Sitting of 14 April 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  NEW WRIT
  For Newbury, in the room of the hon. Mrs. Sybil Judith Chaplin, deceased.—[Mr. David Lightbown]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Russia
    Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Russian Foreign Secretary over the last four weeks on relations between the United Kingdom and Russia; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Mr. Kozyrev in Moscow on 2 April, and will see him in Tokyo tomorrow, with our G7 partners. I also met Mr. Kozyrev in Moscow on 27 March. Our relations with Russia are excellent. In our contacts we have repeated our support for the economic and political reforms which President Yeltsin and his Government have pursued.
    Mr. Ancram: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that full reply. Will he assure the House that, at this time of considerable political uncertainty in Russia in the lead-up to the referendum, he and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make it clear to their counterparts that future aid, both technical and economic, from this country in particular and the west in general will be contingent on continued economic and political reform, continued improvements in human rights and swift withdrawal from the Baltic states?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The purpose of supporting economic change in Russia is, at least in part, to support the process towards genuine political pluralism. Therefore, we want to make it plain to all that our support is dependent on that continued process; at the same time, we want to ensure that such economic aid as we make available is most likely to underpin a genuine restructuring of the economy.
    Mr. Winnick: Is there full agreement between Russia and Britain on the need for substantial progress in South Africa? Have the Russian Government and the British Government come to the conclusion that what happened over the weekend—the tragic assassination of Chris Hani—was a terrible disaster? I hope that the British
    812
    Government will make their views known clearly and publicly as soon as possible. Does the Minister agree that it should be made perfectly clear that the peace process in South Africa should continue—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is totally out of order. The question relates to relations between the United Kingdom and Russia. If the hon. Gentleman has a question directed to that subject I shall hear it, but he must not abuse the House as he is doing.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister agree that both Russia and Britain should come to the conclusion that the peace process in South Africa should continue as quickly as possible?—[interruption]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We will now move on. I call Mr. John Marshall.

    Know-how Funds
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the know-how funds available for eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The purpose of the know-how fund is to support economic and political reform in central and eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Baltic states. Since the fund was launched in 1989, we have spent more than £100 million. The budget for 1993–94 is £54.3 million.
    Mr. Marshall: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer and congratulate the know-how funds on being much more cost-effective than the European bank for reconstruction and development, the excesses of which are an affront to the people and the taxpayers of this country?
    Mr. Hogg: I shall certainly accept that compliment in the spirit in which it was tendered.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister know that the President of Lithuania, the governor of his bank and others are in this country at the moment searching for more help from the know-how funds and generally? Does the Minister accept that now is the time for such help to be given while those countries are on the path to democracy and seeking to remain with the west? If the Government wait too long, there may be disaster.
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly agree that economic aid plays an important part in underpinning and supporting political reform. However, it is important to keep in mind the fairly limited nature of the know-how funds and their principal purpose, which is the transfer of technical know-how. That said, if the Lithuanians have proposals that they wish us to consider, I shall be willing to have them examined.

    France
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on relations with France.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): We enjoy close and friendly relations with France based on many shared interests, included membership of the European

    813
    Community, the Security Council, NATO, the Group of 7 and many other international organisations. In recent years close practical co-operation has increased as a result of the world-wide role of our two countries. We expect the close relationship to continue with the new Government.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is there not something faintly disreputable about a country which expects to be able to export a high proportion of the food that it produces but which takes minimal action against its own producers when they burn lorry loads of live English lamb and wreck consignments of fish? Should we not gently tell our French partners that they have no right to deny European consumers, who already subsidise them through taxes, a wider and freer choice of food by trying to wreck the GATT round which has been so painstakingly negotiated and which is so near to a successful conclusion?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: France is our third largest trading partner. My hon. Friend is right in the sense that France has not only a population similar to that of the United Kingdom but similar consumer interests. I certainly believe that the French stand to gain more from an open market approach than from the sort of protectionist approach that my hon. Friend mentions. We have no reason to believe that the French Government are about to adopt protectionist policies. The new Government have inherited some difficult policy decisions but remain committed to working within the European Community framework for a successful conclusion to the GATT round.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that it is no wonder that France has friendly relations with Britain when we consider that its trading surplus with us is very large and that we are running a trade deficit with France? Part of the reason for that is that we subsidise French electricity and then kindly buy an amount equivalent to about 6 million tonnes of coal. If this Minister and the Tory Government had any guts at all, they would tell the French that we intend to cut the interconnector and save the British pits.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: This Minister and this Government believe in free trade. It is our intention and our policy, wherever possible, to ensure that the British consumer gets the best value, whether in energy, food or in any other matter.

    European Foreign Policies
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to have discussions with his European Community partners concerning the development of common European foreign policies.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: We meet our European partners regularly to discuss the strengthening of intergovernmental co-operation on foreign policy.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the foreign affairs and security provisions in the Maastrich treaty build on the concept of political co-operation, which was an important part of the Single European Act? Does he further agree that this country has played a major part in the development of that political co-operation?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. European political co-operation and the single market
    814
    were two of the great achievements of the Single European Act. The Government have played and will continue to play a forward role in European political co-operation and in the common foreign and security policy when it is set up after ratification of the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Minister agree that those of us who support ratification of the Maastricht treaty must be mindful of the criticisms being made of western Europe and the European Community—by, among others, Baroness Thatcher last night—in relation to the tragedy in the former Yugoslavia? Will the Minister take the opportunity to remind the House and others outside that what that means is that we must ratify Maastricht, build on those provisions and move towards a more united and coherent defence and foreign policy for the European Community as a whole so that tragedies of that nature within our own perimeter of influence can be much more urgently addressed?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that he hopes for a peaceful settlement in Yugoslavia. That rests on the Vance-Owen initiative, which has been strongly supported by the European Community and this Administration.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to discuss with his opposite number in Paris the possible withdrawal of General Philippe Morillon from his United Nations command in Bosnia? Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to that highly controversial general, who, none the less, has shown great dedication to the cause of the United Nations and whose courage is exemplary?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall be travelling to Paris on Friday to meet my new opposite number. I will not hesitate to pay tribute to the courage and dedication of General Morillon.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Does the Minister accept that, where possible, European Community foreign policies should be welcome and effective? In that connection, will he work with our European partners to construct a common foreign policy towards South Africa, and particularly to assist in progress towards a democratic, non-racial South Africa? Should not Europe unite in condemning the appalling brutal murder of Chris Hani, which is a tragedy for the whole of South Africa? Should we not also welcome the statesmanship of Nelson Mandela in appealing for calm and continued progress and work towards a democratic, non-racial South Africa?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I certainly join the right hon. Gentleman in applauding the approach that Mr. Mandela has taken. I think that Mr. Mandela and this Government are right to believe that the best tribute to the man who has been assassinated is to continue to pursue the peace process. Certainly the European Community, through the election monitors it has sent and the police training it has offered, is supporting the democratic forces for change in South Africa.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Returning to the question put by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), does my right hon. Friend agree that what is needed is not just the courage shown by the French general and many of the troops of all nations in the United

    815
    Nations force in the former Yugoslavia, but to build on the emotional demands for a rational way forward so that we make matters not worse but better?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Like me, he will not be surprised that many Members and also people outside the House feel very strongly about what is going on in the former Yugoslavia, given the horrific nature of the events taking place there. Nevertheless, the course that the Government and the European Community have pursued—that of support for the Owen-Vance initiative, difficult furrow though it is to plough—is the right one.

    Middle East
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is planning in support of the middle east peace process.
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the middle east peace conference.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The American and Russian co-sponsors of the middle east peace process have issued invitations to a further round of bilateral negotiations in Washington on 20 April. The Israelis have accepted the invitation. The Arab parties are in Washington this week for consultations, which we hope will result in their agreement to resume negotiations.
    Mr. Watson: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the acceptance by the Israeli authorities of the appointment of Mr. Feisal Husseini as leader of the Palestinian delegation to the peace talks? Does the Minister accept that that gives at least some hope of a way forward, particularly as Mr. Husseini is from east Jerusalen and is a resident of that city? In terms of legitimising the position of east Jerusalem as an occupied territory, in line with EC policy, can the Minister confirm that one way to move forward the peace talks would be for President Clinton to urge the Israeli authorities to adopt resolutions 242 and 338 so that the peace talks could begin to move forward in a meaningful way?
    Mr. Hogg: I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Feisal Husseini a little whole ago. I certainly recognise the important role that he plays in the peace negotiations and I welcome any step that promotes that role. As to resolutions 242 and 338, it is important for all of us to recognise that negotiations within the peace process must move forward on the basis of those two Security Council resolutions.
    Mr. Streeter: While recognising the frustration of many Palestinians, does not my right hon. and learned Friend roundly condemn the recent murderous attacks on Israeli citizens and soldiers in parts of the occupied territories? Does he agree that that does not contribute to the peace process? Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to put pressure on moderate Palestinian leaders to reduce the level of violence and give peace a chance?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a very real point. About 69 Palestinians and 22 Israelis have been killed since the beginning of this year. That is lamentable. Escalating violence is something that we all deplore as
    816
    strongly as we can, and it reinforces the importance of all the parties getting back into bilateral talks as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister will have seen reports in the press at the weekend of the death of Mohammed Suweiti, a citizen of Hebron, who was unable to travel from Hebron to Jerusalem for essential hospital treatment because of the closure of the west bank. Does the Minister not agree that the closure of the west bank and the division of the occupied territories into three is itself a form of collective punishment? If we are to encourage the Palestinians to return to the peace table, does the Minister agree that one of his roles is to seek assurances from the Israeli Government that they, as an occupying power, accept their responsibilities under the fourth Geneva convention?
    Mr. Hogg: On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, yes, indeed—the fourth Geneva convention applies to the occupation by the Israelis of the occupied territories. To take the hon. Gentleman's question more broadly, he is right indeed to deplore the fact that both Gaza and the occupied territories have been closed and that the flow of occupants of those two areas into Israel where previously they worked is very restricted. That will not promote a peace settlement. We need to do all that we can to persuade the Israelis to lift the burden of the occupation.
    Mr. Rathbone: In the light of the Palestinian slaughter and the deportation of Palestinians from Israel, can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us how the talks with representatives of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation are going?
    Mr. Hogg: I am not quite sure to which group of people my hon. Friend is referring at this point. What we want to do is to see all the parties to the bilaterals return to those bilaterals as speedily as possible. That means accepting the invitation to attend on 20 April.
    Mr. George Robertson: May I reinforce two of the points that the Minister has made to the House? First, I join him in condemning all the violence in the occupied territories and in Israel, wherever that violence comes from; none of it helps the peace process, nor will it lead to an ultimate solution for either side. Secondly, I join him in welcoming the reports that the Israeli Government are willing to recognise that Mr. Feisal Husseini, a resident of east Jerusalem, should be given his rightful position as the spokesman and leader of the Palestinian community in those talks. That would be a step forward—as would the rumoured move by the Israeli Government to allow some long-standing exiled deportees to return to their native land for the first time in many years. As the Minister pushes the urgency of the middle east peace process further and further up the agenda, notwithstanding all the competition that it faces, will he ensure that the Israeli Government comply both with international law and with international civilised standards so as to ensure that whatever punishment they mete out to the civilian Palestinian population is not so disproportionate as the present decision to close off the occupied territories seems to be?
    Mr. Hogg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his first two points and for the support that he has given the

    817
    Government. I agree entirely about welcoming the possibility of allowing people who were deported some considerable time ago to return to Israel and I agree with the general point about the proportionality of any response to acts of violence, but it would be very much easier for the Israeli Government to make progress in the talks if the violence being committed by the Palestinians were to stop.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the peace process in the middle east would be much enhanced if all middle eastern states signed the international convention banning chemical weapons and had equal opportunities to participate in the watchdog organisation set up under that convention? What steps is he taking to promote that process?
    Mr. Hogg: The point that my hon. Friend makes about the chemical convention, in particular—and, by implication, weapons of mass destruction in general—is wholly correct. We want all the parties to ratify, and thereafter implement, the chemical warfare convention. We must work to achieve the removal from the middle east of weapons of mass destruction, but those desirable and essential objectives are unlikely fully to be achieved unless and until there is a general settlement within the framework of the current peace process.

    Maastricht Treaty (Danish Referendum)
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Danish Government about the forthcoming referendum on the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this and other issues with the Danish Foreign Minister, Mr. Helveg Petersen, in London on 22 March.
    Mr. Salmond: Did the Foreign Secretary at any stage communicate to his Danish counterpart the view held by Members both for and against Maastricht and also substantially by people outside the House—that Maastricht is exactly the sort of constitutional issue which should be decided by the people in a referendum? Is there any prospect of the Government accepting that strong viewpoint and changing tack, or will they merely depend on Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to bail them out in the vote next week?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: No, there is no such prospect: the Government, like previous British Governments, will depend on the will of the House.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Has the Minister been able to clarify whether it remains the position of the Government that they will not seek to invite the House to approve the Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill until after the Danes have had their second referendum? Is that still the position?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes, that remains the position.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister recall that in a recent written answer he stated that the obligations placed on Denmark by the treaty on European union signed at Maastricht were not changed by the decision reached intergovernmentally at Edinburgh? In that case, will not
    818
    the question that the Danish people have to answer on 18 May be substantially, if not exactly, the same as they answered previously?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I recall that answer, but the question put to the Danish people and the answer that they give are matters for the Danish Government and the Danish people and not for me.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Governor of Hong Kong's constitutional proposals for the colony.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): We support the Governor's proposals for broadening democracy in Hong Kong. We have long wanted to hold discussions with the Chinese Government on these proposals with the aim of achieving a smooth transition in 1997. We and the Chinese Government announced yesterday that talks on these issues will start in Peking on 22 April.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that talks are now resuming with China vindicates the firm position taken by the Governor of Hong Kong on extending democracy in Hong Kong? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that representatives of the Hong Kong community will be at the negotiations, and will he ensure that the Chinese do not use the negotiations as a means of prolonging the process to prevent the introduction of the electoral law and the widening of democracy in the 1995 elections in the way that the Governor wishes?
    Mr. Goodlad: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. As we have said, the talks are between the two sovereign powers. The British representative will be Sir Robin McLaren, Her Majesty's ambassador in Peking. Other officials from the British and Hong Kong Governments will participate in the talks in exactly the same way as they have in the past.
    On the question of timing, we and the Hong Kong Government need to have legislation in place in good time for the district board elections in 1994 and the Legislative Council elections in 1995. We therefore want quick progress, but there is quite a lot of difficult ground to cover.
    We are going into these talks with the aim of reaching an understanding, but not at any price. It remains an essential point for us and the Governor that elections held under British administration should be fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.
    Dr. Bray: Is it the Government's intention to continue to consult widely the people of Hong Kong, including their elected representatives in the Legislative Council, during the progress of the talks with China?
    Mr. Goodlad: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he feels that the Chinese Government are keeping to the letter and spirit of the treaty between the Government and the Chinese Government on the handover of Hong Kong's sovereignty in 1997? Judging from China's record so far, does he believe that China will

    819
    keep to the treaty after the handover? Do we have any way of renegotiating the treaty or getting out of it if we feel that China is not meeting its obligations?
    Mr. Goodlad: The Chinese leaders say that they will abide by the joint declaration and the Basic Law. Under the joint declaration, we are of course responsible for administering Hong Kong until July 1997.
    Mr. Rogers: We warmly welcome the recommencement of talks as laid out in the proposals announced yesterday. However, may I say that we hope that, during future negotiations, the minimal democratic propositions put forward by the Governor are at least adhered to and that, in whatever negotiations come about, the people of Hong Kong will finally have a say, rather than the British Government alone?
    Mr. Goodlad: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I said, our aim is to reach an understanding with China on arrangements to ensure that the elections will be fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. If we reach an understanding with China, the British and Hong Kong Governments will recommend it to the Legislative Council and it will be for it to pass the necessary legislation.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Illsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's involvement in Bosnia.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Britain is playing a major role in efforts to restore peace in Bosnia and to provide humanitarian relief for millions of civilians caught up in the conflict. We are the largest single national troop contributor to the United. Nations protection force in Bosnia, escorting relief convoys. Our troops and aid workers are doing a magnificent job in difficult and often dangerous circumstances. We have also devoted considerable material resources to the aid operation.
    Mr. Illsley: Will the Minister take this opportunity to distance the Government from the suggestions made by Baroness Thatcher which, if implemented, would perhaps lead to an extension of the conflict in Bosnia, to the further killing of military and civilian personnel and would perhaps jeopardise the humanitarian aid effort? Does he also agree that the situation in Bosnia cannot be allowed to continue and that existing sanctions should be properly enforced and tougher sanctions implemented?
    Mr. Hogg: The broad nature of the policy that we are currently pursuing is, I think, the right one and the one to which we should hold. We need to continue to put all the pressure that we can on Serbia to get Serbia to induce the Bosnian Serbs to sign up to the Vance-Owen plan. That must be the heart of the policy. I think, too, that it is desirable that the sanctions be yet further tightened. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a draft resolution to hand, but, for reasons that. I think are good, it has been decided to defer the vote on the resolution until the end of April—but I hope that if the resolution is passed its implementation will be immediate and that no grace period, has proposed in the original draft, will be provided.
    Mr. Cormack: I do not wish to do anything other than praise the bravery of our British troops, but may I ask my
    820
    right hon. and learned Friend to agree that our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, with whom I do not always agree, spoke for many people yesterday when she talked of the sense of horror and shame that people throughout this country feel when they see our troops having to stand by while women and children are shot down? Will my right hon. and learned Friend talk to the Foreign Secretary on the telephone today and ask him to summon an urgent meeting of his fellow Foreign Ministers so that we can begin to act a little more effectively?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is clearly right when he describes what is going on in Bosnia as a tragedy and a crime. I do not suppose that a more appalling set of events has taken place since the end of the second world war. But on the question of shame—no, I cannot agree with him, because I look at what British troops in Bosnia are doing. We have 2,600 men there performing acts of great courage and gallantry. We—or rather, I should say, they—have escorted some 448 convoys conveying something like 33,399 tonnes of supply. I am proud of that contribution.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister accept that Lady Thatcher is not alone in believing that the present arms embargo plays into the hands of the Croats and the Serbs, and places the Bosnian Muslims at a great disadvantage? Does he further accept that there is an increasing feeling that the arms embargo should be partially lifted so that the Bosnian Muslims will at least be able to defend themselves against the atrocities being committed against their nation?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not try to deny that a case can be argued for lifting the arms embargo, but I put to the House two considerations that point in the opposite direction. The first is that if we were to lift the arms embargo for the Bosnian Muslims I believe that others would speedily supply arms to the Croats and the Bosnian Serbs. That would not bring about an early ceasefire. The second consideration, which I find even more persuasive, is that it would take time for the arms to be delivered to the Bosnian Muslims and even more time for those people to be trained and expert in their use. I ask what would happen in the meantime; and I answer that rhetorical question by saying that the Bosnian Serbs would be likely to redouble their aggression so as to grab yet more land against the possibility that the Muslims might be in a better position thereafter.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the continuing horror caused by the evidence of alleged war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, not least that now forwarded by the International Red Cross to the special commissioners appointed under UN resolution 780? Is he aware that under resolution 808 the Secretary-General has to report by 22 April on the proposals to establish an ad hoc tribunal to try and, if necessary, punish people alleged to have been engaged in war crimes? Will he do all that he can on behalf of the British Government to ensure that such a tribunal is established as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Hogg: I am, indeed, aware of the resolution. I am also aware that the Secretary-General has been commissioned to report back to the Security Council by the end of April on ways in which to carry forward the holding of a war crimes tribunal. I think that that is an important object of policy and, to the extent that it is

    821
    possible—one must recognise the difficulties—that people who are guilty or who are alleged to be guilty of war crimes need to be brought before that tribunal and punished appropriately.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Do not the Government recognise that even for those of us who have supported the peace process and the decisions of the Security Council, the policy of the United Nations appears to be falling apart in Bosnia? Is not it clear that sanctions are being widely breached by certain countries, including Russia, and should not any aid to Mr. Yeltsin be contingent on his obeying the mandatory sanctions against Serbia imposed by the Security Council?
    Is not it also clear that the humanitarian aid programme is in danger of failing not because the High Commissioner has not organised convoys, but because members of the United Nations, including members of the European Community, have failed to keep their promises to provide food aid for Bosnia? Are we to stand aside and watch the slaughter of perhaps 50,000 innocent civilians in Srebrenica? Are not those all reasons why we should have an immediate recall of the Security Council to discuss the deteriorating situation in Bosnia? Is not it deplorable that the Government have agreed to delay those discussions in the Security Council for two weeks, apparently at the request of Mr. Yeltsin?
    Mr. Hogg: Our purpose—it must be—is to achieve continued consensus within the Security Council, because it is only by maintaining a united front between the five permanent members that we can hope to continue to place great pressure on Serbia. Against that background, we must consider the request by the Russian Government not to put the matter to the vote until the end of April. Our purpose must be to keep Russian consent, because if we lose it, the ability of the Security Council to act effectively will disappear entirely. That is the thinking behind our decision to accede to the Russian request. I believe that it was a right decision.

    United States
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations beween the EC and the USA.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: EC-US relations are close, crucially important and wide ranging, including especially trade relations and political dialogue. We are committed to maintaining and developing this relationship on the basis of the November 1990 EC-US declaration which sets out shared aims and principles. The next EC-US summit will take place in Washington on 7 May.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital for both the European Community and the United States that there is a successful outcome to the negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade? Will he confirm that the Government will do everything in their power to ensure that the protectionist tendencies of Mr. Delors, of French politicians and of some within the Clinton Administration are not allowed to stand in the way of a successful outcome to those negotiations?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of a successful conclusion to the GATT Uruguay round. I assure him that the Government
    822
    will continue to give the highest priority to that. The initial signals coming from the new United States Administration are encouraging. The trade representative, Mr. Kantor, recently confirmed President Clinton's commitment to a more open trading system and to the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round. He also confirmed the United States Administration's commitment to seeking an extension to the fast track authority, which is also a very positive step.
    As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), the new French Administration have inherited some difficult problems from their predecessors. I am convinced that France has as much to gain as any other country in the Community from a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round, not least because it is the largest exporter of services in the whole of the European Community and would have a great deal to gain from a successful conclusion to this round.
    Mr. Hain: But could the Minister press for a joint initiative between the EC and the United States of America to put pressure on the South African Government to ensure that white terrorism is rooted out from both the community and the security forces? The tragic death of Chris Hani over the weekend is a clear example of the way in which white terrorists are being assisted——
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have again to call an hon. Member to order. The hon. Gentleman started out reasonably but moved so far away from the question that his remarks really were out of order. I ask all hon. Members to look at the questions very carefully, and not to try to put one over on the Speaker, as they sometimes do.
    Several hon. Members rose——
    Madam Speaker: No. We will now move on.

    South Korea
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with South Korea.
    Mr. Goodlad: Our relations are excellent. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary paid a successful visit to the Republic of Korea last week. He had full and useful exchanges with—among others—the President, the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister. As well as bilateral matters, their discussions covered regional and international issues, including North Korea, market access, trade, technology co-operation, investment and the European Community. This was a very good opportunity to establish contact with the new South Korean Administration. My right hon. Friend also met and had useful discussions with representatives of the British business community.
    Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that extremely informative reply. Does he share South Korea's grave concern about North Korea's threatened withdrawal from the non-proliferation treaty? Does he agree that that poses the threat of destabilisation throughout the region and that there is an urgent need for the International Atomic Energy Agency to move in and

    823
    carry out an inspection? Will he seek the support of the Government of the People's Republic of China in putting pressure on North Korea?
    Mr. Goodlad: Yes. North Korea's announcement of its intention to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty is a cause for great concern and its refusal to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency's special inspections gives further cause to question the intentions of the North Korean Government. The United Kingdom is determined to maintain and strengthen the non-proliferation treaty. We urge North Korea to reconsider its position and we intend to explore all possible avenues with our Security Council colleagues to persuade North Korea to change its mind.
    My hon. Friend is quite right that China has a vital role to play in attempts to persuade the North Koreans to reverse their position and we look to the Chinese to exercise that responsibility. We also attach the greatest importance to full co-operation among all states on the Security Council, especially the permanent five.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and where he intends to have talks with the Government of the People's Republic of China on the development of democracy in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Goodlad: We and the Chinese Government announced yesterday that talks on Hong Kong's electoral arrangements will begin in Peking on 22 April. Our aim will be to reach an understanding with the Chinese side on arrangements which will ensure that elections are fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. If we can reach such an understanding, we and the Hong Kong Government will recommend it to Hong Kong's Legislative Council. It will be for that body to pass the necessary legislation.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that although it was the Governor who tabled the proposals for constitutional change in Hong Kong, those proposals were, none the less, the recommendations of Her Majesty's Government and have the broad support of hon. Members on both sides of the House? Furthermore, they are within the Basic Law. If the People's Republic of China thinks otherwise, it would help the proposed talks if the Chinese were to be specific about the respects in which they think that the proposals depart from the Basic Law so that those matters can be addressed in detail before the talks take place.
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is correct in every particular.
    Mr. Kaufman: The Minister keeps talking about reaching an understanding with China. Is it not a fact that any understanding with China can result only in a further watering down of proposals that were already grossly inadequate in terms of what the Hong Kong Legislative Council and OMELCO have asked for? Is it not also a fact that continual caving in to Chinese tactics of delay and dilution will result in there being very little democracy indeed to be handed over in 1997?
    Mr. Goodlad: The right hon. Gentleman's views are well known to the House. I can reiterate only that the outcome of the talks will be placed before the Legislative Council in Hong Kong and will, we hope, be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.

    Peru
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Peruvian ambassador to discuss the democratic process in that country.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed Peru with the Peruvian ambassador on 18 November 1992. I visited Lima from 7 to 9 January and was able to assess the progress that Peru has made in restoring democratic government.
    Mr. McFall: Is the Minister aware that when I visited Peru last year, I witnessed for myself the evil which the Sendero Luminoso is perpetrating on the people of Peru? However, there is no social welfare programme in that country, and the more President Fujimori goes ahead with his proposals and ignores the social reality, the worse it will be for the western world, particularly in relation to drugs. When the Secretary of State next meets the ambassador, will he impress on him the overall need for democracy in Peru so that that helps the people of that country?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his perfectly correct remarks about Sendero Luminoso which is probably the most horrific terrorist organisation operating anywhere on the globe today. We must recognise that since the autumn coup—as I believe it is called—President Fujimori has made progress in the restoration of democracy and the new constitutional assembly holds out considerable hope for the future of Peru. When I was there, I was able to speak not only to the Speaker of that assembly, but to a number of human rights groups. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in the end, although the activities of Sendero Luminoso may be challenging and deeply repulsive, the route to its defeat must be through the proper restoration of full democratic human rights in Peru.

    Malaysia
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with the Government of Malaysia on United Kingdom-Malaysian relations.
    Mr. Goodlad: I visited Malaysia from 1 to 5 April and was able to see at first hand that our relations with Malaysia are excellent. I met the Minister of Finance, Mr. Anwar Ibrahim—who had himself visited the United Kingdom earlier this year—and had wide-ranging discussions with him and a number of his ministerial colleagues. I also visited the free trade zone in Penang and the Forestry Research Institute of Malaysia.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is it not important that British firms should try to secure contracts in respect of the new Kuala Lumpur airport? What are the Government doing to assist?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is plenty of scope for British firms to increase British business in Malaysia; the new planned airport at Sepang is an important example of that. In February, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister offered up to £42 million-worth of grant finance to be used in association with export credits and contracts that may be awarded to British companies of up to £120 million-worth of United Kingdom goods and services for the planned new airport. Any firm commitment will be subject to the usual appraisal procedures and contacts with our Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development partners in line with internationally agreed rules on the provision of tied aid. I very much hope that our companies will be successful.
    Mr. Dalyell: As the Minister said that he visited the forestry institute, what did it say about the rate of logging and the truction of rain forest in Sabah and Sarawak Wand on the Malaysian mainland?
    Mr. Goodlad: Nothing, Madam Speaker.

    Serbia and Montenegro
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to improve the effectiveness and impact of United Nations and European Community sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have provided customs personnel to the sanctions assistance missions, which are helping Serbia's neighbours enforce sanctions more effectively, and £100,000 to establish a communications network along the Danube. I am confident -that sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro are already having an impact, but sanctions may need to be,tightened still further to put pressure on the Serbs to sign- the Vance-Owen plan; further action is under consideration in New York.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the report of the debate in European Standing Committee B which, a few weeks ago, probed the Government on the policing and implementation of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro as they relate to this country? It was shown that there was an hiatus and an unsatisfactory system of controlling and policing exports from the United Kingdom to the former states of Yugoslavia. Further, there was an indication from the Minister that Greece was, to say the least, sloppy in its policing of the sanctions regime. Will the Minister bear that in mind and tell us whether the Government have taken measures to ensure that the United Kingdom is rigorously applying the sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro and that there is no sloppiness on behalf of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hogg: It is certainly our intention rigorously to impose sanctions and I am not aware of any shortcomings. If the hon. Gentleman—or any other hon. Member, for that matter—has evidence of substantial shortcomings, the Government will be anxious to look at it.
    The point has been made to Greece on a number of occasions that it is important that all Community members most vigorously and rigorously eforce the sanctions. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr.
    826
    Mackinlay) knows, there is a draft resolution in New York that will further tighten the sanctions regime if it is voted for in the Security Council.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is one thing to have tight sanctions to try to bring the parties in the former Yugoslavia to their senses and to a peaceful resolution, but that it is another thing to start talking from the comfort of another place about military intervention, which would mean that the fighting forces in Yugoslavia would move into the towns where the bombing would be on civilians and children?
    Ms Eagle: It already is.
    Mr. Dickens: Yes. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many people in the United Kingdom and, indeed, the Chamber would be aggrieved if the British armed forces were used in a warlike manner in the former Yugoslavia? The people who are crying for military intervention would soon be crying for the bodies of our men and women if they, were returned in body bags to Southampton and other 'airports.
    Mr. Hogg: I agree with a lot of what my hon. Friend said. It seems that there are two different sorts of military action that one should consider. The first is whether it would be right to deploy United Kingdom ground troops in an aggressive role—and then the question is whether it would be right in what is effectively a civil war to take action that would condemn probably a substantial number of British soldiers to die. That is a question which the House must consider. My view is that it would not be right.
    A different question is whether it would be right in any circumstances to use air power. That question is constantly kept under review because there is a case to be made for it. Against that, there are serious disadvantages associated with that policy. So far, it has been held—in my view, rightly—that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
    Ms Short: Does the Minister agree that there are awful parallels between Europe's failure to protect the jews before the second world war and our failure to protect the Bosnians from the systematic use of rape and ethnic cleansing? Is it not proposed that massive ground forces will be put in place if the Vance-Owen proposals are carried? The Serbs are refusing to accept implementation of those proposals. Can we not have an alternative plan at least to create some safe havens for the Bosnians?
    Mr. Hogg: There is a distinction to be made between deploying troops in a peacemaking role and deploying troops in a peacekeeping role. So far as the latter is concerned, if there were a genuine agreement and a sustainable ceasefire, and if there were substantial troop contributions from a number of other countries—most notably the United States—and the control and command mechanisms seemed right, we should look sympathetically at a proposal that British troops should be used in a peacekeeping role.
    There is a major distinction between that operation and what the hon. Lady is referring to, which is to use troops in a peacemaking role—to enforce peace by military action. I ask the hon. Lady rhetorically: is it right to condemn British soldiers to die for that purpose? I say no.

    Commonwealth of Independent States
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to support and assist the independent republics of the CIS to ensure a smooth transition to democracy.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We fully support the development of democratic and economic reforms in all the countries of the former Soviet Union. We contribute to this process through our bilateral aid programmes, such as the know-how fund, and play a substantial part in multilateral efforts. We are doing all that we can to foster contacl.s and exchanges with the newly independent states through international forums to support democratic processes.
    Ms Eagle: Following the demise of the Soviet Union, there is great instability in the former Soviet states that are now independent within the Commonwealth of Independent States. One of the problems is that Ukraine
    828
    and Kazakhstan have access to nuclear weapons. What is the Government's opinion on trying to force these states to sign strategic arms reduction talks in exchange for aid so that we can help them on the path to democracy and alleviate their poverty?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is right with her general point that there is instability. We look to the conference on security and co-operation in Europe as the instrument most likely to provide the solution of regional and ethnic problems in the former Soviet Union.
    As for nuclear-weapon states, our real concern is focused on Ukraine. That is because the tension between Ukraine and Russia is increasing. The view is expressed in the Ukrainian Parliament that Ukraine should not relinquish its nuclear weapons while there is the tension to which I have referred. We regard that as a disastrous mistake. We shall do all that we can, both by way of negative security assurances and by persuasion, and to some extent by assistance, to persuade the Ukrainians to sign the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear state.

