the debate. They are amendments which people wish to be incorporated in the Bill. This is not really a well-received Bill either in this House or in another place. Perhaps the correct amendments could be tabled in order to make the Bill more acceptable to the fishing community and the nation as a whole.
8.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, this has been a long but very interesting debate. I believe that there have been about 25 contributions to it, but I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not respond to each and every speech that has been made. I also trust that I shall be forgiven if I do not answer, or attempt to answer, the many questions that were put to me—about 30 or 40 during the course of the debate.
At the outset I join with other noble Lords in first paying my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Amherst and my noble friend Lord Moyne for their distinguished maiden speeches. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, may not have been entirely without the tinge of controversy, but nevertheless it was not only direct but showed a deep and clear knowledge of the subject. I am sure that his contributions on this matter and on others will be very much appreciated by your Lordships. I extend the same compliment to my noble friend Lord Moyne who exhibited the same degree of knowledge and lucidity in the presentation of his arguments. I am particularly grateful to him that he has found one fisherman in the West Country who seems to be in support of the Bill as it might begin.
The only other person I wish to compliment at this stage, and it is obviously a compliment which reflects on others, is to congratulate and thank my noble friend Lord Selborne for the report of the Select Committee over which he presided. There seems to be some indication that those who are interested or knowledgeable about fishing matters will find this report interesting and useful. I would go further than that. Those who have little understanding of the complexities and problems of conservation affecting our fishing industry at the moment have a great deal to learn from this very well set out summary of the problems and the various approaches which might be suggested. I am very grateful to all concerned.
In my time in another place I recall the time when herring was a principal part of the Scottish fisheries. Because of the extensive over-fishing there had to be a period of seven years when the herring fisheries of Scotland were simply closed down altogether. Until that happened there were great arguments that it was unnecessary and that fish were still available so that we could carry on. The reality was that, in time, the

979
herring industry had to be closed down completely. I am relieved to say that, subsequent to that, herring fishing in Scotland has improved dramatically. That of itself would appear to be encouraging. The difficulty is that during the period when there was not the opportunity to fish for herring the daughters of housewives (who knew exactly what to do with the silver darlings) have forgotten how to use them. A significant problem in the marketing of fish is that the herring has never been restored to the place which it rightfully held among the great foods of the United Kingdom.
It is against that background that we have to look at conservation not only in the short-term sequences, but in the longer-term. We have to see that we do not get unnecessary or unacceptable peaks and troughs. If that were to happen similar damage would be done to the market. We believe that the CFP is essentially sound although there is, of course, as always, some room for refinement. It is essential that the system of total allowable catches and quotas remain at the heart of the CFP and that relative stability and Hague preference arrangements should be maintained.
Since the Select Committee report of your Lordships' House was published earlier this year and since we sent in our response to it in September, it might be useful if I briefly outline that there have been some developments in Brussels which would bear on the debate which your Lordships have engaged in this afternoon and this evening. One is a replacement of the overall CFP Regulations (EC Regulation 170/83) and includes provisions which time extend the local access provisions and the terms of the Shetland Box which was a matter of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond.
In addition that proposal includes some new ideas on how to agree fishing TACs and quotas, suggesting that the EC Council of Ministers agree an internal framework every three to five years for stocks and thereafter allow a Commission-chaired group to agree simply the annual TACs and quotas within that framework. We are still looking at this. The Commission proposal needs to be explained in more detail by the Commission. We shall be striving to obtain an agreement which balances the long-term conservation interest of fish stocks with a decision-making process where member states' interests can be taken into account.
In addition the new framework proposal has put forward the prospect of an EC fishery licensing scheme. That too, for obvious reasons, requires to be very closely analysed bearing in mind that at the present time in the Community if there is any issue which concerns us it is how the principle of subsidiarity should be applied. The question then arises is whether the Community itself should be running such a scheme.
The other proposal from the Commission concerns enforcement. Almost without exception your Lordships have raised individual concerns on that point. It is recognised in the Commission's report on the CFP and by member states that there needs to be a better and more uniform standard of enforcement
980
throughout the Community so that all fishermen from all member states are subject to strict control and monitoring rules. This new proposal aims to do that, extending the enforcement provisions to all elements of the CFP including structures and marketing. As some of your Lordships have remarked, and following on what was said to the Select Committee, there is even a proposal to introduce satellite technology so that boats can be monitored more efficiently.
Negotiations on that proposal will be difficult with some member states, as has been observed, having significantly less rigorous powers of enforcement activity than the United Kingdom itself. The observation has been made that in some way we have lost out over the common fisheries policy. While that is a point to bear in mind when we are looking again at the CFP, we are not in a position to renegotiate the common fisheries policy that was agreed in 1983, under which the United Kingdom received 37 per cent. of the quotas for the seven major white fish species. My recollection is that at that time the agreement was well received by the industry and was regarded as a fair and proper settlement.
There is, however, one area on which there continues to be real concern, possibly because it is an area in which we as a nation have little fishing interest. I refer to industrial fishing in Community waters. The argument has been advanced during the debate that over the next 10 years or so we should look to phase out such industrial fishing. I entirely agree that it is time for the Community to look again at whether additional measures should be taken to control industrial fishing operations. The European Commission was due to report on industrial fishing in the North Sea, Kattegat and Skagerrak by the end of August. That has not as yet been done although we are pressing the Commission on it. We hope to take forward discussions on that matter as quickly as possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said that he hoped that the Government might re-open the Hague Preference—notwithstanding what I have said—to remedy a particular unfairness in relation to Northern Ireland. That issue was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. As my noble friend Lord Howe said in opening the debate, the Hague Preference is an integral part of the relative stability of the common fisheries policy. It needs to be appreciated that Ireland is seeking to re-open the Hague Preference to increase its share, which would work to the detriment of the United Kingdom's fishermen. Although we would seek to help the Northern Ireland fishermen as much as we possibly could, re-opening the Hague Preference would be a dangerous course to take.
I have been asked a number of questions about decommissioning schemes—in particular, about whether other member states have such schemes. The answer is yes, all except Ireland, as was observed. The problem about the schemes is that although they are expensive they have not succeeded in reducing fishing effort. Although they may help to rationalise the structure of the internal fishing industry of any particular country, they have not reduced fishing

981
effort. Stocks have not benefited as was intended. That is why we regard a restriction on days at sea as being a necessary complement to decommissioning.
I believe that it was the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who asked whether a generous decommissioning scheme might not be the way forward, reducing fishing effort by some 25 per cent. I fear that reducing the number of fishing vessels does not of itself reduce effort. An increased effort by the remainder—not least as a result of technical developments—could well leave the fishing effort at its original level or, indeed, higher.
As my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston stated, I once represented Arbroath and, like the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I understand the distinctive character of fishing communities and how important fishing is to the fringes of Scotland. While I was a Member of Parliament—and since then—I have noticed a significant decline in the size of the fleet fishing out of ports such as Arbroath. However, when one looks at some of the boats that remain, at their traditional expertise coupled with some of the most elaborate and sophisticated technical aids, my firm suspicion is—but I would not like to quantify it too accurately—that literally a handful of boats achieve the same effort, and probably more, as was achieved when the fleet was three or four times its present size.
Decommissioning schemes in other member states have too often had the effect of restructuring the industry rather than reducing total numbers. I was asked a specific question about France. The figure that I have—I shall correct it if I am given an updated one—indicates that the French decommissioning scheme is costing about £16 million and the effect of that has been nearly to reach their target of a reduction of just 10 per cent. in the fleet. Perhaps I should add, going round the other Community countries, that the Dutch operate a strict tie-up regime for most of their vessels. Their days at sea have remained frozen, but they may well be reduced in the future.
Although the position of the Government is that a single reliance on decommissioning is not the way forward, we have considered carefully what the Select Committee said. In particular, we noted its recommendation that if decommissioning is to be carried out tendering would be an appropriate way forward because it would ensure the best value for money. We believe that tendering is the best way to determine levels of decommissioning payments and we are at present in discussion with the European Commission on that point.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy put some questions about the emphasis that we have given to research in relation to fishing. I thought that that was a slightly churlish point for him to make given the evidence that was provided not only to the Select Committee but also in the memorandum in response. I entirely agree with him that research is a very important element in determining the future of fishing. Co-ordinated research should continue under the present arrangements. We spend around £15 million per year on research and monitoring relating to marine fisheries. Our research is particularly directed towards the assessment of stock size and at what is
982
described as "recruitment"—that is, young fish growing up—for the fish stocks which are of considerable importance to our industry. Research is also focused on the design and selectivity-of fishing gear to promote conservation. The square mesh nets that were introduced recently by the EC stemmed from research that was commissioned by the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked me a number of questions about designated ports, public auctions, and the licensing of fish buyers and the like in an attempt to control what are described as "black fish". Perhaps I may say immediately that all parts of the House share a real concern about the problem of black fish and there may, indeed, be solutions in some of the noble Lord's ideas. I cannot say that we have any immediate plans to follow them through, but it is a matter that should be kept under review.
The noble Lord also asked about the timing for the extension of controls below the 10 metre mark. We shall be using the licensing system to build up data on the under 10 metre fleet. This will then enable us to decide what controls are needed. It is unlikely that we would want to extend the days at sea controls in the first two or three years.
Finally on this part of the debate rather than specifically on the Bill, we were accused on a number of occasions of standing back and fighting the battle on behalf of British fishermen with our hands tied behind our backs. Perhaps I may say that we should approach carefully the argument that all other member states break the rules with impunity. All member states will be subject to the 1996 MAGP (multi-annual guidance programme) targets. I must remind your Lordships that the United Kingdom failed to reach its 1991 target. Perhaps we had better put our own house in order before we too vigorously attack other members of the Community on this point.
Just last week we joined the French in calling for more modest reductions in what are described as our MAGP targets. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked about bringing salmon within the EC regime. The Community already participates in the North Atlantic Salmon Organisation which is concerned with the proper management of these migratory fish.
I turn briefly to what has been said about the Bill itself. For the sake of brevity, I invite noble Lords to look carefully at what my noble friend Lord Howe said in opening the debate. Although the Bill is concerned with taking time out and requiring fishermen to stay in port, that should not be seen as the only part of our approach. What will be appreciated is that earlier this year we put forward a fairly extensive package, including decommissioning and other measures. What is different is that this is the only aspect of it which would require primary legislation. The extension of licensing to vessels under 10 metres has been very much welcomed by the industry as a necessary move to halt further expansion in this sector of the fleet. The industry has also rightly placed great emphasis on the role of technical conservation measures—in mesh sizes and net design. Here too we have succeeded in securing agreement