Bosnia
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, I should like to make a statement.
The House will share the Government's feelings of outrage at the artillery attack on Srebrenica on Monday, in which, according to reports, at least 56 people were killed and 70 wounded. That was a new milestone of inhumanity in a conflict which had already spawned many atrocities. On that occasion, as on many others, the Bosnian Serbs appear to have been responsible. We should remember that the Serbs in Bosnia are not uniquely guilty, although they bear the main responsibility for current events in Bosnia. The other parties too have committed crimes. Indeed, the British soldier who was killed in January while escorting a convoy of sick and wounded did not fall to a Serbian bullet.
It is not for want of effort by the international community that those horrors continue. The Government have been at the forefront of these efforts. The London conference last August, co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, renewed the search for a negotiated settlement of the conflicts in former Yugoslavia—not only in Bosnia. Since then, the Government have given its fullest support to the efforts of Lord Owen and Mr. Vance to achieve such a settlement.
Success seemed in sight three weeks ago, when the Bosnian Muslims joined the Bosnian Croats in signing all the elements of the Owen-Vance peace plan. It is a matter of the deepest regret that the Bosnian Serbs have not yet been prepared to sign. I hope that, even at this late stage, and despite all that has happened, they will be prepared to reconsider.
Meanwhile, our armed forces have played a leading and distinguished part both in bringing relief to the suffering in Bosnia and in enforcing the arms embargo against the whole of former Yugoslavia and the wider sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Since November, the Cheshire battalion group has escorted more than 33,000 tonnes of food and other humanitarian aid to destinations in Bosnia. RAF Hercules aircraft have flown 427 sorties to Sarajevo, and delivered nearly 6,000 tonnes of aid. Ships of the Royal Navy, assisted by airborne early warning and maritime patrol aircraft of the Royal Air Force, have patrolled the Adriatic and its surrounding air space, alongside allies in NATO and the Western European Union, to enforce the embargo and the sanctions.
Earlier this week, pressure on the warring factions was increased, when NATO aircraft began patrolling Bosnian air spac.: to enforce the no-fly zone, in accordance with Security Council resolution 816. RAF Tornado F3s and tankers are on standby to fly to bases in Italy to join in that operation when called forward by SACEUR to do so.
The Government fully share the widespread frustration that diplomacy and military pressure have not yet succeeded, and that the suffering still continues. Other weapons are available. The sanctions noose is being drawn tighter against Serbia, whose future is grim—she faces isolation and economic ruin.
At the same time, the House will recognise that there are no easy solutions to a conflict in which all three ethnic groups have willingly engaged and which has many of the
830
characteristics of a civil war. If there had been, the international community would have applied them long ago. Some argue that, if the outside world is not prepared to intervene militarily, it should at least refrain from enforcing an arms embargo that is bound to favour the Serbs, since they have access to the arsenals of the Yugoslav national army.
That is an understandable argument, but we should be clear where it leads. Removal of the United Nations arms embargo would certainly result in the Bosnian Muslims being free to acquire all the weapons they needed. Presumably, the Bosnian Serbs for their part would also seek more arms from other countries. The result would be to prolong the conflict and to make it even bloodier and more vicious than it is today, bringing continuing suffering to innocent civilians.
In those circumstances, it is difficult to see how UNPROFOR's humanitarian mission could continue. The chances of negotiating aid through the front lines, as at present, would be sharply diminished. Meanwhile, the international consensus would almost certainly have been lost. The United Nations' efforts in former Yugoslavia so far have been made possible by Russian willingness to support the necessary resolutions and to put pressure on the Serbs. That co-operation has been invaluable, but, given the internal situation in Russia, it cannot be taken for granted. It would be unlikely to survive an escalation of the conflict through the removal of the arms embargo.
There have also been calls for the use of air strikes to enforce a peace settlement. There could be circumstances in which the selective use of air power would be relevant. NATO, at the request of the United Nations, is enforcing the no-fly zone at the present time, but the clear military advice received by the Government is that air strikes unsupported by substantial numbers of troops on the ground would be unlikely to be effective given the nature of the conflict, the weapons deployed and the terrain. The chances of civilian casualties would be high. Meanwhile, the risks to British and other United Nations troops, and to the success of the humanitarian relief operation, would remain. While one should not rule out that expedient absolutely, it is one that would change in a fundamental way the role of the UN and bring it into the heart of the conflict as a combatant.
The right course to pursue is the current policy, thankless and frustrating though it is. Diplomacy must continue. Pressure on those responsible for prolonging the conflict must be increased. The plight of the suffering must be alleviated. The international consensus necessary to do all those things must be maintained. They will continue to be the Government's objectives.
Dr. David Clark: I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how appalled we all were to see the maiming and murder of innocent victims in Srebrenica and elsewhere in Bosnia. It reminded us graphically of the barbarity of war, and behoves us to redouble our efforts to make sure that this particular war ends as speedily as possible.
We would like to be associated with the Secretary of State's comments about our own troops in Bosnia. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right to highlight their bravery and fortitude. At no small risk to themselves, those troops ensured that thousands of tonnes of

831
humanitarian aid got through and saved many lives. It is true to say that, thankfully, our worst fears about starvation have not been realised.
But that raises another point. There have been reports that the United Nations is now running out of food. If that is the case, what are her Majesty's Government doing about that? Is it not offensive that thousands of tonnes of food are rotting away in EC intervention stores when people in Europe are starving? Will the Minister take that on board and see what can be done?
The Secretary of State is right when he says that we cannot lift the arms embargo to the Muslims. It has always seemed to us rather crazy to try to douse a fire with petrol. It never works Will he confirm that much weaponry is already in the hands of the 190,000 fighters from the three sides of the bloody conflict? Will he further confirm that planes with middle east markings and carrying arms have landed in Croatia?
The Secretary of State is also correct to rule out the use of ground troops before a peace agreement has been made. If it is envisaged that 70,000 troops will be needed to keep the peace after an agreement, has the Secretary of State made any estimate of the number of troops required to contain the fighting before the agreement has been made?
Does the Secretary of State accept that this civil war cannot be solved by external military intervention? If so, why are the Government so reluctant to come forward with new initiatives? Why have the Government agreed with the other G7 members to postpone further urgent discussions on Bosnia in the United Nations Security Council?
If the matter is to be solved by diplomacy, it will be through the United Nations, and we plead with and urge the Government to raise the matter once again in the Security Council. It is truly through diplomacy, pressure and tighter economic sanctions that the Serbs will be made to sign the peace agreement, so that we have the possibility of a lasting peace in that country. There is a feeling of a lack of urgency on behalf of the Government.
Mr. Rifkind: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the work being carried out by our forces in Bosnia. It is helpful for their contribution to be seen to be recognised by the House.
The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will monitor carefully whether extra aid is required to prevent starvation in Bosnia. Fortunately, the effort that has been carried out so far has, as he rightly says, ensured that the predictions of mass starvation have not come about during the winter months, and we wish to ensure that that situation continues.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether middle east aircraft had been seen landing in Bosnia. I cannot confinn the details of that, but we have reason to believe that some arms have been supplied to the Bosnian Muslim forces and to other factions taking part in the war.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of troops that might be required if there was to be military intervention in Bosnia. The answer to that would depend on whether such intervention followed the signing of a peace treaty by all three parties and was in the form of a United Nations peacekeeping role, or whether it was to impose a peace settlement that had not been agreed by the parties.
832
Even if there was agreement to a ceasefire, some 50,000 to 60,000 United Nations forces might be required, and, if there was no peace treaty or ceasefire, clearly the number that would have to be contemplated would be much larger, and, in a situation of continuing warfare in Bosnia, could run into hundreds of thousands.
Her Majesty's Government entirely share the desire to get through as quickly as possible the new United Nations resolution increasing the sanctions proposals. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that requires unanimity in the Security Council and that Russia has, for reasons that are well known to the hon. Gentleman, asked for some delay in the consideration of that resolution.
That will not necessarily lead to any delay in its implementation. The current resolution before the Security Council allows a 15-day period after it has been passed before it comes into effect. It is possible that, even if there is a delay in passing the resolution, there will not then be a need for that 15-day period to elapse before the new resolution comes into effect. Therefore, the Russians' request may not have the consequences that the hon. Gentleman fears.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I very much welcome the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend, which sets out the difficulties of intervening in the tragic affairs in Bosnia. I particularly welcome the caution that he shows about the proposal that we should indulge in air strikes against Serbian artillery positions. We have many troops sitting under the barrels of Serbian artillery, and I have no doubt that they would be the subject of retaliation the moment that any air attacks were launched. Therefore, will my right hon. and learned Friend give the House an absolute assurance that, should circumstances change and an attack on Serbian artillery positions be contemplated, British troops currently giving humanitarian aid in Bosnia would be withdrawn before such attacks took place?
Mr. Rifkind: We attach the greatest importance to the physical safety and security of the British forces in Bosnia. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is difficult, if not impossible, to see how one could contemplate continuing a humanitarian operation in the name of the United Nations if the United Nations was simultaneously authorising military strikes on the combatants on the ground in the same areas where the United Nations relief operations were taking place. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how those two objectives could be reconciled.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I disagree about a number of elements of this matter, I believe him to be fundamentally right in resisting calls for the relaxation of the arms embargo, from whatever quarters those calls may come. However, may I remind him that Srebrenica is territory assigned to the Bosnian Muslims. What military assessment has been made of the prospects of Srebrenica being captured by the Bosnian Serbs who are presently laying seige to it? What political assessment has been made of the consequences for the Vance-Owen plan if the Bosnian Serbs were to succeed in capturing Srebrenica?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his earlier remarks. On the latter part of his question, clearly, any conflict in Bosnia, whether in Srebrenica or elsewhere, goes against the spirit and objectives of the

833
Vance-Owen plan. We very much hope to achieve a ceasefire by all the parties and an end to the conflict in Srebrenica and elsewhere in order to promote the circumstances to enable a more lasting peace to be achieved throughout Bosnia.
Srebrenica is the most immediate issue, on which our attention is focused—a few weeks ago, it was focused on Sarajevo, and earlier on Dubrovnik. Clearly, a number of localities dominate the headlines at any given time. But unless we can achieve peace throughout Bosnia, local agreements in specific parts of Bosnia will be unlikely to contribute to the overall objectives.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that he and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary are right to warn against the dangers of making policy for the medium term in the emotional heat of the moment? However, does he accept that the present position is untenable and there is a real danger, which we must anticipate, of being dragged into a far wider and more difficult conflict unless some check is imposed on the Serbian-driven expansionism and aggression, which we are presently witnessing, and which is leading to all the blood and slaughter? While I recognise my right hon. and learned Friend's caution and the difficulties faced by all policy makers in such circumstances, may I ask him at least to assure us that we are actively considering such matters with our United States and United Nations allies?
Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend has said. The thinking behind the tightening of economic sanctions is to bring home to the Serbians the heavy price they pay for their continued activity. It is important not to underestimate the effect that sanctions have already had. Industrial production has come down by more than 40 per cent. since sanctions were imposed, more than 65 per cent. of the work force are unemployed or temporarily laid off, and Serbian figures suggest that the first eight months of sanctions cost Serbia more than $10 billion in lost revenue. Therefore, the sanctions are clearly having a powerful impact on the Serbian economy. We must hope that that will help bring those responsible for that country's policy to their senses.
Mr. Max Madden: What is to be done about men of fighting age in Srebrenica? Will they be given arms so they can defend themselves? Will they be evacuated under United Nations military protection, or will they be left to be slaughtered by the Serbian forces?
Mr. Rifkind: The UN forces in the area are the best judges of how they can contribute to the humanitarian objectives in accordance with the mandate that has been laid down. In recent months, UN forces throughout Bosnia have carried out activities which have been slightly broader than those originally envisaged. We originally expected them to be carrying out obligations in relation to the supply of food and aid. In recent weeks, they have been carrying out additional activities, involving giving transport to refugees wishing to go from war zones to areas of relative peace. It is important to allow the UN that discretion as long as it is consistent with the humanitarian framework—the mandate under which it currently operates.
Mrs. Edwina Currie:: The Secretary of State will be aware that a number of my constituents are serving in Bosnia at the moment. Does he accept that those of us who are reluctant to send thousands more young men and women to that fighting area are acting not from lack of moral courage or lack of moral fibre but from sincere and heartfelt worries about what would happen to our constituents and their families—people to whom we as elected Members have to respond every weekend—should we take any decisions that would embroil them in that dreadful conflict?
Mr. Rifkind: Important moral dimensions have to be taken into account when our service men and service women are asked to go into a war zone. First, we must consider whether it is right and proper for them to be there, and secondly we must consider whether they have a reasonable prospect of carrying out the role for which they have been sent. If one comes, however reluctantly, to the judgment that there is not a military solution to the problem we face, it will not do any service either to the victims of aggression or to the wider moral and ethical issues to take action which one believes is foredoomed to failure.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the general thrust of the statement. I represent people who have already suffered because of the conflict in Bosnia, and I join the Minister in paying tribute to our security forces. We in Northern Ireland have experience of their professionalism, and we have no doubt that they are doing the same sort of job in Bosnia.
I should like to press the Minister on the concept of sanctions. When have sanctions really been effective? Time and again, the House has been assured that they do not work. Does the Secretary of State accept that it is easy to give moral lectures on political courage, as the Prime Minister did recently in Northern Ireland, but that they do not rest well on the shoulders of someone who in her turn yielded moral courage and, at the behest of terrorists, moved towards signing an agreement that yielded to them? The Government should not follow the line proposed by Baroness Thatcher.
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the history of sanctions does not give one great confidence that by themselves they will achieve the desired objective; but that is not to say that they cannot be part of a wider strategy and cannot make an important contribution towards maintaining the maximum pressure on those who are responsible for aggression. Sanctions have a role to play, but only as part of a wider strategy.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith(Wealdon): I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, and especially his cool, rational analysis, and the recognition of his moral obligation to ensure that our troops are not involved in a dispute that is not of their making. I also welcome the recognition of the fact that it is not in the interests of the United Kingdom to plunge British troops into armed intervention in a national civil war. What assessment has been made by NATO high command of the time it would take to involve NATO itself in peacekeeping, should there be an agreement between the three conflicting parties in the former Yugoslavia?
Mr. Rifkind: In part, the answer to my hon. Friend's question clearly depends on how much contingency work

835
has been done in advance of any such ceasefire. It would also depend on the judgment about whether any agreement signed by the three parties could be assumed to be a reliable treaty which they honourably intended to carry out and were able to deliver. We should have to be cautious in seeking to identify whether any treaty that might be signed at some future time was qualitatively different from some of the previous agreements that were signed and then dishonoured almost within minutes of their making.
Such decisions are difficult and delicate. We hope that the Vance-Owen agreement will be signed by the Bosnian Serbs as well as by the other two parties, and that, in signing it, they intend to deliver the commitments, into which they have entered.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Since last August, a number of Opposition Members have positively supported the use of military intervention, in the form of air strikes, against Serbian positions because we believe that it is impossible to negotiate with fascism. We believe that fascism sets its objectives and ignores its victims. Fascism is what we have in Serbia. Is not it about time that this country, the European Community, the United Nations and NATO realised that this cancer growing at the very heart of Europe has got to be stopped now before it spreads even further?
Mr. Rifkind: Without commenting on the hon. Gentleman's description of the Serbian or Yugoslav authorities as fascists, I put it to him that there is at least one fundamental flaw in his approach. I understand that he wishes to see military strikes but, along with every hon. Member, does not wish to see the deployment of ground forces. It is difficult to understand that distinction if military might is to be used to achieve the objectives the hon. Gentleman seeks. The hon. Gentleman must consider, if he believes in the use of military power, on what basis he seeks to distinguish between air strikes and the use of all forces which might be available to the international community.
Mr. Winston Churchill: My right hon. and learned Friend is more aware than most that the Serbs started this conflict with at least 10 times as much military hardware and ammunition supplies as the Muslims. I therefore ask my right hon. and learned Friend the question that I asked our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last November: is it not unprecedented for the United Nations to impose an arms embargo on the victim of military aggression—in this case, the Bosnian Muslims?
Do not the Government see that the inevitable consequence of the present policy is that ethnic cleansing and genocide will continue, because nothing whatsoever is being done by the international community to stop it? Has not the time come to get the Russians on side in this matter at the United Nations, and to threaten the Serbs with selective air strikes in the event that they do not sign up for a ceasefire and the Vance-Owen plan?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct in that, at the beginning of the conflict, the Bosnian Serbs had a preponderance of the military equipment that they inherited from the old Yugoslav armed forces. However, he should take into account the fact that this conflict is not simply an act of aggression by one faction against another. It is the consequence of the collapse of Yugoslavia and the
836
development of a conflict within Bosnia among three sections of the community—all of which are Bosnian—which has many of the characteristics of a civil war.
Although I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of keeping Russian support for the actions of the United Nations—it is necessary if there is to be agreement within the Security Council—I do not believe that that support would be forthcoming for the military strikes that he has simultaneously proposed. He has to choose one or the other: he cannot expect a policy of military intervention to receive Russian support in the Security Council.
Mr. Tony Banks: Before the United Nations has to go into the ranks of the Conservative party to keep the warring sides apart, will the Secretary of State agree that Margaret Thatcher at least articulated the deep anger and frustration that many people in this country feel about the inability of European Community powers to do anything about the situation in Bosnia? Is it not time to consider giving an ultimatum to the Serbian Government that, unless they are able to bring the Bosnian Serbs to account, there will be strikes against military targets inside Serbia in order to cut off the supply of arms from Serbia to the Bosnian Serbs?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion, which is similiar to that made by my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher, would fundamentally change the role of the United Nations. The United Nations would then become, consciously and deliberately, a combatant in that war. Although I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman puts forward that view with knowledge of the implications, he must also realise that that would not only terminate the humanitarian efforts of the United Nations, including those of the United Kingdom, but would fundamentally change the whole nature of international involvement in that war, without any certainty or likelihood that it would bring an earlier end to the conflict in question.
Mr. Barry Porter: I am grateful for the compliments paid by my right hon. and learned Friend to the Cheshire battalion group in Bosnia. I agree with the general thrust of his statement, but does he not think that there is a ghastly parallel between the feebleness of the United Nations' stance today and that of the League of Nations, some 60 years ago, against expansionism? I do not know the answer, but it is there and we ought to start to look for it. We cannot find it by military intervention at the moment, but we must start to look beyond sanctions and find another method; otherwise, we shall go through exactly what we went through 60 years ago.
Mr. Rifkind: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comparison. When there is a conflict, whether it be the conflict in Bosnia or the Spanish civil war in the 1930s, for example, it is incredibly difficult for the international community to make a meaningful contribution towards ending it. The difference since the second world war is that, when a sovereign country is invaded by a foreign power, the United Nations, as we saw in the Gulf, is remarkably more successful than the League of Nations in the previous period. My hon. Friend has to take that fact into account when making historical comparisons.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Although many people may not agree with the solutions proposed by

837
Baroness Thatcher, I believe that she struck a chord when she expressed her sentiments about the horror of ethnic cleansing and the systematic rape and driving of women and children from their homes. The Secretary of State has been reluctant to contemplate limited air strikes against Bosnian Serbs in Serbia, but he has been careful not to rule them out completely. In what circumstances can he foresee limited air strikes being used?
Mr. Rifkind: I have already said that the use of air power in certain circumstances can be relevant, and that we are using it at the moment to enforce the no-fly zone. As to the hon. Gentleman's question whether air power could be used in some other way, that is not in itself an ethical question. It is a question whether, in the circumstances proposed, it would produce the benefit that has been identified by those who advocate it.
Our judgment is that that would not be the case, having regard to the proposals currently being made. It would not only destroy the humanitarian effort of the United Nations but would transform the United Nation's role. That, it seems to us, would not be in accordance with the objectives we seek.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is just over a year since Her Majesty's Government, in common with many other Governments, recognised Bosnia as an independent sovereign state; that during that year 2 million or more people have been displaced; that well over 100,000 people have been killed; that the killing still goes on; and that there is continued evidence of Serbian involvement, from Serbia itself, in these atrocities? Does my right hon. and learned Friend also accept that, today, the Bosnian Government are ethnically mixed, and that, whatever their shortcomings, they are far more democratic than the Government of that other nation, Kuwait, to whose aid we rightly went?
Mr. Rifkind: Although my hon. Friend is correct when he says that Bosnia is an independent state which has been recognised by the international community, the fact is that those who are involved in the combat within Bosnia are themselves Bosnian citizens—Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Muslims—and that they are all involved in this carnage against one another. Until my hon. Friend comes to terms with that fact, it is not possible to think of this as simply an international war of the kind that he has occasionally sought to portray.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: In the discussions that I had with Dr. Karadzic at the end of last year, he claimed that he had made an offer to the United Nations to provide it with the facility to have monitors at every command post of the Bosnian Serb army and at every Bosnian Serb airfield. Why has that offer not been taken up? That would be less precarious and risky for our 2,800 troops who are there now than their present position. That facility could have determined precisely who pulled the trigger first and fired shells at Srebrenica. Why do we not take up Dr. Karadzic's offer and put United Nations monitors in place?
Mr. Rifkind: As I recollect it, Dr. Karadzic made that proposal as a way of avoiding an enforcement resolution for the no-fly zone proposals. Since then, for the first time,
838
Dr. Karadzic's supporters—the Bosnian Serbs—have introduced Bosnian Serb combat aircraft over the Bosnian skies. That is why it was necessary for the Security Council to pass the enforcement resolution, which is now being implemented by NATO on the United Nations' behalf.
Mr. Harold Elletson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the quickest available short cut to a general Balkan war and an escalation of the conflict far beyond the borders of Yugoslavia would be to bomb Serbian positions? Will he therefore treat the recent comments of Baroness Thatcher with the contempt that they deserve?
Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly important that we do all within our power to prevent the internationalisation of the crisis in Bosnia. That must be an objective in the interests of the whole world. I believe that bombing Serbia would exacerbate the situation in a way that would be unlikely to bring peace to that part of the world any earlier.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State realise how widespread the disappointment will be throughout the country that he has again used this opportunity to nail his colours so firmly to the fence? How many more millions of people must be driven from their homes and tens of thousands of people killed before the Government propose a policy commensurate with the genocide that we are witnessing?
Mr. Rifkind: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I was waiting to hear which policy he would propose. He knows that, sadly, there are many such wars going on around the world at the present time—in Angola, in Cambodia and in Azerbaijan—as well as in Bosnia.
Mr. Field: This is in Europe.
Mr. Rifkind: I am not aware of any ethical distinction between a war in Bosnia and a war in Angola or Cambodia. If the hon. Gentleman is appealing to the Government on moral grounds, it is a curious moral distinction that is prepared to tolerate conflict in other parts of the world but not in Bosnia. Unless he has specific proposals that have not already been considered, I ask him to realise that the options that are being advanced by some of his hon. Friends are not, in our judgment, likely to produce the results that he and Conservative Members would like to see.
Mr. Peter Fry: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there will be widespread support for taking care not to risk the lives of British service men? Does he further accept that, throughout the country and across party divides, there is growing concern about the dilemma of where we are going and how we shall deal with this appalling problem? On the one hand we appear to be refusing to allow Bosnian Muslims to be adequately armed, but on the other hand the United Nations, by not using force, is denying those Muslims the right to defence. While their territory is continually being reduced, more and more of them are being slaughtered.
Is there no point at which the Government and the United Nations will say that enough is enough? We must say that or get out completely, because the ultimate result of the war will be many more thousands killed. The British people understand the Government's point of view but are a little ashamed that we have not been able to do enough to save the lives of many innocent people.
Mr. Rifkind: We would all be anxious to do more if proposals were identified that would help to achieve the aims that my hon. Friend and I, and all other hon. Members, share. My hon. Friend says that we should tell the Bosnian Serbs, "Enough is enough," or that we should pull out from Bosnia entirely. In practice, that would mean pulling out the 2,500 British forces who have taken thousands of tonnes of aid to rescue many Bosnians, from all communities, from the starvation that they would have faced over the winter months.
In recent weeks, we have seen how United Nations forces have been helping refugees by taking people to safe places away from the war zone. It may not be the most heroic policy and may not resolve the overall problems in Bosnia, but to say that, because we cannot achieve all we would like, we must resign ourselves to doing nothing, is a counsel of despair, and not one that would commend itself to the House or the country.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there has been a shift of opinion, certainly across the country and in the House in recent months? I was among those who argued six or eight months ago against any form of military intervention. However, in view of the continued slaughter of innocent Bosnian civilians, is it not clear that far greater pressure must be placed on the Serbian leadership and military commanders? To a certain extent, one can draw an analogy with the ruler of Baghdad.
Is it not the case that the Serbs continue their aggression, war crimes and atrocities because they know that no force will be used to stop them? Whether Lady Thatcher is right or wrong, are we to be appeasers in the face of some of the worst crimes in Europe since the end of the second world war?
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw parallels with the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and the occupation of Kuwait, he should reflect on the fact that Kuwait and the Iraqi forces in Kuwait were subject to the largest strikes of air power for a sustained period of weeks, if not months, that the world had ever known, but that those strikes did not achieve the desired effect. They did not lead to the withdrawal of a single Iraqi soldier from the Gulf. It was only when a massive international coalition army went in on the ground that we achieved the liberation of Kuwait. Therefore, people who argue for selective air strikes must ponder whether that is likely to achieve the result that they have in mind.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: Although I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his measured response to those who want further military involvement, what evidence does he have that the no-fly zone, fully implemented, will have any effect on ground fighting in the area? Is there not a danger that the escalation of the involvement of NATO and others could encourage those who believe that, if they make enough noise, more support will be given and that we will be drawn in gradually, which could be dangerous in the future?
Mr. Rifkind: The purpose of the no-fly zone is to ensure that the United Nations resolution of some months ago, banning the use of Bosnian aircraft by any of the fighting parties, should be implemented. We had considerable doubts and reservations about the wisdom or necessity of
840
a no-fly zone enforcement resolution but those concerns became irrelevant when some weeks ago the Bosnian Serbs for the first time decided to reintroduce combat aircraft into Bosnia. Once they had done that, it became inevitable and necessary for the United Nations to enforce its own resolution. That is what the NATO operation, at the behest of the United Nations, is doing at the moment.
Mr. Mike Gapes: What representations are being made to the Russian Government at the moment to ensure that they change their attitude to the enforcement of sanctions in the next two weeks? What action is being taken within the European Community to stop the flouting of sanctions via the Danube, which has been going on for months? Why has it taken so long for air exclusion zones to be imposed when they were being talked about several months ago? Why is it only now that people are talking about truly enforcing sanctions, when we knew last summer that they were being broken?
Mr. Rifkind: The increase in sanctions currently being considered by the Security Council includes the stricter monitoring of the Danube. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is of course making strong representations to his Russian colleagues. I remind the hon. Gentleman what I told the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark): the current resolution allows for a 15-day period before any new Security Council sanction enforcement measures would apply but, if there is any delay because of the Russians, it may not be necessary to have that 15-day period after the passing of the resolution. Therefore, there may be no time lost as a result of the current Russian position.
Mr. Derek Conway: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will acknowledge that none the less there is widespread anger in the community when we watch the reports that most of us saw yesterday. Does he accept, however, that he stands at the Dispatch Box not to express emotion and anger but to exercise his realistic judgment, and that the reasoned stand that he has taken today has the full support of the House? Will he please explain to the House the effect of deploying air power alone, as opposed to the use of air power with massive ground troop reinforcement, which some have urged—some of us believe unrealistically—on the nation?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. Of course, there can be circumstances in which air power by itself can achieve a desired result—for instance, if there is a particular target that can be identified, taken out from the air and eliminated. But in general, the use of air power as we have seen it exercised over the years has been to soften up a target that can then de dealt with by forces on the ground.
I know that my hon. Friend shares my view that, in the context of the terrain with which the Royal Air Force and other air forces would have to deal in Bosnia, it is difficult to believe that targets, including mobile artillery in heavily forested country, could easily be picked out and eliminated by the selective use of air power. At the end of the day, unless ground forces are also used, it is difficult to believe that such an operation could have more than a limited effect.
Mr. John Gunnell: Does the Secretary of State accept that considerable unhappiness has been expressed on both sides of the House about

841
policies which will in effect give comfort to the Serbs when they listen to, or hear about, our discussion? We have ruled out certain action, and that decision has had support, but we have been given no suggestion of extra action. It is clear that, for the very reasons with which the Secretary of State started his statement, our present policies are ineffective. He referred to yesterday's shelling and——
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a question.
Mr. Gunnell: I am coming to the question, Madam Speaker.
As extra pressure has been mentioned, what extra pressure can in practice be brought to bear on the Serbs? It is imperative that, when they are redoubling their efforts to take more land, we adopt practical measures to curb them—[Interruption.] I should like the Secretary of State to say——
Madam Speaker: Order. I call the Secretary of State.
Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in the past week the United Nations has for the first time taken effective measures to prevent the use of air space by Bosnian Serbian combat aircraft. In the Security Council, we are currently discussing a substantial tightening of the economic sanctions that have already devastated the Serbian economy. No doubt other measures, which we hope will contribute to the result that we all wish to see achieved, will be considered.
Several hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: We are now moving to the second statement. I had hoped to call more hon. Members to question the Secretary of State, and would have been able to do so if Members had put direct questions and not made such long statements.

Competition
4.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about strengthening the law to curb anti-competitive practices in the marketplace.
Last November my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced to the House the publication of a Green Paper on "Abuse of Market Power" which outlined three possible options for strengthening the law. Those options were to strengthen the existing legislation, to replace it with a prohibition, or to run the two systems in parallel.
We received 143 responses to the Green Paper. Copies of a summary of them have been placed in the Vote Office. There was no consensus amongst those who responded on which of the options represented the best way forward. Each of the options received roughly equal support. This contrasts with the overwhelming support for introducing a prohibition on restrictive trade practices. I can assure the House that the Government remain committed to introducing such a prohibition when legislative time permits.
Having carefully considered the arguments advanced for and against each of the options, the Government have decided that the best choice is to strengthen the existing system. With this strengthened regime we can retain the current wide scope and flexibility of powers without increasing the regulatory burden on firms.
It is proposed to strengthen the current legislation in four ways: stronger powers of investigation; additional scope for enforceable undertakings; provision of interim orders to suspend anti-competitive practices; and some coverage of property rights. Stronger investigative powers for the Director General of Fair Trading should enable him to establish more quickly whether there should be a full-scale investigation.
The director general currently has discretion to accept enforceable undertakings in lieu of a Competition Act reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is proposed to extend this ability to enable him to accept such undertakings, subject to suitable safeguards, before his formal investigation under the Competition Act, and in lieu of a monopoly reference under the Fair Trading Act 1973. Breaches of these undertakings would be enforceable in the courts. This proposal received considerable support from respondents.
The Green Paper suggested that companies might be made liable for penalties and damages from the point at which an MMC reference was made if they continued with a practice that was subsequently found to be against the public interest. A number of respondents argued that would be unjust and that it might lead a company to abandon a practice that was later found not to be against the public interest. That argument is accepted. But there can be cases in which immediate action is necessary. We therefore intend to take up the suggestion made by some respondents that we should be able to make interim orders under the Competition Act. These would prohibit specified activities by a firm if there was good reason to believe that a competitor, customer or supplier ran the risk of suffering serious damage during the period of the MMC's investigation.

843
The Green Paper considered the very limited scope of both the Fair Trading Act and the Competition Act to deal with competition problems concerning property rights. Fundamental change is not proposed in this area, but it is important to be able to deal with some limited situations in which specific property rights—for example, rights of access—are exercised in a way that damages competition. We shall hold further discussions with interested parties to resolve how best to deal with those problems.
As regards the other options in the Green Paper, the Government are not convinced that a compelling case for repealing the current legislation and replacing it with a prohibition on abuse of market power has been made. Nor are we convinced that such a prohibition should be added on top of the existing monopoly controls.
It is clear from the consultation that a prohibition would increase the regulatory burden on companies and introduce uncertainty for business. Despite experience of EC law, the identificatiiton of abuses of market power in many cases remains a matter of fine judgment. It can be very difficult to assess in advance what will be regarded as anti-competitive and what as acceptable business behaviour. That inherent uncertainty, coupled with the possibility of fines and private actions, could run the risk of inhibiting rather than promoting competition. In contrast, restrictive agreements can be more readily defined and prohibited, as set out in the 1989 White Paper.
When my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade introduced the Green Paper to the House last November, a number of hon. Members raised particular areas of concern, such as relations between the high street banks and business customers. In addition, a number of the Green Paper responses that supported a prohibition implied that this support was conditional on the prohibition being able to deal with alleged unfair practices in their particular markets. One of the tests we applied when considering the various options was the extent to which they would be able to meet those concerns. The conclusion is that a prohibition would bite on fewer market situations than our present legislation does. That is especially true in markets in which there is more than one major player.
The changes I have outlined today will enable us to build on the strengths of the existing legislation. commend them to the House as they will provide the
benefits of vigorous competition without stifling wealth creation. It is intended to include the changes in legislation to introduce the prohibition on restrictive trade practices.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the Minister understand that consumers will be disappointed that the Government have accepted the most timid of the three options set out in the Green Paper? Can he explain, for instance, why the Government have rejected the advice of the Consumers Association, which favoured clear prohibitions arid substantial penalties for breaching them, and full rights for third-party redress?
Why have the Government failed to deal with the shortcomings in the existing legislation, which the President of the Board of Trade himself identified in his November statement? Why, for example, are there no penalties for past misconduct—a weakness which the President of the Board of Trade referred to in that statement?
In what ways will the Minister's statement help small businesses that complain about the abuse of market power
844
by the high street banks? Is it not true that not a single small business will be helped by the Minister's statement today? Is it not the case that, after five months, we have again had words from the Minister but no action to help small businesses?
Would the Minister's statement in any way have changed the refusal by the President of the Board of Trade to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the hostile bid by Airtours for Owners Abroad? Will the Government be under any obligation after today's statement to accept the advice of the Office of Fair Trading? Why give additional powers of investigation when there is no need for the Government to accept the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading or the Director General of Fair Trading?
Not once in his statement did the Minister refer to the interests or wishes of consumers. In adopting the option that has been announced, the Government can be accused of putting vested interests before the interests of consumers. This Government do not represent consumers' interests.
Mr. Hamilton: As a representative of a party that cannot even change its constitution, clause 4 of which advocates statutory monopolies throughout the country, the hon. Gentleman makes an unconvincing proponent of competition.
Let me answer the questions that the hon. Gentleman has put to me. In deciding which of the three options to adopt—principally, of course, in consumers' interests—we had to consider what would ultimately be likely to benefit consumers. We concluded that to introduce an unnecessarily complex, burdensome and bureaucratic system which, in certain circumstances, might stifle rather than enhance competition would not ultimately be to the benefit of consumers.
We decided instead to build upon the strength of the existing system—which, in my opinion, has been very effective over the years in defending the interests of consumers—and to plug certain gaps and close certain loopholes in that system. That is precisely what we have done: we have opted for certainty and flexibility; for the least burdensome option; and to build upon a system that is regarded as largely effective.
The Consumers Association principally wanted to ensure that we introduced a system that was certain and simple to understand. The option that the association selected—option 3—would have been the most complex and confusing of the various options. That is why we decided against it.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the practices, which have been widely criticised, adopted by the banks. We are dealing here with the abuse of market power—in particular, in circumstances where one company has a large share of the market and abuses the power that that large share gives it. That is not the case with banks, which are already covered by the existing competition legislation.
Under the Fair Trading Act, a complex monopoly occurs where companies together act in a way that is contrary to the interests of consumers or against the public interest, in circumstances where those companies together have more than 25 per cent. of the market. It is perfectly open to anyone aggrieved by the practice adopted by the banks at present to make a complaint to the Office of Fair

845
Trading, which can consider the matter. If the complaint appears to have substance, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission can be brought into play.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Airtours bid. I cannot in any way speculate as to what the outcome of any application might have been if the law had been different. What I can say is that the President of the Board of Trade decided in the circumstances of the case—which was widely regarded as being a matter for fine judgment—that there was no case for investigation. The curious outcome—at which the hon. Gentleman may be rather surprised—is that the market, having been allowed to work in those circumstances, has reduced the level of uncertainty for the company that did not wish to be bid for. Hence the most speedy outcome has been determined as a consequence of the President's decision.
Mr. Dennis Skinner:: Come on.
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is complaining about the fact that I am treating the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) seriously. I know that the hon. Member for Bolsover does not treat his Opposition Front-Bench colleagues seriously, but I, at least, am paying them that compliment.
The official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, asked whether we should have changed the legislation to make it a requirement that Ministers should accept the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. There would be no point in giving Ministers advice if they were obliged to accept it as it would not then be advice. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to remove his opportunity to hold Ministers accountable for the decisions of competition authorities. I do not know whether everyone would agree with that.
Mr. Rupert Allason: While I welcome the extension of investigatory powers under fair trading and competition legislation, does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that what he has announced this afternoon will be no consolation to the customers of high street banks who believe that they have been bilked by banks over the past two years? Does he also accept that his announcement will be no consolation to water ratepayers, particularly those in the south-west who will be paying increased charges of more than 16 per cent. this year? Frankly, water ratepayers have no confidence in the regulatory authorities or in Ofwat. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to give them some words of comfort?
Mr. Hamilton: All I can say to my hon. Friend is what I said to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central a moment ago. With regard to the banks, our current competition legislation is apt to cover the kinds of circumstances about which my hon. Friend complains. If the Director General of Fair Trading formed the view that certain practices were contrary to the public interest, he could make a recommendation that the matter should be investigated by the MMC. So far, he has chosen not to do that.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the water industry, like all the privatised utilities, is subject to a significant degree of regulation in the interests of consumers. The Director General of Water Services has power to consider all matters that might adversely affect the interests of
846
consumers and to take the necessary action accordingly. Once again, it is not for me to second-guess the decisions of the Director General of Water Services. However, it is open to anyone who is aggrieved to take a case to the director general and make the argument for it.
Mr. Alex Carlile: The elegant but labyrinthine language of the Minister's statement has left many of us and some consumer groups puzzled. Why will the weakest of the three options stop some of the inexcusable bullying by large companies of smaller emerging companies? Why have the Government not taken the second or third option in the Green Paper—for a prohibition regime of a type which works extremely well in numerous other countries and which is the norm in the rest of the European Community?
Mr. Hamilton: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman's hearing aid must be defective. I have already answered that question twice. We have chosen the option that is likely to be the least burdensome and least costly and to build upon the effectiveness of the existing system.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my hon. Friend assure me that the way in which his proposals will impact on small and medium-sized businesses will not increase bureaucracy, paperwork and regulation and that small and medium-sized businesses have something to look forward to under the proposals?
Mr. Hamilton: I think that I can confirm what my hon. Friend has asked. As Minister responsible for the deregulation initiative, I had very much in mind the impact of costs upon businesses. We must consider the proportionality of what we do in the House by way of imposing legislative burdens. For very small improvements in consumer benefits, we might impose significant costs on companies which, ultimately, have to be borne by consumers as well.
Mr. Bill Etherington: As the Minister has taken a fairly soft option, and as we are all aware that where there is no competition, such as in the nationalised industries which have now become private monopolies, we rely on the regulator, which, in my view, is little better than a panacea to keep the public happy, what is the position if we have a regulator like Professor Littlechild, who has brought the art of slothfulness almost to the point of atrophy and has led to the destruction of the coal industry? Will the legislation do anything to prevent such a dreadful recurrence, as we have seen in this incident?
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has an impressive command of polysyllables but a rather less sure grasp of the legislation which governs privatised utilities. I doubt whether the privatised utilities would share his opinion that the director generals who are responsible for their operations are weak or ineffective. I am fairly certain that British Gas does not take that view.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Does my hon. Friend agree that small businesses, especially sole traders, often feel that they are penalised by larger companies? I appreciate and welcome my hon. Friend's statement today. Will he ensure that large companies which are found guilty under the new proposals are required by statute to publish in their annual reports where they have been found wanting?
Mr. Hamilton: That is an interesting suggestion which I have not heard from anyone else. As the Minister responsible for company law, I shall give consideration to it.
Mr. Skinner: The Minister must think that we have dropped off a Christmas tree if he thinks that we believe all the mumbo-jumbo which he has trotted out today, especially when we consider fair trading against the background of petrol stations rigging their prices and banks ripping off customers. Prices are rigged in the Common Market, lawyers fix their fees to extortionate heights and nuclear power is subsidised by £.1.3 billion to the detriment of coal—and the Minister asks us to believe that he is talking about fair trading. Take it back and chuck it in the dustbin.
Mr. Hamilton: I do not know which specific ornament the hon. Gentleman would be on the Christmas tree. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) suggests that the hon. Gentleman would be the fairy at the top. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's weighty opinion in this area, as in all others, will be treated by the House with the degree of importance which it deserves.
Mr. John Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend accept that the fact that little evidence has been produced of a significant abuse of market power by private sector companies which are not already subject to the oversight of a specific regulator suggests that the present system is generally working well? Is there not a risk that a more significant amendment to the law, such as that involved in options 2 and 3, would add to the bureaucratic burden on firms to little benefit?
Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Many of the complaints of small businesses in particular relate more to inequality of bargaining power rather than to an abuse of a dominant position. That is a much more difficult question to deal with, and it is not one which was addressed by the Green Paper.
Mr. Alan Williams: Can the Minister tell us whether the policy announced today will have any effect on the beam in the Government's eye? I am sure that he is aware that many firms absolutely depend on contracts from the Ministry of Defence. Does he realise that such contracts are placed through a division of the Property Services Agency, which is forcing firms to forgo their right to payment within 30 days and requiring them to accept that they will be paid only when the Property Services Agency has been paid by the Ministry of Defence? That is an abuse of market power which conflicts with what the Chancellor promised in the 1922 Budget and in which Ministers are conspiring.
Mr. Hamilton: It would have been less of a problem if there had been a Labour Government because there would have been fewer defence contracts for small suppliers. A Labour Government would have made swingeing reductions in defence expenditure, despite the crocodile tears which Labour Members now shed at the outcome of "Options for Change".
With regard to the specific question about late payment, the Government are committed to paying their bills in due time, and that goes for their main contractors
848
as well. We hope that main contractors will impose the same terms on sub-contractors because we take seriously the question of late payment of debt.
A number of other measures have been proposed recently. As the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) knows, we have a consultation paper outstanding on whether we should have some sort of statement or audit of the payment practices of companies published in annual reports and accounts. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us the benefit of his views on that matter.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the private monopolies that have come out of the public utilities will be subject to the terms of the statement? Is he aware that the charges of South West Water amount now to an additional 18 per cent.? That is the result of the National Rivers Authority—the regulatory authority—demanding higher and higher standards faster and faster. I found my hon. Friend's statement helpful, but does he agree that the private monopoly—in this instance, South West Water—is abusing its power? It has no choice, but it is costing Devon and Cornwall water charge payers an arm and a leg.
Mr. Hamilton: The principal reason for water charges having to rise by more than the rate of inflation is that the Labour Government cut substantially water authorities' capital programmes. I note that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside is on the Government Front Bench. I am sure that he would confirm that we are now having to catch up, in effect, because of the Labour Government's failures during the 1970s.
I do not know the details of South West Water's charges. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend the Minister of State heard what my hon. Friend said.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister's statement give any comfort to those in the pharmaceutical industry who have been concerned about the practice of one of the major manufacturers?
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's question is rather cryptic. I am not aware——
Rev. Martin Smyth: I have written to the Minister about the matter.
Mr. Hamilton: I understand. His question takes up the case that he has set out in correspondence with me. The proposals that are set out in the Green Paper are not designed—[Interruption.] As the hon. Gentleman did not identify the case, I was not certain whether he was referring to the one that I now fully recollect.
Mr. Skinner: Has the Minister written to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth)?
Mr. Hamilton: I have done more than that: I have discussed the matter with the hon. Member for Belfast, South.
The case which the hon. Gentleman raised with me in correspondence is not apt to be considered in the circumstances that are set out in the Green Paper, which concern the abuse of a dominant position, especially when one producer has a position in the market which enables him to oppress the smaller operators within it.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I add my welcome for my hon. Friend's excellent statement. Will he confirm that the option that he has chosen will not cause a rash of third party actions, which would be expensive for industry and commerce, would slow down the decision-making process and would not necessarily add anything to the existing excellent regime for competition?
Mr. Hamilton: I can confirm that. As a lawyer, albeit one who has retired into public life, I am rather surprised by the stance taken by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). As I understand it, he believes that there should be a right of private actions. That would lead to a bonanza for lawyers and would impose significant costs on companies. Ultimately it would not be in the interests of consumers.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one who went with the Amalgamated Engineering Union and its lawyers before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as a witness in the case of the Atlas steel foundry, I was impressed by its method of operation. However, in factory situations of a sort that might arise in any constituency, there is a need to be a bit quicker. Events in factories overtake the MMC whatever it wanted to do in the first place.
I asked the Minister a question that arises from paragraph 13 of the Department of Trade and Industry's paper on intellectual property rights, which states:
"intellectual property rights were adequately dealt with in existing legislation. 4 of these"—
the respondents—
"favoured intellectual property rights being covered by a general prohibition, with three saying that the role of the Copyright Tribunal would then need to be reviewed."
Does the Minister agree with those respondents? Does he think that there should be a review and extension of the work of the crucially important Copyright Tribunal?
Mr. Hamilton: That is a matter for my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I shall draw my hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the fact that virtually the only monopolies operating in Britain in recent history were those set up and sanctioned in the public sectors by Labour Governments, that the Labour party has consistently opposed every attempt to introduce competition, ranging from trying to prevent consumers even from having a choice of telephone to proposing any competition on the domestic routes of
850
British Airways, that nothing is more certain than that the Labour party will support vested interests, as it did recently when we were dealing with the coal industry, does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members have a cheek to pose in the Chamber as the champions of consumers?
Mr. Hamilton: Yes, they have, but it comes as no surprise.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is it not heart-warming to see so many converts on the Tory Benches this afternoon—Tory Members who are now against the privatisation of the water industry, a measure for which they all voted? They are now complaining about the extortionate prices, salaries and dividends that are now being charged, drawn and distributed.
Is it not right that the Minister has taken the soft option, recognising in passing that some regulation is necessary, that capitalism and free markets do not work by themselves and that the Government must intervene—but not too far, as that would expose the nasty, villainous tactics that many big businesses pursue?
Why do the Government have these double standards? There are no soft options for those who are on income support or for those on the lowest of incomes. For those people there are comprehensive regulations and criminal penalties. Why cannot there be the same approach to big businesses? Is the answer that big businesses know very well that, if they make plenty of large donations to the Tory party, they can get away with whatever they want?
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman performs a most valuable function by reminding us what the Labour party is really like.
Mr. Barry Porter: To wrap this up, I am delighted that my hon. Friend has opted for certainty. I do not think that I am alone, however, in saying that I am rather uncertain about what that certainty is. I am not sure what the targets are at which he is aiming. It might be helpful if he would explain to me in what sector I should sell shares—if I had any, which I have not—and, if I intended to invest, which I do not, what shares I should buy.
Mr. Hamilton: I have many functions to perform as an Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry. Fortunately, financial services, which used to be my responsibility, have gone to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I shall direct my hon. Friend's question to him. I am sure that his advice would be better than mine, in any event.

Points of Order
4.47 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I wish to raise with you. Madam Speaker, on a point of order, a matter which I submit affects the rights and privileges of the House.
I wrote in October 1992 to the Secretary of State for Social Security about a case that concerned a disabled child in my constituency. The right hon. Gentleman replied to me more than two months later, saying that the case was being dealt with. I wrote to him again in February because, after more than four months, the case had not been dealt with and settled. As he did not reply, I tabled a question for answer on 1 April in which I asked him when he intended to reply to my letter. There was a response from the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People. The Minister stated that he understood that I had
"already received from the Benefits Agency a reply both to my earlier letter and to my question."
I had not received that reply, but a little later I did receive it. The letter came from a person called Ann Robinson, director of policy and planning. It began extremely ungrammatically by saying
"As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is the responsibility of Mr. Michael Bichard to answer questions on relevant operational matters."
The letter continues:
"However, as Mr. Bichard is away at the moment: I am replying on his behalf to your recent Parliamentary Question."
A non-Member was writing that she was replying to a question that I had tabled to a Minister and to which the Minister had not replied. I submit, Madam Speaker, that when hon. Members table questions to Ministers, they have a right to expect answers from Ministers. Furthermore, it is not open to someone who is not a Member to purport to reply to a question from a Member by saying:
"I am replying … to your recent Parliamentary Question."
Ann Robinson ended her letter:
"I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.—[Official Report, 1 April 1993; Vol. 222, c. 421.]
Here is a non-Member saying, purporting, claiming, that she can arrange for a reply to be published in the Official Report and for a copy to be placed in the Library when she herself has no right to enter the Library of the House of Commons.
The matter affects the right of every Member of Parliament to table a question to a Minister and to receive a Minister's reply. Also, someone who is not a Member of Parliament must not be permitted to state that she is replying to a parliamentary question or that she is arranging for a reply to appear in the Official Report and to be placed in the Library.
The matter IS for the House. It is a question not of my dispute with a Minister over policy or individual cases, but of whether Members of Parliament who table questions have the undeniable right to obtain answers from
852
Ministers and of ensuring that those outside the House are not permitted to usurp the rights of the House of Commons.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am also concerned about Ministers having all the power and the glory and no responsibility. As for writing to a Minister for information and being referred to a chief executive, you, Madam Speaker, rightly said that you are not responsible for what is said by a Minister in the House. However, could you rule on whether a Secretary of State or other Minister would be responsible for anything said by chief executives of all the quangos that the Government have created?
Mr. Bob Cryer: rose——
Madam Speaker: Order. I intend to answer those two points of order, and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may be satisfied when he hears my response.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for giving me notice of his point of order, on an issue about which the right hon. Gentleman has previously expressed concern. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Ministers remain fully accountable for the work of their Departments, including that of executive agencies. It is for the Minister concerned to decide whether or not to refer a question to the chief executive of an agency for a detailed answer.
Since last October, following a recommendation from the Administration Committee, such answers have been printed in the Official Report. The Benefits Agency operates in exactly the same way as other agencies. Right hon. and hon. Members are able to table questions about its work and to seek an Adjournment debate on particular issues—as did the right hon. Member for Gorton just before Easter. However, I will look further into the matter.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further points of order. I gave a ruling and said that I would look further into the matter. We ought to leave it at that, unless the hon. Gentleman has a point of order on a different matter.
Mr. Cryer: It is, Madam Speaker. As you know, the Government are extending the system whereby chief executives reply to questions about the prison service. I ask you to consider whether it should be necessary for the House—not the Government—to agree to any extension by means, for example, of an affirmative resolution. Then at least the decision to extend that power would be in the hands of the House, not the Executive.
Madam Speaker: I have already made a statement, and I told the right hon. Gentleman that I was taking the matter no further at this stage.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    WELFARE OF ANIMALS AT MARKETS
    Sir Richard Body presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of lambs of under twenty eight days of age at auction markets: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 23 April, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]

Coastal Waters (Water Quality Standards) (Costs)
4.53 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the costs of maintaining and improving water quality in coastal waters to be a collective charge on sewerage undertakings; to establish a scheme for determining such costs and their allocation between undertakings; and for connected purposes.
There is in progress in the United Kingdom the greatest clean-up of our coastal water ever undertaken, and it arises directly from the many years of neglect which went before. Change finally comes about because of the EC bathing waters directive, which requires 455 of the United Kingdom's beaches to be brought up to standard, and 130 of them lie in the area of South West Water—a larger number than in any other water company area. It means that 32 per cent. of all the beaches in the United Kingdom covered by the directive are to be found in the south-west.
That those beaches are brought up to standard should be cause for national celebration, but for the people of Teignbridge and the south-west such celebration has become a regional nightmare. What should clearly be a national responsibility is being funded on a local basis. The cost of cleaning up one third of the nation's beaches is being met by just 1£5 million people—or more exactly, the 650,000 paying customers who already receive bills which are on average 35 per cent. higher than in the rest of Britain and which are due to go far higher still.
It will not stop there. We can expect ever-increasing demands to upgrade our water still further. Standards which may be acceptable now will not be acceptable in the 21st century. If we do not rectify the cost mechanism now, the situation will get progressively worse.
The typical south-west domestic household charge of £230 per year will reach £400 at the end of the decade. For many people in an area of relatively high rateable values, those charges can go higher still. Operation Cleansweep is set to cost £2 billion over the next 10 years—expenditure of something like £4 million per week. To fund that, Ofwat has allowed an increase for the current year of inflation plus a staggering 11·5 per cent. The effect of that formula is that bills have risen more than 40 per cent. in just three years. Let us consider those who have to shoulder those bills in practice. The south-west has a high proportion of elderly, retired people. Just under 26 per cent. of Teignbridge's population are of retirement age, and a great many other people are on the threshold of retirement. Those people have, for the most part, worked hard all their working lives and are now slightly above the income support rate. They are not in the business of asking for state handouts. Their generation and that of their parents have served this country well, yet they see their income slashed by the fall in interest rates. They recoil in horror at the prospect of value added tax on their heating costs. Now, in the autumn of their years, they are faced with costs that they cannot control on the one ingredient that they cannot live without. One can economise on most things. One may be able to make savings on gas and electricity, but for the vast majority of people, savings in water consumption which lead to a reduction in costs are literally impossible.
854
Let there be no doubt that the south-west is unique. It has the highest charges in the country. The Anglian authority the next highest—has an average charge of £227·5p as opposed to £227·84p, but when one considers the proportion of that which is the sewerage charge, the south-west has the highest charge, at £134£58p as opposed to £120·97 for the next highest charger, Anglian Water. Anglia also has a very different age profile from the south-west. In terms also of average gross weekly earnings, Anglia has within it some of the country's wealthiest counties. By contrast, Devon and Cornwall together are, by that measure, the poorest region of all. By comparison, a largely inland authority such as Thames Water produces a total bill of £138·78, of which the sewerage charge amounts to just £69·39.
The cost of cleaning up the nation's coast should be met on a national basis. No one suggests that the cost of maintaining the Royal Navy should be met on a local basis. It is funded nationally. My Bill would do the same for water by providing for the sewerage element to be equalised across all water authorities.
In so doing, my Bill hardly breaks new ground. As long ago as 1638, John Hampden challenged his obligation to pay taxes to protect the coasts from the attention of Barbary corsairs. One ground for his challenge was that he lived in an inland area. He failed at that time and he deserved to fail. In proposing this mechanism for what threatens our coast today, I am hardly breaking new ground. I am relying on a British sense of fairness.
What objections could there be to my suggestion? Is it sufficient to say that since local people benefit, local people must pay? Can we just glibly remark that because it is good for tourism, it must be good for the local people? Tell that to the many hundreds of people who have written to me about this. Better still, tell it to a 70-year-old widow who receives a retirement pension increase of £10·64 per month to meet increases in council tax and water charges of £11·71. She is not topping up her swimming pool with new squeaky clean water or spending her leisure hours wind-surfing her way around the south-west. It would be stupefyingly complacent merely to reply that water industry investment to raise environmental standards means that charges must rise in real terms, and to suggest that that statement should be the end of the argument.
There will inevitably be those who say that the situation shows that privatisation was wrong all along. In fact, it shows no such thing. Failure to invest in water quality and to face up to the massive pollution that civilisation generates goes back a full hundred years and beyond. Privatisation has enabled massive sums to be invested and it is clearly in the nation's interest that its coastal waters should be as clean as possible. But any policy needs to be adjusted in the light of changing circumstances. Who could honestly have predicted the sudden and immediate demands that the EC bathing water directive would make on us?
Even if it is not the Government's fault that we are in this predicament, only the Government can ultimately deliver a solution. Far from just complaining and whingeing, I have suggested a solution. I have even done so without proposing an increase in taxation and a massive Exchequer grant. The Bill addresses an injustice which becomes more obvious with every day that passes. It is a situation which, in common fairness, cannot be allowed to stand.

855
I have with me today a number of my west country colleagues who support me in my endeavour and I have presented the Bill and the case for it with all the force that I can command. I commend it to the House.
5.1 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I oppose the Bill. No hon. Members in their right minds think other than that coastal pollution is an extremely important subject for Britain. If fair and effective measures were brought forward under a. ten-minute. Bill or any other procedure to do something about coastal pollution, I and others like me would not oppose them.
We listened extremely carefully to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), but what we heard was political posturing of the worst kind. He said that the problem concerned the west country. People are entitled to special pleading, but it would come better from someone who had not, throughout, voted for water privatisation.
The truth of the matter is that, when the water industry was regarded as a public utility, it was in a far better position to do something about such problems. [Interruption.] Yes, it was. The hon. Gentleman talked about fuel bills, but who was it in their Budget who extended VAT to fuel, and who voted for it?
This is a classic case of Members happily going through the Government lobby arid then whingeing when the consequences of their actions catch up with them. Those who vote in a particular way should be prepared to face the consequences of their actions. This is an attempt by the hon. Gentleman, surrounded by a phalanx of his hon. Friends from the west country, to persuade people in the west country that they are trying to do something about the problem when in fact the fault originated with the Government whom they so loyally supported. This is the worst kind of posturing, trying to have one's cake and eat it.
A sensible Bill on coastal pollution would have made some reference to the Braer disaster off Shetland. There would have been some reference to those tankers going through the Minch and other protected waters, about which nothing has been done. The Home Secretary is said to be an effective Minister, but he has not persuaded the Cabinet to stop those foreign tankers going through the Minch and off Shetland. If this had been a worthy measure, attention would have been paid to that.
No attention has been paid to the real problems of the benthic community—the creatures who live at the bottom of the seas and are affected by disasters such as the Braer. The Bill is not about coastal pollution, but about short-term political advantage, and should therefore be opposed.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 65.

Division No. 230]

[5.05 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Alton, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Ashby, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Rathbone, Tim

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Robathan, Andrew

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Spink, Dr Robert

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Spring, Richard

Budgen, Nicholas

Sproat, Iain

Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

Steen, Anthony

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Streeter, Gary

Dover, Den

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Dowd, Jim

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

Faber, David

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Whittingdale, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Wilkinson, John

Harris, David

Hawkins, Nick

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jenkin, Bernard

Mrs. Angela Browning and Sir John Hannam.

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

NOES

Allen, Graham

McKelvey, William

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Ashton, Joe

McNamara, Kevin

Barnes, Harry

Madden, Max

Bermingham, Gerald

Mahon, Alice

Boyes, Roland

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Callaghan, Jim

Maxton, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Meale, Alan

Chisholm, Malcolm

Michael, Alun

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Corbett, Robin

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Dalyell, Tam

Morgan, Rhodri

Darling, Alistair

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Dixon, Don

O'Hara, Edward

Donohoe, Brian H.

O'Neill, Martin

Dowd, Jim

Pickthall, Colin

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Eastham, Ken

Purchase, Ken

Enright, Derek

Raynsford, Nick

Etherington, Bill

Redmond, Martin

Fisher, Mark

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Flynn, Paul

Simpson, Alan

Garrett. John

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Spellar, John

Hinchliffe, David

Steinberg, Gerry

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Trimble, David

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Vaz, Keith

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Watson, Mike

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Wigley, Dafydd

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Tellers for tbe Noes:

Khabra, Piara S.

Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Macdonald, Calum

McFall, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day

  Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.16 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I hope that this Criminal Justice Bill may arouse a little less controversy than the measure on which the House has just divided. It covers a comparatively narrow range of issues—but they are important, and I hope that, in principle, the Bill will command widespread support.
  The Bill focuses on a relatively modern phenomenon: financial or so-called white collar crime. Financial crime and fraud are as criminal and as big a menace to society as theft, robbery and burglary. They need to be dealt with as effectively and as severely as other crime. But the increasing sophistication of modern financial markets and modern fraudsters means that the law has to be strengthened and kept up to date in a sophisticated way to eliminate loopholes and remove technical defences. For that reason, the Bill is technical and, I am afraid, complex. It includes measures on insider dealing, on banking and on money laundering. The Bill will substantially increase the powers available to our enforcement authorities to bring fraudsters and insider dealers to justice.
  A vital section of the Bill, to which I attach the utmost importance, is the part that tackles the profits of drug trafficking. We need to strengthen our law yet further against money laundering by and on behalf of drug traffickers. The substantial success of our enforcement agencies against the drug trade must be backed by laws which prevent the people detected and convicted from ever enjoying the profits of their trade. We shall be proposing that ultimately the Bill will deal with terrorist finances. Those are extremely serious crimes and I hope that all hon. Members will agree that we need to tackle them with vigour and determination.
  The Bill is not a measure that will open up issues of political division or principle within the House. I believe that its aims will attract near-universal approval. I might almost hope—perhaps optimistically—for a little praise for the Government for their prompt action. Recent experiences of Criminal Justices Bills will remind the House, however, that in this sphere it is important to get the detail right.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I should like to ask about the intriguing matter that the Bill will deal with terrorism in due course. Will that mean the confiscation of assets and will it be an amendment to the prevention of terrorism Act? Why was such an amendment not introduced in the House of Lords and why was such provision not in the Bill when it commenced its passage?
  Mr. Bob Cryer: That is a good point.
  Mr. Clarke: I agree that it is a good point. However, an amendment to an aspect of the law different from that in the first draft of the Bill is required. The time has come to improve the Bill and to extend its provisions to cover confiscation for terrorist offences. From what the hon.
  858
  Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has said, I gather that he will welcome those amendments when they are presented.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the Home Secretary be able to use the Bill to rectify two of the mistakes in the Criminal Justice Act 1991—unit fines and the inability of courts to take previous offences into account? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that there are no little details in the Bill which will make it more difficult to convict criminals? That was the effective result of the previous measure.
  Mr. Clarke: The matters to which my hon. Friend refers are outside the scope of the Bill. I entirely share his concern about the way in which the provisions of the 1991 Act are working in practice. At the moment we are anxiously looking at the way in which the unit fines system works. I share the view of the Magistrates Association that in principle unit fines are right. However, we know that in practice they are producing some odd results, perhaps partly because of the way in which the rules to implement the Act have been drawn up and partly because some magistrates courts are not familiar with their powers.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State who will reply to the debate is personally taking charge of the current review of unit fines. He and I hope that we may be able to get the system to work as closely as possible to the way in which it was intended without the need for more primary legislation. However, we shall introduce primary legislation if that is necessary. I share some of my hon. Friend's concerns about other provisions of the 1991 Act which may not be working out as they were originally intended.
  The 1991 Act followed a long process of consultation with the magistrates and the judiciary and others, but now the magistracy and the judiciary are expressing discontent in a way that certainly strikes a chord with me. We shall look at the matter again. If primary legislation is required we shall have to present another Bill. All hon. Members will accept that such matters must be tackled with care because we do not want rushed provisions that will go wrong. As soon as parliamentary time allows, I shall introduce such primary legislation as is called for.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) underlines my point that the House should scrutinise the Bill with special care to make sure that we get the law right and strengthen it against money laundering, financial fraud and other offences with which the Bill is designed to deal.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I should like to put some questions to the Minister before he moves to the more technical parts of the Bill. He says that we should not move too quickly in such difficult areas. Why did the Government move so quickly and consult so inadequately about the drafting of the Bill? For example, the stock exchange was provided with draft clauses at the end of July and was expected to supply answers by the end of August, which is a curious month for consultation in the stock exchange. There was no consultation at all with the CBI. That does not seem to be the right way to embark upon producing the measures that the Government hope to see.
  Mr. Clarke: There has been enormous consultation on the part of the Bill that deals with insider trading and that

  859
  consultation will continue. I shall deal with that when I come to the relevant part of the Bill. That matter is being handled by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury who is in his place. He and his Department have been consulted and have submitted draft clauses.
  We shall continue to consult, and if we are satisfied that further amendment is required to make the position clear and satisfactory to the legitimate interests of the stock exchange and others, we shall consult on further draft clauses. This part of the Bill is being taken forward with considerable care. It is essential that we do not do anything that will damage the ordinary, legitimate activity of the City, which is so vital to the country's economy. As I have said, we shall consult for as long and as widely as is necessary in the same way as we have consulted carefully so far.
  Mr. Barry Jones: The Home Secretary spoke about drugs and in that context part II of the Bill is important. I should like to mention the effective work of the north Wales police in drugs-related crimes at the port of Holyhead and perhaps even on the English border. If the Minister wishes to crack this problem he must ensure that there are more police. I would like an assurance that he will look carefully, seriously and urgently at the request by the north Wales police for 54 policemen on their establishment. Will he please do that?
  Mr. Clarke: That is an extremely ingenious request. I agree that the police and the Customs and Excise have been successful in the seizure of drugs and the prosecution of those who are responsible for trafficking. That is not a function of having more and more policemen but of ever-improving intelligence and effectiveness in deploying the specialist squads that are required. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are more suitable occasions for discussing police manpower and deployment. We have an excellent record on increasing police manpower. It expanded enormously over the 1980s and it is obvious that continued improvements in the way that manpower is deployed is more important than bids each year from police forces.
  I propose in the police reforms that the north Wales police and every other force will not have to come to the Home Secretary each year to ask him to decide how many police should be deployed in each county force. I propose much more discretion for chief constables and a strengthened police authority. They will decide how best to deploy the resources that are within the ability of the economy to afford. However, those are matters for another day.
  Mr. David Ashby (Liecestershire, North-West): My right hon. and learned Friend spoke about a review of the unit fines system. People, magistrates and judges are incensed by the fact that a middle income man exceeding the speed limit on a motorway at 2 o'clock in the morning will suffer a more severe financial penalty than most drug traffickers. People are not asking for a review of unit fines. They want them abolished and previous powers restored.
  Mr. Clarke: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I have said that I do not like the way in which the unit fines system works. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State is again urgently addressing the matter. In principle, courts have always related fines to the ability of the offender to pay. That must continue so that a
  860
  comparatively prosperous offender who can afford it will pay a large sum for a speeding offence and a not very well-off thief will pay no more because he may not have the means. However, for a thief and certainly for a drug offender, fines may not be the appropriate penalty: custodial sentences of some kind may be called for.
  We are addressing the anomalies that appear to be occurring in practice so that we retain the sensible provision that a financial penalty, when appropriate, should reflect the ability of the offender to pay without some of the absurdities that have occurred. Some of those absurdities were self-inflicted by people without means who did not fill out the form and were fined the maximum amount. Some magistrates do not take any action against people who have not filled in the form but impose the maximum fine. I hope that such hiccups can be eliminated in practice. Meanwhile, we need to look again at the rules.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: The Minister was asked about recruiting more police but that is pointless unless they are backed by the actions of sheriffs and judges in Scotland, for example. The public perceive inconsistencies in sentencing but nobody seems to review the performance of sheriffs and judges and, no doubt, magistrates in England. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will bear that in mind.
  Mr. Clarke: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is responsible for the judiciary. No Minister ever comments on the sentence in any individual case.
  We give the powers to the courts, and we expect the courts to make full and proper use of those powers. I should stress that it is not part of the Government's policy to inhibit the courts in the proper exercise of their powers. If the Criminal Justice Act 1991 is impeding in some way what the judiciary feel is their public duty, we will rapidly address that and remedy it as soon as we can. In the end, it is a matter for the judiciary to impose the right sentence based on the facts of a particular case. Parliament is here to indicate the range of penalties we think are suitable and give them the powers that they need. I hope that, in Scotland and south of the border, the powers are used.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I must get on. I cannot allow a second question about the police in north Wales. I have been generous enough already, and I would now like to turn to the detail of the Bill.
  The House must return—although it may not be willing to do so—to the legal detail. The objects are worthy; the text requires some explanation. I hope to guide the debate by setting out some of the detail as clearly as possible.
  Part I of the Bill fills some gaps in our courts' jurisdiction to try offences of fraud and dishonesty with a significant foreign element. It enacts, with some modifications, the recommendations of the Law Commission's 1989 report on the subject. Part I applies only to England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems, and this part will not apply there. Part I is a largely technical adjustment of existing legal rules, and remains rather daunting reading. It may help if I try to set out briefly the existing legal position and how part I will change it.
  The courts in England and Wales exercise a "territorial" jurisdiction, which means, with very few

  861
  exceptions, that they are only able to try people for crimes committed in England and Wales. Part I retains this important principle, but is designed to change the rules by which the courts decide whether or not an offence has been committed in these two countries. That is not as straightforward a matter as it might at first appear. As the Law Commission explained in its report:
  "The planning, preparation and execution of the many operations which are involved in a complicated swindle frequently takes place in several different countries. Under the present law none of the participants can be prosecuted here unless the last event which makes up the underlying crime occurs in England or Wales. Moreover, in cases in which those concerned are detected before they have completed their purpose, it is unlikely that they will be prosecuted in the country where they plan to reap the benefit, and because the underlying crime was not complete here they cannot be tried in England and Wales. In the result, they will in all probability not be convicted anywhere".
  I will try to give a more day-to-day example. Let us imagine that a criminal in London places an advertisement in The Times inviting people to invest in a non-existent factory in Japan by paying money into a Tokyo bank account. A victim responds to the advertisement, and instructs his bank to transfer money to Tokyo. When the criminal retrieves his money, he has no need at all to flee to South America—unless he wishes to escape from our winter weather, or has some other purpose—because as things stand he has committed no offence under English law and cannot be prosecuted here. That is because the last element of the crime—obtaining of the proceeds in Tokyo—did not occur here. So, if the victim can be induced to part with his money outside this country, then our courts will not have jurisdiction.
  This gap in jurisdiction was largely theoretical in the past but it has become more and more real with the advent of new technology, which has made the transfer of money around the globe an easy and everyday—or, rather, every-minute—activity. We want the law to keep up with the fraudsters, if not ahead of them. So this Bill will provide that, in a case such as I have outlined—where a fraud has a significant connection with this country—our courts will have jurisdiction, whether or not the final element of the crime occurred here.
  The substantive fraud and dishonesty offences to which this change will apply are listed in clause 1, and are called group A offences. Experience tells us these are the sort of offences committed by the international criminals at whom this measure is aimed. If the list needs amending in future to catch up with developments in the criminal world, The Secretary of State is given the power by clause 1 to add offences to the list or to delete them, subject to Parliament's approval.
  Part I will also catch those who fully intend to defraud others but, through no merit of their own, fail to do so. In the case I gave earlier, the criminal would still be guilty of an offence here even if the police had spotted his advertisement and arrested him before anyone had lost their money.
  Clauses 5 and 6 fill another gap in our law by giving our courts jurisdiction over incitements, conspiracies and attempts in this country which are aimed at the commission of the equivalent of a group A offence abroad; there needs to be an equivalent offence in the country
  862
  concerned. So, for example, people who plot in this country to defraud victims in Japan will in future be guilty of an offence here and be triable by our courts.
  Mr. Ashby: The example my right hon. and learned Friend gives is one of obtaining property by deception in the United Kingdom. There are many cases of this sort and it is the Attorney-General's reference No. 2 of, I believe, 1986 that part 1 is intended to cover. What worries me is whether my right hon. and learned Friend can assure the House that potential defendants will not be put in double jeopardy by being tried abroad—because most of the crime will be tried abroad—and, if they are aquitted abroad, retried over here, or vice versa. It would be a gross injustice if people were to be put in double jeopardy and be tried several times around Europe for offences committed inter-state. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that that will not happen?
  Mr. Clarke: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I am not sure that it is as clear as he believes it is that the example I give is of an offence in this country. I would incline to the view that it is not. Although I accept that there are conflicting authorities, they are probably sufficiently in conflict for no one to be prosecuted. I think there is little chance of double jeopardy in that particular case unless a person was foolish enough to go to Japan, because it is not necessary to go there to get the proceeds.
  We are making it clear that someone in this country who commits a crime the last element of which takes effect in Tokyo is committing an offence here so long as a relevant part of the offence was committed in England. I think that is a valuable clarification of the law.
  I quite accept, however, that my hon. Friend has a good point about double jeopardy. We do not want international crime to be dealt with in such a way that people keep being tried in different countries for the same offence. I will be happy to address that point again, or others will in Committee.
  We need safeguards, but I think we can assume that in practice prosecuting authorities around the world will not normally keep prosecuting the same person for the same offence as he foolishly moves around the world going from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to collect the full total of his just deserts. I will give more thought to that point and, if necessary, address it in Committee.
  Parts II and III of the Bill deal with money laundering and the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. I am glad to say that these parts received most attention in the debates in another place. I think this is the most important part of the Bill as far as the general public is concerned. We can and must have many serious discussions about the causes of crime; debates about the changing nature of society and the restoration of values are important but rarely come to definite or immediately practical conclusions.
  The most straightforward specific cause of crime—which is most tangibly within the reach of government, the authorities and the public to tackle—is the abuse of drugs and the illegal traffic in drugs. Police, Customs, the courts and the public must be helped to maintain a relentless fight against drug trafficking; but the trade is immensely, fabulously lucrative, and the best policing efforts will be in vain if the profits are not attacked and retrieved by the courts of every country affected.
  One of the main purposes of my visit to Latin America last year was to discuss with Governments menaced by

  863
  hugely wealthy drug organisations how we might strengthen international action against that ill-gotten wealth. Britain is in the forefront of countries that have ratified the Vienna convention, legislated against money laundering and got under way with the seizure and confiscation of criminal gains, but we must go further. I am determined that Britain should have one of the most effective—and just—sets of legal provisions in the world to take the fight to where it damages drug trafficking most—the removal of the vast profits which inspire and finance the individual traffic.
  Part II will amend and strengthen the confiscation procedures in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
  Sir John Wheeler: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that these measures and all the other measures that this House has enacted in recent years are effective only if the basis of the intelligence information which the police and Customs authorities receive in the United Kingdom is well organised? Will my right hon. and learned Friend refer to the increasing success of our drug liaison officers overseas and to the way that they channel back intelligence which is used by the regional crime squads, Customs and the police? Is it not that—not necessarily the number of police and Customs officers—which makes their work effective? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is the effectiveness of the information that is received and how it is made use of that will make the measure that we propose to enact today successful?
  Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. His question relates to the detection of drug trafficking in particular but also to intelligence about where the assets are going. Intelligence is the key to any success with drug trafficking or terrorism. Our drug liaison officers around the world are extremely courageous and invaluable people, and they have had enormous success. Our activities in that area are as good as those of any other country. They probably rival those of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, although that agency enjoys vast resources, compared with ours. The organisation and effectiveness of the individuals who specialise in this work matters far more than just pouring in huge numbers of people to do routine work. Organisation and effectiveness are how one makes progress. That is why we have made substantial progress in recent years.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Personally I welcome very much the fact that the British Home Secretary went to South America to discuss this problem on the spot and to see for himself, but what has come out of his visit and what is the strategy for persuading the hard-pressed Governments of countries such as Colombia and Peru to do something, however willing they may be, about an acute terrorist problem for them?
  Mr. Clarke: If I may confine myself to Colombia, we provide considerable material assistance to the Government of Colombia, who are fighting courageously against very powerful drugs cartels which threaten their ability to govern their country. The Government of Colombia are on the right side in this struggle and they are making good progress. We are contributing very much to the training of their most effective police units, which operate in the jungles and search for the coca itself and the laboratories. We are also giving valuable assistance in
  864
  developing their criminal justice system. They are therefore setting up a much more effective system for prosecuting and bringing to justice those whom they arrest. Since I went to Colombia, we have given further material support to the Colombian Government for that purpose.
  I discussed also with the Colombian Government how we could take further forward bilateral agreements with them on the confiscation of the assets of drug traffickers. The trade is often organised by a combination of Colombian and British criminals, working in international organisations. I hope that we shall make progress on that front, too. We are actively working with the Colombian Government. It is important that we, from our end, as well as the other European countries and the United States, work with the Colombians against something which is just as much a threat to Colombia as it is to ourselves and which needs to be tackled at international level.
  Part II will make its contribution to the Bill by strengthening yet further the procedures that were introduced in the 1986 Act. Hon. Members will recall that when it was introduced the 1986 Act was described by some people as draconian, but its measures were necessary and justified. The 1986 Act was intended to remove the profit motive by allowing the confiscation of all the trafficker's proceeds from drug trafficking, following conviction. The Act was also intended to ensure that the profits from drug trafficking could not be recycled to fund yet more trafficking. That Act needs to be strengthened.
  This part of the Bill—clauses 7 to 15—is largely based on the report of the Home Office working group on confiscation, which was published in May 1991 for consultation. That group was established in response to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on drug trafficking and related serious crime, published in November 1989. The Home Office working group found that the 1986 Act had worked reasonably well, but it identified a number of important practical difficulties in its operation.
  I do not propose to go through each clause in detail. Instead, I shall draw the attention of the House to those provisions which I consider to be the most important.
  Clause 7 will end the uncertainty that has arisen in the courts over the standard of proof applicable in confiscation hearings. It makes it clear that the standard applicable is the civil standard—and its probability. This was, I believe, the intention when the 1986 Act was passed, but it was not made clear on the face of the legislation. Clause 7 also relieves the court from following the confiscation procedures in the 1986 Act each time that it convicts a drug trafficker.
  Confiscation will take place only when notice is served on the court by the prosecutor, or at the court's discretion. This will filter out those cases in which there is obviously little or no benefit, or no realisable property. This does not mean that we are softening our approach to drug traffickers. The minor cases that do not attract a confiscation hearing under the new arrangements will continue to be dealt with severely by means of fines and forfeiture orders, as well as by imprisonment.
  Clauses 12 and 14 will allow the court to confiscate proceeds in circumstances where that is not possible at present. Clause 12 will allow the prosecutor to return to the court within six years of a conviction for drug trafficking to seek a revaluation of the offender's benefit from drug trafficking, where further benefit has

  865
  subsequently come to light. Clause 14 will enable a confiscation order to be made, even if a convicted trafficker dies or absconds. Confiscation will also be possible where a defendant absconds before conviction. We have included safeguards, such as rights of audience for third parties at confiscation hearings and compensation where an absconder returns and is actually acquitted.
  Part II also contains the primary legislation necessary to implement a European Community directive on money laundering, following the proposals set out in a Treasury consultation paper last May. The United Kingdom was closely involved in the drafting of this directive. Since it draws heavily upon the 1988 United Nations convention on drug trafficking and money laundering, which the United Kingdom ratified in June 1991, very little legislation is necessary.
  Three new or extended criminal offences are created in the money laundering area: first, failure to report knowledge or suspicion of money laundering gained in the course of employment; secondly, acquiring, possessing or using the proceeds of drug trafficking for less than adequate consideration, in the knowledge that they are such proceeds; and, thirdly, prejudicing an investigation into money laundering by tipping off a third party.
  Part III deals with the confiscation of the proceeds of crime in general. The effect is that a number of the changes made to the Drug Trafficking Offences Act in part II, which I have just described, are read across to other organised crime in part III, by amending the general confiscation provisions in part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
  This is an extremely significant change. We are extending the existing and most of the new drugs money laundering offences to crime in general. Until now, it has not been an offence to launder the proceeds of any crime other than drug trafficking and, in certain restricted circumstances, terrorism. That allowed a suspected money launderer to say that the money he was dealing with came from pornography or serious fraud rather than from drug trafficking and enabled the suspect to avoid being convicted of money laundering. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that was absurd and indefensible. I am pleased to say that the banking and financial communities have given their full support to these new measures, which extend the money laundering provisions to most organised crime. Ministers are extremely grateful for their help.
  I am also glad to be able to announce to the House that the Government intend to introduce in this House amendments to the Bill in Committee to reproduce, in the terrorism legislation, many of the changes being made in part II of the Bill to the confiscation and money laundering provisions contained in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. Part III does not, as at present drafted, apply to the proceeds of terrorist offences because they are not covered by part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. However, the Government regard tackling terrorist funds as an equally high priority.
  The United Kingdom was the first country to introduce legislative measures against terrorist finances. These measures have given the police an additional and
  866
  invaluable tool, which has enabled them to tackle the funds themselves and to obtain information on the movements and activities of the terrorists.
  Finance remains the lifeblood of terrorist organisations. Such organisations and those who handle money on their behalf have become increasingly sophisticated in the way in which they raise and launder money. Disrupting the fund-raising efforts of terrorists and confiscating their resources and the proceeds of activities should be as important a new tool against terrorism as it should be against drug trafficking and other serious organised crime. I am sure that the House will agree that it is only right that the measures that are taken against terrorists' finances should, as far as is possible, match those taken against drug proceeds. Personally, I hold both forms of crime in the same profound contempt.
  Mr. Tony Blair: As I understand it, once someone has been convicted of drug trafficking, the proceeds, whether or not they are related to that specific offence, can be confiscated. Will the same apply to terrorism and other offences?
  Mr. Clarke: Some confiscation powers are already available under the prevention of terrorism legislation. In Committee, we shall table amendments to cover the new provisions on laundering, but first we must decide which of the provisions on drug trafficking should be read across to terrorists' finances. That will enable us to consider the total amount that has been raised and how far the assumptions which are an important part of the drug trafficking provisions should apply. We shall table amendments that, as far as is sensible, reflect the drug trafficking money laundering provisions.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Are the provisions on confiscation and on money laundering, which I believe stem partly from an EC directive, in place in other EC countries, because what the Home Secretary is saying makes the degree of co-operation at EC level under the third pillar of Maastricht even more important? It would be helpful to know at some stage whether these provisions and those on terrorism operate in other EC countries.
  Mr. Clarke: All EC countries are making the changes to their domestic law necessary to apply the directive. The United Kingdom was at the forefront of countries pressing for a directive, because measures against drug trafficking and terrorism are not effective unless they apply throughout the European Community. Without notice, I am not sure how many countries have completed the legislative steps. I believe that the United Kingdom is ahead of others, but we are all slightly beyond the date by which we are meant to have implemented the directive. My hon. Friend the Minister of State may be able to give a more specific reply, but I am sure that there is no hesitation within the Community and that all 12 countries will fall in line with the highly desirable directive.
  Part IV is, strictly speaking, the Treasury part of the Bill, which is why my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is on the Bench. It amends and restates the law on insider dealing and in so doing implements the EC directive on the subject. Hon. Members will, I hope, agree that insider dealing is crime. Securities markets play a vital role in financing companies, on which our prosperity ultimately depends. Markets also hold a large proportion of people's savings invested directly or on their behalf by institutions.