983
over the introduction of a range of new Community measures, as well as taking additional unilateral action following consultation with the industry. There is no question but that technical measures have an important part to play in an effective conservation policy, but they are not in themselves sufficient to redress the current imbalance between fishing effort and available stocks.
We have announced changes to the rules on licence transfers between vessels and are considering further changes to allow producer organisations greater flexibility to help their members in restructuring the fleet. All these measures will contribute towards reducing capacity.
Then there is the decommissioning scheme and the £25 million of public money going directly into the industry. The benefits from the decommissioning scheme and the other measures are clear, but those benefits would be rapidly undermined if the remaining fleet was simply allowed to increase its effort. The imbalance between the capacity and capability of our fleet and the stocks available to it is clear. We need to have the ability to contain fishing effort if the industry is to reap the benefits of the other conservation measures. The powers in the Bill do just that—allowing us to freeze fishing effort at last year's level.
I understand the very real concerns of the industry, but it is essential that this Bill and the powers contained in it are seen in perspective. The industry knows, as we do, that action must be taken to protect fish stocks if we are to protect the long-term viability of the industry itself. As my noble friend emphasised in his opening remarks, the intention in the first instance is simply to freeze effort at the level which many will have chosen themselves last year. The fishermen will retain maximum flexibility to decide when they go to sea, as in the past. With fish stocks at their current levels there is no question of the fleet being unable to catch its full quotas. Regrettable as it may have been, the west of Scotland haddock fishery was closed to all United Kingdom vessels on 7th October. Equally regrettably, the North Sea haddock fishery was closed on 16th October to the two biggest groups of fishing vessels in Scotland. It needs to be recalled that those fishing vessels are at present subject to schemes that involve a degree of tie-up. What we are introducing in the Bill is not an EC scheme but a freestanding United Kingdom one.
We are establishing an appeals tribunal which will give any fisherman who is concerned over the level of his initial allocation of days at sea the right to appeal to an independent body. I appreciate that some noble Lords will wish to return to this point at the Committee stage.
In future years it may prove necessary to reduce days at sea allocations for some sectors of the fleet if we are to meet our MAGP targets. But again, as my noble friend has assured the House, while this is an enabling Bill we intend to introduce an amendment to the Bill at a later stage which will ensure that there is a further parliamentary debate before there are any overall reductions in days at sea allocations.
984
It is unclear at this stage what, if any, reductions may be needed in future years. That will depend on the extent to which the other measures I have referred to are successful in reducing capacity and fishing effort. But what is clear and remains beyond doubt is that there is a very significant imbalance between the capacity of our fleet to catch the fish to which it is entitled in terms of the common fisheries policy and the fish available to it. That imbalance threatens the very existence of those stocks and therefore the future of the industry. We must take action and take action now. The package of measures presented by the Government will go a long way towards readjusting the balance between fleet size and available fish stocks, but the other measures are not enough on their own.
I trust I will be forgiven if I have not responded to all the detailed points raised in the debate. They are points to which we shall be able to return at the Committee stage if they remain points of concern. The powers in the Bill are needed if we are to secure real conservation benefits and the long-term viability of this important industry. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Common Fisheries Policy: ECC Report
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I beg to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Review of the Common Fisheries Policy (2nd Report,1992–93, H. L. Paper 9).
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Review of the Common Fisheries Policy (2nd Report,1992–93, H. L. Paper 9).—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Domestic Violence
8.36 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report on domestic violence by the inter-agency working party formed by Victim Support.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask this Unstarred Question I very much welcome the fact that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth is going to make his maiden speech.
The issue I am raising tonight is concerned with violence. It relates in particular to attacks by men on the women with whom they live. It is for a variety of reasons a crime which has received far too little public attention. In the past women were often far too frightened to come forward and complain to the police about what their men were doing to them. Indeed, in a number of cases that remains true to the present day. When they did come forward they often refused to give evidence in court. In those circumstances it was perhaps inevitable that many of the social agencies involved, including the police, gave a relatively low priority to cases of this kind. They certainly did their

985
best to calm things down but they were heavily extended in other areas. If the victims persistently refused to give evidence against their assailants, what more, the police sometimes asked, could they do about it.
There has undoubtedly been some improvement in the recent past concerning this general approach. There are two fundamental reasons for this. First, fewer women are now prepared to tolerate repeated acts of domestic violence. As a result of that more cases are being reported. Secondly, there has been a significant alteration in police attitudes in many forces. They are not only prepared to record episodes of domestic violence but many forces, including in particular the Metropolitan Police, arc now making substantial resources available to help women who are prepared to report attacks by their husbands or partners.
Perhaps I may deal first with the scale of the present problem. Just about half of all homicides of women are killings by a husband or partner. One-third of reported crimes against women result from acts of domestic violence. As the report that we are debating points out, domestic violence is far more frequent than violence against women in the street, the pub or the workplace.
It would be useful to illustrate the effect of some new police procedures in relation to the numbers of reported acts of domestic violence. In June 1987 a new Metropolitan Police policy was laid down in a force order. It addressed the intervention role of police officers who are called to such incidents. Henceforth, there would be a positive arrest policy. Instructions were laid down as to the support to be given to the victim, on follow-up action and on liaison with other agencies. Domestic violence units have now been established. There are 62 such units in divisions in the Metropolitan Police. They are staffed by 126 officers.
The effects of the new policy have been striking. Last year the Metropolitan Police received over 30,000 calls from people stating that they had been subject to domestic violence. A 66 per cent. increase in such offences was recorded. In the first six months of this year there has been a further 34 per cent. increase.
I am sure that all noble Lords welcome the fact that more women are coming forward to report such crimes, although they represent a most disturbing commentary on the character of our society. In the main we are talking about repeated assaults, not isolated acts of violence. We are talking about punching, biting, blows with weapons and sometimes far more sadistic attacks.
In Canada research indicates that on average a woman is assaulted on over 30 occasions before the police are called. In this country it is probable that the figure is also a disturbingly high one.
The problems facing a woman in such a situation cannot be overestimated. It is often difficult for her to contemplate a life outside the relationship. What is she going to do? She may have no means of earning money and in the current economic situation she may find earning a livelihood of her own impossible, even if she has some form of qualification. If she has children, she will often have to take them to temporary
986
overcrowded accommodation. If she fears that a vengeful husband will try to follow her, she may have to go to an area with which she is not familiar, finding new schools for her children and often being compelled to live in the direst poverty. If she comes from one of the minority communities her situation is, if anything, a great deal worse.
The police and other agencies involved clearly face formidable problems in dealing with women in those circumstances. First, if the man is arrested, arrangements have to be made, sometimes at extremely short notice, to deal with the bail application the following morning. Obviously in cases of most grievous assault the man will almost certainly he remanded in custody. However, in other cases it will be necessary for applications for bail conditions to be imposed, in particular for a special condition requiring the defendant not to return to the family home or to seek either directly or indirectly to make contact with either the woman or her children. In other cases the woman and the children will have to be moved out of the family home and lodged in a hostel, run perhaps by a women's group, or she may have to go to some form of local authority accommodation which may be a significant distance away. The police will have to continue their support until the eventual trial.
I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with a number of officers of the Metropolitan Police who are involved with this work. I have been deeply impressed by their quality. I found them to be caring and compassionate people, wholly committed to the distressed women with whom they deal. I have no doubt that the burden which they carry is a very substantial one, and I find it hard to believe that there are any officers more dedicated in the police service. However, they, I am sure, would be the first to recognise the difficulty which confronts us all when we endeavour to establish a clear set of priorities when dealing with this issue. The working party has performed a most useful service in setting out an agenda for action. It is to the recommendations in the report that I now turn.
I should like to deal first with the criminal law. I have already dealt at some length with the policy of the Metropolitan Police. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could tell us what discussions are taking place with ACPO and the Inspectorate of Constabulary as to how the issue is being handled by forces outside the major conurbations which would not necessarily be able to replicate the precise arrangements that exist in London. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could deal with that matter. I am well aware of the existence of the Home Office circular and I am also aware that many chief officers now attach a high priority to this form of crime.
I should now like to deal with the probation service. The working party, which included a representative of the probation service, has recommended that its management should promote good practice when supervising an offender to ensure that staff do not collude with the perpetrators in minimising the seriousness of the violence. Clearly, that situation has very substantial implications as far as training in the