  867
  If those markets are to operate smoothly, they must inspire the confidence of investors, and an essential element of confidence is fairness. Insider dealing, if unchecked, destroys that confidence, which is why the Government made insider dealing illegal in 1980.
  We believe in the benefits of having an EC directive on insider dealing, and Britain again played a leading role in negotiating the directive. With effective legislation in place across the Community, investors will be able to invest more confidently across Europe and to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the single market. The directive's detailed provisions will greatly assist in the pursuit of insiders who seek to cover their tracks by dealing across borders.
  Mr. Ashby: My right hon. and learned Friend rightly says insider dealing is effectively theft on a grand scale from a number of poor investors. Is part IV covered by part I, and if not why not?
  Mr. Clarke: Off the cuff, subject to correction by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in his reply, it must be. Part I will cover a range of international crime and if insider trading is being conducted across borders, the same rules as set out in part I will apply. If my off-the-cuff response is incorrect I shall ensure that a correction——
  Mr. Donald Anderson: It is not a category A offence.
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman points out that it is not a category A offence. He has had an opportunity to look it up, but he may be wrong. A more considered reply will be given later. The Economic Secretary is also taking the opportunity to look at this part of the legislation, for which he is directly responsible.
  Nevertheless, the desirability of moving on insider trading is accepted by all of us and the Bill extends our legislation on insider trading to areas of conduct covered by the directive that are not currently illegal but are generally accepted as being wrong. I want to make quite clear to the House the Government's determination to ensure that legitimate business practices will not be jeopardised. I know that some fears have been expressed in the City and elsewhere, but nothing in the Bill will prevent the sort of contact between companies and investors that properly takes, place today. The Bill will not require changes to the legitimate practices of investment analysis or mean modifying underwriting arrangements.
  Indeed, much of the new legislation is similar to existing law. It will continue to be an offence for an insider who possesses inside information or someone who has obtained inside information from an insider—in deference to views expressed in another place I will, as far as possible, avoid describing that someone as a "tippee", which is a particularly poisonous addition to the English language—to take advantage of the information by dealing in securities to make a profit or avoid a loss. It will continue to be an offence for an insider or tippee to encourage someone else to undertake such dealing and for them to disclose inside information.
  The definition of inside information is little changed from our present legislation. It includes information that relates to particular securities or to a particular issuer or issuers of securities, but not to securities generally or issuers of securities generally. The information must also be specific or precise, not have been made public, and be such that, if made public, it would have a significant effect
  868
  on the price of securities. But unlike existing legislation, which applies only to companies securities, the new legislation will apply to all listed securities. It will apply to gilts and local authority stock and all securities traded on exchanges throughout the Community rather than just those that operate in this country.
  Under the Bill, any individual with direct access to inside information will be an insider; they will no longer have to be connected with a company, as the present law requires. The Government believe that this change, which reflects the directive, is desirable because it is possible for someone to have direct access to price-sensitive information without being connected with a company.
  The range of circumstances in which insider trading is prohibited will be widened. The Bill's prohibitions apply to all transactions which involve a professional intermediary, whether on or off market. The move from the trading floor to screen-based trading has made the market much more difficult to define than when legislation was passed in 1980. The new legislation seeks to treat the market in terms of those transactions that are likely to contribute to the price formation process for a security. As a result, the new legislation will apply to dealings in Eurobonds, which are generally listed within the Community but traded off market.
  There are two further ancillary offences in addition to dealing—disclosing inside information to someone else and encouraging someone else to deal.
  However, I should make it clear that innocent activity will not be penalised. Conduct will not amount to a criminal offence unless a person knows that the information he possesses is inside information and that he has the information as an insider or directly or indirectly from an insider. For example, someone who deals while in possession of information that he believes to be in the public domain will not fall within the ambit of the legislation even if his or her belief turns out to be misplaced. There will be no offence where someone did not intend to use inside information to make a profit or to avoid a loss because he would not be "taking advantage" of the information. There are various exemptions and limitations to ensure that the legislation does not impact
  As for penalties, the Government made it clear in 1980 in their response to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry's report on company investigations that we proposed to retain the criminal law as the primary means for punishing insider dealers. Accordingly, the Bill carries forward the penalties that apply under our existing law, which are up to seven years' imprisonment with a fine.
  The Bill's insider dealing provisions are the result of considerable discussion between the Treasury, practitioners in the City and representatives of industry in general. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) complained, but there has been consultation on the broad principles of the legislation and on an initial draft of the clauses in the summer, and consultation has continued since the Bill was introduced in another place.
  As I have already said, the Government are aware that there is still a wish for greater certainty about the effect of the legislation. We have listened to the representations made and will continue to do so, and we shall make further amendments where we are convinced of the case for so doing.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Why has the existing legislation on insider dealing been so ineffective? During the past five years, there have been 30 prosecutions but only 13 convictions.
  Mr. Clarke: I do not think that those figures are wholly accurate. They are in the right ball park but they are not spot on. There have been convictions. The total number of convictions is not the only measure by which to judge the effectiveness of such a provision. I am sure that the provision has a considerable deterrent effect on what would otherwise be trading of below acceptable standards in securities, which is treated as a serious criminal offence in this country.
  We have played a part in introducing the fresh directive, which is giving rise to the need to strengthen and extend the law. It is extremely important for London's reputation as a financial centre that our standards are as high as any others. We must make it clear that those who make improper use of insider information will be treated as criminals, brought before the courts and prosecuted. If the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) believes that the existing legislation is not sufficiently effective, I am sure that he will welcome the Bill, which seeks to make the law more effective and extend its scope.
  Mr. Maclennan: What the Home Secretary says about the deterrent effect of the legislation may be true; it is hard to prove. However, he will be aware that there is widespread and genuine concern, expressed most notably by Lord Alexander of Weedon on Second Reading in another place, that many cases of alleged insider dealing, which have been brought to the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry by the stock exchange, among other authorities, have not led to effective prosecution. There are serious questions about enforcement in cases where there is significant evidence.
  In preparing this legislation, has the Home Secretary considered whether there is a need for parallel self-regulatory measures for the City or other institutions in order to provide a civil remedy to back up the effectiveness of the criminal remedy?
  Mr. Clarke: Concern has been expressed in both directions. Some people in the City are worried about the ordinary, legitimate practices of investment analysts and others being threatened. We can reassure those who have such fears and will continue to do so during the consultation process. Others are worried that we do not always enforce the law as strictly as we might, enforcement being in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions or, more often in practice, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, cases are brought.
  Sadly, it is the case that we must first get the drafting right so that the law can be enforced effectively. That is why we shall continue to consult Lord Alexander and anyone else who wishes to give his views. Secondly, there must be some self-regulatory provisions. There is a role for the stock exchange and the City generally to ensure that the criminal law is paralleled by proper self-regulation by those responsible for the markets. People such as Lord Alexander and other leading lights in the City will be anxious to ensure that self-regulatory activity also exists.
  Finally, part V of the Bill contains various minor measures. I do not need to trouble the House with them except to mention clause 43. It extends the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts where a fraudster takes part in or
  870
  organises here fraud against the European Community budget in other Community countries. It will ensure that the United Kingdom is and is seen to be taking positive action against Community fraud, and will help to allay the legitimate fears expressed in both Houses.
  The Bill deals with a number of serious mischiefs which I hope that all hon. Members will condemn. It makes a number of changes that will not harm legitimate business or threaten the law-abiding, but it will greatly improve our ability to investigate and prosecute a wide range of financial crimes. I know from earlier interventions that hon. Members are concerned about various criminal justice issues. They may be disappointed about the scope of the Bill which started life in another place last October. They may feel that it does not go wide enough to tackle all their concerns, but there will be other opportunities—I hope before too long, if I have my way—for us to consider many of them.
  Although there are some pressing problems outside the scope of the Bill, that would in no way detract from its importance. We are dealing with very serious crime. The Bill will significantly strengthen the ability of the enforcement authorities and the courts to deal effectively with white collar crime and will do so in ways that I hope all hon. Members will be able to support. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: As the Home Secretary said, the Bill spans a disparate set of issues, but they have in common a concern for the growing internationalisation of crime. The impact of modern communications, travel, computer technology and cross-frontier trading has given renewed scope to organised criminal activity. It is essential that the law keeps pace and that old common law rules—or, indeed, old statute—which are right for one era do not continue unamended or unchanged when plainly wrong or inadequate for another.
  There is no disagreement about the general purpose of the Bill, although there is some disquiet about the drafting of some parts and the content of specific provisions. They may be archetypal matters for the Committee stage and for those who will have the pleasure of participating in that stage, but they are also important matters to be raised on Second Reading. I begin with the issue of drugs and drug trafficking, which I believe will be of paramount concern to hon. Members and the public.
  There is no doubt that drugs are a dangerous menace to our society. There is increasing evidence of a rise in the number of drug addicts, of a link between drugs and crime, the prevalence of drug trafficking and, perhaps most alarming of all, the number of young people even of school age who are being drawn into early experimentation with and use of drugs.
  I do not think that anyone, whether working with drug abusers or in drug enforcement, believes that the problem is diminishing. It is not. It is growing, and the greatest danger of all is complacency in the face of the threat that drug abuse poses to our country. The figures for the latest year for which they are available show, for example, that the number of addicts notified to the Home Office rose by some 17 per cent. and that that followed a 20 per cent. increase the previous year. The number of new addicts has risen by a similar number. Although the numbers of seizures of course reflect success by our drug enforcement

  871
  agencies, in 10 years they have risen more than threefold, and seizures of heroin have increased by more than 200 per cent. Even making allowances for changes in procedures and greater success by the drug agencies, those figures should cause concern.
  The number of persons found guilty of drug offences has risen almost threefold in 10 years. Again, the most worrying feature is the rise in the number of young drug offenders. The number of offenders under the age of 17 has risen tenfold in as many years, and the number of those between 17 and 21 has risen fourfold over a decade. Offenders under 21 represent 40 per cent. of offenders but 80 per cent. of the latest yearly increase in offending.
  Anybody who knows the King's Cross area in London, as do hon. Members who pass through it on their way to their constituencies, will know of the appalling drug problems that have recently been highlighted by the Independent on Sunday and other newspapers. There have been about seven deaths from drug-related causes in the space of nine days. The police in those areas and in many other parts of our inner cities do their best in extremely difficult circumstances. My hon. Friends the Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) have campaigned long and hard on the problems of King's Cross, and have raised the issue specifically with the Home Secretary. I hope that he will respond. positively.
  The drugs problem is increasing, yet Government policy in other areas, not only in the Home Office sphere, is withdrawing some of the most vital support needed in the fight against drug abuse. For example, until the end of last month, the. Department for Education had 100 drug advisory posts, but it has now ceased to fund them and says that it is up to local authorities to do so. The plain fact is that in present circumstances local authorities wit not have the resources to fill the gap. That means that those posts, which perform a great role in educating our young people about the dangers of drugs, will no longer exist. It cannot be sensible to pass legislation that, rightly, bears down on those trafficking in drugs, yet at the same time to allow other Government Departments to make decisions in other areas that run entirely counter to the fight against drugs.
  Exactly the same could be said about cuts in the youth service. Three quarters of those involved in that service expect to make cuts this year, and the urban programme faces similar problems. There are cuts in residential provision for drug addicts and abusers.
  A pamphlet recently published by the trade unions representing people working in Customs and Excise estimated that, as a result of changes in funding, about 400 Customs officers engaged in the war against drugs would be lost. I do not know whether that estimate is correct; I hope that the Minister who replies will deal with the question. Again, it would be bizarre if we attempted to deal with people who had been caught committing drugs offences and had been convicted if in other areas we were taking steps that undermined the fight that we should all support.
  Although the number of drug trafficking offenders has declined in proportion to the number of drug offences overall, there is no doubt that drug trafficking into the United Kingdom is increasing. The value of drugs seized by the Customs and Excise has multiplied by a factor of about 20 over the past few years. The United States estimates that drug seizures account for about 10 per cent.
  872
  of the drugs destined for the United States market. If we apply the same criterion to our seizures, we find that drugs with a street value of as much as £2,000 million enter the United Kingdom every year.
  The report on "Drug Trafficking and Related Serious Crime" published by the Home Affairs Select Committee a few years ago said:
  "The National Drugs Intelligence Co-ordinator … estimated that there is at least £1,800 million derived from drug trafficking in the United Kingdom. In its written memorandum, the NDIU noted that such vast amounts of money circulating within the legitimate banking system may have a destabilising effect on smaller financial institutions. The NDIC also indicated that, despite the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the United Kingdom continued to be a major centre for money laundering. Indeed, he said that the United Kingdom was regarded by the United States, Canada and some others as an offshore banking system"
  On the basis of that report and of the evidence that we have accumulated, there is no doubt that we must fight the drugs problem at both a national and an international level.
  I was interested to hear the Home Secretary make a point arising from his visit to South America. Reading the many detailed background papers, I came across the bilateral confiscation agreements made between our country and other countries whereby we can confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking via arrangements made with other countries to facilitate that process. Clearly that is most important in helping to crack down on people engaged in drug trafficking. I noticed that absent from the list of countries with which we have such agreements were the names of countries such as Colombia, Thailand, Afghanistan and Peru. When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will tell us whether any progress has been made towards concluding agreements with those countries. It seems important that some of the main drug trafficking centres should have reciprocal arrangements such as those that have worked well in other areas.
  At this stage I raise the problem caused by drug traffickers' use of Nigerians, especially Nigerian women, as drug couriers to enter this country. Apparently, large numbers of poor Nigerians, especially women, receive long gaol sentences here. I understand that a recent survey revealed that all the children taken into care by the London borough of Hillingdon, in which Heathrow lies, are Nigerian. That is an immense problem, to which the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), as chairman of the all-party penal affairs group, drew attention last year.
  I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would comment on the concern that, although, for obvious reasons, the sentences are long, they are not having any deterrent effect. Can he tell us what arrangements are being made to bring home to people in Nigeria the consequences of undertaking such actions, and the need to clamp down on that drug trafficking route?
  Like the Home Secretary, I feel that, whether we like it or not, it is correct to deal with the detailed provisions of the Bill. We supported the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, and we support the basic thrust of the Bill. Some of the changes that it makes are welcome, but some raise serious issues of principle that it is right at least to canvass on Second Reading. As has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that is especially right in view of the problems that have arisen as a result of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. We should take special care to ensure that the Bill is well drafted.

  873
  The 1986 Act allowed the police to obtain information about a suspect's affairs and to restrain the removal of his assets before trial—that is rather like a criminal form of a Mareva injunction. The court was given the power to make an order after conviction confiscating the entire proceeds of drug trafficking from the offence for which the person has been convicted and also from other drug trafficking. The court was also given the power to assume that the assets of an offender, certainly for up to six years before the proceedings, were the proceeds of trafficking unless the defendant proved otherwise.
  Those powers in the 1986 Act have been described as draconian. Clearly they are draconian; they were meant to be. Draconian powers are fully justified because of the appalling evil that they are designed to counter. It is clear that confiscation orders have been of considerable use. Perhaps the Minister will give us the precise figures when he winds up, but I believe that about 1,000 such orders have been used in the past year. None the less, because of the nature of those powers, it is important to consider them carefully and ensure that they are drafted and used properly.
  The debate in another place has been of great benefit in preparing for this debate. The discussions were of high quality and went into great detail, and they raised a number of points which deserve investigation.
  The Bill makes some significant changes to the 1986 Act. At present, confiscation proceedings are mandatory; they will now be permissive if the prosecution wants them to be so. If the prosecution declines, the court has the power to order them. Under clause 8, as the Home Secretary said, the court can determine sentence before confiscation, rather than, as now, having to complete confiscation before sentence.
  The clause introduces two further changes which have aroused some controversy and at which it is worth our while to look for a moment. First, the clause changes the standard of proof for the confiscation of property from drug traffickers from the criminal to the civil standard—in other words, from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "on the balance of probabilities". Secondly, it obliges the court, rather than simply permitting it, to make statutory assumptions about the defendant's assets. Whatever assets a defendant has, the assumption is that they are the proceeds of drug trafficking.
  There are now, therefore, a number of fairly unusual features in the procedure for confiscation. That was the point of my intervention in the Home Secretary's speech and I may return to the matter in a moment. We should examine the justification for those features.
  First, the proceeds that can be confiscated under the 1986 Act and under the Bill are not just those that are the product of the particular offence for which the person is being tried, but all proceeds from drug trafficking, whether a criminal trial has taken place or not. Secondly, to prove that such assets are the proceeds of drug trafficking requires only a civil standard of proof. Thirdly, the court is obliged to assume that those assets are the proceeds of trafficking unless the defendant shows otherwise.
  As I read the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Redbourne, the effect of the assumptions not being disproved is that they stand as facts. In other words, the confiscation applies to all drug trafficking irrespective of
  874
  the particular offence, and the court is entitled—indeed obliged—to assume, unless it is proved otherwise, that all the property of the defendant is the proceeds of drug trafficking.
  That point caused some concern in the other place. If the issue of the standard of proof is taken in isolation, it could be argued that the recovery of proceeds from drug trafficking going wider than the particular offence is almost akin to a civil suit for fraud, for example, and that, therefore, a civil standard of proof is not unreasonable. However, the accumulation of a lower standard of proof plus the assumptions that go a long way towards establishing proof and their mandatory nature somewhat restrict the ability of the court to take into account all the factors that it wishes to take into account.
  Whatever people think about the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the real problem with it is that it imposes far too much of a straitjacket on the court in relation to sentencing. We should at least be careful, especially in relation to the mandatory nature of the assumptions, in deciding whether it is necessary to go that far. There is no evidence of which I am aware that courts have been hesitant about assuming that the assets of a defendant are the proceeds of drug trafficking. In the absence of any concern that courts have been reluctant to apply the provisions, that point is at least worth looking at.
  I am not sure whether the Home Secretary dealt with this point. The proceeds of other offences, such as armed robbery or organised crime other than drug trafficking, carry no such assumptions and only the proceeds of a specified crime can be confiscated. Drug trafficking is treated differently from armed robbery and from other organised crime. I am not sure whether the Home Secretary wants terrorist offences to fit into the category of drug trafficking or of armed robbery. In any event, there is a clear disparity in the way in which such offences are treated. No doubt the Minister of State will tell us the reason for that. It may be that experience shows, for example, that the life styles of drug dealers are so bound up with drugs that it is reasonable to apply different procedures. If we are making that distinction, it is right that we should justify it properly.
  Clause 18 deals with money laundering. Under the clause, a person is now to be guilty of an offence if "he knows, or suspects" that another is money laundering, and if he learns that fact in the course of his work and then fails to disclose it. I assume that that is an attempt to comply with article 7 of the European directive of June 1991, because the directive uses the words "know or suspect" in relation to money laundering.
  It has been said in the other place that to make someone guilty of a criminal offence merely because he suspects that somebody is guilty of money laundering rather than because he believes it or knows it places too low a burden on the prosecution. I should like the Minister to deal with two points on that. First, will he confirm that a subjective test will be applied under the legislation? In other words, will the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused suspected that money laundering had taken place and not merely that it was reasonable for him to do so or that he had grounds for doing so? Will the prosecution have to prove that he possessed that subjective state of mind at the time?
  Secondly, and perhaps more importantly than anything else, the provision will make a great deal of difference to the way in which banks and other financial institutions

  875
  operate. It will impose a fairly high degree of awareness on bank officials arid others about the nature of the money with which they are dealing, and about its possible sources and the uses to which it will be put. It is right that we do that, but we should understand that there will have to be great changes in the ways in which those financial institutions operate. If there are not, quite lowly officials within the banking system may find themselves responsible in circumstances in which the real failure is the failure of higher management to give them proper training, to instruct them on the right things to look for and to ensure that they are able properly to keep track of the money with which they are dealing.
  A report that repays reading if one can afford it—fortunately, I did not have to afford it—is the Touche Ross report on money laundering and risk which contains the results of a recent survey. The facts revealed are fairly shocking. First, it is estimated that the total sales—this is a truly staggering figure—of cannabis, heroin and cocaine in the United States and in Europe in 1989—more than three years ago—were more than $120 billion, of which $85 billion was laundered. If the Home Affairs Select Committee is right in believing that much of the laundering takes place in this country, that is reason enough for strong legislation.
  The report then says that there were low levels of awareness and that fewer than 50 per cent. of stockbrokers or life insurance companies had educated staff on the prevention of money laundering or introduced specific controls. The report says that there is a clear need for financial institutions to establish proper practical guidance so that money laundering is spotted at an early stage.
  It has come to my attention that the number of disclosures of money laundering following this legislation is estimated to triple from about 5,000 a year to as many as 15,000. I hope that the Minister will deal with the issue of resources, because such disclosures will require much more investigation and possibly more tricky investigation, as even a suspicion will have to be reported. It is clear that anyone in a halfway responsible position in a financial institution will make it absolutely clear that at the first opportunity he will draw to the attention of his superiors his suspicion that such activities may be taking place.
  The Home Secretary dealt with the problems of the jurisdiction of the courts. I make one particular point about that. It is obvious at the moment that, if the last act necessary for the completion of an offence takes place in this country, the courts have jurisdiction. If it does not, they do not. The central change is that under the Bill, if any relevant act—that is, any act necessary to prove a conviction—takes place here, the courts will have jurisdiction. That follows in part from the recommendations of the Law Commission in April 1989.
  We live at a time when large sums of money are controlled by international fraudsters and it is surely right, and in accordance with the principles of comity of nations, that, if any part of the action takes place here, there is jurisdiction. I gather that the Bill was substantially amended in the House of Lords, and I pay tribute to the work of Baroness Mallalieu in ensuring that the provisions were considerably tightened up.
  Finally, let me deal with the issue of insider dealing. Let us be clear that everyone wants to root out insider dealing: it destroys the integrity of the market and undermines confidence in share transactions. There is no doubt that the present law—or, perhaps more accurately, the present
  876
  system—of investigating and prosecuting insider dealing leaves much to be desired. I understand that, over the past five years, the stock exchange has drawn the Department's attention to more than 100 cases of suspected insider dealing. There have been some 33 prosecutions—the Minister will no doubt tell us the exact figure—only about 16 of which have been successful.
  In the other place, Lord Alexander suggested that there should be a City regulatory authority to exercise a parallel jurisdiction—to force, for example, the disgorging of profits or a penalty or redress—running alongside the criminal law. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who speaks for the Opposition on such matters, thinks that that is worth investigating. As he has rightly said, the overall regulatory system may be so inadequate at present that any attempt to run a parallel system alongside the criminal law may fail. Once again, however, the objectives are in danger of being damaged by inadequate drafting.
  The Home Secretary said that this part of the Bill made few changes to the law. I think that the changes that it makes are quite significant, and they have certainly given rise to concern. In place of the present 1985 Act definition of insider information as information not generally known to people dealing in the relevant securities, there is a new definition of insider information, which includes information which
  "has not been made public".
  That is a much broader definition. That may be right and, again, it follows the wording of article 1 of the 1989 European Council directive. But what is public and what is not will be pretty difficult to define.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I refer the hon. Gentleman to section 10 of the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985, which is broadly similar to what is included in the Bill. It starts from a different place in working up compliance with the directive, but broadly the effect is the same—so it should be business as usual.
  Mr. Blair: With great respect, I am not entirely sure that that deals with the point. The critical definition concerns the nature of the information itself. At the moment, insider information is defined as information that is not generally known by those who deal in the relevant securities. Under the new definition, insider information is simply information that
  "has not been made public".
  That immediately gives rise to the question of what "making public" means. In other words, what constitutes publication will determine what are the necessary elements of an offence.
  I am not sure that section 10 of the 1985 Act deals with that point, although that can no doubt be considered in Committee. Concern has been expressed among analysts, fund managers and others that the provision could inhibit entirely proper dealing. A brief has been prepared by Clifford Chance, among other leading solicitors' firms which operate in the field. It is worth taking such concern seriously, and I hope that the Minister will do precisely that.
  The definition of dealing is to be broadened so as to include those who do not receive information direct from an insider. This is a somewhat technical point, but the defence under section 3(2) of the 1985 Act allows the use

  877
  of market information about a given transaction when that information is being used for the purposes of completing a transaction. That is most obvious in takeover activity. Under the Bill, however, market information can be used, but only when it is "reasonable … to deal" in that information. Concern has been expressed that the term "reasonable to deal" is so broad that it could give rise to uncertainty as to whether a criminal offence was being committed. I understand that the Treasury has said that it will issue guidelines on that point. The Confederation of British Industry and others have said that the guidelines should be statutory. I should have thought that, if we are constructing a criminal offence, the more that is in the statute itself rather than the guidelines, the better.
  The provisions are technical and complex but, as the Home Secretary said, they are also important—and fundamental to the fight against drug abuse. In all these matters, a common thread emerges: crime is rising rapidly. In each area covered by the Bill, enormous problems of detection and prosecution occur. Ultimately, a criminal justice system means not just effective laws and effective enforcement but strong policies of prevention. The war against drugs and drug abuse means tackling demand as well as supply. The rooting out of insider dealing needs a culture of honesty and openness in the City as well as rules that forbid such dealing.
  The Bill is one part of the fight against drug abuse and malpractice—and that fight is only one element in the fight against all types of criminal activity. The scale of crime in Britain today is a scandal. It weakens our ability to function successfully as a society and it destroys the quality of life for many innocent and law-abiding people. For the reasons that I have given, we shall not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, but we give the Government notice that, in the coming months, we shall grasp every opportunity to harry them for their failure to act against that scandalous level of crime, to bring forward coherent policies to combat it, and to treat crime as seriously as the people of the country they govern.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: First, I add my congratulations to the Home Office team—and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in particular—on this further effort by the Government to tackle the horrible problems of drug misuse. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Bill flows from the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which, in establishing new crimes, giving the police and Customs and Excise substantially increased investigatory powers and establishing regional drug squads, not only represented an incredibly important step forward in this country but gave other countries a lead in the fight against drug misuse. I welcome the Bill.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the referred to the way in which the Bill introduces a civil standard of proof—the balance of probability—rather than the criminal standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt". I seek an assurance that that will enable the police and prosecutors to get the top men—the big boys. So often, as the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, legislation has been used to capture the carriers and the traffickers—the small people—while the big boys have seemed to get away with it. I hope that that change, and the fact that the courts
  878
  will gain powers to confiscate further proceeds which may come to light after the initial confiscation order has been granted, will enhance the probability of pursuing and taking the proceeds away from the big organisers of big crime.
  In particular, I welcome the new offence created for failing to report knowledge or suspicion of drug money laundering gained in the course of a trade or profession and the other elements which bear on drug money laundering. The clearing banks have taken great strides in establishing methods of policing drug money laundering within their own banks and between themselves. I should like to be reassured that those banks can incorporate into their established procedures the rules which will apply under the Bill.
  Will the Minister reassure the House about how the present law is being applied by other financial institutions such as building societies, stock markets, insurance companies and accountancy companies or partnerships? If there is any doubt about whether the present law is being applied sufficiently, I hope that the Bill will give added impetus to organisations involved in financial services to do better in future.
  Under the terms of the Bill, certain funds to combat drug trafficking and extradition will be placed on a statutory basis. I wonder what that means. How much funding is involved and to what will it be applied? With regard to funding and organisation, I also wonder how the operation of the new law might be affected detrimentally by changes in the organisation, funding or operation of police forces in this country. That may be a slight tangent, but it is so pertinent to the application of the Bill that it would be good to have some reassurance from Home Office Ministers that nothing which might conceivably affect the organisation of our police forces will affect the efficacy of this good legislation.
  Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue which was covered in previous reports by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Will he take into account the fact that this month marks the anniversary of the establishment of the national criminal intelligence service, which was designed to meet my hon. Friend's point? It was designed to provide for better investigation of serious and organised crimes—80 per cent. of its work now relates to drug-related crime—and, through that service, the regional crime squads and the drugs wings of those squads co-ordinate the work of local police forces. My hon. Friend may feel that that meets the concern that he has expressed.
  Mr. Rathbone: My right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) has gone into greater detail in relation to the point that I was making. I hope that none of what he referred to will be jeopardised. Similarly, I hope that the European extension of that into Europol, which was a British Government initiative, will not be jeopardised and will lead to the application of the same methods of intelligence-gathering on a continent-wide basis that we have applied on a national basis in this country.
  What plans do the Government have to establish even closer liaison in future with other European countries and, on a bilateral basis with countries elsewhere in the world, to persuade them to adopt legislation similar to this Bill, which falls so well within United Nations conventions,

  879
  within the Vienna convention and, in European terms, within European Community directives? Until other countries apply the same kind of laws that we have been developing in this country to control drug misuse and drug trafficking, much of our activity will unfortunately come to naught. I pay tribute to the Government's international initiatives in that sphere over the years. The British Government can, with justification, hold their head high with regard to the control of drug misuse.
  However, the Bill has missed the opportunity to require confiscated moneys to be applied in order further to tackle drug misuse problems in this country. Moneys seized abroad through international co-operation can be used in this country for further funding of drug seizure and policing methods when foreign Governments pay that money to this country. Those moneys amount to a sizeable sum of £3 million or £4 million.
  It is an anomaly, however that, at the end of 1991, the most recent year for which figures are available, some £35 million was available entirely within our own control, but the Treasury got its hands on that money—I am glad that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is on the Front Bench to hear this—and it was not used specifically to further the efforts of the police and their hard work in terms of containing this hideous problem.
  My final point was touched on by the hon. Member for Sedgefield, and I believe that it should also be stressed from the Conservative Benches. The Bill is admirable and should be welcomed. Sadly, however, other parts of the Government are not marching to the same tune. In that regard, I mention specifically the Department of Health, which has unfortunately removed the ring fencing of funding for drug and alcohol treatment centres. They are in jeopardy, no matter what my colleagues or Ministers might say.
  In addition, the Department for Education has done away with health education co-ordinators. They are perhaps the most important element of Government activity in tackling drug misuse because it is at that level—in schools and talking to young people—that we reduce the demand which fuels all the other problems of trafficking, money laundering and criminality associated with that which the Bill is designed to tackle. I commend my colleagues for introducing the Bill.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I commend the work of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) in this country and in various international forums in heightening the awareness of the House and of the public about drug abuse. I echo what he said about the very important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), that we must see drug enforcement and other matters within the context of overall Government policy.
  If we are to be concerned properly about drug money laundering and drug abuse, we must also consider prevention. On a right hand and left hand basis, I hope that those in government who are concerned with the criminal law will also consider what the Department of Health and the Department for Education are doing in terms of weakening the supports that prevent young people from entering drug abuse. We cannot consider one side of the problem without the other. In this area, and in other areas, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has
  880
  enunciated the proper principle of being tough on crime and the causes of crime. That same principle can be applied well to this matter.
  I suppose that the first response of practitioners and members of the public to a Criminal Justice Bill is, "Oh, not again." There is not a lot of time for catching breath and perhaps consolidating. That is especially true in the light of experience with the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Many experienced magistrates are resigning over the question of the unit fines and a general unhappiness about the way in which prosecutions are hampered by the failure fully to take into account the antecedents of a defendant. Given the relatively small amount of parliamentary time which is at the disposal of the Home Office, it would have been ideal for the Government to use this existing vehicle. Clearly, mistakes were made in the 1991 Act. Would it not be possible, even now, for the Government to use the existing vehicle to remedy some of the deficiencies which have arisen as a result of the operation of the 1991 Act?
  As a commentary on the lack of time of the Home Office, I say only in passing that the Home Secretary will be aware of the vexed question of Sunday trading, where the Government are seemingly resigned to allowing law breakers to continue their law breaking for at least another year and to do nothing about it. That is something which could equally be dealt with by the Government by adopting an existing vehicle—the Shops (Amendment) Bill which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). That is a suggestion which I proffer in good faith to a Government who, undoubtedly—especially after Maastricht—are looking for ways to cut down parliamentary time for Government legislation. My hon. Friend's Bill is a means so to do.
  As the Home Secretary said, the Bill is complex and technical. It is to be welcomed in its broad thrust because it updates, closes loopholes and seeks to bring existing legislation into line with matters which have been revealed as a result of experience. The Bill is largely the result of expert discussion, whether at the European Community level, the Home Office working party level or the Law Commission level. The Bill has already been extensively covered in the other place.
  Therefore, we are left with picking what is left on the bones, as it were, and drawing attention to some of the deficiencies. One of those deficiencies is the failure to amend the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. I am glad that the Minister is taking that on board, albeit belatedly.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, we can make no reasonable points about part I, which relates to jurisdiction. The point about the danger of double jeopardy needs to be tackled by the Government. Parts II and III, which relate to the confiscation of the proceeds of crime and money laundering, are more relevant. They raise the question of civil liberties and where one must draw the balance. All hon. Members recognise the scourge of the drug trade and the way in which so many innocent lives, especially among young people, are blighted by the activities of 'godfathers' who are frequently beyond the reach of jurisdiction. In our search for justice against those godfathers and the couriers, whether they be from Nigeria or wherever, we should not lose sight of basic civil liberties, the standard of proof and suspicion—not knowing and believing, as in section 22 of the Theft Act 1968. Those matters need to be examined carefully.

  881
  There is a feeling of unease about certain provisions in the Bill. Some people believe that the balance—as a result of the Government's zeal, understandably, successfully to prosecute more people—may be tilted too far and that some basic civil liberties may be overridden in the process. It is not necessary for me to cover the specific points of concern. I have no problem with putting the assets of the drug dealers in jeopardy for a further six years after conviction. That is proper. It is clear that many drug dealers are able to hide their assets by sophisticated methods. It is proper that a term be placed on that, and six years seems to be reasonable. Nor am I worried about the civil standard with regard to confiscation, although I wish that this was at the top of the civil standard of proof set out by way of guideline.
  I am concerned about clause 13, relating to double sentence. There is a certain sense of unfairness that, although a person has served a sentence rather than the goods having been confiscated, the possibility of confiscation still stands. That is wrong in principle. I was not convinced by the explanation given in the other place. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether there is a precedent in criminal law for such a draconian provision in clause 13.
  I have already referred to the question of knowledge or suspicion under clause 16 and it is not necessary for me to dwell on that. I understand that the Minister will refer later to part IV, which relates to insider dealing. We understand the need to comply with an EC directive, which appears to be the motive behind the inclusion of part IV in the Bill. I simply ask about the extent to which Britain had a substantial say in the drafting of the various definitions. Several practitioners are concerned that, in our attempt to implement the directive, we have made less specific some of the terms which are used in our domestic legislation. The Minister will know the terms which are included. I wonder to what extent we have diluted what we thought was the proper practice as a result of the need to compromise at the EC level.
  I refer to my earlier point that, clearly, the current provisions are not working adequately. I am a veteran of the discussions which resulted in the Companies Act 1981. At that time, the Government were wary of having any insider dealing provisions. They claimed that it was better to rely on self-regulation, although manifestly self-regulation was not working. Clearly, there were problems as a result of that self-regulation in obtaining evidence.
  The position for the past five years—the source of the figures is column 748 in the Official Report of 13 January 1993—is that there were 30 prosecutions and only 13 convictions. If those who embark on prosecutions adopt the normal 50 per cent. rule—is there a more than 50 per cent. chance of succeeding in a prosecution?—clearly, they are failing. They are making judgments which have not been proved adequate in practice, and they are failing when more than half of the prosecutions on which they have embarked have failed.
  Is it the view of the prosecuting authorities that the difficulties in obtaining prosecutions derive from a feeling on the part of juries that insider dealing is fair game and something which perhaps should not be within the ambit of the criminal law, or are there fundamental problems in terms of definition which prevent prosecutions from being
  882
  successful? Presumably there must be research into why the prosecutions are failing. After all, the motive behind part IV is to implement an EC directive and not necessarily to improve the quality of our domestic legislation.
  Mr. Nelson: As the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) have talked about numbers of cases, it might be helpful if I were to try to clarify the matter. I understand that 28 prosecutions have been brought and that there have been 17 convictions. Of the 43 people who were involved, 22 were found guilty. The rate of conviction is rather higher than the figure or figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted. In such cases it is difficult always to secure the information that is necessary to mount a conviction. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was so right to point to the deterrence aspects as well as the prospects of mounting a successful prosecution.
  It is entirely proper that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who have the right to bring the cases that we are discussing, should be satisfied before, at public expense and in the light of all the other factors that are involved, such cases are mounted. The performance has been credible and along the lines of the average for fraud cases. The Bill's provisions should make the performance even more successful in future.
  Mr. Anderson: If the rate of conviction is somewhat higher than that which the written answer suggests, it is still only just above the hurdle of the 50 per cent. rule. Given the expensive nature of these cases, that is something that the Government need carefully to examine.
  We are talking about an amendment to our domestic law that perhaps the Government would not have wanted. It is an amendment which derives directly from our need to implement an EC directive. I say rather mischievously in passing that I hope that such provisions will be implemented fully and in a draconian way in Italy as well as in the United Kingdom.
  There has been a series of Criminal Justice Bills, and the one before us is clearly to be welcomed. There are points of detail that need to be examined. We face the constant problem of catching up with modern, technical developments and others and responding to the sophistication of criminals. In so far as it goes, the Bill is welcome in that respect.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: First, I declare an interest. I am a paid adviser of the Legal and General Group plc, which has interests in part IV of the Bill, both as a quoted company on the stock exchange and as an investment management business. I am pleased that I do not have to declare any other interest. Notably, I am not a lawyer. I rose to speak with some trepidation, however, before tangling with the able and qualified lawyers who have already involved themselves in the debate.
  I shall commence by lamenting what is not in the Bill. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who in an intervention in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary lamented the fact that we are not dealing with the problem of sentencing by way of unit fines, which were introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  883
  We are creating something of a nightmare for the 29,000 lay magistrates and there is a crisis of morale. In my constituency we are feeling the effects of the problem quite severely. The most offensive part of the 1991 Act has been described by Lord Justice Taylor as an "ill-fitting straitjacket" on the sentencing policies of individual courts. I shall detain the House for a short while by quoting from the leader which appeared in The Times on 23 March. Part of it reads:
  "The problems which have afflicted the Criminal Justice Act in its first six months illustrate the difference between sensible guidelines and rigid prescription. It is right that courts should be firmly directed in their sentencing. But the scales of justice cannot be reduced to an algorithm. The responsibility of magistrates to import local knowledge and expertise to the judicial process must be preserved. Rigidity and obscurity are no recipe for justice."
  I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already taken those points on board.
  I also lament the fact that we are not able to deal with juvenile offenders in our consideration of the Bill. I can vouch for the fact that juvenile offending is a major problem in my constituency. The local police could name the 20 or 30 juvenile offenders with whom they have to deal time and time again. It is clear that we must deal with the problem as quickly as possible. The difficulties experienced in reforming these offenders may be acute, but it is not fair on the victims of their crimes that they are allowed to roam the streets because the detention policies hitherto tried have not been successful.
  Apart from those caveats, I give a broad welcome to the Bill. It is directed primarily to financial crime, which is every bit as heinous and damages the victims every bit as badly as ordinary crimes. We tend to become preoccupied, as I was when making my earlier comments, with crimes which have a direct effect on individuals in a visual or graphic way, but financial crime has its own victims and causes its own misery. I give a strong welcome to the practical alterations to the law which turn on matters of jurisdiction and the proceeds of criminal conduct. I strongly welcome the proposed improvements to the law on drug trafficking.
  I wish to focus especially on part IV, which is concerned with insider dealing. My central concern is that there appears not to be a full understanding of how institutions and quoted companies seek to smooth the market, to avoid volatility in the stock market, to give confidence to the market. I wish to focus on how the market works now and the threat that the Bill might present to the way in which the market works currently.
  The concerns which I intend to articulate have been raised by a wide range of people and organisations. I shall refer briefly to but a few. First, there is the Investor Relations Society. There is the Hundred Group of Finance Directors, which is a club for the finance directors of the top 100 quoted companies in the United Kingdom. The group states:
  "the ambiguities implicit in the drafting of the Bill … are so serious that it appears to us that the legislation will hinder legitimate business activities and market practices."
  The Association of British Insurers wrote to me as follows:
  "We are particularly concerned, as major in vesting institutions, that the provisions will unduly inhibit shareholder-company communications and restrict the ability of companies to raise capital."
  The CBI states that it
  "believes that the current provisions of the Bill, if unamended, will seriously hinder the development of open lines of communication between companies and investors."
  884
  The Institute of Directors has also written to me. It states:
  "The IOD's Law Committee, whose membership comprises a wide range of business, professional and academic expertise, was unanimous that the Bill, as drafted, was, in spite of the Treasury's clearly expressed intention to the contrary, capable of casting doubt on the legality of directors effecting normal commercial corporate transactions. It could, accordingly, create substantial difficulty, uncertainty and unfair exposure to criminal penalties for directors of industrial and commercial companies."
  The British Bankers Association has also written to me, as have many other organisations which are respected by the Government, I believe, and whose opinions we should take account of when considering these matters.
  A survey conducted by a firm of solicitors—Fishburn, Hedges, Boys and Williams—last September among 50 investing institutions found that 62 per cent. of fund managers believed that the new legislation would damage the quality of their service to clients by stemming the flow of information and hampering their ability to analyse companies. Furthermore, it was clear that institutions think that the Government's proposals will create more problems than they will solve. Far from cracking down on insider dealing, they will restrict the communication on which all investors rely.
  The fundamental flaw in the Bill is an apparent lack of understanding of how the market operates. In common, I am sure, with virtually all right hon. and hon. Members, I am in favour of strong and clear insider dealing legislation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, such legislation is necessary for the market to operate effectively and so that investors may have confidence that the market reflects the true value of quoted companies.
  There are two sides to the operation of the market. There are the stockbrokers on the sell side, who seek to sell securities to investors, and there are institutional and individual investors on the buy side. Institutions account for the major part of the buy side, with individual investors forming a very small proportion of today's market.
  There are perhaps a dozen standard forms of communication between quoted companies and the market. I shall list the six main ones. Published and half-year results are price-sensitive information. When they are made known to the market, they are made known publicly and there is no ambiguity as to their status. Other information will be given to brokers in a standard form and is counted as publicly available information.
  Specific announcements might be made at press conferences. If the market is informed by brokers that profits have been forecast as X but that the company is fully aware that profits will be half X, the company may issue a profits warning, to make clear to the market what will be its likely profits, so that the market is fully informed and can effectively reflect that information in the company's share price.
  The less public channels of information are more under threat from the Bill. I refer to meetings with buy-side analysts at which brokers' analysts are met on a one-to-one basis or in groups in order better to inform them of a company's nature and position. The purpose is to divulge not price-sensitive or inside information but facts which could improve the brokers' understanding of the company, which will necessarily affect their view of it.
  There are also one-to-one presentations to large shareholders. This is an essential and growing practice in the City. They enable the City to gain a better understanding of British industry and vice versa—

  885
  something towards which Governments have been working for years. It is an important part of the communication process between industry and the City. There is also communication with small shareholders.
  The last three practices relate not to public information but to legitimate information. If, for example, a company's published results prove to be very bad, investors and intermediate institutions are entitled to know of the problem which caused the fall in profits and the action that the company is taking to put the matter right. Such information will help to inform the share price. That is about giving the company the opportunity to explain its stance on key issues.
  The objective of a responsible quoted company is to optimise its share price. I do not mean by that that it should try to bolster its share price at every opportunity because that would not be conducive to an optimum share price. Companies which attempt to bolster their share price at every opportunity tend to receive a low rating in the market, because the market does not necessarily attach the same importance to everything said by such a company as it would to a company which takes more care over the way it communicates with its shareholders.
  The optimum share price is the best share price in view of all germane information and the state of the company. That means giving investors confidence that the price in the market is a fair reflection of the company's real value—that the brokers' profit forecasts are not wildly out. That avoids shock movement in share prices, which provides the biggest opportunities for insider dealers to make a quick and illegal profit.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does my hon. Friend agree that meetings of the kind that he described and the practices that he mentioned are vital to the smooth running of the capital markets and to the provision of capital to publicly quoted companies? It is most important that shareholders and corporate management should know and understand each other and should talk to each other regularly on a basis of confidence.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the ability of companies to raise additional capital. They can do that only if there is general confidence in the value of their share price and if that information in the public domain is accurate and up to date. If brokers had information completely different from that in the public domain, the market could not operate effectively. If brokers were happy to behave in such a way, confidence in a particular stock would be seriously damaged, which ultimately would be in no one's interest. My hon. Friend highlights the important point that there is a different nut which will be caught by the sledgehammer nature of the Bill's wider definitions.
  The process of conveying information, maintaining investors' confidence and ensuring a realistic share price must be safeguarded. The potential for damage could lead to more volatile prices, which would be bad for the confidence of investors and would lead to more surprises entering the public domain more frequently. That would increase the likelihood of sharp share price movements, which would be to the advantage only of those who dip in
  886
  and out of the market for short-term gain. It would not be to the advantage of long-term investors seeking to secure the funds of policyholders or of the companies themselves.
  Mr. Nelson: It is not my intention to keep bobbing up and down throughout the debate but as this is the part of the Bill with which I am most concerned, perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to comment.
  Under present legislation, unpublished price-sensitive information cannot be disclosed at such meetings—just as in the future information which has not been made public, which is specific and precise, and which is likely to have a significant effect on the share price, cannot be disclosed at such meetings. I share with my hon. Friend his view of the importance of meetings between companies and their institutional investors and of occasional meetings with analysts. Nothing in the Bill should be used to interrupt those important relations and established means of analysts going about their business—and it is certainly not the Government's intention that any of the Bill's provisions should be used in that way.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying so clearly the Government's intention, which is as I have always understood it. I am sure that most investing institutions and organisations to whose representatives I have spoken also believe that to be the Government's intention.
  One problem, which is more a Committee matter than a Second Reading matter, is that the Bill will make it illegal for someone with inside information to encourage another person to deal in shares even if that other person is not told the information. That means that a director could, simply by having a meeting with a broker, without passing over inside information, make the broker an insider, causing the broker to go off-market, perhaps until the next results are published. In view of my hon. Friend's assurances, I am sure that that matter can be clarified in Committee.
  I was greatly encouraged by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that amendments to clarify the issue—perhaps clarification is all that is needed—will be brought forward in Committee. With that caveat, therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Bill's aim—to improve the ability of the criminal justice system to tackle white collar financial crime, including fraud, money laundering and insider dealing—is something to which all hon. Members would subscribe.
  The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has performed a valuable service in highlighting some of the concerns that have been widely expressed about whether the Bill, no doubt inadvertently, will catch desirable activities and increase uncertainties in a way that does nothing to advance its purpose of diminishing white collar crime.
  It is not entirely satisfactory to leave such matters to be dealt with in Committee. That may be the conventional way in which Parliament deals with them, but we have a procedure—a pre-legislative Committee procedure which would have been apt to take on board exactly the kind of points with which the hon. Gentleman so eloquently dealt.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to list the number of institutions and groups of people who have expressed

  887
  concern. Parliament would have been helped if it had had an opportunity to hear those concerns expressed in a way that could have been provided if the matter had been considered at the right time.
  I say that particularly because a considerable number of complaints have been made about the consultative process in the Bill's preparation. I drew that to the attention of the Secretary of State in the course of his opening speech, so I do not wish to labour the point now. However, the consultation before the Bill was published was not as extensive as it should have been.
  It would be a good idea for the Home Office to take on board the strictures of the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government's commission on the legislative process—a body on which I served along with Mr. Michael Latham, who used to be a distinguished Member of the House, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—which drew attention to the widespread dissatisfaction with the consultative procedures, particularly on technical Bills, in order to avoid the kind of difficulties of which we have heard. That is not a party point.
  However, the purpose of today's debate is not to draw attention to those concerns which will no doubt be returned to in Committee, but rather to deal with the broad principles behind the Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Colchester, North and others would agree that, whatever their concerns may be, and however abstruse and complex white collar crimes may be, such crimes are real and damaging. They are damaging to our marketing institutions and to individuals. The Maxwell pensioners and those who invested in Barlow Clowes know that they were not victimless crimes.
  Many hon. Members are personally aware of the horrific expansion in drug trafficking and its appalling consequences. I shall not repeat matters on which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) touched beyond reiterating my concern, and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, aboul the continuing increase in drug trafficking in Britain. Notwithstanding evidence of the increasing success of Customs and Excise in pulling in drugs—I understand that the value of drugs seized in 1980 was some 10 million and in the latest recorded year for which I have figures, 1991, the street value was £200 million—as the hon. Member for Sedgefield rightly said, we do not know what percentage of the total trade that constitutes. If, as has been alleged, it is about 10 per cent. of that trade, we still have an horrifically large problem with which to deal and so must take whatever measures we can to reduce the profitability of the venture, and that is clearly what the Bill intends.
  Like the hon. Member for Colchester, North, I want to deal more with the question of the effectiveness of white collar financial crimes—the part of the Bill that covers insider dealing—and my general concern about our apparent difficulties in tackling complex fraud in Britain. We were helpfully given the precise and up-to-date figures by the Economic Secretary in an intervention and they show that, of the cases referred, a small proportion have resulted in convictions.
  I made the immediate concession to the Home Secretary that the deterrent effect of our existing law on insider dealing in particular is incalculable and no doubt great. But it is a matter of concern that we find it so difficult to make charges stick. I want later to make some suggestions about how we might improve that position.
  888
  In general, my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome moves to provide the criminal justice system with the means to apprehend and convict those who commit such offences, but we have some doubts about whether the Bill will do a great deal to enhance the effectiveness of our attack on the problems.
  I welcome the proposals on extra-territorial jurisdiction. By way of an anecdotal aside, I can tell the House that as long ago as 1967 I introduced a private Member's Bill, the Toyko Convention Bill, which was enacted. It was designed to give extra-territorial jurisdiction to our courts for crimes committed on board aircraft to take account of changing technolgy and the greater frequency with which crimes were being committed on aircraft over which no one had jurisdiction. That principle must obviously be extended so that, as technology and trading across screens develops, we can apply new criminal sanctions. There will be many changes, and frequent Criminal Justice Bills will inevitably be needed to take account of such developments.
  I suspect that we shall not have to deal with new technology or a change in perception of the seriousness of the offence of insider dealing. As long ago as the early 1970s, the Takeover Panel outlawed insider dealing for takeovers in its non-statutory code. A number of attempts have been made since then to provide a statutory basis for the effective treatment of such offences by our courts. However, the volume of legislation on the subject is testimony to the ineffectiveness of each piece of legislation that we have introduced, not to the development of technology.
  It is appropriate to draw to the Government's attention the Bar Council's thinking on the broad issue of fraud trials. I well remember a debate in the House a few years ago on the report of the Roskill commission. I think that there were 12 participants in the debate, almost all of whom—if my memory serves me right—were lawyers. Eleven of them spoke against the Government's proposal that serious fraud trials should proceed without the benefit of a jury, using instead specialist judges with specialist assessors. In the face of that overwhelming opposition to the principle of the Roskill commission's main recommendation, the Government did not proceed with the proposal, and they were right not to do so.
  The proposal has been referred to from time to time and perhaps it will be considered again by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. Nothing that I have heard has suggested to me that the House was wrong then to recommend that we stick with jury trials in complex fraud cases. However, the Bar Council is right to advocate certain procedural changes in such cases—not least cases of alleged insider dealing covered by the Bill—that would enable the system to operate more effectively and fairly, and help juries to tackle the problems of dealing with complex fraud. The Bar Council's working group identified the central problem as the complexity of the cases relating to offences such as those covered by the Bill. The group stated that the complexity resulted from the increasingly sophisticated nature of the crimes that take place in the context of the global. electronic financial marketplace.
  The Bill does not deal with such problems, which is a pity, as it provided an opportunity to do so. The Minister of State, Lord Ferrers, dealt with some of the anxieties mentioned earlier, but he did not make any proposals to deal with the procedural difficulties. There are no easy or

  889
  quick solutions, but there are ways to assist juries in cases such as the Blue Arrow trial. In that trial, the jury members were expected to wade through a mass of minutiae in pursuit of important information. The Court of Appeal ultimately ruled that the case had become unmanageable, and consequently none of the convictions could be said to be safe.
  One way of helping the jury to stay on top of the case would be to introduce special court procedures to clarify the issues and identify the relevant information before, and perhaps even during, a trial. Those procedures would be in addition to, but not instead of, normal trial procedures. There is no need to create a professional or semiprofessional tribunal without a jury, only a need to find ways of managing the information more efficiently.
  It would be interesting to hear the Government's view on what Lord Alexander of Weedon advocated in his speech on Second Reading, to which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referred. It seems that some of 'the cases that the stock exchange drew to the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry might have been susceptible to examination, and proceedings might have been initiated that would have resulted in the disgorging of illegally obtained profits. Some compensation and redress might have been given to some of the victims of improper white collar crimes if the proposals advocated by Lord Alexander were adopted. Therefore, it would be of interest to know the Government's thoughts. I cannot imagine that it is a matter on which one would have a doctrinal view.
  There is scope for extending the role of the judge in requiring coherent and relevant case statements from the defence, and for encouraging more extensive agreement in complex fraud cases between the defence and prosecution over the facts by means of a timetable procedure. That would enable the separate issues of the case to be dealt with in a rational and efficient manner. It would be much less confusing for the jury and would consume less court time. The jury could be presented with the relevant documents and summaries as each stage of the trial occurred rather than at the beginning of the trial in accordance with the timetable that had been drawn up. The presentation and summing up of the cases for the prosecution and defence should also be accompanied by written summaries to be used by the jury.
  I make those suggestions tentatively, and they are not intended as a panacea for the ills of our criminal justice system in relation to white collar crime. However, they are intended to address a problem that the Bill touches on but to which it does not adequately face up. They would provide a valuable step towards giving courts the means by which to try such cases effectively, fairly and efficiently. That is necessary if we are to deter transgressions by those who could bring our markets into disrepute and cause great damage to our commerce and to the profits that the City brings to our country.
  Without such a step, I fear that the Bill may be no more effective than some of its predecessors in eliminating the profitability of large-scale white collar crime. I hope that we shall not need yet another Bill in a few years to tackle these matters. Amendments to the criminal law procedure along the lines that I have suggested would give existing law a better chance to work.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: This is the third time in the past year that I have had the pleasure of following the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). As on those occasions, he has made a considered contribution. It is also a pleasure to participate in a debate that has been largely uncontroversial. All hon. Members seem to support the thrust of the Bill. The Tokyo Conventions Act has been mentioned. I assure the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that in the Market Harborough Conservative club we talk of little else.
  I shall concentrate on part II of the Bill and especially on the clauses dealing with the burden of proof and related matters. Clause 7(1) amends section 1(1) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. The amendment will be such that the requirement of the court to determine whether a convicted person has benefited from drug trafficking is no longer mandatory. That will allow the determination to be made at the request of the prosecutor or at the behest of the court on the court's motion.
  That provision will dispense with courts wasting time and the money of the police and prosecution service making determinations in cases where the amount of the benefit is so small as to be not worth the investigation. A better use of police and court resources is to be commended, not least at a time when the Government's resources are limited and when we are concerned about the amount being spent on legal aid.
  Clause 7(2) inserts a new subsection in the 1986 Act, subsection (7A), which states:
  "The standard of proof required to determine …

  (a) whethr a person has benefited from drug trafficking, or

  (b) the amount to be recovered …

  shall be that applicable in civil proceedings."
  From now on it is clear that the trial judge making the determination will work on the balance of probabilities at that stage of the proceedings. He will have to be satisfied that an allegation or fact is more likely than not.
  I understand that a judge is currently entitled to make assumptions under section 2(2) and (3) of the 1986 Act when arriving at a decision. No standard of proof arises when the judge is deciding whether the assumption should be made. When the assumption is made, the burden falls on the defendant to rebut it on the civil standard. I understand that that follows from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Crown v. Redbourne to which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referred.
  Hand in hand with those amendments under clause 7 is clause 9 which requires the court to make the assumptions about property and expenditure which are set out in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act unless they are shown to be incorrect in the defendant's case or the court is satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice if they were made. If the court decides not to make the assumptions, it must state its reasons. It is an admirable advance that a court should be required by statute to give reasons for reaching a conclusion.
  Clause 9 amends section 2 of the 1986 Act. Section 2(2) of that Act states what the court "may" do to determine whether a defendant has benefited from drug trafficking. The word "may" is replaced by "shall". Clause 9 inserts at the end of subsection (2):
  "The court shall not make any required assumption if—

  (a) that assumption is shown to be incorrect in the defendant's case …".

  891
  The required assumptions are set out in subsection (3) of the 1986 Act, but I shall not rehearse them. Despite the concerns of those who spoke against the 1986 Act that these were draconian measures, it now seems that the hon. Member for Sedgefield has recognised their value. I am sure that criminal practitioners, of whom I am not one, will also recognise the value of the Bill's amendments to the 1986 Act.
  Clause 8 adds to section 1 of the 1986 Act a provision allowing the determining court to postpone its investigation for up to six months until relevant information has been obtained. That application can be made by the prosecution or by the defence or by the court on its own motion. It deals with the problem which can arise under section 1 of the 1986 Act when no confiscation order is made at the original determination on the mistaken assumption that the defendant had no realisable assets but when some are subsequently discovered. I understand that previously a court had only 28 days to vary its decision. Now it has a considerably longer time in which to right that injustice.
  Clause 12 allows the court to vary an order to take account of increased values of assets. That is an especially welcome addition to the criminal law. It would be manifestly unjust if someone convicted of drug trafficking were able to benefit from the increase in house prices, Iand values or the value of any other proceeds that he had acquired as a result of drug trafficking but which were not available to be seized by the court at the time of the determination. I welcome that aspect of the Bill.
  Clause 16 continues the fight against drug trafficking and those who benefit from it by making it an offence knowingly to acquire, possess or use another's proceeds from drug trafficking. It is easy to build up an empire and pass it on to one's friends and relations who will benefit from the proceeds of illegal acts. Anyone who knowingly benefits from such a gift or who acquires, possesses or uses another's proceeds will be liable on indictment to a sentence of 14 years' imprisonment. That also underlines the determination of the House and the Government to get to the root of drug trafficking—to hit the drug barons and their friends in their pockets.
  I also commend clause 10, which tightens the pleading procedure on determination. The court will be enabled to inform the prosecutor that he must set out his statement of case. The defendant must respond to it within a given time. That procedure will save time, eliminate unnecessary controversy and save money, which is particularly short at this time.
  The Bill is a further arrow in our armoury in the war against drugs. We already have the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987, which contains similar confiscatory powers in regard to Scotland, and the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, which contains measures designed to facilitate the task of detecting drug traffickers and confiscating proceeds. It creates the offence of manufacturing or supplying substances while knowing or suspecting that they are to be used in the unlawful production of controlled drugs. The Bill, which I hope will shortly become an Act, adds to that armoury.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) says, we have the valuable work of the drug liaison officers abroad, with their intelligence, which is vital if all this is to work.
  892
  Given the lateness of the hour and the number of hon. Members who wish to speak, I will conclude my remarks. I invite the House to pass the Bill as soon as possible, not only because it is an earnest of our desire to stamp out the blight of drug dealing in our society, but because it is what the people of this country require us to do as swiftly as possible.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The doubling of crime since 1979 and the increased pressure on the police and the courts mean that the criminal law needs to be strengthened. Therefore, in broad terms, the Bill is welcome.
  Drug use is obviously a major cause of crime. Those who traffic in drugs and create a demand for the product are as responsible for the muggings, burglaries and deaths caused by drug users seeking money for their next fix, as the drug users themselves. Many criminals would not offend, but for the need to pay the pusher and the trafficker who supply the drugs. It is necessary to have tough and effective laws on drug trafficking and on the laundering of the proceeds of crime. The Bill goes some way towards that. The greater powers that it gives the courts are, in many ways, justified because of the size of the threat confronting us.
  I want to deal not particularly with drug trafficking but with insider dealing, although some of the points that I raise will be relevant to drug trafficking.
  The statistics on the success or otherwise of prosecutions in insider dealing cases show how difficult it is to secure a conviction. In the peak year of 1989–90, 10 cases were taken to the courts, involving the prosecution of 14 defendants, four convictions and nine acquittals. I assume that the Fisher case, the Coren and Greenwood case and the Guinness case account for some of those, although not all.
  The statistics were disputed by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The statistics provided by the House of Commons Library suggest—and I note what the hon. Gentleman said—that until 13 January 1993, of the 104 cases reported by the stock exchange to the DTI, 21 were prosecuted, involving a total of 33 individuals and resulting in 16 convictions. That suggests that the complexity of the law, coupled with the complexity of the issues involved, makes it very difficult for those accused of insider dealing to be convicted.
  In the late 1980s, I was involved in an insider dealing case as a defence lawyer. In that case two acquittals were secured. I noted the complexity and amount of information with which we had to deal. The evidence took over a year to assemble, and weeks to read and analyse. Meetings with counsels were complex and virtually interminable.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: And expensive.
  Mr. O'Brien: Yes, they were certainly expensive.
  In that case, the defence succeeded on a legal submission at the start of the trial. We had a whole series of legal points in the case which highlighted what we felt to be the inadequate way in which the legislation was drafted and its lack of clarity. I am sure that the defendants would have been aquitted in any event, but the Act was clearly lacking.

  893
  The Bill makes a number of welcome changes, but I fear that it does not take sufficient account of the need to clarify insider dealing legislation, and that we may need to revisit this area again in the near future.
  The need to clarify both the way in which evidence is presented to juries and the legislation itself is very important. Unfortunately, I do not think that the Bill will do the trick.
  One of the criticisms of the Bill, both in another place and by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), was that the legislation shifts the burden of proof in particular areas. It is an important criticism, and it is right that burdens should not be unnecessarily placed upon defendants. However, it is also important that cases are decided fairly, and the requirement for a fair and just trial means that a jury should understand the process of the trial and the relevant factors involved in making a finding of guilt or innocence. My concern is that cases of insider dealing are too complex and, where they are linked to factual and documentary material which is also complex, the job of a jury in such cases is extremely difficult.
  There is a proposal from some sources of replacing trial by jury with trial by a judge and assessors for particularly complex cases involving dishonest dealings. I am reluctant to go down that route because it is a slippery slope and undermines the right of an individual to trial by jury in criminal cases; but, if we are successfully to try cases by jury, it is essential to simplify the number of issues involved, which requires the use of legal presumptions such as those in the Bill.
  Although such presumptions may shift the burden of proof towards the defendant, they can have merit in these particular types of case. For example, under clause 37 the defendant must show that he did not expect the receiver of the information to deal. This replaces the previous and inadequate legislation which required proof of knowledge of the intention to deal, which was sometimes difficult to prove. Although in the Bill there appears to be some element of "guilty until proved innocent"—or at least proved innocent on the balance of the argument—these provisions will in many cases lead, because of the simplification of the trial process for the jury, to a fairer and more just verdict. They simplify the process and, by and large, do not place unnecessary burdens upon defendants.
  One area that the Bill does not cover is the removal of the right of silence in insider dealing cases. That was part of earlier legislation. Having sat through two days of interviews conducted under those rules, and looking at the convictions resulting from the interviews, I would say that hopes suggested by the police and by some Conservative Members that removing the right to silence in other types of case might improve the rate of conviction may not be justified, particularly in complex cases such as insider dealing.
  I have grave doubts that the interviews take place in a proper manner. Certainly, my experience was that documents of very considerable complexity, which were extremely difficult to follow, were presented to a defendant who was asked to deal with questions relating to share dealings which had taken place two years before. He had had no opportunity to go through those documents. If we
  894
  are to deny the right of silence to defendants in complex cases, advance notice of areas of questioning and documentation should always be given. I hope that the Minister will look at that issue when the Bill is considered in Committee and that those who seek to undermine the right to silence will weigh in the balance the view that the proposal may not achieve its aim and could lead to additional injustice.
  My main regret relates to what the Bill does not do rather than to what it does do. It provided the chance to undo the damage done by the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It is clear that insider dealing and cases involving drug trafficking will be affected by the sentencing restrictions imposed by sections 1(2)(a) and 29. They are cases which typically may have multiple count indictments or sample count indictments. It seems to me that the legislation that needs to be dealt with today is the Criminal Justice Act 1991. In its failure to do that, the Bill is massively inadequate.
  When the 1991 Act was passed, the Government made it clear that the purpose of that measure was to reduce the number of people in prison. Its effect, however, is that persistent offenders with lots of previous convictions find that the court is restricted in its ability to take their record into account when sentencing. Some persistent offenders therefore get away with offences for which they should go to prison. It is frustrating for police officers and the public to see criminals arrested and brought before the courts and then to find that the courts are forced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to let them off.
  Due to the enactment of that legislation the Government's law and order policy has lost all credibility; crime has doubled during their period of office and the 1991 Act is among the most ludicrous pieces of legislation ever to hit the statute book. By means of that Act, the Conservatives have added to their long list of citizens charters the citizens charter for criminals. The Act gives criminals more rights than they have ever had before and makes their lives easier than they have ever been before.
  I welcome to some extent what the Home Secretary said about looking again at the 1991 Act, but that will take time, during which criminals who deserve to go to prison will not be sent to prison. While the Home Secretary consults, debates and prevaricates, other victims will suffer. There needs to be a sense of urgency about dealing with the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I hope shortly to put before the House of Commons a ten-minute Bill on the issue, which I trust that the Home Secretary and the Conservative party will be able to support.
  I welcome, in broad terms, what the Bill does. As the Home Secretary said, it is right that it should be considered in detail in Committee so that the problems caused by its predecessor can be avoided. I am sure that we shall all be most vociferous in tabling the amendments that we think are necessary.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: It is true that the Bill is unlikely to make headline news in the popular press. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made that clear in his opening remarks. None the less, it is a most important Bill, for it provides a variety of additional safeguards against white collar crime. There is no qualitative difference between this type of crime and any other. It is absolutely right that we should be

  895
  assiduous in tracking down and punishing criminals who may wear white collars and sit in offices but who are, none the less, common criminals. Therefore, I particularly welcome the provisions of the Bill which make life significantly tougher for those who engage in serious international fraud, money laundering and its attendant terrorist associations and, of course, the evil practice of drug trafficking.
  In common with other hon. Members, I intend to focus on part IV, which deals with insider dealing. I ought immediately to declare an interest. I began my professional career as an investment analyst in the City. Subsequently, I moved into corporate finance with S. G. Warburg Group plc, for which I act as a paid consultant. I am also a non-executive director of a public company.
  Insider dealing has been famously described as a victimless crime, but in my view it is nothing of the kind. Insider dealing, put simply, is a form of cheating. One set of victims, therefore, consists of those who are cheated upon. By implication, these are other shareholders and other market professionals; it is widely accepted that larger and more active City institutions—for example, those handling large pension portfolios—are likely to suffer the most. But the other principal victim of insider dealing is the City itself. If cheating were to become widespread, the market would quickly fall into disrepute, and confidence in London, as one of the world's major financial centres, would suffer.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is in no doubt about the importance that the City as a whole attaches to his efforts to make insider dealing legislation more effective. I am sure that he has the support of the City and the House in those efforts. But for legislation to be effective, it must first be absolutely clear. As the workings of the existing laws regulating the financial markets have from time to time in practice suggested, we are dealing with an extremely complex set of issues that do not readily lend themselves to legislation. There is a need to proceed with very great caution if the ability of the City to continue with its proper function of transmitting important information to investors and the public is not to be impaired.
  Reference has already been made in the debate to the fact that during the Second Reading debate of the Bill in another place considerable concern was expressed that no final decision should be taken as to the detailed contents of the Bill without the fullest possible consultation with the City institutions and investment banks, upon whose daily business it impinges. It is a source of great encouragement that such consultation has now taken place. Here I differ from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
  I know that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has given full consideration to the large number of detailed points that have arisen from the consultation that has taken place since last autumn and from the consultation that continues to take place. I echo the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that one of the major improvements that has taken place since last autumn is that the word "tippee" has not found a permanent place in the text of the Bill. I only hope that it was removed in time for it not to have found a permanent place in the English language. Perhaps I should not have mentioned it.
  As the Bill stands today, a number of outstanding concerns remain. I do not intend, the House will be
  896
  relieved to hear, to list all of them this evening. The proper place for their consideration will be in Committee when I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will consider carefully ways in which the present wording of the legislation can be clarified. Only this afternoon my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that he is ready to look carefully at suitable amendments that may be tabled to deal with these concerns. I was also glad to hear him say that he himself intended to table some amendments. He may be assured that the progress of such amendments will be studied with the greatest of care and attention by those who carry on legitimate securities business in the City.
  Repeated assurances have been given that there is no intention, by means of the Bill, to make illegal business practices that currently are legitimate. My right hon. and learned Friend reiterated that point clearly today, as did my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. I very much welcome what they said. I do not for a minute doubt that they mean what they say, but the trouble is that those reassurances are not yet reflected in the Bill. As it is drafted, there is a distinct risk that some of the provisions in part IV will have precisely the effect of creating uncertainty over the legitimacy of currently accepted practices. That is perhaps mainly because a lack of clarity will make it too risky for present practices to continue.
  Hon. Members have referred to the deterrent effect of the present insider dealing legislation. This, I believe, is very real. Reputable City institutions and financial service organisations are understandably most anxious to avoid any breach of the law, and their concern to be in no doubt about how the law will work, stems, perhaps, from that very anxiety.
  I should like to highlight three key areas in which there appear to be particular problems. The first relates to stock market investment analysts—a subject that is very close to my heart. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that it is the role of analysts to obtain through research information about companies and sectors that can be used, usually in in-house publications, to provide fund managers with a basis for taking investment decisions. The key point it issue, which has been referred to in the debate, is that, to avoid prejudice to the role of analysts, it would be most helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister reconsidered the words "made public" in clause 33, which are somewhat unclear.
  The issue has been widely discussed, but it is worth noting that the recital to the European Community directive, which the Bill implements, uses the words "publicly available", which is rather clearer and which seems to offer a preferable alternative with less risk of misinterpretation. It is an alternative favoured by the City, by the many organisations that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), by the British Merchant Banking and Securities Houses Association and, perhaps most important, by the finance directors of public companies, who liaise with investment analysts.
  Fund managers are not always required to pay close attention to all analysts—indeed, in my experience, the views of a number of analysts are regarded as a counter-indicator of what is likely to occur—but the reputation of a few analysts in certain sectors is such that their views are capable of moving the market in relevant shares. It is necessary, therefore, for the Bill to make it

  897
  absolutely clear that an influential analyst does not become an insider by virtue of the fact that he or she has reached a conclusion about the merits of a share.
  Under the Bill, it appears that, if an analyst is fortunate enough to have such a high reputation that the disclosure of his or her views on a share might move the market, because those views are price-sensitive and have not been made public the analyst would not be allowed to express those views to a client, if to do so would encourage the client to deal in a share. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary would not want such a situation to develop.
  There is a real danger that the well-intentioned measures in part IV could so impede the flow of reasonable information between companies, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North spoke so eloquently, that they could reverse the trend to corporate glasnost, which has been a feature of recent years and which has led to a freeing up of information on which to base investment decisions. We surely do not wish to encourage a return to the corporate secrecy of the bad old days, when one had to be a member of the chairman's club or golf club to know anything meaningful about what was going on in a company.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider the way in which the Bill might apply to vendor placings and secondary share underwritings. This is technical stuff, but it is important to the smooth functioning of the City and the capital markets. It is unclear whether normal, perfectly legitimate practices associated with secondary underwritings and vendor placings will continue to be permitted under the Bill. Vendor placings are a frequently used method of financing acquisitions, and a good example of a secondary underwriting that might be close to my hon. Friend's heart is the forthcoming disposal by the Government of a further tranche of shares in British Telecom. It would be most unfortunate, to say the least, if there were any uncertainty about the legitimacy of the means by which this disposal or any other secondary underwriting might logically and appropriately take place.
  I understand that it has been suggested during the consultations that vendor and secondary placings would be protected by the defence in clause 32(2) that persons taking part would not be intending to secure a profit by reason of the fact that the securities are price-affected, but as such people are inevitably engaged in business with a view to securing a profit, and as the nature of many of the transactions in question will be likely to affect the price, this does not seem to be a particularly robust defence. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to introduce a more precise and dependable protection for those who carry out a role that is integral to the raising of corporate capital.
  Mr. Nelson: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall consider most carefully the thoughtful points that he has made, which is the advantage of the Committee stage. I draw his attention to part II of schedule 2, which provides exemptions for market makers, market information and price stabilisation, all of which are important aspects of what the professionals do in the market and should offer an exemption that measures up to many of the demands that were made in the consultation period. I shall carefully consider how much further the Government can go to
  898
  provide further reassurances that do not drive a coach and horses through the intentions of the directive or the Bill, but I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that we have tried to go some way to meeting the points he has made.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am aware of the exemptions to which he refers. I know that all involved are grateful that it has been possible to incorporate them in the Bill and I welcome him saying that he will carefully consider the points that I have been making.
  My third and final point concerns the way in which the Bill extends the definition of inside information beyond individual companies to cover groups of companies engaged in similar or competing activities. I understand the problem that the Bill is intended to tackle, but I was not wholly convinced by an example that was provided last September by a Treasury spokesman, who said:
  "If someone discovered that a company had closed down and then sold the shares of that company's competitor that would be insider dealing."
  Insider dealing it might be, but it is possible to argue that it would be an extremely bad investment decision as well.
  Perhaps I might venture, for future reference, an alternative example of the problem. If somebody learned that a company was shortly to be bid for and on the basis of that inside information immediately bought shares in another company whose shares were likely to rise as a result of the bid, he would be guilty of insider dealing. It seems perfectly reasonable to try to stop such activity, but the present drafting of the Bill is so broad that it could impede the operation of transactions where it is necessary formally to make certain interested parties insiders. It would be extremely difficult for any fund manager to allow himself to be made an insider on a particular share for the purposes of effecting a specific transaction if the effect of so doing were to preclude him from dealing in any other shares in that sector.
  As I have said, these are complex matters which do not lend themselves easily to legislation. However, if we are to legislate, it is important to get it absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will know, substantial time and money is already spent in the square mile to ensure compliance with existing complex statutory regulations. I sometimes fear that this is better news for lawyers than for shareholders.
  My hon. Friend said that several of the outstanding concerns will be covered by guidance. I have no doubt that it will be a great help, but I am sure he will agree that it would be preferable if they could be dealt with in the legislation itself. Uncertainty is a great enemy of confidence, and confidence is vital to the efficient working of any market. My hon. Friend, whose efforts to stamp out insider dealing deserve wholehearted support, has said in that context that he is a great believer in fear. I am certain that he meant fear of the law, not fear of the unknown. I have every confidence that the immense amount of work that he and his officials in the Treasury have put into getting the legislation right will bear fruit as the Bill, which is very welcome in many respects, passes through Committee.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: Many hon. Members have referred to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and have especially criticised its provisions dealing with unit fines and related matters. I entirely endorse their criticism and I hope that, as well as conducting a review of the 1991 Act, the Home Secretary will get in touch with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who in the past few weeks published proposals to introduce into Northern Ireland legislation identical to the 1991 Act, the manifest failings of which are becoming daily more appparent.
  The second preparatory comment relates to the speech by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who spoke on behalf of the Liberal party, and to that of the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), who complained about the lack of consultation. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland in particular referred to the Hansard Committee report and said that its recommendation of the use of Special Standing Committees and pre-legislative Committee stages would be appropriate. Such procedure featured strongly in the recent Scottish White Paper as being appropriate for legislation which was not controversial in party political terms. That is precisely what this is. I should have thought that such procedure should be adopted for measures of this nature.
  In dealing with part I of the Bill, which deals with extra-territorial jurisdiction and certain offences, the Home Secretary referred in passing to Scotland and Northern Ireland. He said that part I would not apply to them because the two territories have their own legal systems. That is inconsistent because certain provisions in the Bill—three clauses in part V and all of the clauses in part IV—will extend to Northern Ireland. Furthermore, the Bill authorises the making of a negative resolution Order in Council equivalent to most of the provisions in part III and some in part II.
  Against that background it is strange that the Home Secretary does not consider it necessary to have an equivalent provision with regard to part I or even to say whether there is any intention to introduce legislation in Scotland or Northern Ireland equivalent to part I. Many of the provisions of parts II, III and IV apply to Scotland anyway. It makes the Bill look rather like a dog's dinner.
  As usually happens in these cases, I wish to draw attention to the inadvisability of legislating for Northern Ireland by way of negative resolution Orders in Council which the Bill authorises. As hon. Members will know, the negative resolution Order in Council will not be debated anywhere in the House. By passing the Bill, we are authorising legislation by decree and not providing for discussion of it. There is clearly no intention to discuss the Northern Ireland provisions now being authorised because there is no representative of the Northern Ireland Office on the Government Front Bench, so there is no one to comment on the possible application in Northern Ireland of the provisions authorised to be made by negative resolution Order in Council.
  In any event, proceeding by negative resolution Order in Council is inherently inefficient. Such orders will be made only after the legislation has completed its stages because the legislative draftsman in Northern Ireland takes the view that he cannot draft his Order in Council until the Bill i3 complete and all its provisions are known
  900
  —in other words, until it has received a Third Reading. That builds in a significant delay before the Order in Council is made.
  The provisions authorised by negative resolution Order in Council relate to money laundering and the movement of proceeds of drug trafficking and other criminal offences. Of course, there may be movements from one jurisdiction to another and, in certain cases, there will be movement between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom and vice versa. It therefore seems inappropriate that legislation is not coming into effect at the same time in all jurisdictions.
  It is particularly inappropriate because the Bill makes provision for Scotland; for example, in clauses 17 and 19, which replicate for Scotland the provisions in clauses 16 and 18. It is the equivalent of clauses 16 and 18 which are to be made by negative resolution Order in Council. It does not make sense. There is an incoherence in the drafting of the Bill, which is inappropriate.
  The provisions covering the proceeds of criminal conduct and the laundering of the proceeds of drug trafficking in particular are good ideas, and I was glad that the Home Secretary said that new clauses will be introduced in Committee to extend the provisions into anti-terrorism legislation. There will be provision in anti-terrorism legislation for the inhibition of money laundering and the confiscation of terrorist proceeds as well as criminal and drug proceeds.
  That is especially appropriate as terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland to a significant extent now finance their activity through drug dealing. It is therefore not sensible to draw a distinction between laundering the proceeds of drug trafficking and laundering money used to finance terrorist activities. In any event, the laundering of money related to criminal activity is the same whether the criminal activity is defrauding people, trafficking in drugs or promoting terrorism.
  The Home Secretary said that the intention was to provide a read-across from this legislation to antiterrorism legislation. I assume that he was referring to the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Some of the Bill's provisions reproduce some of those introduced in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. The read-across is from the EPA into the Bill and through to the PTA. I see that the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is nodding, so I have got the direction roughly correct.
  It is good that the issue is being tackled. Some provisions dealing with the financing of terrorism were introduced into the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, nearly four years ago. I understand that they have been wholly ineffective, that no money has been recovered and that no proceedings have taken place. In reports on the PTA, Lord Colville described its powers as "unworkable", so I am glad that they are now being dealt with.
  Provisions introduced into the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 are being borrowed in this Bill. I understand that, as yet, nothing has been done under the EPA and that there has still been no successful recovery. That is not a good precedent. I understand from various sources that it is expected that some proceedings will shortly take place under the EPA. I hope that they will be successful, but it is not a good augury for the provisions before us that the EPA provisions have been on the statute book for two years without having produced results yet.