987
probation service is concerned. Probation officers will have to bear in mind that they have a direct responsibility to ensure, in so far as they can, the safety of the abused woman. I hope that the noble Earl will tell us what can be done by the Home Office and the probation inspectorate in dealing with that recommendation.
The Crown Prosecution Service was represented by observers on the working party. It is suggested that the CPS should publish its policy guidelines on the prosecution of these offences to ensure that such cases should not be withdrawn too easily. I am sure that all noble Lords would like to know whether the CPS is prepared to accept that recommendation.
I now turn to the position of the civil law and the courts, which are the responsibility of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The working party suggests that if evidence would potentially justify adding a power of arrest to an injunction, then an undertaking should never be seen as an adequate substitute. It urges that a power of arrest should be added as a general rule whenever there has been actual bodily harm.
The working party makes another significant recommendation—that the powers of the magistrates' court and the county court should be brought into line so that, whatever a woman's marital status or living arrangements may be, she can get a protection order under the same legislation in either court. We should like to hear the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on that matter.
The issue of housing is of critical importance to the abused woman and her children. I have been told by the police that a number of local authorities handle these distressing cases in a sensitive and intelligent manner, but inevitably that is not always the case. The working party urged that trained women staff should also be available within homelessness sections to interview those women in private; that bed and breakfast provision should be used for a limited period only, preferably in women and children only accommodation; that there should be a specific refuge liaison officer in each such section; and that information should be made available about the existence of Women's Aid as well as other local support services. Those are important recommendations. They are part of the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I shall be pleased to know what action that department is taking to discuss those matters with the local authority associations.
Finally, there are issues involving other government departments. Some abused women obviously still do not report such offences to the police. They may, for instance, go directly to the outpatients' department of a local hospital. As the working party points out, many of those departments do not have social workers assigned to them. It is obviously desirable, whenever possible—I understand the constraint on public expenditure—to have such social workers available so that the women involved could have their problems referred to the agencies which exist to assist them. I should be grateful if the Minister
988
would tell us what is the position of the Department of Health in respect of that recommendation. There is of course another important issue—the financing of women's refuges, many of which are woefully underfunded. Again, I recognise the problem of central government expenditure and the financial problems facing local authorities, but it is most unsatisfactory that many of the refuges experience the greatest difficulty in making ends meet. I know that we are all interested to know what action can be taken to deal with that matter.
Beyond the working party's recommendations to which I have already referred and the many others on which I shall not touch because of the time limitation, there is one issue of central importance to which I hope the Minister will apply himself. It is that there should be a clearly defined department willing to accept the responsibility of taking the lead on domestic violence. I have already mentioned four separate government departments, each with its own responsibility and each to some extent working in isolation. I hope that the Minister will tell us, at the very least, that officials from all the departments involved will be brought together, preferably under Home Office chairmanship—the issues we are discussing are primarily matters involving the criminal justice system—to formulate a response to the working party's recommendations and all the issues which will undoubtedly be ventilated during the debate.
I have no doubt that the Government are as disturbed as any of us about the extent of domestic violence in this country and about the thousands of frightened women and children who as we speak are suffering from the conduct of violent men. We require an assurance that, despite the country's present immense difficulties and the inevitable public expenditure implications, speedy action will be taken to implement many of the report's important recommendations.
8.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I rise to speak with some trepidation. It seems incongruous that a maiden speech should concern itself with domestic violence. I am also aware of the lateness of the hour when bed begins to beckon. I hope, however, that I shall not imitate the bishop who dreamt that he was addressing your Lordships' House and when he woke up found that he was.
The publication of the report marks a significant advance in raising public and political awareness of a problem which has for long been with us but which has, until recently, been treated as one of the unmentionables of our society. So I join those who welcome warmly the work done so thoroughly and comprehensively by Mary Tuck and her working party. It is not of course the first or only exploration of this especially nasty form of human behaviour. The Churches have, for some time, recognised the need for study and action. Their ministers and pastoral workers are only too familiar with incidents of domestic violence since it is to them that many victims

989
naturally turn in their distress. It is also by them that the horrid secrets of an apparently tranquil home may be discovered and confronted.
So it is perhaps surprising that there is no reference in the report to the experience of the Churches or other faith communities. Nor is consideration given to their potential as partners in combating domestic violence. It is of course true that the Church itself has not and is not always free of wrong attitudes of behaviour by men towards women, although a distorted patriarchy is a betrayal of the Christian gospel, for that points towards the relationship between the sexes which is based upon mutual respect and service and true equality of status in the eyes of God. It is that that Christians uphold and proclaim when they are true to their founder.
But domestic violence cannot be confronted by the Churches alone, and the role of the statutory and voluntary agencies rightly features large in the report. I look forward to a positive reply from the Minister on behalf of the Government in respect of the report's recommendations, for those who commit acts of domestic violence should be held properly accountable to society for their actions. The law must provide adequate protection for those who are their victims.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, there is a serious inadequacy which is highlighted by the working party. It is the patchy and underfunded provision of refuges. That requires the Government's urgent attention. The need for refuges is not confined to urban areas. An archbishops' commission, in its report Faith in the Countryside, indicates that special difficulties are experienced by women and families in rural areas where undue domination by the male seems to be more marked than in cities.
Another group, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, for whom help is required is the black and ethnic minority group. The needs of those women who are especially vulnerable can be met adequately only by specialist provision which is sensitive to the background and specific needs of the group. Some of those are spelt out in the recommendation of Southall Black Sisters to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.
Much more important than dealing with the results of domestic violence is to work for its prevention and to establish conditions in our society which make it as unthinkable as slavery. One of the most urgent practical means towards that end is the provision of adequate, permanent, safe and affordable accommodation. The case for that is well made in the report. Its lack creates the conditions in which overcrowding and impermanence lead easily to violence in the home. Closely related to that is the frustration of those who lack security and a sense of self worth because of their being unemployed. Add boredom and the circumstances are just right for men to take out their feelings on those who share their homes. No matter what legal measures are provided to deal with physical abuse in the home, they will not in my view significantly reduce its incidence until there is much greater employment in this country, as well as the additional housing which I have mentioned.
990
I spoke earlier of the Church as a potential partner in combating violence. I believe the Church has a peculiarly important contribution to make, not solely or even primarily in the socio-political sphere but in its fundamental task of proclaiming the Christian Gospel for this teaches the infinite worth of every individual person as one created in the image of God; body, mind and soul. Therefore, respect, even reverence, is due to each one regardless of gender, age, race, nation or creed.
There is surely a great need to recover a sense of reverence or respect in this generation. Nothing seems to be held sacred any more and religion, royalty and reticence in matters to do with sex are all equally open to public debunking and the pillory of the media. How can young people in particular learn a proper awe for the mystery of life when Jesus Christ is presented as a hippy puppet? How can they develop respect for the time-honoured institutions which give stability to this nation when members of the royal family are at the mercy of peeping Toms? How can they have respect for a woman when her body is so exploited for titillation and commercial gain? Moreover, it has become fashionable to debunk authority of every kind and an unhealthy delight seems to be taken in some quarters in revealing the failings of politicians, officers of the law, teachers and clergy. In this way confidence is undermined as many people find it difficult to distinguish between an important public office and its all too human holder.
As Churches and other religious organisations are founded upon reverence for the Creator they are in a good position to contribute to society something of their sense of reverence and so help people recover that proper respect upon which all healthy human relationships depend. The Church already has some opportunity to do this in the education, training and formation of its own members as well as in the important work of preparing couples for marriage. However, even that is an uphill task given the influence in every home of both the press and the broadcasting media.
Much that one reads or sees seems to encourage rather than discourage domestic violence. Those who are responsible for portraying gender roles, particularly on television, perhaps need to be asked whether we are presented with enough positive images of men positively caring for their wives, partners and children or whether we are presented with images of women who are sufficiently confident and competent to negotiate their way in the trickier and more demanding aspects of relationships.
How far does prime time viewing depend upon crude macho-style stereotypes of men or equally crude victim-style stereotypes of women to improve ratings? There are, of course, other ways in which some attitudes, assumptions and practices of western society undermine respect for the individual human being and are inimical to Christian and religious values. I conclude by quoting from a submission by Church leaders to the Canadian panel on violence against women which stated in March this year:
"We believe that churches, sensitive to spiritual and other dimensions of human relations, can contribute to the solution of violence against women. Many abused women turn to