  901
  I hope that when the new clauses are introduced in Committee the opportunity will be taken to examine some inconsistencies that seem to me to exist between the clauses of the Bill and the provisions in the EPA from which I understand that they are derived. For example, the Secretary of State said that, in amending the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the Bill would make it clear that the civil rather than the criminal standard of proof applied, and would give the court discretion whether to make confiscation orders. However, unless I am mistaken, the EPA equivalent provision—section 47(I)—seems to imply a criminal standard, because it uses language such as:
  "the court shall … if it is satisfied".
  That does not appear to give the court discretion whether to make confiscation orders, so there is an inconsistency.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who spoke for the Labour party, said that he was worried about the assumptions on which the Bill required the court to proceed when determining whether assets were the proceeds of drug trafficking. But the Bill qualifies those assumptions in two respects. Clause 9(3) says that the assumption can be rebutted if
  "that assumption is shown to be incorrect in the defendant's case, or"
  it would be unjust to make it.
  Of those two qualifications only one—the first assumption, as to whether it would be incorrect to make the assumption on the facts—applies in section 51(1), the equivalent provision in the EPA. The second—whether making the assumption would lead to an injustice—does not apply. That inconsistency needs to be ironed out.
  None the less, the Bill provides a good opportunity to introduce a single coherent code that would apply throughout the United Kingdom. That is necessary. At present we have an unsatisfactory state of affairs, with different codes in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, in the emergency provisions legislation and in the legislation on drug trafficking. The activity of money laundering is essentially the same, regardless of the nature of the crime, so we should have a single code.
  We should also ensure that that code is as effective as possible in geographical terms. That partly reflects a desire that it should be effective throughout the British Isles, but it relates to other aspects too. How effective will the legislation be concerning applications relating to money laundered through, say, Gibraltar, the Cayman islands or other such places? That, too is a relevant consideration. I am not sure that our legislation is effective with regard to those territories at present. There is an option to transfer the provision to such places as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but I am not sure whether it has been exercised. What about areas further afield which act as offshore banking centres for the United Kingdom, and through which money is laundered? We must make sure that we deal with them.
  The Home Secretary dismissed certain matters in part V as minor, and mentioned only one clause in that part of the Bill. I shall refer to another clause in part V, which the Home Secretary did not mention—clause 44, headed, "Backing of warrants: safeguards." That brief phrase in the list of clauses conceals the fact that it deals with the thorny problem of extradition to and from the Republic of Ireland, specifically for terrorist offences.
  902
  That is a matter of considerable importance to us, and it should be important not only to those of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, but to all of us in the United Kingdom, especially in view of the terrorist campaign directed towards England and towards this capital, and directed from the Republic of Ireland and carried out by persons largely recruited there. That important matter is in the public eye because of events in the Republic of Ireland over the past few days—the arrests made there and the questions that have arisen concerning them and concerning extradition. Against that background it is slightly surprising that the Home Secretary saw fit completely to ignore clause 44.
  Clause 44 makes provision for introducing into the present procedures—strictly speaking, those concern not extradition but the backing of warrants—what in extradition terms is called the speciality rule, the effect of which is to ensure that, if a person is transferred from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom on certain warrants, he can be proceeded against in the courts here only for the offences in the original warrants.
  At present, no speciality rule applies between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. That is because we operate a backing of warrants procedure rather than an extradition procedure. In extradition procedures it is normal to have a speciality rule.
  The matter became controversial in 1991 with the Desmond Ellis case. Mr. Ellis was accused of being involved in conspiring to cause explosions in the United Kingdom, and was extradited from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom for certain offences. The magistrates in England then proceeded to substitute different offences for the offences for which Mr. Ellis was originally transferred. That course of action was perfectly lawful and open to them in that case, but it provoked an outcry in the Irish Republic, whose Government behaved as if they thought that a speciality rule existed, or ought to exist. The upshot was that the Crown substituted the original offences. As hon. Members will know, Mr. Ellis was subsequently acquitted and transferred back to the Republic of Ireland.
  The important point about that case was that it revealed that the Government of the Irish Republic considered that there was, or ought to be, a speciality rule governing the transfer of fugitive offenders from the Republic to the United Kingdom. They behaved as if assurances had been given by the United Kingdom Government that a speciality rule would be applied. Those assurances were not followed through by the magistrates in the Ellis case because, of course, magistrates and the courts are independent. But now we find legislation surfacing in the Bill to give legal effect to the assumption on which the Government of the Republic of Ireland proceeded. Clause 44 appears to have its origins in the protests made by the Government of the Irish Republic arising from the Ellis case in 1991. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister will comment on that assumption.
  That raises the question: why have the Government decided to accede to what I presume to be the requests or demands of the Government of the Irish Republic to limit the range of offences for which fugitive offenders returned under the backing of warrants can be charged? Is there some particular reason? Have they come to some agreement with the Government of the Irish Republic? Has there been a deal?

  903
  When he considers that question, the Minister may like to reflect on a question that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) asked the Prime Minister on 21 November 1991 if he would
  "assure the House that there will be no further concessions to the Irish Republic in order to obtain the extradition of terrorist suspects to stand trial in the United Kingdom?"
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "we do not bargain … we do not do deals."—[Official Report, 21 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 418–419.]
  Thus, the Prime Minister appeared to give the assurance in November 1991 that no further concessions would be made to the Government of the Republic of Ireland in order to obtain the return of fugitive offenders. Yet what is clause 44 if it is not a further concession to the Government of the Irish Republic in that connection? We must therefore ask what has happened between November 1991, when the Prime Minister assured us that no further concessions would be made, and today when we see the concessions in the Bill. Why have the Government done a U-turn? Has the Prime Minister done a U-turn, arid if so, why?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East asked whether there would be further deals. Perhaps there is no deal. Perhaps the Government are just making the concession without there being any undertaking in return. Perhaps the concession has been made in the fond hope that the Irish Republic will respond by facilitating the return of fugitive offenders. It reminds me of other agreements that have been made with the Government of the Irish Republic in the fond hope that they would do something in return for concessions. Those other agreements have proved barren of the product that was promised or expected. We wonder what will happen here.
  It might have been better for the Government to have done a deal. Perhaps they should, as a result of this concession, have pressed the Irish Government to get rid of the Extradition Amendment Act 1987 which the Irish Government introduced to try to limit the effect of the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. Perhaps the Government should have made efforts to improve the European convention on the suppression of terrorism because it has been clearly demonstrated since 1987 that article 1 of that convention is not effective and draws invidious distinctions about matters such as whether a terrorist is using an automatic weapon or a bolt-action rifle. That can be crucial in deciding whether they can be returned under the convention.
  Perhaps something could have been done to curtail the readiness with which district judges in the Irish Republic grant bail to fugitive offenders. Cases have been reported in the press in recent weeks which have drawn attention to that practice. Measures were introduced in the United Kingdom, especially in Northern Ireland, to ensure that magistrates cannot grant bail in cases of terrorist offences. Perhaps we should have put pressure on the Government of the Irish Republic to introduce equivalent legislation to curtail the propensity of their district judges, who are the equivalent of magistrates, to grant bail in such cases.
  If we are taking the path of introducing a speciality rule into the backing of warrants, it might have been better to consider the procedure as a whole. A speciality rule is incompatible with the whole concept of backing warrants. The backing of warrants procedure was introduced in the middle of the 19th century to deal with transfers between one of Her Majesty's jurisdictions and another, especially
  904
  transfers of fugitive offenders from the colonies to England and vice versa. There was no need for extradition and there was no need to question the grounds on which a person was arraigned before the court, because all the courts were Her Majesty's courts. The backing of warrants procedure is an historical survival with regard to the Republic of Ireland, dating from the time when the Republic of Ireland was part of Her Majesty's dominions.
  It might be better to have a proper extradition treaty. That would, of course, mean accepting not just the speciality rule, but the prima facie case rule. That would surely result in the Irish having to drop their Extradition Amendment Act 1987 which gives the opportunity for them to refuse to return fugitive terrorist offenders in certain circumstances. In any event, the primary question remains, of what lies behind the decision to introduce clause 44 and thus to negate the Prime Minister's assurance of November 1991.
  8.42 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: My heart goes out to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and to his hon. Friends in Northern Ireland as they await with trepidation the introduction of the equivalent of a Criminal Justice Act 1992. At least he cannot complain that on this occasion Northern Ireland is being used as a guinea pig for this country, although if that legislation is imminent, Northern Ireland may be a guinea pig for the changes that we envisage as likely to occur. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the fact that the money-laundering legislation is to be extended by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his team to the anti-terrorist legislation in Northern Ireland.
  When I began practising at the criminal Bar more than 30 years ago, almost all big crime was armed robbery. Now the big crime is commercial—fraud and drugs-related crime. That has happened since the advent of the computer, of cheaper, more frequent and, therefore, more international travel, and of greater international commercial activity. More and more money is made from international and commercial white collar crime. More and more of our courts are preoccupied with such crime, as are the police, the Customs authorities and the lawyers. We now have the Serious Fraud Office, and a fortune is being spent on criminal legal aid in commercial and international crime.
  It is vital that confidence in the City should be retained as the City faces competition from other centres. The Government are to be congratulated on promising continued action against international and commercial crime, and on introducing legislation which keeps up our national defences against a very rewarding form of lawlessness and a calculated and vile form of offending against the laws of states.
  It is obvious from our debate that the legislation has a number of good features that we all welcome. It is sensible that we are filling in the gaps and correcting the anomalies which have appeared as the courts have dealt with white-collar crime. The guilty inevitably escape through such gaps either because they cannot be charged or because, once charged, they cannot be convicted. It must be sensible to extend jurisdiction to prosecute Britons who have not fulfilled the requirement for the last act in a chain of criminal offending to have been committed in Britain,

  905
  even though most of the other acts in the chain were committed here. The logic of the existing law defies contemplation.
  I am especially pleased that we are paying regard to the work of the Law Commission. I have always thought and have often said here that although that body of fine legal brains labours in our interest, its work ends up as dusty tomes in piles which we seldom seem to implement. The more we implement its careful analysis of the defects of our legal system, the better it will be for all of us. I congratulate the Government on taking up the Law Commission's rendering of the foreign aspects of fraud and similar crimes.
  The creation of new offences where the prosecuting authorities have previously found themselves powerless to prosecute on the evidence makes good sense. However, we must be a bit careful about the definitions of such offences and their defences. Under clause 18, it will be an offence not to disclose information if a person only suspects that another is engaged in drugs money laundering. The problem will not be, as the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) suggested, that that will lower the standard of proof. The problem is likely to be that no jury will convict on suspicion alone, so prosecutions will be a complete and utter waste of time and money. We must have regard to that aspect when we lower the hurdles to a point at which common sense is unlikely to sustain any convictions.
  I am not sure that I like the defence stated in clause 16(1). It says:
  "It is a defence to a charge of committing an offence under this section that the person charged acquired the property for adequate consideration."
  Does that protect a barrister or a solicitor? How hard must a barrister work? How long must his speeches be? How long must he be in conference before it is considered by some objective body that his work has been adequate? I assure the House that in some cases I say nothing and I ask no questions. I make a very short speech at the end of the day. Are people to say, "That work was not adequate consideration"? Am I to be charged under clause 16?
  I am unlikely—I hope—ever to be charged with any criminal offence, but my example serves to underline the fact that we are becoming somewhat lazy and slack about the way in which we define certain offences, and in that regard considerable alarm and concern has been expressed not only about that provision but about the provisions dealing with insider trading. There is still time to look at those provisions again and see whether we cannot improve them so that absurd situations cannot even be contemplated.
  There is good sense in giving the courts powers to confiscate assets where the trafficker has died or absconded. Why should his successor enjoy ill-gotten gains? There is sense in giving the courts power to confiscate further proceeds when they come to light after the trial, within the sensible limit of six years. Why should the trafficker benefit in later years from his ill-gotten gains?
  The success of the policy of confiscating the ill-gotten gains of serious criminals—which started with the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and was extended to other serious crimes in 1988, following a pledge at the general election—has been obvious from the fact that some £35 million has been removed from offenders. That policy may even—we cannot be sure—have deterred some from
  906
  committing such crimes. However, £35 million is not a very substantial sum to flow from the many cases in which such proceeds have been traced. It is estimated that, in the United Kingdom alone, some £2.5 billion has come from drug trafficking in the past few years. Much more needs to be done to ensure that ill-gotten gains are removed from offenders. In so far as the Bill does that, it is to be welcomed.
  The reduction of time waste on petty offences that has been achieved by giving the Crown prosecution service and the Serious Fraud Office the power to filter out small sums will be sensible and will liberate resources for more important work.
  Once a criminal has been convicted by the prosecution discharging to a jury's satisfaction the burden of proof applicable in criminal offences, I see nothing at all wrong with the burden changing to require the convicted prisoner to show on the balance of probabilities that his assets are not the proceeds of crime. As the courts were confused by the wording of the 1986 Act—perhaps I should say, the absence of wording—it is wholly sensible to make the original intention clear.
  I would go further. Too much of the expenditure on legal aid comes from the payment of very substantial sums to lawyers defending villains in enormous money-laundering and commercial fraud cases. I have often suggested—no one in authority has ever listened to me—that before legal aid is given in such cases we should ask the accused to accept that his assets will be specifically investigated on the balance of probabilities by a state investigator. We should tell him that if he wants legal aid he must declare all his interests and assets. I can assure my hon. Friends that many such persons will say, "No, thank you—I am not asking for legal aid." They will not apply, trials will be shorter, and 'not guilty' pleas will turn into `guilty' pleas.
  These days, with very long trials involving a number of defendants, there is absolutely no reason why people should not take their chance and sit in the dock for months on end while their lawyers are being paid substantial fees—in the hope that, ultimately, something may go wrong with the trial or that the jury may say, "This poor fellow has been sitting there and nothing much has happened; we want to acquit somebody, so we shall acquit him." That costs the taxpayer an immense sum of money, but we can stop it if we threaten to investigate the total assets and income of any person who applies for legal aid in respect of a serious trial of that kind. I recall that I warned the Home Secretary of the time about previous convictions when we discussed the Criminal Justice Bill in 1991. No one listened. Perhaps some day someone will.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is rather shocking that we should have missed the opportunity presented by the Bill to correct anomalies thrown up by the 1991 Act? Two questions—concerning sentencing matters and unit fines—have been a sharp focus of concern and should be dealt with as quickly as possible in a Criminal Justice Bill. Yet neither of them is addressed in the current Bill. Will it be possible for us to table reasoned amendments in Committee to deal with some of the problems?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Had my hon. Friend the. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) been able to tear himself away from his many other important and urgent

  907
  engagements, he would have heard that point made, and answered, many times during the debate. It is outside the scope of the long title of the present Bill to deal with that problem. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said and I welcome it—that primary legislation is not necessary to correct the unit fine fiasco.
  As I have been rather unkind to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South—who is an assiduous attender of all debates on this subject and who no doubt had excellent reasons for his absence on this occasion—I should perhaps make the point on his side that the faults of the operation of the earlier Act were already clear when the present Bill was drafted and at the time of its Second Reading in the House of Lords in November 1992. Magistrates, solicitors and judges were already writing to us about the problem, and it is not all that difficult to suggest a solution. It is therefore a valid criticism that we did not broaden the long title of the Bill at the right time and take the opportunity to get on with what we shall undoubtedly do.
  I am also pleased that we are dealing with the wholly unsatisfactory situation whereby a court cannot pass a sentence until a confiscation order has been made. Sometimes delays between the sentence and the confiscation order are very long and expensive. There will again be a saving in legal aid when leading counsel, junior counsel, solicitors, old uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all do not have to appear months later to deal with the second part of the trial.
  In the other place, the Opposition got worked up about the fact that a prison sentence in default of a confiscation order will no longer wipe out the debt. They seemed to think it monstrous that someone should be punished twice. I do not understand that anger. Crime is not a game. The rules must be fair to protect the innocent and prevent excessive sentences, but there is no reason why money that is ill gotten should ever be held on to—even if a person is serving a prison sentence. I am pleased that good sense has taken hold of the Opposition—particularly the hon. Member for Sedgefield—on that point.
  The changes in the law on insider dealing are also sensible and welcome. There is no logical reason why insider dealing with company securities should be illegal while insider dealing with debt securities, such as gilts and local authority stock, should be perfectly legal. I have already commented on the need for improvements in definition in that respect. There is also no logical reason why insider dealing on the stock exchange as an on-market activity should be illegal while transactions conducted elsewhere on a computer are legal. The world has changed and the stock exchange is no longer the only place where such transactions are exclusively made. It is obviously sensible that we should wake up to that.
  There is every reason why we should bring our law into line with that of our colleagues in the European Community, so long as they do what they undertake to do and so long as we operate on a level playing field in dealing with our commercial criminals. We shall have to watch that one, too, because there are signs that from time to time our colleagues in the European Community do not do what they undertake to do and leave us looking rather Charlie-like as the only side rigorously fulfilling its obligations.
  There is every reason why insider dealers who operate across international borders should not be protected, and provisions in that respect are welcome. The need to
  908
  maintain international respect for the City of London is very important, because there is so much more competition and because the string of unfortunate experiences over the past few years may have dented that respect. One hopes, therefore, that the anti-fraud measures and the adoption of the banking directives, upon which I shall resist the temptation to address the House, will be very good for the reputation of the City. Those provisions are also very welcome.
  Apart from the one or two measures upon which I have commented, I have only two criticisms of the Bill. I dealt with one of those when I responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South. He tells me that he was not present in the Chamber because he, like so many of his and our constituents, was burgled. It is important that my hon. Friend the Minister should bear that in mind as we debate a Criminal Justice Bill.
  My second criticism relates to clause 1 subsections (4) and (5). I hope that those provisions are never called into effect and that they are never repeated in other statutes. If we give Ministers powers to invent criminal offences without recourse to Parliament, simply through orders, we are going down a very dangerous road.
  On balance, the Bill is very useful. I am pleased that the Government are keeping up the relentless campaign against lawlessness, and particularly against the appalling, sickening, drug-related lawlessness. The British people would expect no less. I am also pleased that the measures attract the support of Opposition Members, because the fight against crime should never be a party political matter. I am sorry only that the hon. Member for Sedgefield said, when he began his speech, that there would be no Division at 10 pm as that precipitated a dash to the doors and too few hon. Members have been present in the Chamber to listen to what I think has been a most interesting debate.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: After the Home Secretary courteously gave way to me when I asked him about South America and in particular about Colombia and Peru, he gave a very convincing answer about his work and that of his Home Office officials in Colombia. I thoroughly support that. May I perhaps have a letter from him about Peru? I do not blame him for not answering that, but it is a very important subject.
  I wish to refer simply to clause 17 and the issues that arise from it. It is one of the Scottish clauses. In particular, I refer to a letter to the Leader of the House from David Johnston on 5 February 1993 in which he states:
  "I understand you are considering problems associated with the Parliamentary device of introducing a report which to all intents and purposes can't be challenged (Hansard 28 January 1993: column 1160)."
  A criminal inquiry is one thing; what purports to be a criminal inquiry in substance is another. I was one of two people who declined to go before the Nimmo-Smith/Friel committee because I did not understand what a criminal inquiry in substance was. Either a proceeding is a criminal inquiry, or it is not. If it is not, there are different rules.
  My instinct was thoroughly justified, as things turned out, in not submitting myself and necessarily confidential information to Mr. Nimmo-Smith and Mr. Friel in the light of subsequent events and the fiasco which surrounded an interview that purported to be from The Daily Telegraph. How people conducting what are supposed to

  909
  be, in substance, criminal inquiries can as a regular habit talk to journalists while they are undertaking those inquiries is absolutely mind boggling.
  The letter says:
  "As Leader of the House, I think you ought to know I have challenged a particular aspect of the Report of the Lord Advocate's Inquiry into allegations of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Doubtless others may wish to challenge areas where they have first hand knowledge."
  In areas of the Nimmo-Smith inquiry where I have first-hand knowledge, it is very wide of the mark. I must report that there are police in my area who are seething with indignation that they are in the position of not being able to answer something which was put to the House by the unopposed return procedure in circumstances which were an abuse of that procedure.
  For the sake of time, I refer to a letter dated 4 February from David Johnston to the Lord Advocate:
  "At 17.12 of last week's report of the Lord Advocate's Inquiry it is claimed that I misheard John Simpson in Snatchers Bar.
  The implication was my professional incompetence led to a Member of Parliament being misled and, in turn, causing him to mislead the Lord President.
  I told Mr. Nimmo-Smith and Mr. Friel that I was so surprised by what Simpson told me in Snatchers that I suggested to Alan Muir at The Sun that it would be worth his while phoning Simpson in the bar and speaking to him."
  To cut a long story short, that happened. It also happened that—as I understand is its custom—The Sun tape recorded a conversation. That tape recording absolutely destroys paragraphs 17.12 and 17.13 of the Nimmo-Smith report:
  "Simpson: Well maybe. I don't think he will be now but …
  Muir: No?"—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he seems to be going wide of the Bill which is under consideration. He may make a passing reference to that matter, but he seems to be dwelling on it in some detail.
  Mr. Dalyell: Other hon. Members have gone very wide: I have sat through the whole debate. I shall simply limit my comments to one matter:
  "Muir: No? Right. Well, thank you very much Mr. Simpson.
  Simpson: Well, remember that if you mention my name, I'll sue you.
  Muir: … there is no problem …
  Simpson: But there's … you know you're on the right track …
  Muir: Yeh.
  Simpson: There's a lot of things about this one that stink to high heaven.
  Muir: Mmm.
  Simpson: I mean, I am a totally, utterly straightforward person …
  Muir: Mm
  Simpson: … and always have been and there's a lot of things about this case that stink to high heaven."
  Of course, I am obedient to the Chair. I put down a formal question to the effect that this whole correspondence should be put in the Library of the House of Commons. That was refused by the Scottish Office Minister who was operating for the Lord Advocate. I wish to register the fact that that is a profoundly unsatisfactory procedure.
  910
  On 10 February, a letter came from the Crown Office. As the House will be aware, in carrying out their inquiry and making their report, Mr. Nimmo-Smith and Mr. Friel—
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are hon. Members who wish to participate in this debate on the Bill. Time is short, and the hon. Gentleman must know that he can raise this matter on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. and learned Gentleman has had his turn; he has already spoken for 20 minutes.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that he is going wide of this Second Reading. I now ask him to deal with the Bill as it stands rather than dwell on specific points which he has made in some detail.
  Mr. Dalyell: There are few hon. Members as unsuccinct and verbose as the QC, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). Apparently, as QCs become more senior, they think that they can become more verbose. He took up time.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I kept to the subject.
  Mr. Dalyell: This is the lawyers getting at it.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a matter of what another hon. Member thinks. I am saying from the Chair that I have given the hon. Member for Linlithgow sufficient scope. He has made his point and I cannot allow him to dwell on it. He must return to the main factors that are set out in the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: Against the background of clause 17, I believe that what happened in Scotland—what is generally called Fettesgate—is a shame-making event in our legal history. I speak on behalf of police officers who have been unable to defend themselves given what the Scottish Crown Office has done.
  As I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall, of course, obey you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall leave it at that at 9.10 pm.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Michael Stephen: This is a technical Bill; for the most part it makes and amends lawyers' law. Much can and will, no doubt, be said in Committee about the details of it and the way in which it might operate. That being so, I shall not enter upon that discussion this evening.
  It is no doubt important to clarify the issue of jurisdiction over offences having a foreign element, to deal with technical issues concerning confiscation orders and to tighten the rules applying to dealing on the stock market. I am sorry, however, that the limited parliamentary time that is available to the Home Office will not be spent on dealing with the more pressing concerns of all our constituents in the field of law and order; for example, the problem of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which has turned our policemen into clerks when they should be out on the beat protecting the public.
  Also, as has been said many times in the debate, it is important to tackle the already notorious section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which together with section 1 effectively prevents the courts from having regard to the

  911
  criminal record of a convicted person. I well understand that a convicted person can be said to have paid the penalty for the offences of which he was convicted, but society is entitled to say to him, "That may be so, but if you do it again you will be punished more severely."
  We should be dealing also with the scandals caused by what I regard as the ill-conceived system of unit fines. I hope that we shall also soon spend time constructing a legal framework for the excellent proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to provide secure education for persistent juvenile offenders. Perhaps we might also find some legislative time to get on with my own private Member's Bill which would reform the law on bail so as to protect our constituents against persistent offenders who commit offences while on bail.
  Part I of the Bill before us today would give the courts of England and Wales jurisdiction to try cases of fraud and related offences where there is a foreign element that prevents a prosecution under the law as it stands. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Law Commission on its excellent work in this area. There are indeed absurdities, as highlighted by the case of Rex v. Harden.
  I shall give a hypothetical example. If two Londoners happened to be in France for a short time and one persuaded the other to part with property by deception in France, that offence could not be tried in the United Kingdom. It is right that that anomaly should be rectified. On the other hand, if two Frenchmen happened to be in England for a short time and the same circumstances arose, the English courts would have jurisdiction. I believe that the English courts should have the power to decline jurisdiction in such a case. The prosecution of crime is an expensive business, and I see no reason why the English courts should try cases that have no real or substantial connection with this country.
  The English courts should also have power to decline jurisdiction where there would be any question of double jeopardy for someone who has already suffered criminal process in another country for the same offence. No doubt the law and practice of extradition in this country will be carefully examined to ensure that that does not happen.
  Part III deals with the confiscation of the proceeds of criminal activity. I welcome the fact that confiscation will apply to the proceeds not only of drug trafficking but of other serious crimes. I have no difficulty with the civil standard of proof when applied to confiscation. It is right that the criminal standard—proof beyond reasonable doubt—should apply to the question whether or not the accused person is guilty of the offence with which he has been charged. The Bill makes no attempt to shift or to change that burden of proof in any way.
  Having secured a conviction, we proceed to the question whether assets derived from criminal activity should be confiscated. I have no difficulty with the civil standard in that process. Anyone who does not like that standard has a simple remedy—do not commit crime.
  There are many causes of crime. One is profit. It is much easier to engage in some forms of criminal activity than to work for a living., as we and our constituents have to do. We must take every opportunity to take the profit out of crime. One particular form of criminal activity not mentioned in the Bill but of the same genre is pornography—a multi-million pound business about which I spoke at some length in the House on 10 July last year.
  912
  The problem there is securing a conviction under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. If a conviction cannot be secured, the Bill's provisions will not apply. The case concerning the book "Juliet" by the Marquis de Sade gives a clear indication that the 1959 Act is wholly defective, because if a conviction cannot be secured on the basis of that book, one cannot be secured in respect of any publication that is alleged to be obscene. We must therefore change the definition of obscenity under the 1959 Act. Meanwhile, we must confiscate the pornographic material—not the proceeds of crime as under this Bill—under section 3 of the 1959 Act, and the civil standard would also apply there. It is right that the civil standard of proof should apply where the confiscation of pornographic material is in question.
  We should not be afraid either to take the action which we have in other areas of criminal law—to employ private contractors to seek out offending material, bring it before magistrates, and secure confiscation orders—with the costs to be paid by the pornographers under an award of costs by the court.
  Clause 26 gives me cause for some concern, which is shared by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). It is wrong that a person should be convicted of a criminal offence simply on the basis that he suspects that someone might have been engaged in crime. The very least that the prosecutor should be prepared to prove is that the defendant believed that another person had been engaged in crime.
  Clause 27 and other clauses provide maximum penalties. Clause 27 provides a penalty of 14 years' imprisonment, but why do we bother to specify maximum penalties in Acts of Parliament when it is clear from the cases that the courts do not come near to imposing them fully? The House must make it clear that, when it specifies 14 years' imprisonment as the maximum penalty for an offence, that is the sentence that the House expects to be imposed for the most serious examples of the crime in question.
  Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend understand the difference between a mandatory sentence and a maximum sentence?
  Mr. Stephen: Of course I do. What I am saying is that the penalty imposed for serious examples of a particular offence often comes nowhere near the maximum penalty that Parliament laid down for it.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend think that the matter is assisted somewhat by the fact that the prosecution can now appeal against too lenient a sentence? It has certainly helped in some rape cases.
  Mr. Stephen: I do. I wrote an article which was published in 1986 which, together with the efforts of a great many other people, resulted in section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which gave the Court of Appeal that power.
  One issue of serious concern to our constituents in the case of offences with which the Bill is concerned and other offences generally is the right of silence, to which reference was made earlier.

  913
  Under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, a person suspected of serious fraud can be required by the Serious Fraud Office to answer questions. Failure to do so may result in criminal penalties.
  A person suspected of evading income tax has no right of silence. He must prove that he does not owe the tax that he is alleged to owe. A person suspected of drinking and driving does not have a right of silence. He must give a specimen or pay the full penalty. But a person accused of armed robbery, rape, burglary or murder has the right simply to sit back, arms folded, and say, "Prove it if you can." We must therefore change the law so that the jury can take fully into account a failure to speak in circumstances where an honest man should have spoken.
  I have some concerns with part IV which seeks to regulate dealings in stocks and shares. White collar crime is just as reprehensible as blue collar crime and must be punished accordingly. I have no personal interest in the City, but it grew to pre-eminence and contributed vast sums of money to our national revenues from invisible earnings, as it still does, without the burden of the complex regulations that Parliament has visited upon it in recent years.
  It is easy to point to consumer benefits. We must, when we consider legislation of this kind, have regard to consumer costs, because the costs of compliance in the City are high. It may well be that our limited resources for fighting crime might be better employed elsewhere.
  This is a useful technical Bill which is of great interest to lawyers and accountants, but of marginal concern to our constituents. It needs some discussion in Committee, but I hope that it will pass quickly through the House without taking much more parliamentary time, so that we can concentrate on criminal law matters which are of much greater concern to all the British people.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I agree with the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) that the Bill is of limited and marginal interest. It deserves half a cheer. It has been welcomed for what it tries to do but hon. Members have reflected its inadequacy and lack of precision and the Government's failure to demonstrate a real interest in putting right the criminal justice system.
  Hon. Members have put forward the complaints of their constituents and the police about the Government's failure to deal adequately with the criminal justice system and have complained about the enormous problems that result. Like the dog that did not bark, the main problem with the Bill is what it fails to do.
  One criticism of the Bill is that it has proceeded so slowly to this stage. At the beginning of the debate the Home Secretary said that we should not move too quickly. I think that his comments were based on his experience of how things went wrong with the previous Criminal Justice Bill. He has certainly fulfilled that requirement as it has taken four months for the Bill to reach Second Reading. We are owed an explanation from the Minister of why the Bill has taken so long to reach this stage. Another criticism of the Bill is that it is too narrowly drawn. A third criticism is that it has not been adequately thought through.
  When dealing with the problem of drugs and trafficking in drugs, we are confronting one of the major issues of our
  914
  society today. That point was rightly reflected in the introductory remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). We certainly need to underline the fact that the Government are presently taking appalling risks, one of which is their failure to deal properly with drug misuse, because of the background of the HIV virus and the danger that that poses to many people in our society. Prevention must be properly addressed, but that is not happening. The problen of drugs in our society is one that needs a strategic and comprehensive approach. While the measures in the Bill are to be welcomed, they are a fragment of the provisions that the Government should be introducing.
  Given the fact that everyone has referred to the Bill as comparatively narrow, it is ironic that the Home Secretary referred to it in his introductory remarks as a sort of first draft. The Committee that will consider the Bill has an important and onerous job in scrutinising and improving it. However, the Bill should reach Committee with some certainty and as a precise instrument that has been given careful and detailed consideration by Ministers as well as civil servants, following extensive consultation and expert advice. It should not be cast into Committee by the Home Secretary as his first thoughts on the subject. He should not pass major responsibility to his Minister of State to sort out the Bill in the aftermath of the Second Reading debate.
  One of the Bill's major omissions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) referred, as did hon. Members from both sides of the House, is its failure to deal with the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and its shortcomings. My hon. Friend's remarks were cutting and well justified, and I commend his initiative in giving the House the opportunity to put matters right in this Session with thoughtful amendment to the Bill. I look forward to the House being given the opportunity to consider the measure further.
  The Home Secretary failed to heed the warnings of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield last October. The provisions could have been included in the Bill. Although the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and others rightly reflected that the Bill as it now stands, and its title, preclude such an amendment, it could have been allowed for initially. This is the second Criminal Justice Bill that has been too tightly drawn and has prevented the House from doing what it should, and making constructive amendments.
  During the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, I sought to introduce amendments to help with the prevention of crime and the diversion of young people into criminal activity. As the aim of the 1991 Act, as expressed by the Government, was to reduce the numbers in prison and in custody, one would have thought that measures to improve prevention would have been welcomed. But the Clerks had to advise that that Bill was so narrowly drawn—I think that they referred to it as having an extremely curious geography—that we were unable to make some of the constructive contributions that were and are needed by society. To our great regret, we shall have the same experience with this Bill because it is so narrowly drawn that only the two major issues that it addresses will be open to consideration and improvement in Committee.
  I very much regret the inability to see the wood for the trees. It is becoming a tradition among Conservative Members to fail to consult, listen and understand their own legislation. I hope that a lesson has been learned. This

  915
  is the third Bill this Session that the Home Secretary has not read in advance of the debate. However, he had the grace to say that he was giving his junior Minister the task of sorting out the Bill in Committee. I suppose that that is at least a welcome step.
  Two aspects of the 1991 Act should have been dealt with. One relates to the problems caused by Ministers seeking to interfere in matters that they do not understand. The first of those relates to the figures that the units apply and which have fettered the courts in reaching decisions. Secondly, they have removed discretion from magistrates who have traditionally exercised common sense. I have had experience in the previous system of recommendations for the local bench on motoring fines. The magistrates looked at the outcome of applying the bench's unit strategy and said, "Does this make sense?"
  Common sense should be applied in the courts and the 1991 Act was mistaken in not respecting that. I hope that in considering the details of this legislation in Committee and more generally the Home Secretary and his colleagues will accept that courts should have the ability to exercise common sense in dispensing justice.
  Another aspect is the ability to consider previous offences. It is important for courts to be able to deal with such offences without imposing a sentence that is totally out of proportion to the offence that is being considered. That is especially relevant to drug offences. A person who continually steals Mars bars is guilty of stealing only those, but the repetition of crimes involving drugs or violence is extremely serious and the court dealing with them needs to recognise the background to the offences.
  The Home Secretary said that the intention in Committee is to deal with one omission: to amend the Bill to deal with terrorism. We certainly welcome that but such provisions should have been in the Bill in the first place. We are also worried that the issue has not been thought through. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister will deal with that. In dealing with crimes related to drugs, a court is also dealing with the proceeds from those crimes whereas in terrorist cases the proceeds from other offences are used to finance terrorism. That may involve drug trafficking, in which case it would be dealt with by the legislation.
  How will the laundering of money to support terrorism be dealt with by the Bill when the offence that creates the relevant funds is highly unlikely to arise from a terrorist offence itself? It may arise from fraud, burglary or armed robbery. Will those offences give rise to the Bill's powers of seizure in relation to drugs? I hardly think so. Is the burden of proof in relation to such offences to be dealt with? Surely not, and in that case how do we tie the offence and the intention to use the proceeds for terrorism to court procedures that are clearly related to drug-related offences but are not clear in relation to the possible application of money for terrorist activities?
  The Home Secretary spoke about the success of law enforcement agencies. In response to a question, he said that the quality of drug liaison officers was more important than pouring in staff and money to undertake routine tasks. That is a curious comment in view of the fact that the Bill creates a massive need for money and staff to undertake routine tasks.
  I give the simple example of disclosure. Without resources, the provision to force more disclosures of suspect transactions that are referred to in clauses 18 and 26 will be counter-productive. We heard earlier that there
  916
  are currently about 5,000 disclosures and that in the Metropolitan police area they are dealt with by 21 officers. That has been found to be inadequate in terms of the pressure that is required to deal properly with the amount of information that becomes available.
  The Bill will at least triple that amount of disclosure, by a fairly conservative estimate. It is clear that some of the information that will become available will be of lower quality, because it will have been triggered by suspicion rather than belief. We see and welcome the purpose behind the legislation, but there is also a need to boost morale in the police and other agencies by demonstrating that those bodies will have the resources to use it.
  The complaint has been made that seized assets do not assist the fight against drug-related crime. Morale would certainly be helped if such assets were directed towards that fight, either through drug enforcement agencies—which, in America, are self-financing—or by preventing the market in drugs, which leads to the trafficking that the Bill aims to prevent.
  Surely, Ministers should show not only that they will deal with drug trafficking, but that they intend—as Opposition Members have put it—to be tough on the causes of drug trafficking and drug misuse. It is difficult to see how that can happen, and how disclosure can assist the police materially, given the freeze in police numbers. The Home Secretary referred to the likelihood that the police will have greater freedom to deal with their own resources; one chief constable spoke to me, in a rather jaundiced way, of the freedom to work flexibly within resources that would undoubtedly become increasingly inadequate. That is the experience of recent years. The fact is that we need both the bravery and initiatives of officers in the front line, and the painstaking back-room work that needs time, staff and money—a need that the Bill will increase.
  The Home Secretary and his colleagues must realise that the failure to recognise how all parts of the police service need to fit together and complement each other causes immense anger and frustration among police officers, and all who work with them and value their work. The privatisation of security services, with prisoners escaping or allowed to go free—today, a private security vehicle ran into a police car—would be laughable were it not so serious. The privatisation of parts of the police service, which the Home Secretary wants to bring about, would be an even more dangerous and mistaken step. Thank God it is not within the remit of the Bill; otherwise, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might be tempted to introduce it.
  There is a need not only for the matter to be tidied up—we shall try to do that in Committee—but for the Government to recognise the strategic importance of providing the police with the resources, as well as the legal means, to deal with the serious problems that we face.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) for his work as chairman of the all-party group on drug misuse. He has referred to many of the problems, and a number of hon. Members have mentioned the undermining of residential facilities for drug misusers. Again, prevention is necessary. Although the Bill and its intention are welcome, they must be part of a range of measures to deal with drugs and similar difficulties.
  I was interested to learn that the hon. and learned Member for Burton is not listened to by Ministers either, despite his willingness to provide advice on insider dealing from within the legal profession. Hon. Members on both