991
clergy and pastoral care workers, not only for practical help but also with questions about self-esteem, their personal dignity and their relationship with God. Our people are becoming better able to respond to those needs and to offer comfort and healing to all involved. Together with medical, legal and other community resources, the churches can contribute to an effective and integrated response".
I hope we shall encourage them to do so.
9.5 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his excellent and informative maiden speech. I do so because my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley is not able to be present today although his name appears on the speakers' list. Normally he would have congratulated the right reverend Prelate. However, it is appropriate that I should congratulate the right reverend Prelate because a 17th century forebear of mine contributed to debates upon episcopacy at a time when there was a strong movement to remove the bishops from Parliament.
My ancestor coined what I believe is the only quotation to be found in the dictionary of well known phrases which can be attributed to a member of my family. He was a well educated man and the phrase was quite simple. It was, "When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change". That dictum has become axiomatic in political life and I am glad to say that in respect of bishops my forebear's advice was heeded and the right reverend Prelate is with us today making his excellent speech.
On behalf of the whole House I must say I hope to hear him speak on many occasions in the future. I have read the right reverend Prelate's potted biography in Dod and I note he is a man of many activities. He is about the same age as I—1935 was a good year. That was probably because those of us who lived then had to endure the rigours of wartime food and we did not sit in front of television sets. We both look well for our age.
However, I do not feel quite so cheerful as regards this report. I have read it through several times. I do not know whether it is the report's colour, general printing or tone that does not please me. I find much of the contents interesting but the foreword was somewhat daunting. It concludes in a rather bold way:
"The essence of this report is that it is a statement of consensus from all the major organisations both voluntary and statutory who helped to produce it. It provides a clear, agreed and practical way forward in dealing with this huge social problem. Now all that remains is for its recommendations to be acted upon".
I found that foreword daunting and I was disappointed to find that not a great deal was said in the report about the causes in society of this appalling problem of domestic violence.
The report is quite clear about its definition of domestic violence—that is, that domestic violence, as it figures in this report, is violence by males to women in a relationship—obviously a heterosexual relation-ship—whether it is marriage or some other relationship. It was felt that to include violence to children would unbalance the report. There is scant reference to the effect on children of violence in the home. I suppose that it is taken as read that we
992
understand that children suffer, but I do not believe that sufficient emphasis is placed on that aspect. The report suggests that it is not a happy arrangement that social workers or others involved in these matters should deal with both abuse to children and violence towards women. Apparently that is too much for one expert to deal with.
I feel that it is not good enough to suggest that the reason for violence to women is that we live in a male dominated society. We all know that we live in a male dominated society and we understand the historical and cultural reasons for that. However, I am sure that there are male dominated societies in which violence of the kind we are considering does not necessarily occur. I do not say that it is not a strong contributory factor, but surely pressures of work, shortage of housing and other problems which the right reverend Prelate mentioned must play a part. In particular, I believe that the right reverend Prelate was right to mention the effect of the media and television and especially the crude stereotypes portrayed during prime time viewing. That is an equally powerful contributory factor to the violent behaviour that we see around us.
I am not speaking in this debate because I have a general interest in violence, although in London I have lived next door to a family in which very unpleasant violence occurred. It was predictable, usually occurred on a Saturday night, and usually resulted in the police being called. It was disturbing, to say the least, especially for residents new to the area. Unfortunately, one grows used to such disturbances.
The main reason why I wished to speak in this debate is that there is in the report no mention of alcohol except in one line of a section giving potted case histories of women who have suffered at the hands of males. One girl—I think her name is Sandra—thought that the man involved in her case might have had an alcohol problem but was afraid of raising the subject because she feared that he would beat her up.
I have met a number of alcoholics who have been treated both outside residential care and in residential I care. A high proportion of those people who have alcohol problems have been involved in domestic violence of this kind. Indeed, they have been encouraged to undertake residential care, whether publicly or privately funded, by concerned families. It seems that where there is an alcohol problem there is often also a problem of violence. I find it very strange that there is no mention in the report of alcohol as one of the causes of violence in the home. I feel particularly strongly about the matter because the Government have made certain changes to the community care arrangements in this country—your Lordships will be debating these on Wednesday—under which it seems possible that residential care for alcoholics and drug addicts will be hard to come by because the funding will not be available.
If groups such as the people who produced this report do not mention the part which alcohol has to play in the social problem which they deal with—and that applies also to other groups who deal with other social problems which can involve people suffering

993
from alcohol related problems—is it any wonder that the Government do not appreciate the problem and have to be persuaded of its importance by those of us who are involved with the results of alcohol misuse? We have spent endless hours in your Lordships' House and in another place trying to persuade the Government that it is essential to reserve funding for the treatment of alcoholics in residential care and outside local authority control because local authorities have other priorities. Inevitably those people get left out.
If we allow most of the residential care centres for alcoholics in this country to close there will be an increase in violence in the home. I have spoken to Turning Point and Alcohol Concern on that very point. There are very few statistics, but they estimate that between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. of all cases of violence to women in the home involve alcohol. The same percentage applies in the case of child abuse.
I shall not weary your Lordships further on that point at this late hour, but I take a rather jaundiced view of the document, not because of its style, which is typically and necessarily brief and bureaucratic, but because it does not mention one of the most important factors involved in violence—alcohol. It is much more important than it ever was in the case of football. We went on endlessly in this House about football. We spent large sums of public money on a pointless examination of violence and football. The involvement of alcohol in domestic violence is much more profound than it ever was in football violence.
I hope that in future anybody who is dealing with domestic violence, whether it be the worthy bodies which have contributed to this report or others, will take on board the fact that alcohol is a very important factor in the whole problem.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, from the Cross-Benches I too would like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I think that for women it is good that they have a good shepherd to speak on their behalf. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important report on domestic violence.
First, I should like to pay a tribute to the late Baroness Phillips who was perhaps the greatest supporter in your Lordships' House of the victims of crime. Had she been alive today I am sure she would have been speaking in this debate. She will be greatly missed by many people, especially the women's groups for which she did so much.
The report states that the seriousness of domestic violence has not yet been sufficiently addressed by society. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for bringing it to the notice of your Lordships and giving us the chance to hear the Government's response. Some time ago in your Lordships' House I asked what the Government were doing to lessen the likelihood of rape. I had an amazing amount of letters and telephone calls from women who had had terrible experiences. Many had found that the help they needed was not always
994
forthcoming. So often when people have been shocked and revolted they do not want to relive the experience. Often domestic violence takes place behind closed doors and children are involved who will bear the scars, perhaps for ever. Very often neighbours who may know something violent is going on do not want to get involved.
The working party consisted of inter-agency experts. To solve any difficult problems it is important that both statutory and voluntary agencies work together. When funds are short it is likely that the unfortunate victim who seeks help will be pushed from pillar to post. Domestic violence is perhaps the most difficult position in which the unfortunate individual can find herself. To leave home and perhaps find herself homeless with young children must he a very difficult decision to take. I applaud the recommendation in the report that some women should have sole rights to the occupation of their current home. To uproot children from their homes and friends can have long-lasting effects.
In present day society there seems to be a trend for many women to live with men without marital status. That complicates the woman's legal rights when the relationship ends in violence. She can lose her home, possessions and financial security. She feels guilty about uprooting the children and may remain homeless or in temporary accommodation for an extended period.
The report states that the whole matter of domestic violence is very complicated and can affect all aspects of a woman's life. Women need information about their rights and continuing support to overcome the many legal, practical and emotional hurdles that they face. One of the many recommendations of the report is that more resources should be made available to women's aid groups and refuges to provide out-reach services and drop-in centres to help support women in temporary accommodation.
What I do not feel the report covers adequately enough is the problem of alcohol abuse relating to domestic violence. I feel that if there were more detailed research undertaken on the causes of violent offences against women and children in the home alcohol would be found to play a substantial part in many of the cases. There should be far more places for treatment available where the abusers could be treated and rehabilitated should they agree to it. If not, most likely they will go on to abuse and beat up other women and the cycle of violence will continue. I echo the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, but it is of great importance to emphasise the point.
It is of great concern to many people working in the field of alcohol and drug abuse that the Government have said that the existing residential rehabilitation services will not be ring-fenced within the outer ring-fence of local authority social services departments. Alcohol and drug services feel threatened, as those services are so often at the bottom of local political priorities. But I consider that disruption and violence in the home can contribute greatly to the break-up of family harmony.
I come from a rural area and am pleased that the report has not forgotten women living in rural places.

995
The report states that such women might find it extremely difficult to obtain effective help. There are fewer services and they have greater isolation and visibility to their abuser. In order to remain safe women in rural areas often need to be referred to refuges outside their local areas. There may well be a lack of choice, funding problems and stronger pressure not to take into the refuge women from outside the area.
The report highlights the lack of recognition by local authorities of the need for a truly national network of refuge provision and housing services as well as the vital importance of reciprocal arrangements and understanding. There is no statutory duty on local authorities to fund refuges. Therefore there will be a wide variation in services.
The report has not forgotten disabled people. Along with other women, disabled people sadly have the same or higher levels of breakdown and violence in their domestic life. One of the recommendations clearly states that funding should be identified to improve disabled access to existing refuges and full wheelchair access should be included in all future developments. What is suitable for a disabled person is suitable for anyone else to use. So often doors are too narrow and the lavatory is inaccessible. It is easy to have some ground-floor accommodation.
With so many women as members of the national inter-agency working party on domestic violence, I was surprised to find that mine was the only female voice in this debate. More and more women are standing up for themselves and will not tolerate domestic violence. But there are still many women who for many reasons, as stated in the report, cannot do so. I am pleased that Victim Support has addressed the issue. I hope that we shall receive a hopeful and helpful reply tonight from the noble Earl.
9.25 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is my pleasure as it is my privilege to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on a truly excellent maiden speech, carefully thought out and full of food for thought. It was excellently delivered and continued a contribution which the Church has made to increasing public awareness of the subject and changing the climate of opinion—a contribution which has been in progress for over 300 years. I thank him for his speech.
My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will appreciate that it is conventional to thank the noble Lord who introduces an Unstarred Question. Some thanks are more heartfelt than others. I was once thanked for introducing an Unstarred Question by a noble Lord who promptly added, "When I first saw it on the Order Paper I confess that I did not feel particularly grateful." However, on this occasion I feel most grateful.
The importance of the subject is only just beginning to be recognised. The report is valuable. I take the points that my noble friend Lord Falkland made. I shall come to why gaps exist, but overall I believe the report to be excellent.
996
It is a pleasure, especially in these exciting times, to be discussing a subject that is not a matter of any profound party disagreement. I wish to express my appreciation of the responses that I have had from a number of people in the Government on this subject: from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper; the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when she was at the Department of the Environment; and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Our hearts are all in the same place on this subject. It is useful to remember that.
As my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said, it is also a subject that continually crosses the boundaries of ministries. I support what my noble friend said about the need to bring officials together. A number of cases in the report cross the boundaries of ministries. I hope that the noble Earl will consult my noble kinsman Lord Henley about the influence of housing benefit on this subject, and also his honourable friend Sir George Young on low-cost housing and the transfer from council housing in one local authority area to another. A good deal of the material in the report also crosses the boundary of the department run by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The report has some interesting comments on the interaction of the subject with policies laid down under the Children Act and with the provisions for the matrimonial home made under the Child Support Act. I do not ask the noble Earl to answer those points which are outside his brief. However, I ask him to ensure, if he can, that there are consultations between ministries so that people can bring those points to each other's attention.
The subject divides into two areas: first, the problem of the woman who does not wish to leave the man; and, secondly, the problem of the woman who does wish to do so. Of the two, the first problem is a great deal thornier. I do not believe that we have clear ideas about what we wish to do with regard to that problem because we have not met the traditional army test of identifying our objective. That is because in such situations the woman herself has not yet identified her objective. She has a choice in front of her which she hopes will go away. Therefore she has not made up her mind what she wants to do. As a guiding principle for that part of the problem, I suggest that the wishes of the woman should be paramount. The reply might be that the woman is sometimes too cowed to be in a good position to form her own wishes. That is true, and we must address the problem of making it easier for her. However, I am not a believer in the nanny state.
I am always reluctant to set up the state as knowing someone's mind better than she knows it herself. I entirely agree with what the right reverend Prelate said about prevention; and with what my noble friend Lord Falkland said about causes. I agree entirely with my noble friend and with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about the crucial importance of alcohol in this issue. That has been recognised for more than four centuries. It would be useful if more could be

997
done about it. Many men involved in these acts have a psychiatric problem and need treatment. I should like more to be done in that respect.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Falkland about the crucial importance of knowing causes. But, on a subject that is as underground as this, it is difficult to obtain a controlled sample for any research on causes. That is one of many ways in which a changing climate of opinion may help. Above all, the woman who has not decided to go may be helped if there is a climate in which she is freer to decide to go if she wishes. We have all heard of the Stockholm syndrome. A possible way of treating that is to shift the balance by opening the door so that the woman and indeed the man know that there is a way out.
For that reason I am concentrating my remarks on chapter 4 of the report which deals with what should he done after the woman has decided to leave home. First, I draw attention to the recommendation at the end of chapter 3 for a 24-hour help line. These problems do not arise at the most convenient moments. They have a knack of happening late on Friday evenings or on bank holidays. A 24-hour help line, including a list of solicitors prepared to deal with the problem, could be of great value. It could help vitally to assure the woman that she has freedom of choice about whether to go or to stay.
When the woman leaves home she is covered by the code of guidance on homelessness. That is a good code but the situation would be helped if it could be given statutory force. Many local authorities—by no means all—prefer not to notice the subject; they prefer to sweep it under the carpet. They go to peculiar lengths and produce the most ingenious arguments to avoid doing anything about it. I have not forgotten a particular councillor in Brent who objected to refuges, saying that they were discriminatory because they did not admit men.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, pointed out, there is a key loophole in the code of guidance. It creates an obligation to house the homeless woman but not to have a refuge. Therefore, it tends to result in women being placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which is more expensive for the Government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, stressed strongly in a letter to me on 11 th March, that is also a great deal less suitable for the woman and the children.
The difficulty is that it is of the essence of the provision of refuges that it must be possible for the woman to go outside her own borough. Fear of pursuit is often well-founded—often dangerously well-founded. Therefore, in order for the woman to feel safe she needs to be a long way away. But the whole of the training and conditioning of a local authority is in favour of providing help for its own poll tax payers, ratepayers, council tax payers or whatever. As it does not come naturally to them, local authorities need constantly to be reminded that they have an obligation to house people from outside their own areas. They need constant reminding when it comes to permanent rehousing for the women that
998
they may not—and this is already in law—send women back to their own boroughs if by sending them back they put them at risk of domestic violence.
Attention needs to be paid to the tendency of some local authorities to wriggle out of that obligation, as they would see it, to foreigners by offering women unsuitable housing. I recall one case, again in the London borough of Brent, where a woman was offered a council flat which had no lock on the door. Of course, that is not what one feels like accepting in that situation. She had also just been given a £600 community care grant from the Social Fund which was stolen on her first day in the flat, every last penny of it. If local authorities have adequate dwellings, they must make an effort to give women from outside the borough as good a deal as they give to women from inside it.
There is also a strong case for looking again at legislation to see whether we should extend the right to local authority housing outside the borough to childless women who, while in shock, may find it as difficult to re-establish themselves as do women with children. In fact, they sometimes find it more difficult because they do not have the need to look after the children to force them to keep going. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, we should consider the plight of women who are not legally married. We should also pay attention to women harassed by ex-partners. It may seem outrageous—indeed, it does seem outrageous—to talk about a woman needing to leave her own home because of harassment from a man who has been thrown out of it and has no right to live there. But sometimes, unless the police can provide 24-hour around-the-clock protection—and I am sure that the noble Earl will tell us why that cannot be done and I understand that—the woman has no other option. She is simply not safe any other way. For that reason, we should consider statutory protection for women threatened by ex-partners.
If we can do all those things, if we can pay attention also to the problems of legal aid, on which the report makes some sensible comments, we may perhaps begin to break the perpetuation of that problem. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has made us familiar with the cycle of deprivation. That is an extremely important point. However, there is also—and research is beginning to show this—what one may describe as a cycle of maltreatment. The abusers are those who were themselves abused and the violent are those who have themselves been the victims of violence. Therefore if, by taking women and children away from the danger point, we can break that cycle, we may be doing something to prevent that problem going on from generation to generation.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I begin by expressing my admiration and congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on the speech which he gave us this evening. I thought it was not merely informative, as it was described by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but thought-provoking, especially his remarks on the effect of the media. I am sure that it