  917
  sides of the House have made it clear that the police and the community want the Government to take crime seriously—especially youth crime—and regret the failure of this narrow Bill to deal adequately with such issues.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield spoke eloquently of the development of drug use and addiction, and called for deterrents and the proper use of funds. I hope that the Minister will respond to that call. Let me remind him of the need to deal with couriers from Nigeria, thus saving the cost of imprisonment, child care and future personal and social services.
  The hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) said that he felt that there was no qualitative difference between white collar crime and other forms of crime. We need to be careful about suggesting that there are no distinctions to be drawn. Offences need to be pursued with the enthusiasm that is appropriate to the seriousness of the crime and its impact on society. In relation, however, to the financial aspects of the Bill, I point to the grave reservations that have been expressed by a number of bodies—in particular by the Hundred Group of Finance Directors on behalf of the largest quoted companies in the United Kingdom which have expressed major concerns over the proposed legislation on insider dealing. They have referred to ambiguities implicit in the drafting of the Bill which they believe are so serious as to result in the legislation hindering legitimate business activities and market practices.
  I seek from the Minister now the granting of their request for the guidelines to be issued in time before the Bill is considered in Committee. I hope that the Minister will grant their request. Guidelines would have a serious bearing on the need for amendments to the Bill in its current form. When we dealt with the immigration measure that went through Parliament in 1988, the Home Office continually refused to recognise that draft orders were available but, curiously enough, those orders were published the day after the Bill had been considered by Parliament.
  I ask the Minister to give the House an undertaking tonight that draft guidelines will be available before the Committee sits so that members of the Committee can be properly informed and can properly deal with the issues that have been raised in the debate by hon. Members on both sides when drawing attention to the shortcomings of the legislation.
  Guidance notes are not enough for many aspects. Some cases have led to desperate difficulties. A finding of guilt can lead to heavy penalties and the loss of reputation. The ruining of a reputation can be extremely damaging. If someone transgresses seriously, it is right that that person should be punished, as the Bill intends should happen. It is also right that individuals should be protected by the legislation. It is important, therefore, in relation both to insider dealing and to disclosure, that there should be proper guidelines so that no individual is in any doubt about what he or she is required to do under the legislation.
  It is also important that City and financial institutions should be in no doubt about what they are required to do and that there should be a proper framework for their employees. There should be proper recording of the
  918
  reporting of suspicion so that there is no danger that, by error, individuals put themselves in jeopardy under the law.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North made a thoughtful speech, based upon his experience. I hope that his direct courtroom experience, and also his experience when investigating a major case of insider dealing, will be taken into account by the Minister in Committee. We need to make use of that experience and expertise.
  The Committee will need to consider changes to tighten up the Bill. We need clear guidelines for the training of staff. Staff working in the City must be protected. To be effective, the legislation needs to be clear.
  The Bill has many failings, but the issues with which it deals are important. Therefore we shall seek to improve the Bill in Committee. We shall endeavour to assist the Minister who has been instructed by the Home Secretary to sort it out in Committee. If the Minister is willing to accept the help and advice that we offer, I am certain that the Bill will be a stronger and better measure when it returns to the House on Report.
  9.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members on their contributions. I was struck by the low-key appreciation for this measure from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) compared with the much greater appreciation of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Perhaps a difference of opinion is opening up on the Opposition Front Bench.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made particular reference to the provisions on insider dealing and asked whether we could make guidelines available before the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has assured me that, when the clauses are considered in Committee, some of the clarification that the hon. Gentleman seeks will be provided.
  I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth chose to make a few cheap comments about the proper attempts of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that the police carry out their duties in the most effective manner and that they are doing the duties that they should be doing. There will be more time to debate that, but I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman had a go at those proper activities.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth asked about Nigerians who have been convicted of importing drugs into Britain. The length of sentence for such offences is a matter for the courts, but it does send out a deterrent signal. The hon. Member for Sedgefield asked whether we had done anything to transmit that information to Nigeria. We ran a poster campaign in west Africa and the Indian sub-continent, making clear the penalties for importing drugs illegally into Britain. That campaign will be renewed in the forthcoming year. The Nigerians display warnings at their airports. We have helped the Nigerian authorities by, for example, training their law enforcement officers, and we have offered assistance to deal with Nigeria's internal drug problems. It is a matter that we take seriously. I hope that those comments help the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.

  919
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield set the tone for the debate by welcoming the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. That has been a common feature of all the speeches. There have been words of regret that, as my right hon and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, the Bill was not so drafted as to address the problems that many hon. Members have mentioned with the Criminal Justice Act 1991. My right hon. and learned Friend made our position clear: we have listened, we know what the problems are and, if necessary, changes will be made. I wanted to emphasise that.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield and other hon. Members rightly drew our attention to the size and scale of the drug problem. The Government spend some £500 million per year on the campaign against drugs and their preventive strategy, which shows how seriously we take the problem. The hon. Member for Sedgefield criticised the work of other Government Departments, such as by the Department of Education, but the national curriculum deals with substance misuse. Although specialist staff may not be available in all schools—it is up to each authority to decide whether to maintain that service—such information is available to children under the national curriculum. The Department of Health, too, in the way in which it conducted European drug prevention week, showed how it is contributing to the fight against drugs.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield rightly mentioned the work of the police in drug prevention. He mentioned King's Cross but, sadly, did not also mention the 250 arrests that were made in that operation. The activities of each force, the regional crime squads and the national criminal intelligence service show how all our law enforcement agencies are working together to combat the threat of drugs. Their efforts will be underpinned by the Bill. It is important to recognise that fact.
  One of the issues raised in our debate was the Bill's impact on our financial institutions and how financial institutions outside the banks were reacting to the requirements. I draw the House's attention to the guidance notes for banks and building societies issued in December 1990 by the Bank of England. The notes make clear what the financial institutions should be doing not only to prepare themselves for this legislation but to make the working of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 effective.
  The fact that about 11,000 reports of information arising from existing legislation have already reached the national criminal intelligence service shows that the financial institutions in this country are already responding to the challenge of the 1986 Act and will not have to change their procedures substantially to incorporate the requirements of the EC directive because it was anticipated in the guidance notes. There is no doubt that the point raised by the hon. Member for Sedgefield is well met by the notes, which I commend to the House.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield and others asked how we were dealing with south American countries in terms of bilateral arrangements to improve, for example, confiscation procedures. Work has been concluded on bilateral agreements with Argentina, Ecuador, Guyana, Mexico, Panama and Uruguay, and work continues with a range of other south American countries to reinforce our procedures in that respect. Much of the work was pioneered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on his trip to that part of the world—[Interruption.] I have to justify why he went. In addition,
  920
  through our work with the United Nations against drugs, we have given further material assistance especially to countries such as Colombia. We take seriously the attempt to extend the fight against drugs on an international basis.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield also spoke of the problems which he believed were connected with the use of assumptions in the Bill. The nature of money laundering, and of drug trafficking in particular, is a life style offence. It perhaps goes beyond the range of other types of criminal offence, which is why the assumptions—the use of which we make mandatory, as the Bill outlines—are a real and proper requirement, recognising the nature of drug trafficking itself. I think that the House generally agreed with that.
  The hon. Member also questioned the effectiveness of existing confiscation arrangements. I should point out that by the end of 1991 3,420 confiscation orders had been made under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. That proves that the legislation is working, as does the fact that the amount of money which has now been confiscated, or which is the subject of confiscation orders, has risen to about £50 million.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield and others also mentioned clause 18 and the nature of the proof required when an offence may be connected with knowing of or suspecting money laundering. Although I understand the concerns expressed, I should point out that the criminal level of proof is still required to sustain such an accusation. Equally, we should bear in mind the fact that at that level the process could well include a large number of people in financial institutions. That means that the prosecution in such cases must be entirely sure of the facts in bringing such a charge. That shows a balance in the way the legislation is framed.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: The jury will be told that suspicion is never enough for a criminal offence, so for the jury to be told that they must be satisfied that they are sure that there was a suspicion will be so confusing as to make the provisions impractical nonsense.
  Mr. Jack: I know what my hon. and learned Friend says on the subject, but that is a matter for the prosecutors in terms of sustaining the prosecution. Clearly they will know what the evidence is, and on what basis they are bringing the charges. As I have said, a high level of proof is required of the prosecution if the subjective offences are to be sustained. They were indeed the subject of considerable debate in another place.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and others discussed the way in which the proposals will relate to Northern Ireland. Indeed, the powers to confiscate the proceeds acquired by people involved in terrorist-related activities are at present available only to the courts in Northern Ireland. We want to ensure that the money laundering and confiscatory arrangements are kept parallel—I nodded rather vigorously at the hon. Gentleman when he said as much. There must be a basis which extends throughout Great Britain for proposals on money laundering. Equally, as the hon. Gentleman said, both the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Powers) Act will require modification to incorporate those arrangements. I hope that what I have said helps the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned clause 44, which effectively brings into our law what is already happening

  921
  between the Republic of Ireland and this country. The intention is entirely correct in terms of trying to ensure that the extradition arrangements work as effectively and smoothly as possible. I know that there are sensitivities on that matter and I have taken careful note of the hon. Gentleman's words.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the differences between the effects of the Bill, especially part I, on the various parts of the United Kingdom. Those differences are the result of the different legal codes in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales. I gather that the Northern Ireland Office is considering the hon. Gentleman's second question—I want to assure him on that matter.
  Many other hon. Members spoke about other matters, especially the insider dealing provisions. I shall try to deal generally with the questions raised, and in doing so I put on record a quotation from "Investor Relations: a guide for directors", produced by the stock exchange. That quotation puts in context some of the fears and concerns that have been expressed in all parts of the House, and illustrates how the existing advice already goes beyond the part of the Bill which relates to insider dealing:
  "It is vital that no group of investors of market commentators be given privileged access to price-sensitive information. However, it can often be helpful to provide background information to brokers' analysts who play a key role in analysing published information given to the market, and to major investors or potential investors in the company. This might include both a restatement and elaboration of information already released and material on the company's products and processes which, while not price-sensitive, assists analysts or fund managers in their understanding of the nature of a company's business."
  That quotation underlines what my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said about that part of the Bill representing "business as usual". My hon. Friend has been present throughout the debate and listened to hon. Members' comments, and I know that he will take them into account in the continuing work on the consultations that he, his officials and others are having with members of the financial community, in order to take on board and reflect some of the concerns that hon. Members have expressed in the debate.
  Time prevents me from going into many of the other points raised. In the Government's view, this is a wholly benevolent Bill. It will strengthen the fight against drugs so as to ensure that we have the most effective regime to counter those who have sought to profit from money laundering and from drug trafficking. It will ensure that we deal with those people on equal terms with other members of the European Community and that we take our part in the international fight against drugs. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament—
  922

  (a) of compensation for loss suffered as a result of the making of confiscation orders which are varied or cancelled; and

  (b) of grants to such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with measures intended—

  (i) to combat or deal with drug trafficking or the misuse of drugs; or

  (ii) to deal with consequences of the misuse of drugs.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

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

    CANE SUGAR
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4439/93, relating to guaranteed prices applicable in the 1992–93 delivery period to cane sugar originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific states; supports the Government's objective of ensuring that prices paid to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries are both in accordance with the terms of the Lome-Sugar Protocol and a level which enables the viability of cane sugar refineries in the Community to be maintained; and supports the Government's intention to press for a radical review of the European Community sugar regime which will produce some deregulatory benefits for the Community's sugar consumers, while accepting a continuation of that regime until 30th June 1994.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

    DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9910/92, relating to demography, family planning and co-operation with developing countries; and welcomes the Resolution adopted at the Development Council on 18th November 1992, which takes full account of United Kingdom interests in this field.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    Question agreed to.

  RIGHT TO KNOW BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Right to Know Bill it is expedient to authorise—

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

  (i) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act;

  (ii) any increases attributable to the Act in the sums so payable out of money so provided under any other enactment;

  (b) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of—

  (i) any salary payable in accordance with the Act to the Information Commissioner appointed under the Act; and

  (ii) any pension so payable to or in respect of the Commissioner.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2 April],
  That the Amendment to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill set out in the Lords Message of 18th March be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question again proposed.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

PETITION

  Rail Privatisation
  10 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I present a petition that expresses the grave concern of many of my constituents in the city of York and in many other places about the horrendous threat to jobs posed by rail privatisation. The petition reads as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of residents of the City of York and other parts of the United Kingdom, showeth That they wish to protest against the Government's plan to privatise the railways. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House calls for all possible steps to be taken to protect the jobs of those connected with the rail industry in York. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
  The petition is signed by David Flintham, the editor of my local paper, the Yorkshire Evening Press, by Robert Beaumont, the chief features writer, and by more than 12,000 other of my constituents and people of neighbouring areas.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Arachnoiditis
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate this evening. You appear to be in rude health. Clearly, the Easter recess has done you good.
  This is the first occasion since my arrival in the House on which I have had an Adjournment debate on a national issue. Hitherto, all my Adjournment debates have been exclusive to my constituency. I have two admissions to make. First, I had never heard of arachnoiditis until it was raised in my constituency by the chairman of the Arachnoiditis Self Help Group. I believe that I was in good company, because none of the journalists on the local television, radio or newspapers had heard of it, either.
  I understand that arachnoiditis is the inflammation of the delicate membranes surrounding the spine and nerve routes. They become inflamed, thicken and adhere to other tissues, such as nerves. The condition has been associated with spinal infection or injuries, including spinal surgery, the most common of which is for slipped discs. It is allegedly caused by injections to the spine in connection with procedures such as myelography. It was the fact that the Isle of Wight consultant who is responsible for myelographies told our local newspaper that, because of the risks involved, he would not dream of having one himself, that drew the matter to my attention and to that of a number of others.
  The second admission that I have to make is that, until I put my back out—fortunately only on one occasion—I did not realise the sheer unspeakable agony of a back complaint. There is no respite from it, whether one stands up or tries lying on a bed or even on a hard surface such as a floor.
  I see that the Minister, who also appears to be in his customary rude health, is in his place. I do not know whether he has ever suffered from a back complaint. I have noticed that, since his translation from the Whips Office, he has developed red box stoop but, apart from that, he has always seemed to me to be a bouncy and healthy Minister; but if he has had the unfortunate experience of putting his back out, he will know precisely why I have initiated the debate.
  I pay tribute to my constituent, Mr. Ron Sheppard, who is the chairman of the Arachnoiditis Self Help Group. He has worked tirelessly for the cause, and his breakthrough came when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my noble Friend Baroness Cumberlege, wrote to me on 5 March:
  "it is possible that any procedure involving puncturing the membrane around the spinal cord could lead to the introduction of harmful bacteria and hence cause inflammation such as arachnoiditis."
  I thank my noble Friend Baroness Cumberlege, through my hon. Friend, for cutting through all the red tape and bureaucracy and giving the brave little band of back sufferers the answer straight down the line. That is a triumph for open government.
  The first great concern is that people still feel that they are not properly counselled about the risks involved in myelography. My noble Friend continues in her letter:
  "In many situations, MRI"—
  magnetic resonance imaging—

  925
  "will be a suitable alternative to a myelogram. Currently, clinicians have to consider for individual patients the balance between the risks of myelography and the risks of waiting for the availability of an MRI scan. The patient should be involved in this decision through informed consent."
  The self-help group has a number of letters from people all over the country who say that they were never properly counselled concerning the risks involved. I have asked the chairman to select a sample to illustrate my point; I am sure that the Minister will take my word for it that I could provide the originals of those letters and many more besides. The first is from the chairman, Ron Sheppard, who says:
  "I was never warned of any risk before myelography".
  Mrs. Rogers of Sussex writes:
  "At no time was I warned there may be side effects".
  Mrs. Ince of London states:
  "never at any point was I informed of the dangers of the said procedure."
  Mrs. Paton of Cornwall says:
  "No-one seems to tell you anything".
  It has been put to me—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be sympathetic to the point—that when one is suffering the unspeakable and excruciating agony of this back disorder, one will sign one's life away to anyone who will promise one relief from it. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that point on board and that, perhaps as a result of this Adjournment debate, we will see the introduction of a large, bold-typeface warning about the risks involved in such treatment, to be signed in duplicate by patients, with one copy to be taken away by them and the other to be placed on their file, so that in future there can be no doubt whatever that patients have been properly counselled in such circumstances.
  As Baroness Cumberlege said in her letter, MRI scans have an important part to play in the alternative therapy that will be available in future. I understand that, in September 1992, the Royal College of Radiologists issued a report, which is brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health personally, estimating that MRI scanner needs of the United Kingdom amount to approximately 225, and that there are currently 90 in operation. I am pleased to say that one is made available regularly on the Isle of Wight, and it plays an important part in the diagnostic health care of my constituents.
  When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, he will no doubt point out that, in 1991, the Secretary of State for Health announced a three-year rolling programme for MRI scanners. However, the problem is urgent, and one reason for this debate is to call for an accelerated programme. Indeed, with fundholding, these matters are being discussed actively with consultants and general practitioners throughout the country. In my constituency, Mr. Paul Bingham of the Isle of Wight health commission published an article in the "Public Health Quarterly" to provoke discussion on the use of MRI scanners in future.
  An article in today's Times states that my hon. Friend the Minister will announce next week an increase in the limit for regions and national health service trusts from £50,000 to £250,000 for leasing medical equipment and building new developments. Having spent my first Parliament campaigning against the wretched Ryrie rules, I am delighted that, in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I have at long last found a champion for their
  926
  total abolition. If the article in The Times is true, next week's announcement will hopefully be the manifestation of that abolition.
  I want my hon. Friend to go further than that. The provision of pound for pound has been an area of great success in the Government. Every £1 raised locally is matched by El from the taxpayer's pocket. Such a scheme for MRI scanners would be welcomed by the general public. Many district health authorities already operate such schemes, but if they were encouraged by the Department of Health, that would be a very welcome initiative.
  We can all decide which good causes to support, but none of us has a choice about when we are ill. That is why our national health service is so precious to us all. I hope that the Minister will pick up this baton and run with it till we have a result. Such a scheme would accelerate the introduction of this wonderful "Tomorrow's World" technology throughout the health service, and it would be just the kind of dynamic challenge that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health had in mind in involving private financing in the health service.
  I have some questions for the Minister. Are there any central records of the number of myelograms being carried out? What more can be done to ensure that GPs are aware of arachnoiditis and so ensure its proper diagnosis? Are there any proposals for looking into alternative pain management to avoid spinal injections? Has the Department of Health considered the work of Professor Jayson at Manchester hospital, who has been researching the condition and is president of the self-help group? Has the Medical Research Council a part to play in considering the problem?
  I understand that Ron Sheppard has written to the Select Committee on Health asking whether the whole problem can be examined. I know that the Minister will, as always, be as helpful as possible when he replies to the debate, and that he will do his best to continue that ray of hope brought into the lives of so many sufferers by the letter from Baroness Cumberlege. I hope that my small contribution tonight will encourage those who have suffered for so long, and that I may have convinced the Minister that arachnoiditis really is a pain in the back.
  10.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on his very full and lucid account of the serious problems faced by people who suffer from arachnoiditis. I acknowledge the close interest that he has taken in the matter.
  I am only too familiar with the problems facing people with arachnoiditis. I have been made aware of just how great the suffering can be by my constituents and through the Department. Perhaps it would be helpful to hon. Members if I briefly describe it.
  Arachnoiditis is an uncommon condition which is characterised by chronic inflammation and thickening of the sub-arachnoid space, which covers and protects the brain and spinal cord. It may develop for several reasons. These include meningitis, suba-rachnoid haemorrhage, tumours, trauma from injury or surgery and irritants, including the contrast agents used in myelography. The condition traps nerves as they leave the spinal cord.

  927
  Arachnoiditis at the lower end of the spinal canal may cause a great deal of low back and leg pain, although there is no distinctive syndrome.
  Any trauma to the spine, including surgical invasive procedures, may lead in some cases to the development of arachnoiditis. Patients with this condition may have more than one predisposing cause. For example, myelography involves trauma to the spinal cavity to introduce a needle through which a contrast medium, which is an irritant, is injected, and is not uncommonly followed by a spine operation. Epidural injections involve the introduction of a needle to the epidural space. It does not penetrate the arachnoid membrane, nor is a contrast agent injected, but arachnoiditis has been reported following epidural injections.
  Myelography is a diagnostic procedure. It involves the introduction of a contrast medium into the spinal column through a needle inserted into the lower spine. Once the contrast agent has been injected, several radiographs are then taken which provide views of the spinal cavity.
  Myodil was the United Kingdom trade name for the contrast medium, which was an oily contrast agent for myelograms. It was introduced in 1941. It quickly became the standard contrast medium for myelography until the general acceptance of non-ionic water soluble contrast media during the 1980s. Myodil has not been marketed since 1987, when it was withdrawn from the market by its manufacturers.
  Myodil was first marketed in the 1940s and was, therefore, issued a product licence of right when the licensing of medicinal products was introduced under the Medicines Act 1968. At the time of first licensing, the product information warned of the occurrence of post-myelography arachnoiditis in some patients. At the time of the review of the product licence of right, that warning was strengthened. It is the responsibility of doctors who use a product to ensure that they are fully familiar with the benefits and risks of any procedure or treatment.
  Potentially, any medicine may cause side effects which may be minor or more serious. The Committee on Safety of Medicines carefully monitors all issues of drug safety and, where necessary, provides advice to doctors, dentists and pharmacists. Prescribing information and advice about side effects is available to doctors in the data sheets of an individual product, which are issued by the manufacturer of the product, and in the British National Formulary which the Department provides to all prescribers.
  The incidence of clinically significant arachnoiditis associated with Myodil myelography is difficult to assess but has been estimated to be approximately 1 per cent. However, the relative contribution of Myodil, compared to other factors also known to be associated with arachnoiditis, is less certain.
  I am aware that legal proceedings are currently in progress between a substantial number of patients, who claim to have suffered damage as a result of the use of Myodil, and Glaxo, the manufacturers of this product. The Department—in this case the Medicines Control Agency—complied with a High Court Order for discovery of documents relating to Myodil in 1991 but has had no further involvement in the case. My hon. Friend will understand that, in view of the judicial proceedings, 1 am unable to comment further.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: In a general debate, it is interesting that all three major parties in the House are represented by their Front-Bench spokespersons. The reason for that is that we have received literally hundreds of letters from sufferers of arachnoiditis about the pain they are suffering and their inability to get adequate answers to the issues which have been raised.
  On 25 March, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health about a meeting of departmental officials, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Health, hon. Members on both sides of the House and representatives of the action group to see whether we could consider in detail some of the complaints that have been raised about the Department.
  I have had no confirmation so far from the Department of an agreement in principle to the meeting. Perhaps the Minister will say before the debate concludes whether in principle the Department is agreed that the meeting should take place and, on that basis, when it is likely to take place.
  Mr. Sackville: I can give the hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), an assurance that we shall arrange a meeting at a time of their convenience.
  I shall now make some general comments about injuries sustained as a result of medical treatment. If a patient suffers injury as a result of medical treatment, he or she can go to court to claim compensation. If the claim is against the national health service, to be successful the patient must succeed in proving that there has been negligence on the part of the NHS.
  Where a patient suffers an injury as a result of negligent care or treatment provided by the NHS, it is right that compensation should be paid to that patient. However, the individual who is accused of being negligent also has the right to defend his or her professional reputation. Unless the alleged negligent action is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, as in other walks of life, if the injured person wishes to pursue the case, the dispute is resolved through the courts.
  In a case such as that concerning Myodil, the Government's position has always been that it is a matter to be resolved between the drug companies and individuals, if necessary through the courts.
  Magnetic resonance imaging, known as MRI, is a relatively new method of imaging, which has come into clinical use over the past 10 years. It is a non-invasive technique that enables good images of spinal cavity to be obtained but differs from myelography in not using ionising radiation. In many situations, MRI will be a suitable alternative to a myelogram, but there will be some situations in which myelography is preferable. For instance, some patients are unable to tolerate the enclosed conditions which are a feature of MRI.
  There are about 78 MRI units in England—the number has already grown—but these are not sufficient to take on the present myelography work load; so it would not be practical to discontinue myelography entirely. I am glad to remind my hon. Friend that the then Secretary of State for Health announced early in 1992 a three-year programme of capital funding for medical equipment, including whole body scanners. Several scanners were purchased for England in the financial year 1992–93, and we expect that rather more will be acquired in the current financial year.
  Clincians associated with treatment of the spine would wish to avoid invasive procedures wherever possible, and consultants would not go along with it if there were always

  929
  alternatives available. In the context of the current provision of MRI, clinicians have to consider for individual patients the balance between the risks of myelography and the risks of waiting for the availability of an MRI scan. The patient should be involved in that decision, through the process of securing informed consent.
  Patients are entitled to receive sufficient information in a way that they can understand about the proposed management, any possible alternatives and any substantial risks. Patients must then be allowed to decide whether they agree to the treatment. This important principle of achieving informed consent has been highlighted in the patients charter.
  As part of the recent NHS reforms, hospitals are responsible for providing efficient and effective health services to meet the needs identified by Health Authorities. In this context, and against the background of the imperative to minimise doses of ionising radiation in diagnostic radiology, provider units will decide whether they will make MRI available. Conversely, health authorities as purchasers of health care will decide how best to use their resources in order to meet the needs of their population. If purchasers are not willing to purchase myelography, it is open to hospitals to provide MRI as an alternative.
  It is a sad fact that people have been seriously affected by arachnoiditis—the exact causes of which may be uncertain in individual cases. There is no known cure for
  930
  arachnoiditis, which can result in severe pain, and adequate pain relief should be an important part of treatment. Services specifically for the relief of pain are available in a number of hospitals.
  To summarise, any invasive procedure in the spine carries a risk of causing arachnoiditis. Myelography is one such procedure, but an alternative—MRI—is becoming increasingly available. MRI can replace many invasive diagnostic procedures, including myelography, with the added advantage of avoiding ionising radiation. CT scanners were introduced about a decade before MRI and are now readily accessible; I hope that MRI will become similarly more accessible in the future.
  I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend on highlighting the problem and making more people familiar with the word. I take his point that warnings must be issued and that patients must be made aware of the degree of risk, which is uncertain but which exists.
  When I started replying to letters on the subject, as a sufferer of back pain myself—although not of severe back pain—I realised how enormously distressing is the condition. It can dominate and even ruin people's lives. I hope that the programme of acquiring MRI scanners will accelerate and that—as my hon. Friend said—hospitals will take advantage of new flexibility in the way that they finance such acquisitions. I hope that the growth in the number of MRI scanners will help more people in future. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to the attention of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Contracting-out
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he has sought external advice on whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the acquired rights directive apply to any central or local government businesses that have been contracted out during the last 10 years; and whether any Department will be liable to compensation.

  The Attorney-General
  It is not the normal practice to disclose whether the Law Officers have advised on a matter. Likewise, the Law Officers would not normally disclose whether they had advised in conjunction with other counsel or had requested that external advice be obtained.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Listing
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his policy in respect of whether a company which is conducting a court listing field trial under the supervision of his Department should be allowed to sell dedicated computer software and equipment to trial participants as a condition of participation in the trial.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The role of the Lord Chancellor's Department is to co-operate in the court listing field trial through provision of listing information in electronic form. Overall supervision is the responsibility of the General Council of the Bar which is sponsoring the trial. The Department has no formal relationship with the trial participants.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether it is intended that one company only will be licensed to distribute court listing information after the current field trials of a computerised court listing system have ended.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  At present the Lord Chancellor's Department has no plans for licensing companies to distribute court listing information. In the event of any such licensing being arranged, there is no reason in principle why this should be limited to a single company.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the amount of the legal aid budget(a) distributed to applicants and (b) spent on administration in the most recent year for which figures are available.
  526
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The net amount paid to solicitors and barristers in 1991–92 in respect of work done for legal-aided clients was £906 million. The administrative costs incurred by the Legal Aid Board in the same year amounted to £40·7 million. In addition, some administrative costs will have been incurred by the courts in respect of those parts of the legal aid scheme—chiefly criminal legal aid—for which they are responsible. These costs cannot be identified separately.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the application of his plans for legal aid to people on income support.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  People receiving income support are presently eligible for free legal aid, advice and assistance and assistance by way of representation, and this will continue to be the case under the regulations which came into force on 12 April.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of the appointments made by the Lord Chancellor as listed in "Public Bodies 1992" came within the categories set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and required a submission to the Prime Minister.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Three of the current appointments made by the Lord Chancellor to public bodies listed under his Department in "Public Bodies" were made after a submission to the Prime Minister.

  Landlord Mortgages
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he has any plans to bring forward legislation as proposed by the Law Commission in its November 1991 report "Transfer of Land: Land Mortgages".

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No. The Law Commission's report on "Transfer of Land: Land Mortgages", Law Com. No. 204, contains extensive proposals for reform, which are still being considered by the Government.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many court proceedings concerning child abuse video-taped evidence has been admitted.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The provision for the giving in evidence of a video recording of an interview with a child witness in certain specified proceedings is contained in section 54 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. This provision came into force on 1 October 1992. Since that date there have been nine cases in the Crown court where applications under section 54 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to admit a pre-recorded video interview with a child witness have been granted. In two of these cases the defendant pleaded guilty and, therefore, the video tapes were not required in court.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those courts where video-taped evidence has been(a) admitted and (b) refused in child abuse cases.
  527
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The provision for the giving in evidence of a video recording in certain specified proceedings is contained in section 54 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. This provision came into force on 1 October 1992. Since that date pre-recorded video-taped interviews with child witnesses have been admitted and used in evidence in proceedings in the Crown court at Cardiff, Croydon, Newcastle and Wolverhampton. According to centrally collected statistics, no applications to admit video-taped evidence in child witness proceedings have been refused.

ENVIRONMENT

  Caravan Sites
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to make a statement on the response to his consultation paper, "Reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968"; when he expects to announce his conclusions; and in what form he will announce them.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) on 31 March 1993,Official Report, column 291.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley),Official Report, 24 March, columns 663–64, on contaminated land, what additional resources he will make available to local authorities in support of their statutory powers to locate and deal with contaminated land while the new interdepartmental review group he announced today conducts its study.

  Mr. Maclean
  Local authorities already receive general support through revenue support grant for their expenditure on environmental services. This includes expenditure in connection with their duties to identify contaminated land and to ensure that remedial measures are taken where necessary. The Government give additional support to authorities by means of supplementary credit approvals for investigation and remedial works on authorities' own sites or where it is impracticable to recover treatment costs from those responsible.

  Home Insulation Grants
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many home insulation grants have been given in the last five years; and what was their value.

  Mr. Maclean
  There have been several different grant schemes for home insulation over the last five years.

  The home efficiency scheme provides grants for loft, tank and pipe insulation, draughtproofing and energy advice. Since its inception in January 1991, some 387,000 grants have been provided at a cost of £55·6 million. Under the house renovation grant system, minor works assistance grants are available for thermal insulation. Since their introduction in April 1990, 11,300 homes have been treated at a cost of £3·8 million. Insulation is also sometimes installed as part of wider works under house renovation grants.

  The energy grant scheme provided for draughtproofing materials. Between April 1988 and December 1990 some
  528
  360,000 homes were treated at a cost of £25·65 million. The homes insulation scheme provided some 185,800 grants at a cost of £19·4 million between April 1988 and March 1990.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the total cost of the enterprise zone scheme in terms of rate relief and capital allowances in each year since 1981 at current prices.

  Mr. Redwood
  Approximate costs in 1992–93 prices are given in the table.

  Year

  Capital Allowances1

  Rates Relief 2

  £ million

  £ million

  1981–82

  35

  9

  1982–83

  35

  19

  1983–84

  25

  23

  1984–85

  50

  33

  1985–86

  85

  42

  1986–87

  120

  57

  1987–88

  95

  73

  1988–89

  195

  82

  1989–90

  160

  106

  1990–91

  170

  90

  1991–92

  —

  80

  Notes:

  1The method of calculating capital allowance costs is currently being reviewed by Inland Revenue and final estimates will not be available until the summer. The estimated costs incurred in 1991–92 are not yet known.

  2The cost of rate relief in 1990–91 and 1991–92 has been estimated, following the introduction of the Uniform Business Rate.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what schemes for enterprise zones are in the process of preparation and adoption but not yet designated;

  (2) what plans he has to invite local authorities or corporations to draw up schemes for enterprise zones in the near future.

  Mr. Redwood
  Proposals for up to three new enterprise zones were announced by the President of the Board of Trade on Monday 29 March,Official Report, columns 30–31.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the planned winding-up dates of all current enterprise zone schemes.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  Date

  Delyn

  20 July 1993

  Wellingborough

  25 July 1993

  Rotherham

  15 August 1993

  Londonderry

  12 September 1993

  Scunthorpe

  22 September 1993

  Wakefield (Dale Lane and Kinsley)

  22 September 1993

  Workington

  3 October 1993

  Invergordon

  6 October 1993

  North West Kent Nos. 1–5

  30 October 1993

  Middlesbrough

  7 November 1993

  North East Lancashire

  6 December 1993

  Tayside

  8 January 1994

  Telford

  12 January 1994

  Glanford

  12 April 1994

  Milford Haven Waterway

  23 April 1994

  529

  Date

  Dudley (Round Oak)

  2 October 1994

  Lower Swansea Valley No. 2

  5 March 1995

  North West Kent Nos. 6 and 7

  9 October 1996

  Inverclyde

  2 March 1999

  Sunderland

  26 April 2000

  Lanarkshire

  31 January 2003

  London Buses
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions his Department has had on the effect of the age of the London bus fleet on air quality in the capital.

  Mr. Maclean
  Emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles, including buses, were the subject of the 15th report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (Command 1631) published in September 1991. The Government's response was published in October 1992. Among other things, this refers to measures already taken to improve the in-service testing of vehicles and the introduction of a telephone hotline to enable the public to report smoky vehicles. The response also stated that improvements would be made to the Department of Transport guide for maintaining roadworthiness. These would require operators to make regular engine management and maintenance checks in order to retain satisfactory emissions performance. Steps would also be taken to ensure that the public is made more aware of the existence of the telephone hotlines. These publicity measures will be implemented in the near future.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates of(a) the cost to a local authority of housing a homeless family for a year in a property which has been leased from a private owner, and (b) the average annual rent charged to homeless families for the occupation of a property which a local authority has leased from a private owner, (i) in London and (ii) in the rest of England.

  Sir George Young
  The information is not available centrally and my Department has no estimates.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of homeless people in the Greater London area on 31 March.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities in England report the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure permanent accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 in their quarterly P1 return.

  The latest estimate for London appears in table 1 of "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act 1985: England. Statistics for the fourth quarter 1992", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what survey he has carried out of the extent to which mortgage lenders do not make loans available on property of a specific type or in a specified area; and if he will make a statement.
  530
  Sir George Young
  No such survey has been carried out by my Department.

  Rents to Mortgages
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he has taken to prevent properties which are the subject of rent-to-mortgage arrangements being used as collateral for loans.

  Sir George Young
  Purchasing under rents to mortgages will normally be financed by borrowing and an advance from an approved lending institution to fund the purchase price will take priority over the charge which secures the landlord's share. The purchaser will be free to borrow for other purposes on the security of the property, but such advances will take priority only if the landlord consents. It will be required to consent if the advance is for works to the property or another approved purpose.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the responses he has received to the consultation paper on the future of the rough sleepers initiative.

  Sir George Young
  Recipients of this discussion paper were not advised that responses would be published and I have no plans to do so. We are considering carefully some 90 responses we have received, and I hope to announce a strategy for the rough sleepers initiative 1993–96 shortly.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were resident in the severe weather shelters at the point of closure; and how many have(a) returned to sleeping on the street as a result of the closures and (b) been offered accommodation on 31 March.

  Sir George Young
  Under the Government's £96 million rough sleepers initiative we have provided funding of £1·5 million for this year's winter shelter programme, which at its height provided 400 extra bedspaces in nine winter shelters in central London. The purpose of the winter shelter programme was specifically to provide shelter for people in central London who would otherwise sleep rough over the winter months. The shelters closed, as planned, at the end of March.

  At 31 march some 145 of the 400 places were still in use: Around 100 people had other accommodation to move on to and at least 10 people had refused offers of further assistance.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing and Planning undertook to make these figures available in the Official Report during the debate on affordable housing on 1 April.

  Housebuilding, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the number of(a) council houses and (b) private houses built in the Greater London area in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates are shown of the total numbers of housebuilding completions by sector in Greater London for 1990 to 1992. Housing associations are now the main providers of new housing for the social sector.
  531

  Year

  Private enterprise

  Housing associations

  Local authorities

  Total

  1990

  13,100

  2,100

  1,900

  17,000

  1991

  10,800

  2,500

  700

  14,000

  19921

  10,100

  3,600

  100

  13,800

  1 Estimates for 1992 are provisional.

  Regional Arts Boards
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list by regional arts board areas the contributions made by each named local authority in England towards Arts Council spending in their areas.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is not available centrally.