999
will cause controversy which will no doubt be aired in this House and other places, but perhaps happily that will be on another occasion. I sincerely congratulate him on the quality of his maiden speech. From these Benches I can say that we look forward greatly to hearing from him often on future occasions.
Secondly, I offer what I hope are not merely the customary congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Once again, not for the first time, he has aired a topic in this House which needed airing, at perhaps the precise time at which it needed airing.
It has been a helpful and useful debate. It has also been a somewhat strange debate—echoing the words of the noble Baroness—in that the participants are almost entirely male. I should have thought that on this occasion, when we are discussing in effect violence concerning women, for we males to rise to pontificate upon the effect it has upon women, while inevitable given the fact that we were the only ones who wanted to speak in the debate, leaves the whole thing slightly lopsided.
I should also like to take issue, gently I hope, with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. Of course alcohol is important when one is considering the causes of domestic violence. However, the terms of reference of the report were not to consider the causes of domestic violence. As the foreword says, they were,
"to review the type and extent of service provision currently available to victims of domestic violence and to produce recommendations as to how these could be co-ordinated and extended throughout England and Wales and Northern Ireland".
I suspect that if it was looking at the causes of domestic violence the working party might have been differently constituted and the report might indeed have looked completely different. In looking at the terms of reference it occurs to me to inquire what happens in Scotland. Does it have its own report, or is that perhaps an unfair question to throw at the noble Earl at this hour of the night? I see his junior Minister nodding furiously in agreement.
However one looks at the issue, first, it is important; secondly, it has been neglected; thirdly, it deserves to be better understood; and, fourthly, it deserves more action by the Government. I commend the report. I thought it was a useful document. I particularly commend the last chapter, pages 89 and 90, where the authors set out five major principles which underline and sum up all the detailed recommendations. When one looks at those five principles, which I shall outline briefly in a moment, one sees that most of the debate tonight fits conveniently into them.
The first principle set out is that:
"Domestic violence is an extremely serious matter … It is a long neglected issue and the Working Party welcomes the higher public profile and better place on the political agenda that it is currently receiving … There is a need for continuing public education on the issues".
I believe that everybody in the House accepts that. Secondly, it sets out that:
"All initiatives to address domestic violence should have as their primary aim the provision of services that are appropriate, effective and adequately resourced".
1000
We can all agree with that. The Government may not be quite so happy with the next sentence, which states:
"Current provision of refuges is underfunded, patchy and scandalously inadequate".
That is expressed modestly and moderately in that paragraph of the report and I shall return to that later. The report goes on to say:
"Priority should be given to improving funding for refuge services … Domestic violence should be treated by all criminal justice agencies with the same degree of seriousness as other forms of violence … All statutory and voluntary agencies should be called upon to develop their own formal policies and working practices on domestic violence, which will also include training programmes. Inter-agency understanding and co-operation is crucial".
Those seem to me to be five basic, sensible principles upon which all discussion of this issue can be based.
What is the scope of the problem? Is it possible to analyse it and be at all certain as to its extent? We know, because the figures are available, about the worst kinds of domestic violence—they result in homicide. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pointed out, almost half of homicides of women are killings by a partner or ex-partner. That is domestic violence taken to its most extreme and dreadful conclusion.
The figure we were given was 48 per cent. in 1990, and that compares with 9 per cent. of male homicides in which the man was killed by his partner. Therefore 48 per cent. of women who are murdered are killed by their partner and only 9 per cent. of men who are murdered are killed by their partner. I am not sure what precise conclusion one can draw from a comparison of those figures. It certainly seems that the violence within the domestic situation goes inevitably from the male towards the female and not vice versa. One-in-four of all murder victims is a woman killed by a partner or an ex-partner. One-quarter of all reported assaults take place in domestic circumstances. One-third of all reported crimes against women are assaults in domestic circumstances. I hope that the House will find it unexceptionable and unarguable when the report says:
"If society is serious in wishing to prevent violence against the person, it must put domestic violence at the centre of its concerns".
Are we doing that? What is the law actually doing to protect women now? Should it be reformed to ensure equal protection under the law for both men and women?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I wish to pay tribute to the enormous improvement in police services over the past few years. As the noble Lord pointed out,62 domestic violence units have been set up in London with 126 officers. Similar schemes are now operating in other areas of the country. Since they were set up it is interesting to note the way in which the figures for reported domestic violence have escalated. In 1986, the year before the units were set up,860 cases were reported. In 1987 that figure rose to 2,320. In 1991 the figure rose to 8,000, which is a ten-fold increase on the 1986 figures. I do not for one moment believe that domestic violence has increased ten-fold. What I believe has happened (the police authorities also feel this) is that just as rape is a crime which has, to coin a phrase, come out of the closet in the past decade or so, domestic violence is in

1001
precisely the same category. More people are now prepared to report circumstances which in former times they would not have reported or, if they had done so, perhaps the police would have dealt with it not as a crime but as some kind of domestic disturbance that was not really a proper or fit matter for interference by the law.
Women's recourse to law needs to be improved. Women have to feel that they have a right to protection under the law. I believe that now many women in circumstances of domestic violence do not feel that. Assault in the home and in a private relationship is just as much a crime, and should be viewed as such, as assault on the street or elsewhere. As the report states:
"Indeed it is arguable that partner assault"—
that is a somewhat awkward phrase which is used although I suppose it is fairly clear what is being said—
"is even more destructive of the bases of society".
I believe that women must have support so that they feel they can proceed with a prosecution. It is worth examining the report's suggestion that the decision to prosecute should be taken by the Crown Prosecution Service rather than by the woman herself. That would at least prevent intimidation of women in the run-up to a trial. She would not be able to decide whether or not the trial should go ahead.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, emergency legal aid needs to be more widely available so that the woman who is abused can leave and seek a lawyer straight away. The longer the gap before there is proper legal intervention the more vulnerable the woman is at precisely the most vulnerable point of what is sometimes a terrible history.
I believe that ex parte exclusion orders should be more easily available. Exclusion orders themselves and non-molestation orders should be available for more than three months. Where power of arrest is granted that should apply to all the powers of an injunction and not just to assault or returning to the home. In that way the woman feels supported.
Perhaps I may make one plea to the Government; namely, that they recognise the importance of the availability of interpreters who are trained in issues relating to domestic violence. They can offer increased help to women in domestic minorities who do not speak English. Frequently women from ethnic minorities who have been abused find themselves in the most sensitive and difficult position if they cannot even make themselves understood in order to make a complaint.
Finally as regards the law itself, there has to be an urgent review of it as it relates to murder and the interpretation of the defence of provocation. I know that every case depends on its own facts; that no two cases are the same and therefore one cannot really compare two sentences. A situation has occurred recently in this country where two daughters killed their drunken father when he was beating one of them. They stabbed him. They were each sentenced to three years' imprisonment. On the following day, I believe at the same court, a man who murdered his wife when she asked for a cup of tea was given two years'
1002
probation. On the face of it, that seems a ludicrous comparison and I totally accept that one cannot make such crude comparisons. Nevertheless, the law on provocation is in a mess and I hope that the Government will be able to do something soon to remedy that position.
If possible, women should leave the violent abuser. I am not suggesting for a moment that murder is the proper way out. Women should leave. But the report shows how difficult it can be for women to do that. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, one of the main problems is rehousing. If she is lucky enough to get local authority housing a woman will probably be offered bed and breakfast accommodation, which is cramped and which, in itself, may well put pressure on the woman to return to the very person who has been doing the abusing. Again, as the report states:
"Her sense of isolation can leave her wondering in the face of all these new problems and enormous odds whether she can really make a go of things, and she is often driven back by despair".
It is also unfortunately the case that more battered women are murdered by their partners once they have moved away than when they are living with them. If a partner traces and follows the woman there is frequently an extreme degree of violence.
Local authorities often do not have housing stock that is far enough away from ex-partners. There is some evidence to suggest that women from ethnic minorities are rehoused in particularly bad accommodation. Refuges have been mentioned. Pressed for cash as they are, local authorities often do not give priority to refuge funding. Perhaps I may give the House the figures on this because I do not think that they have yet been given in the debate. Twenty-seven per cent. of local authorities have no refuges; 11 per cent. have one, and 5 per cent. have more than three. It emerges in the report that research has indicated that refuges cannot meet the demand. A report from London, for example, indicates that following 5,000 calls only 40 per cent. of the required places could be found. More assistance must be given to women who have to leave joint homes so that they can find a way out through the jungle of the law on joint ownership and set up house again in a place of safety.
I should like to make just one other point before concluding. A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police has said that many of these women are also vulnerable because their partners will accuse them of being bad mothers. "Your children will be taken into care if you leave me" is one of the commonest accusations. A woman may be so cowed that she believes that. If she is to take her children into almost certain economic deprivation, away from their friends, school and familiar surroundings, she must have enough confidence to feel that that will be better for her children than the situation in which she currently finds herself. A woman may feel, for example, that her children need a male role model and a father even if that father is beating up their mother at the same time.
For me, at any rate, the report illustrated not only the scope of the problem, but some of the steps that need to be taken to try to deal with it in a more humane and sensible fashion. I echo what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. Of course, this is not a party

1003
matter. It is a matter of bringing the light of research onto a problem which has been hidden and neglected for far too long and then of applying sound common sense to what emerges. I commend the report to the House and especially the five principles to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. They seem to me to encapsulate a sensible approach to the problem and I hope that the Government will be able to accept them.
9.54 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for introducing this important debate. The final few sentences of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, encapsulated what we are discussing—the tragic aspects of some parts of family life. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, set the scene in a graphic way by making it clear what a terrible and not isolated business family violence is. I find it astonishing that so much family violence takes place. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that we are just beginning to understand it. It is a terrible indictment if we are only just beginning to understand it. It is a terrible indictment that there should be such a previously unthought of aspect of life.
I found the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth a great asset to the debate. It was a speech of enormous thought and understanding and one in which he showed great care and great philosophical insight. He said that it is right for the Church to play a leading role in this area because women turn to the Church for their self-esteem, their personal dignity and their relationship to God and that churches can contribute to reverence. It is the reverence of individuals and of women which is required and which is such an important part of this scene.
The right reverend Prelate referred to the fact that everyone nowadays is debunked. He struck a chord with many of us when he said that it does not matter what the person is—whether a politician, a member of the Church, a member of an authority, a teacher or even indeed a wife—it is all too easy for them to be debunked. It is a matter of great sorrow that children should be brought up in that kind of atmosphere.
The Question asks for the Government's response to the working party's report. I can tell your Lordships that our response is one of gratitude, both to Victim Support for having convened the working party and to the working party itself for the care, thoroughness and common sense with which it has approached its task. The working party states early in its report that,
"the seriousness of domestic violence has not yet been sufficiently addressed by society".
That was echoed in many of the speeches today. It may well be that it has not been sufficiently addressed by society. But the Government are in no doubt at all of the seriousness of the problem. We have taken action on it, and we are continuing to do so. The right reverend Prelate said that these people should be accountable to society. I agree with the right reverend
1004
Prelate and with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. We take the view that assaults within the home are just as much crimes as are assaults by strangers. We also know that domestic violence is a pervasive problem. It exists throughout the whole of society, and it can cause very considerable pain, suffering and distress.
The policy of the Government is, first, that action should be taken to bring the perpetrators of domestic violence to justice; secondly, to provide the victims of it with the necessary support; and thirdly, to ensure that steps are taken, through education and other means, to prevent the violence in the long term, a point made by the right reverend Prelate. The working party examined the range of responses to the problem of domestic violence and then made a large number of recommendations, not all of which were directed at the Government but which will be taken into account as we continue to try to tackle this problem.
Very many of the concerns of the working party—and some of the concerns expressed by noble Lords today—have been acknowledged in action taken in recent years. By that, I do not mean to say that all which needs to be done has been done. Of course not. Much still needs to be done. The problems cannot be resolved overnight. But we should not overlook the steps already taken. There is concern that domestic violence should be treated by the various organisations in the criminal justice system with the same degree of seriousness as are other forms of violence.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to the scope of the problem. It is difficult to provide categorical figures, not identified recently in recorded crime figures. However, we know from research and the British crime statistics that domestic violence is a widespread problem. It is a greater threat to women than any other kind of violence. That is why we have taken the steps that we have and why we shall continue to do so.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, stated that much of the problem is caused by alcohol. We share the view of the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness that it is not possible to identify a single simple cause of violence. Alcohol is often associated with domestic violence, but the research evidence is inconclusive as to whether it is the cause or sometimes an excuse. The Government pursue policies to discourage alcohol abuse, including the treatment of offenders with alcohol problems.
In July 1990 we issued guidance to all police forces in the United Kingdom. That guidance was designed to ensure a quick and effective response to the incidence of domestic violence. It took account of the overriding need to protect the victims. Information which was collected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in force inspections indicated that within a year of that guidance all police forces in England and Wales had clear policies on domestic violence. That is quite an achievement. Most forces had introduced specific improvements in their response to incidents of violence in the home. I was pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Harris found that the Metropolitan Police officers were so dedicated and caring. He stated that he could not have

1005
found more caring officers. That is a wonderful accolade to receive. However, he was concerned as to whether that was a universal response.
It is not only the Metropolitan Police who have made great strides in improving response to domestic violence. The initial work of the new Home Office research study indicates that there is a considerable amount of activity throughout the country. Her Majesty's inspectorate is monitoring the inspections. In Nottinghamshire an excellent inter-agency forum has been developed for dealing with domestic violence. In Staffordshire a positive action policy has existed since the 1970s. In South Yorkshire a sophisticated alarm system has been developed which links the victim directly with a local operations room. Two pilot schemes are in operation in Merseyside, one looking at domestic violence and the other looking at alarm systems. Both systems are being fully evaluated by academic researchers. In the West Midlands there are 11 domestic violence units in operation and programmes are being researched in relation to men who batter. In West Yorkshire there are eight domestic violence unit alarm systems in the form of Vodafones and a highly developed inter-agency forum. Therefore, a great deal is going on in other forces.
The report of the working party suggests that the new policies and improvements may not yet have filtered through in the practice of every police officer on the ground. That is one of the drawbacks of any large organisation. The Government are concerned that the new policies should lead to real changes. That is why we in the Home Office have put in hand a research study which will assess the impact of the guidance, how it is working in practice and what changes forces have made in the light of that study. The findings of the study will help us to decide what further action should be taken.
At the same time as guidance was issued to the police in England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service issued guidance to all chief prosecutors as to how they and their staff should deal with the causes of domestic violence. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked whether guidance could be made public. The guidance which is given to the Crown Prosecution Service is not usually made public. However, I shall consult on that point and consider it. One of the consequences of the increasing seriousness with which the criminal justice system is responding to incidents of domestic violence should obviously be that more of those crimes are being brought to the notice of the system.
There is some evidence that such a trend may already have begun. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that the number of reports was increasing and that the Metropolitan Police had had some 30,000 calls about violence last year. That is a terrible figure. The British Crime Survey found that in 1981 of those who had suffered domestic assaults only one in five had reported the offence to the police, whereas in 1987—six years later—the proportion had increased from one in five to one in two. One fact which seems to emerge is that there is more of that type of violence than there used to be, but also that more people are
1006
prepared to come forward and to report it when it happens. The results of a new British Crime Survey which will measure crime as it was in 1991 will soon be available and seems likely to suggest that that trend of increased reporting is continuing.
Another of the report's principal concerns was the provision of a range of services for the victims of domestic violence. Again, that approach to the problem is similar to the Government's. The guidance to the police emphasised the importance of ensuring that victims of assaults were put in touch with the various support services. The Government recognise the importance of providing the victims of domestic violence with immediate support, with places of safety and with sources of advice.
There are now over 375 local victim support schemes throughout the country and this year they are benefiting from some £7.3 million from government funds. The four Women's Aid Federations also receive grant-aid from central government.
The provision of good local support services, including women's refuges—a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and a number of your Lordships referred—is obviously a matter for local organisations. We shall look at whether existing levels of funding can be improved. The Government believe that there is a need for professionals who work in the health and social services, housing and other agencies to learn more about the totality of the services available. We are not convinced that all those people know exactly what is available.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to the civil law. The Government recognise that the provisions of the civil law which cover domestic violence and occupation of the family home form an important part of the response to domestic violence. We acknowledge that the law as it stands is too complicated and that there may be gaps in the protection afforded to the victims of family violence. The Law Commission's recommendations in its report on the law and domestic violence and occupation of the family home are being considered carefully by my noble and learned friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was also worried about housing. The Department of the Environment will be considering what changes in local authority and housing association practices and legislation may be needed. A working party on relationship breakdown and housing will be reporting shortly. The noble Lord was also interested in the Department of Health. It is for local health authorities to decide whether to provide social workers in out-patient departments. They will take careful note of the report's recommendations. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is currently considering the Law Commission's report on the civil law as it applies to domestic violence.
We share the working party's view that a good way of improving the local response to domestic violence would seem to be to set up a local forum which involves all the organisations which are involved both with helping those who are victims and with trying to prevent the violence occurring in the first place. In that way there would be a cross-fertilisation of views and

1007
knowledge. The Government's role in all this must be essentially to encourage effective local action and the use of what has been found to be the best approach.
Over 100 safer cities schemes for tackling domestic violence have been given government grants. Derby, Hull, Islington and Tower Hamlets are all funding staff who are dedicated to helping the victims of domestic violence and particular schemes have been set up with safer cities funding in Coventry, Wandsworth and Leicester.
In Coventry a co-ordinating group called Domestic Violence Workers for Change has been set up. Research on women's safety in the city has been started through this group, and a seminar was held on 30th October of last year with local authority support. A report is being produced to promote improvements in policy and practice on domestic violence and to develop new services.
The Wandsworth project is funding a crisis telephone helpline for women and girls. It has provided alarms for particularly vulnerable groups such as nurses, night shift workers, Asian women's groups and the elderly. The Leicester project has set up a major undertaking which will fit emergency alarms to the homes of women who are at risk from their husbands and similar schemes are in operation in Bradford and in Islington. A further aspect of the problem is being addressed by the Coventry and Hammersmith and Fulham projects through schemes which will help the children of women who experience domestic violence.
The Home Office Programme Development Unit, which was set up last year to fund innovative local projects in the field of crime and criminal justice, is also funding five programmes which are aimed at tackling family violence. Two of the programmes, in Islington and Leeds, are concerned with increasing and improving the criminal justice response to domestic violence and they are backed up with an increased range of services to support women and to meet their welfare needs. In Islington a domestic violence crisis intervention team will be attached to the police at the police station. The skilled civilian team will operate on a 24-hour basis. The project is modelled on the well-known and successful scheme which operates in London, Ontario. The purposes of the project are to improve the responses of the police and other local agencies to help to prevent further incidents of violence and to provide immediate support to victims.
The civilian team will undertake counselling. It will provide information on matters such as legal remedies. It will also act as a bridge between the police and organisations such as the Crown Prosecution Service, emergency and long-term housing providers, sources of income maintenance and those who provide support to victims. The team will encourage prosecution and it will promote the awareness of domestic violence within the community so that knowledge about it may lead to prevention.
In Leeds the programme consists of a number of projects. A civil court and criminal justice forum will
1008
be established in order to encourage the understanding of the needs of victims in both civil and criminal courts and to provide a legal service to support women through the court processes. Specialised counsellors will also be attached to two local GP surgeries in an area of Leeds. Women who are victims of domestic violence often seek help not only from the Church but also from their doctors. However, doctors, although they are mercifully trained in a multiplicity of medical problems, are rarely trained in how best to deal with the non-medical aspects of domestic violence. The counsellors will provide specialised help and information on other sources of advice and support.
Both programmes will be monitored and evaluated over their three years' duration. The results of the evaluation will be disseminated widely so that other areas can benefit from the lessons which will have been learnt. I think that the variety of work which is being done and the experience which has been and is being gained will set a very good precedent for the future.
As the right reverend Prelate said, steps must also be taken to prevent domestic violence. One form of prevention involves work with offenders to try to shift them away from reoffending in future. The Home Office and the Scottish Office are jointly funding a research study which will evaluate two projects which are aimed at changing the behaviour of men who abuse their wives. One is the CHANGE project, as it is called, in the Central Region and the other is the Lothian Probation Project.
The Association of Chief Probation Officers recently issued a document which depicts the seriousness with which it is approaching the task of encouraging probation officers to respond to various aspects of domestic violence, ranging from their civil work to intensive work with violent offenders. The Victim Support working party also saw a need for,
"continuing public education on the issues surrounding domestic violence, throughout the community".
Schools of course have a very important part to play here. The National Curriculum Council's guidance to schools on health education suggests that by the age of 16 pupils should be aware of the problems which can arise in family life and of the help and the support which are available from statutory and from voluntary organisations.
Two of the projects which the Home Office Programme Development Unit is funding are aimed at the development of educational programmes which can be used in schools and youth clubs. These are the Leeds inter-agency project, to which I have already referred, and a youth education programme which will be undertaken by Keighley Domestic Violence Forum. That programme will also undertake the training of school teachers and youth workers.
I hope that I have been able to provide some flavour of the range of activity against domestic violence which is in hand and that I have been able to assure your Lordships that the Government share the concern of the working party and of your Lordships that this problem needs to be tackled—and tackled with vigour.
One of the principal concerns of the working party was that the duty and the objectives of central

1009
Government should be clearer. It recommended—and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked today—that there should be a lead department which would have the task of drawing up and of implementing a national policy. I hope that I have demonstrated that some significant steps have been taken in recent years and that that has taken place against a background of close co-operation and consultation between departments. We intend to continue with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, both referred to consultation between government departments. We recognise that the response to domestic violence involves a number of departments as well as a range of local agencies. Home Office officials are arranging to meet with officials of other departments, including the Departments of Health, Social Security, Environment, Education, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Crown Prosecution Service in order to ensure that future action is both grounded on a shared understanding of the nature of the problem and co-ordinated. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether the Home Office would consult with the Department of Social Security
1010
and the Department of the Environment. As he will have understood, I have given an assurance that that will be done.
The noble Earl also asked about a 24-hour help line. The Department of Health is funding, by £45,000 this year, a Women's Aid national help line.
The noble Earl also asked about the obligations of local authorities. I shall certainly consider that matter in the cross-departmental discussions, including the need for cross-borough provision. Legislation and so forth will be under consideration in light of the relationship breakdown working party.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked that there should be a lead department. I can tell him that the Home Office will be the lead department, and we shall pay particular attention to the recommendations of the Victim Support agency working party as the work progresses.

King's Cross Railways Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  NUCLEAR TESTING
  NUCLEAR TESTING
  SEVERE HARDSHIP PAYMENT CLAIMS
  SEVERE HARDSHIP PAYMENT CLAIMS
  SUPPLEMENTARY CREDIT APPROVALS
  SUPPLEMENTARY CREDIT APPROVALS
  RIGHTS OF WAY: OBJECTION TO MODIFICATION OR RECLASSIFICATION
  RIGHTS OF WAY: OBJECTION TO MODIFICATION OR RECLASSIFICATION
  FLATS: ENFRANCHISEMENT, LEASEHOLDERS
  FLATS: ENFRANCHISEMENT, LEASEHOLDERS