  Council Rented Houses
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present policy of the Government towards the building of local authority rented dwellings.

  Mr. Baldry
  The provision of new social housing is now mainly the responsibility of housing associations, with local authorities increasingly concentrating on the management of their existing stock and on their broad enabling role.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many names were on petitions received from the United Kingdom during the public consultation period for the proposed new Sellafield discharge authorisation which were(a) in favour of the proposal and (b) opposed to the proposal;

  (2) how many letters were received during the public consultation period for the proposed new Sellafield discharge authorisation which were (a) in favour of the proposal and (b) opposed to the proposal; and if he will detail in each case how many were from (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) overseas.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 1 April 1993]: My Department has received approximately 80,000 responses, including a number of petitions following the public consultation on the proposed new Sellafield discharge authorisation. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have not as yet finished their report on the consultation which provide the details the hon. Member requests. When the report is completed it will be made available to the public. I expect to receive the report by the end of April; this is later than I reported to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 15 February.

  Devon Structure Plan
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many months' delay there was in preparing the Devon county structure plan, third alteration; how many months' delay there has been since the public consultation took place because of his Department's uncertainty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: The consultation draft of the third alteration to the Devon
  532
  county structure plan was published in October 1990 and the alteration was formally submitted to the Secretary of State in May 1991. An examination in public of selected matters arising on the alteration took place in March-April 1992. The panel which conducted the examination has since submitted its report and its recommendations are being considered. The report will be made public when the Secretary of State's proposed modifications are published.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of times the hourly and daily averages of concentrations of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide and ozone in the atmosphere have exceeded the safety thresholds set by EC directives 92/72/EEC, 89/427/EEC, 88/76/EEC, 84/360/ EEC and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 1989 in the cities of Belfast, Edinburgh, Cardiff, London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle upon Tyne, Leicester, Southampton and Kingston upon Hull since January 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: Limits provided in EC air quality directives for smoke and sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide have been breached in the United Kingdom since January 1991 only in the case of smoke and sulphur dioxide in Belfast, for which there was a temporary derogation until 31 March this year. Directive 92/72/EEC sets public information levels rather than limit values, for ozone. Monitoring for ozone in cities other than London is at an early stage, but preliminary tests suggest that the levels specified are not likely to be exceeded in urban centres. EC legislation does not prescribe any limit values or thresholds for ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) of 26 March,Official Report, columns 737–39, what votes were taken and what was the position of each country in the European Community's Environment Council on 22 and 23 March.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: No formal votes were taken.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  School Leavers
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to promote the use of the records of achievement of school leavers in the recruitment policies(a) in his Department and (b) in other Government Departments.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The Cabinet Office in London, which includes the Office of Public Service and Science, is one of the employers involved in the Central London Education Business Partnership. Students of schools involved in the partnership are able to submit their London records of achievement when applying for jobs. The LRA, together with other information, is taken into account in the selection process.
  533
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for recruitment policy, including educational qualifications, in other Government Departments.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to recruit women, members of ethnic minorities and disabled people, respectively, in top grades of employment at the Duchy of Lancaster and at the Office of Public Service and Science.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Duchy of Lancaster is an equal opportunities employer. Appointments are made on grounds of merit and of suitability for the post, regardless of an individual's sex or race. There are currently no members of ethnic minorities or disabled people holding senior positions. The Duchy has employed a disabled senior grade in the past.

  Recruits to the senior grades of the civil service, as to any grade in the civil service, are selected on merit on the basis of fair and open competition, unless one of the exceptions permitted under the Civil Service Order in Council 1991 applies. Various steps have been taken by the Civil Service Commissioners to aid recruitment from all sectors of the community, including:

  extending links with institutions of higher education;

  equal opportunities training for all those involved in selection;

  using validated selection procedures.

  The Office of Public Service and Science is part of the Cabinet Office, which has signed up domestically to Opportunity 2000, and is working towards achieving the civil servicewide benchmark of increasing the proportion of women in the top three grades to 15 per cent. or more by the year 2000. The Department continually seeks to encourage the employment of people from the ethnic minorities and those with disabilities.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Duchy of Lancaster and the Office of Public Service and Science last conducted surveys of(a) ethnic origins and (b) the number of women among their employees; when they next plan to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Duchy of Lancaster employs only 37 people. Consequently, it is not necessary to ask employees to declare their ethnic origins, nor to conduct surveys of the number of women employees.

  The Office of Public Service and Science is part of the Cabinet Office. A survey of the origins of all non-industrial civil servants was completed in 1988. The Cabinet Office introduced a computerised personnel database in 1991. All staff were given the opportunity to update their own entries, which include sections on ethnic origins. There are no firm plans to conduct further surveys. The sex of employees is identified in staff records.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall in the Duchy of Lancaster and in the Office of Public Service and Science are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Duchy employs a total of 37 people, of whom 15–41 per cent.—are women. Of the 37 employees one is registered as a disabled person.
  534
  The Office of Public Service and Science forms part of the Cabinet Office. The figures for women employed in the Cabinet Office, including its executive agencies, are as follows:

  Grade (and) equivalents)

  Women

  Total

  Per cent.

  Women

  1

  0

  5

  0

  2

  2

  8

  25

  3

  1

  25

  4

  4

  0

  3

  0

  5

  16

  41

  39

  6

  19

  45

  42

  7

  63

  264

  24

  Overall

  1,330

  2,634

  50

  The ethnic monitoring programme was carried out on a voluntary basis and did not extend to the Cabinet Office's agencies. Of those who responded, 62 people—2·3 per cent. of the total—chose to register as non-white. One of these people is at grade 7 level.

  The Cabinet Office's figures on staff with disabilities include only those who have chosen to register as disabled. Twenty-eight people—1 per cent. of the total—are so registered. None is at grade 7 level or above. The Cabinet Office employs other staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  Travellers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the application of the information provisions in the citizens charter to consultation with gipsy communities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The citizens charter calls on all public services regularly and systematically to seek customers' views about the quality of service provided and priorities for improvements. Consultation should involve all client groups, including, where appropriate, gipsy communities.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the appointments made by him as listed in "Public Bodies 1992" came within the categories set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and required a submission to the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster makes appointments to the following non-departmental public bodies included in "Public Bodies 1992": the Civil Service Appeal Board; Agricultural and Food Research Council; Economic and Social Research Council; Medical Research Council; Natural Environment Research Council; Science and Engineering Research Council; and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.

  In keeping with the provisions of paragraph 50 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", the Prime Minister is consulted about the appointment of the chairman of the research councils, and about the appointment of the chairman and independent members of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.

  Appointments to the Civil Service Appeal Board do not come within the categories set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 and appointments are not required to be submitted to the Prime Minister.
  535

  EC Science Funding
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total amount of funding for science research coming to the United Kingdom from European Community sources in each of the last three years for which information is available; and how much of these funds has gone to the research councils.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information on total funding for science research coming to the United Kingdom from European Community sources is not available in the form requested. I refer the hon. Member to the data given in tables C and D of my answer of 18 February,Official Report, columns 300–04. This gives the total funds awarded to United Kingdom research organisations over the period 1987–91 under the EC framework programme. These funds, which exclude sums relating to fusion and JRC, amounted to £444·62 million—586·90 mecu translated at the rate £1 =1·32 ecu.

  The funding of research council institutes from EC sources in the financial years 1989–90 to 1992–93 is as follows:

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–933

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  SERC

  676

  1,756

  2,018

  3,274

  NERC

  1,641

  1,788

  2,655

  3,109

  MRC1

  700

  800

  1,500

  1,600

  AFRC2

  1,487

  1,083

  2,724

  4,200

  ESRC

  15

  25

  25

  19

  Total

  4,519

  5,452

  8,922

  12,202

  1 Excludes awards made directly to MRC units.

  2 Includes AFRC grant-aided institutes.

  3 Provisional.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the appointments made by him as listed in "Public Bodies 1992" came within the categories set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and required a submission to the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Portillo
  Of the bodies for which the Chancellor is responsible that are listed in "Public Bodies 1992" only appointments to the Top Salaries Review Body require a submission to the Prime Minister.
  536

  European Investment Fund
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, columns 631–32, if he will list projects that are to be financed through the European investment fund and the total level of the loan facilities to be provided.

  Mr. Nelson
  The United Kingdom, together with other EC member states, is currently taking forward the administrative and legal procedures necessary to establish the European investment fund. Individual projects will not be put forward for financing until the fund is established. It is envisaged that the EIF will provide guarantees on loans to trans-European networks and to small and medium-sized enterprises within the Community. The total amount of lending which the fund may guarantee is under consideration.

  European Monetary Institute
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a decision has been taken on the location of the seat of the European Monetary Institute in accordance with article 13 of the protocol on the European Monetary Institute of the treaty on European union, p188, Cm. 1934; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  No decision has yet been reached as to the location of the seat of the European Monetary Institute, but we continue to press the strong market case for locating both the EMI and the future European central bank in the United Kingdom.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what procedures contract award procedures applied by Government Departments already implementing Council directive 92/50/EEC may be reviewed and challenged.

  Mr. Portillo
  Government Departments and other public bodies have no obligation to comply with directive 92/50/EEC until it comes into force on 1 July 1993 and equally until then there will be no procedures under which their decisions can be challenged and reviewed.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions for economic growth, inflation and interest rates were built for each year until 1997–98 into his estimates for the public sector borrowing requirement and other economic trends, published at the time of his Budget.

  Mr. Portillo
  Table 2·2 of the 1993–94 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" provides illustrative assumptions for output, inflation and money GDP growth for each year until 1997–98. These assumptions are set out in the table. It is not our practice to publish assumptions for interest rates.
  537

  Table 2.2 Money GDP growth, output growth and inflation1

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Money GDP

  3¼

  4¾

  7

  6½

  5½

  4¾

  Real GDP:

  Non-North Sea

  -¼

  1½

  2¼

  2¾

  3

  3

  Total

  —

  2

  2½

  2¾

  2¾

  2¾

  Inflation:

  GDP deflator

  3½

  2¾

  4¼

  3¾

  2½

  2

  RPI excluding MIPs2

  3¾

  3¾

  3¾

  3¼

  2½

  2

  1 Percentage changes on previous financial year; forecasts for 1993–94 and assumptions thereafter.

  2 Percentage change in year to 1992q4 1993q4; percentage change on previous financial year thereafter.

  VAT
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to charge a positive rate of VAT on a proportion only of each domestic electricity bill based on the proportion of the national electricity consumption generated from fossil fuels.

  Sir John Cope
  No.

  Recruitment Policies
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to promote the use of school leavers' records of achievement in the recruitment policies of Government Departments.

  Mr. Portillo
  As from 4 May, Departments and agencies will be given delegated responsibility for setting recruitment criteria for entrants to all but their senior grades. When the delegation is made, guidance will be issued to encourage the use of individuals' records of achievement as a valuable source of information, both of their academic and vocational qualifications and their attainments in other areas.

  Civil Service Relocation
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil service relocations have been agreed(a) to Nottingham and (b) Leicester, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Portillo
  Since March 1988 departmental Ministers have announced the following relocations or locations to Nottingham and Leicester:—

  year

  Posts

  Department

  Designation

  1988

  180

  Land Registry

  Leicester

  8

  OFFER

  Nottingham

  1989

  120

  Transport

  Nottingham

  1,800

  Inland Revenue

  Nottingham

  1990

  125

  Inland Revenue

  Leicester

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account is being taken on decisions on civil service relocations of the quality of Leicester's transport links and of its need for investment.

  Mr. Portillo
  The key factors in deciding whether and where to relocate civil service work are achieving best value for money and operational efficiency. Under the Treasury's guidance on relocation of work initiative, Departments considering relocating consult the 538
  Department of Trade and Industry about possible locations to ensure that the Government's regional and inner city policies are taken into account.

  Business Rents
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tenancies established under business expansion scheme funding contain clauses stating that on the fifth anniversary of the contract of assured tenancy the rent will increase by more than 25 per cent.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available.

  Finance (No. 2) Bill
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make available to hon. Members the customary notes on the Finance (No. 2) Bill's clauses.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Yes. Notes on clauses are today being placed in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House of Commons.

PRIME MINISTER

  Green Minister
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times the green Ministers nominated from each Government Department have met as a group during the past year.

  The Prime Minister
  It is a fundamental principle of our approach to green issues that environmental considerations are taken into account in all policies and at every level. Green Ministers are charged with integrating environmental considerations into the strategy and policies of their own Departments. They have met once in the past year. Mechanisms for co-ordinating policies between Departments include the annual White Paper process and official networks. There is a separate Ministerial Committee on the Environment, EDE, to handle major cross-departmental issues.

  Irish Republic
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he plans to make to the Irish Government regarding the present policy in the Irish Republic of bail for terrorists, following the murder of Special Constable Glenn Goodman and the attempted murder of Police Constable Sandy Kelly.

  The Prime Minister
  We have made clear to the Irish Government the very serious implications of judicial
  539
  decisions in extradition cases in which bail has been granted. The Irish Government have informed us that, while decisions on bail applications in individual cases are a matter for the courts, Irish law relating to bail is governed by the provisions of the constitution. We will continue to express our concerns on this subject, with a view to a wider area of discretionary judgment being afforded to the judiciary in such cases, for the greater protection of the public.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of security co-operation with the Irish Republic following the murder of Special Constable Glenn Goodman and the attempted murder of Police Constable Sandy Kelly; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Security co-operation between the RUC and Garda Siochana is at a high level. British and Irish Ministers are determined to maximise the effectiveness of co-operation and will continue to seek ways to enhance it.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that all files relevant to the claim for compensation by United Kingdom nuclear test veterans will be released; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Much information about the British nuclear test programme is already in the public domain and further files are being reviewed for possible release in due course. Dose records and medical data on each participant are available to the individual concerned. Successive Governments have confirmed that appropriate safety precautions were taken at the time of the tests to protect the participants from harm.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to amend levels of service pensions to take account of the effect of pay restrictions in force from 1976 to 1978.

  The Prime Minister
  The retired pay or pensions awarded to personnel of the armed forces whose service ended during the period of pay restraint from 1976 to 1978 were calculated in accordance with the rules of the armed forces pension scheme in force at the time. We have no plans to modify the awards that were made.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister which businesses have been identified for market testing by more than four Government Departments since January 1992; and what percentage of the work force in each Department is(a) female, (b) part-time and (c) clerical or administrative grade.

  The Prime Minister
  Departments are responsible for their own market testing programmes and definitive information is not held in the form requested. However, the information available centrally indicates that the following broad areas are included in the programmes of more than four Departments.

  Accountancy

  Estate and Building Management

  540

  Information Technology

  Hardware Maintenance

  Software Design and Maintenance

  Internal Audit

  Legal

  Conveyancing

  Library Services

  Office Services

  Payroll

  Record Storage and Retrieval

  Recruitment

  Reprographic

  Security Guarding

  Statistical Surveys

  Training

  Typing

  The information on staff numbers cannot be given except at disproportionate cost, but statistics on staff, including breakdowns by gender, grade and department, are contained in "Civil Service Statistics 1992 Edition", published by Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Egypt
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he took during his recent discussions with President Mubarak, of Egypt to raise the issue of human rights abuses and curtailment of religious practices among Coptic Christians in Egypt.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: I discussed a wide range of subjects with President Mubarak, including the situtation in Egypt. He is determined to maintain law and order in Egypt in the interests of all Egyptians. The position of the Copts was discussed with the Egyptian Foreign Minister who accompanied President Mubarak.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to President Mubarak about the Egyptian authorities' refusal to redress the grievances of the United Kingdom company WENA Hotels.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: The Foreign Secretary raised the question of WENA Hotels with the Egyptian Foreign Minister during President Mubarak's recent visit to London, urging the Egyptian authorities to encourage the Egyptian party to the dispute to go to arbitration as soon as possible. Our embassy in Cairo is following this up.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent communications he has received from Dr. Radovan Karadzic regarding the current situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: Dr. Karadzic wrote to me on 31 March about the peace process under the international conference on the former Yugoslavia and about the ban on flights in the airspace of Bosnia-Herzegovina. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is replying to Dr. Karadzic, stressing the urgent need for a peaceful settlement and the importance of the Bosnian Serbs signing the peace package. He is also emphasising the further pressure which will be put on the Serbs if they refuse to sign.
  541

WALES

  Environmental Digest for Wales
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he plans to take to improve the quality and currency of data in his Department's next Environmental Digest for Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The digest is reviewed on an annual basis. The edition published last month contained 18 new tables and four new diagrams with an improved format being adopted for all tables. I shall certainly consider possible additions and improvements to the publication to be produced next year.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of his Department's Environmental Digest for Wales 1992 have been published; at what cost; and what steps have been taken to distribute the digest to interested organisations.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A total of 430 copies of the latest "Environmental Digest for Wales" have been printed at a cost of £3,800. The cost to the Welsh Office and other organisations of preparing material for inclusion in this publication cannot be identified separately.

  Publicity for the digest is arranged through advertisements, brochures, and the issue of a statistical press notice which coincides with the issue of the publication.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many mink farms are currently licensed in Wales; and in which counties they are located.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

EDUCATION

  Further Education
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the cost of publishing and distributing his speech given on 9 December 1992 on further education in its printed form as a leaflet; and how many copies were printed.

  Table 12

  Teachers by years of teaching experience1

  Full-time teachers

  Pay scale

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Pay scale Standard scale with allowance

  Standard scale, no allowance

  Other scales2

  Total

  E

  D

  C

  B

  A

  Total teaching experience:

  Men:

  Less than 1 year

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  14

  4

  3

  1 year

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8

  23

  2

  2 years

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  7

  5

  2

  3 years

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  6

  4

  2

  4 years

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  4

  4

  6

  2

  5 years

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  5

  4

  4

  2

  6 to 10 years

  1

  1

  2

  7

  15

  17

  23

  15

  13

  12

  11 to 15 years

  3

  12

  11

  18

  27

  21

  23

  13

  11

  18

  16 or more years

  95

  86

  87

  75

  54

  55

  35

  30

  30

  57

  TOTAL

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  542
  Mr. Boswell
  Five thousand copies of the leaflet were printed at a cost of £420. The cost of the initial distribution was £144.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the data from the Secondary School Staffing Survey 1992 showing teachers' pay scales and allowances by length of teaching experience; what assessment his Department has made of the data in respect of updating the conclusions in paragraph 28 of the Statistical Bulletin No. 18/91, in respect of the difference in promotion rates of men and women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The table shows the distribution of full-time secondary school teachers by pay scale and allowance, length of teaching experience and sex. It is derived from the 1992 secondary school staffing survey which covered a representative sample of teachers in maintained secondary schools in England.

  The proportion of male full-time secondary teachers paid as heads, deputies or higher allowance holders—D or E—is 37 per cent., compared with 16 per cent. of women. The proportion of men in these posts is therefore 2·3 times greater than the proportion of women; compared with a ratio of 2·6 in 1988. After standardising by length of teaching experience, the ratio becomes 1·9, compared with a standardised ratio of 2·0 in 1988. Excluding those teachers who have taken a career break, by restricting the analysis to those whose age minus their years of teaching experience comes to less than 25, the standardised ratio becomes 1·7, the same as in 1988.

  Decisions on promotion to head, deputy head and higher allowance posts are taken by local education authorities and, under LMS, by the governing bodies of schools with delegated budgets. The Department's guides for school governors stress the importance of equal opportunities issues.

  The most recent figures for new promotions to head and deputy head show that 35 per cent. of such promotees in the secondary sector were women; since women hold 28 per cent. of existing head and deputy head posts—reflecting previous promotions, going back over several years—the outlook for the future of women in the profession looks more encouraging.
  543

  Pay scale

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Pay scale Standard scale with allowance

  Standard scale, no allowance

  Other scales2

  Total

  E

  D

  C

  B

  A

  All men (thousands)

  3·5

  6·2

  6·5

  17·3

  10·6

  18·9

  9·0

  18·8

  0·4

  91·1

  Women:

  Less than 1 year

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  4

  1 year

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  8

  33

  3

  2 years

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  5

  7

  14

  4

  3 years

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  4

  5

  9

  3

  4 years

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  4

  4

  12

  3

  5 years

  2

  —

  —

  1

  2

  4

  5

  3

  5

  3

  6 to 10 years

  —

  4

  4

  12

  16

  18

  19

  16

  11

  16

  11 to 15 years

  6

  12

  21

  24

  30

  24

  26

  20

  12

  23

  16 or more years

  92

  85

  73

  64

  48

  47

  35

  26

  5

  41

  TOTAL

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  All women (thousands)

  0·7

  3·0

  2·1

  7·6

  8·1

  19·0

  14·0

  29·4

  0·7

  84·7

  All teachers (thousands)

  4·2

  9·1

  8·5

  24·9

  18·6

  37·9

  23·0

  48·3

  1·2

  175·8

  1 Including full and part-time service.

  2 Includes scales for unqualified teachers.

  —Less than 0·5.

  National Curriculum
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to implement a code of ethics in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend is consulting about his proposal to require schools to include within their prospectus a statement on schools' ethos and values, including details of the way in which they meet their duty to secure the moral, spiritual, social and cultural development of their pupils, through the national curriculum, through religious education, and more generally.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether consultation with a view to making new or revised local management of schools schemes for schools in local education authorities in England which are to undergo a structural reorganisation following the Local Government Commission recommendations will be undertaken before or after such a reorganisation; under which statutory provisions such consultations will take place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  It is too soon to assess the impact of local government reorganisation on LMS; it will differ from area to area, depending on the Local Government Commission's recommendations on structure.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest figures his Department has on the number of three and four-year-olds in each London borough; and how many of them are in nursery schools and classes.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is given in the following table.
  544

  Estimated 3 and 4 year old population and pupil numbers and participation rates in maintained nursery and primary schools in London at January 1992

  Population estimates1

  Pupil numbers

  Participation rates2 (percentage)

  Camden

  4,000

  1,012

  26

  Greenwich

  6,600

  3,103

  47

  Hackney

  6,200

  2,212

  36

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,600

  1,509

  42

  Islington

  4,700

  1,797

  38

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,800

  826

  29

  Lambeth

  7,400

  2,294

  31

  Lewisham

  6,900

  2,569

  37

  Southwark

  6,900

  2,707

  39

  Tower Hamlets

  6,100

  2,687

  44

  Wandsworth

  6,000

  2,211

  37

  Westminster3

  3,400

  1,078

  31

  Barking and Dagenham

  4,400

  1,750

  40

  Barnet

  8,000

  2,351

  29

  Bexley

  6,000

  1,127

  19

  Brent

  6,800

  2,390

  35

  Bromley

  7,200

  154

  2

  Croydon

  8,800

  1,159

  13

  Ealing

  7,600

  3,246

  43

  Enfield

  7,200

  1,484

  21

  Haringey

  5,900

  2,546

  43

  Harrow

  5,500

  958

  17

  Havering

  6,000

  247

  4

  Hillingdon

  6,500

  3,150

  48

  Hounslow

  5,900

  2,469

  42

  Kingston upon Thames

  3,300

  1,173

  35

  Merton

  4,500

  2,593

  57

  Newham

  7,700

  4,445

  58

  Redbridge

  6,000

  987

  16

  Richmond upon Thames

  4,000

  706

  18

  Sutton

  4,700

  1,684

  36

  Waltham Forest

  6,200

  2,502

  40

  Greater London

  186,700

  61,126

  33

  1 Rounded to the nearest 100.

  2 Calculated on unrounded population estimates.

  3 Includes City LEA.

  545

  National Curriculum English Order
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will publish proposals for a new National Curriculum English Order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patten
  With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I am publishing tomorrow proposals for a revised English curriculum, as the basis for extensive consultation. They are based on the recommendations for attainment targets and programmes of study made in the report of the National Curriculum Council, which will be published with the proposals.

  As required by the Education Reform Act, I am asking the National Curriculum Council to conduct the consultation exercise in England. The schools, education authorities, professional organisations and other bodies consulted will have until 30 July 1993 to submit their views and make representations to the NCC. A parallel consultation will take place in Wales. Subject to further advice from the NCC and the Curriculum Council for Wales, my right hon. Friend and I will then publish in November a draft order for further consultation.

  Copies of the report, the proposals, and my letter to the chairman of the NCC will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Education Staff
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each local education authority in England(a) the number of teachers employed and (b) the number of non-teaching staff employed; and if he will express each figure as a percentage of the total staff of each local education authority.

  Mr. Boswell
  The first column of the table shows the full-time equivalent number of teaching staff employed in the LEA-maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector in England at January 1992. The second column shows the number of full-time equivalent education support, administrative and clerical staff employed in LEA-maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England at January 1992. Information for other types of non-teaching staff, such as school meals or premises-related staff or LEA central administrative staff, is not centrally recorded. It is therefore not possible to express the figures in the table as a percentage of total staff in the schools sector.

  Full-time equivalent numbers of teachers, education support staff and administration/clerical staff in LEA-maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in each LEA in England, January 1992

  Teachers

  Education support and administration/ clerical staff

  City

  11

  4

  Camden

  1,299

  279

  Greenwich

  2,234

  464

  Hackney

  1,604

  402

  Hammersmith

  950

  233

  Islington

  1,338

  360

  Kensington and Chelsea

  753

  184

  Lambeth

  1,502

  418

  Lewisham

  1,411

  320

  Southwark

  1,661

  457

  Tower Hamlets

  2,063

  523

  Wandsworth

  1,544

  481

  Westminster

  1,147

  305

  546

  Teachers

  Education support and administration/ clerical staff

  Barking

  1,322

  302

  Barnet

  2,456

  502

  Bexley

  1,711

  268

  Brent

  1,967

  364

  Bromley

  1,554

  255

  Croydon

  2,436

  487

  Ealing

  2,143

  558

  Enfield

  2,292

  423

  Haringey

  1,605

  462

  Harrow

  1,570

  348

  Havering

  2,049

  344

  Hillingdon

  1,348

  405

  Hounslow

  1,891

  444

  Kingston upon Thames

  988

  219

  Merton

  1,268

  261

  Newham

  1,994

  489

  Redbridge

  1,796

  297

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,135

  187

  Sutton

  1,147

  219

  Waltham Forest

  1,909

  377

  Birmingham

  9,031

  1,728

  Coventry

  2,795

  630

  Dudley

  2,738

  423

  Sandwell

  2,870

  620

  Solihull

  1,795

  381

  Walsall

  2,619

  615

  Wolverhampton

  2,514

  496

  Knowsley

  1,398

  325

  Liverpool

  4,152

  712

  St. Helens

  1,656

  286

  Sefton

  2,479

  442

  Wirral

  2,924

  408

  Bolton

  2,446

  417

  Bury

  1,461

  268

  Manchester

  3,974

  899

  Oldham

  2,253

  402

  Rochdale

  1,987

  353

  Salford

  2,052

  487

  Stockport

  2,332

  521

  Tameside

  2,037

  404

  Trafford

  1,611

  226

  Wigan

  3,015

  381

  Barnsley

  1,714

  414

  Doncaster

  2,691

  506

  Rotherham

  2,464

  431

  Sheffield

  3,937

  813

  Bradford

  5,027

  1,346

  Calderdale

  1,717

  390

  Kirklees

  3,519

  653

  Leeds

  6,300

  1,490

  Wakefield

  2,748

  589

  Gateshead

  1,731

  279

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,285

  493

  North Tyneside

  1,768

  357

  South Tyneside

  1,385

  203

  Sunderland

  2,692

  502

  Isles of Stilly

  27

  6

  Avon

  7,900

  1,721

  Bedfordshire

  4,908

  1,119

  Berkshire

  5,532

  1,224

  Buckinghamshire

  4,756

  1,252

  Cambridgeshire

  5,409

  1,483

  Cheshire

  7,934

  1,551

  Cleveland

  5,546

  994

  Cornwall

  3,697

  947

  Cumbria

  4,052

  788

  Derbyshire

  7,771

  1,677

  Devon

  7,044

  1,720

  Dorset

  4,343

  803

  Durham

  5,007

  967

  East Sussex

  4,673

  931

  Essex

  12,047

  2,335

  Gloucestershire

  3,856

  790

  Hampshire

  11,403

  2,793

  547

  Teachers

  Education support and administration/ clerical staff

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,451

  771

  Hertfordshire

  7,850

  1,794

  Humberside

  7,676

  1,592

  Isle of Wight

  1,021

  267

  Kent

  10,896

  2,048

  Lancashire

  11,509

  1,978

  Leicestershire

  7,807

  1,723

  Lincolnshire

  4,270

  803

  Norfolk

  5,585

  1,067

  North Yorkshire

  5,803

  943

  Northamptonshire

  5,236

  984

  Northumberland

  2,791

  487

  Nottinghamshire

  8,530

  1,691

  Oxfordshire

  4,150

  1,120

  Shropshire

  3,681

  743

  Somerset

  3,524

  952

  Staffordshire

  8,798

  1,726

  Suffolk

  5,277

  1,021

  Surrey

  6,235

  1,502

  Warwickshire

  3,816

  713

  West Sussex

  5,210

  1,214

  Wiltshire

  4,525

  927

  England

  387,753

  80,699

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the statutory provisions governing the position of parents whose children do not attend school because they are permanently excluded.

  Mr. Forth
  Under section 36 of the Education Act 1944, parents of children of compulsory school age are responsible for ensuring that they receive education, whether by attendance at school or otherwise. The fact that a pupil has been permanently excluded does not release parents from this obligation. Failure to comply can lead to prosecution under section 40 of the 1944 Act. Early application should therefore be made to a neighbouring school or, if necessary, arrangements made for the child to be educated otherwise than at school, for example, in a unit. The Government have announced their intention to place local education authorities under a duty to provide education otherwise than at school where necessary to meet a pupil's individual needs: amendments to the Education Bill will be tabled shortly.

  Data Protection Act 1984
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many certificates have been signed under the terms of section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984 for each year since 1987.

  Education SSAs and Education Budget Figures for 1992–93

  £ million

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  Post 16

  Under 5s

  Others

  Total

  Budget

  City of London

  0·10

  0·07

  0·38

  0·01

  0·09

  0·65

  2·12

  Camden

  21·47

  20·14

  12·23

  5·17

  5·90

  64·92

  70·04

  Greenwich

  38·87

  40·73

  15·55

  6·51

  5·80

  107·46

  105·98

  Hackney

  39·53

  38·59

  21·99

  9·81

  7·47

  117·39

  112·93

  Hammersmith

  18·18

  18·28

  11·58

  4·75

  4·97

  57·75

  61·19

  Islington

  29·05

  28·97

  15·94

  6·42

  6·08

  86·45

  85·07

  Kensington

  11·05

  11·25

  7·57

  4·00

  4·46

  38·33

  47·22

  Lambeth

  48·46

  42·82

  27·32

  11·32

  9·48

  139·39

  132·04

  Lewisham

  40·91

  38·66

  19·70

  7·80

  7·00

  114·07

  112·63

  548
  Mr. Boswell
  There have been no certificates issued by this Department under section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984 since 1987.

  Medical Students
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will require medical schools to publish the number of applicants each year to medical school by ethnic origin and sex and the number who are eventually successful in their application.

  Mr. Boswell
  We have no plans to require medical schools to publish this information.

  Education Expenditure
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each local education authority, in the last year for which figures are available,(a) the budgeted expenditure and (b) the standard spending assessment for (i) under-fives, (ii) five to 11, (iii) 11 to 16 and (iv) post-16 education.

  Mr. Forth
  Reliable information on local education authorities' budgeted expenditure is available nationally only at the level of their overall education budgets and is taken from their own returns to the Department of the Environment. For the purpose of determining standard spending assessments, the education component of standard spending, net of specific grants, is divided into five sub-blocks—under fives, 5–10, 11–15, 16+; and other education. The figures for local authorities' education budgets for 1992–93, together with the figures for their overall education standard spending assessments, are set out in the table.

  For several reasons, it is necessary to be cautious when drawing conclusions from the figures. First, the budget figures were provided at the beginning of the 1992–93 financial year. Outturn expenditure may well be different. Local education authorities may also not recognise the budget figures because their budget returns have been adjusted by the Department of the Environment to make them comparable with their education standard spending assessments. Secondly, the standard spending assessment system is a mechanism for distributing grant between authorities. Because authorities have discretion to decide their own spending priorities between and within services, the sub-blocks are in no sense spending targets. Thirdly; the sub-blocks notionally include provision for children in the relevant age groups in special schools, related central services and related functions such as home to school transport which do not have to be delegated to schools. Therefore, they are not comparable with the budgets of primary or secondary schools.
  549

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  Post 16

  Under 5s

  Others

  Total

  Budget

  Southwark

  41·39

  37·85

  16·15

  9·23

  7·74

  112·36

  103·23

  Tower Hamlet

  46·75

  44·38

  17·16

  8·77

  6·64

  123·69

  118·55

  Wandsworth

  32·76

  32·30

  19·23

  8·02

  8·31

  100·62

  105·83

  Westminster

  16·46

  16·15

  11·98

  5·23

  6·10

  55·93

  77·25

  Barking

  23·26

  23·85

  7·76

  3·48

  3·19

  61·55

  66·26

  Barnet

  36·67

  38·61

  24·45

  6·68

  6·89

  113·29

  110·16

  Bexley

  29·82

  34·02

  14·69

  4·03

  3·99

  86·54

  77·33

  Brent

  43·42

  44·13

  30·02

  8·70

  7·95

  134·22

  125·90

  Bromley

  32·47

  35·66

  19·39

  4·73

  5·36

  97·61

  93·29

  Croydon

  43·75

  44·63

  26·29

  7·53

  7·21

  129·40

  132·56

  Ealing

  44·03

  43·94

  26·72

  8·08

  8·04

  130·81

  122·72

  Enfield

  37·99

  42·06

  21·70

  6·01

  5·93

  113·70

  115·86

  Haringey

  33·85

  34·43

  21·59

  7·47

  6·46

  103·80

  96·20

  Harrow

  26·93

  28·60

  16·41

  4·05

  3·90

  79·91

  80·81

  Havering

  30·19

  36·62

  15·01

  3·55

  3·81

  89·17

  89·57

  Hillingdon

  30·72

  33·01

  15·45

  4·55

  4·38

  88·11

  87·97

  Hounslow

  31·18

  33·01

  16·34

  5·11

  4·61

  90·25

  86·55

  Kingston

  14·83

  16·53

  9·85

  2·36

  2·61

  46·18

  50·16

  Merton

  19·87

  20·47

  11·67

  3·71

  3·59

  59·31

  61·47

  Newham

  49·44

  46·31

  21·90

  9·04

  6·51

  133·21

  111·28

  Redbridge

  30·60

  35·05

  17·33

  4·58

  4·88

  92·45

  90·02

  Richmond

  14·97

  14·18

  9·08

  2·90

  3·23

  44·36

  44·56

  Sutton

  20·97

  23·10

  11·21

  2·98

  3·05

  61·32

  55·39

  Waltham Forest

  36·12

  37·75

  18·53

  6·62

  5·84

  104·85

  100·55

  Birmingham

  174·58

  178·42

  79·70

  28·06

  24·39

  485·14

  428·05

  Coventry

  43·89

  44·42

  21·57

  6·82

  6·28

  122·99

  132·46

  Dudley

  37·75

  42·52

  18·76

  4·66

  5·06

  108·75

  117·67

  Sandwell

  43·64

  46·99

  21·89

  6·54

  6·25

  125·30

  128·19

  Solihull

  24·78

  27·61

  13·49

  3·04

  3·35

  72·26

  73·29

  Walsall

  37·84

  41·73

  17·49

  5·12

  4·99

  107·18

  106·39

  Wolverhampton

  38·31

  42·37

  18·15

  6·00

  5·82

  110·65

  112·80

  Knowsley

  29·15

  29·65

  12·06

  4·35

  3·68

  78·89

  74·56

  Liverpool

  76·55

  77·94

  37·10

  12·23

  11·15

  214·97

  206·93

  St Helens

  23·58

  28·57

  15·13

  2·89

  3·17

  73·34

  76·65

  Sefton

  37·50

  40·93

  21·64

  5·01

  5·37

  110·45

  110·25

  Wirral

  46·72

  51·49

  24·08

  6·67

  6·71

  135·67

  132·23

  Bolton

  37·98

  40·23

  17·04

  5·38

  5·02

  105·65

  105·87

  Bury

  22·57

  23·62

  11·98

  2·91

  2·84

  63·93

  68·74

  Manchester

  74·88

  70·43

  33·30

  13·29

  11·76

  203·67

  198·76

  Oldham

  34·61

  36·59

  13·75

  4·75

  4·38

  94·07

  95·63

  Rochdale

  31·50

  33·38

  13·36

  4·36

  3·86

  86·46

  84·40

  Salford

  30·75

  31·49

  17·69

  4·77

  4·63

  89·33

  87·54

  Stockport

  33·87

  36·63

  20·40

  4·34

  4·59

  99·82

  105·97

  Tameside

  30·28

  32·55

  14·38

  4·18

  3·98

  85·35

  82·69

  Trafford

  26·79

  28·21

  15·21

  3·60

  3·77

  77·58

  78·55

  Wigan

  40·48

  44·88

  21·41

  4·91

  4·96

  116·64

  124·23

  Barnsley

  29·27

  31·87

  11·99

  3·68

  3·86

  80·67

  77·08

  Doncaster

  43·03

  46·98

  18·17

  5·52

  5·36

  119·05

  121·43

  Rotherham

  35·54

  40·22

  16·46

  4·65

  4·53

  101·40

  104·55

  Sheffield

  60·79

  68·25

  32·90

  8·81

  10·04

  180·80

  190·79

  Bradford

  81·83

  85·64

  32·02

  12·14

  10·22

  221·85

  213·28

  Calderdale

  27·02

  29·84

  13·17

  3·64

  3·58

  77·24

  77·61

  Kirklees

  55·00

  59·35

  28·74

  7·35

  7·20

  157·65

  153·04

  Leeds

  90·63

  99·48

  45·32

  13·14

  13·38

  261·96

  267·68

  Wakefield

  41·53

  44·53

  17·69

  5·38

  5·40

  114·54

  120·62

  Gateshead

  25·70

  28·81

  10·77

  3·55

  3·95

  72·77

  80·07

  Newcastle

  35·59

  36·42

  15·97

  5·60

  5·84

  99·42

  104·88

  North Tyne

  25·38

  28·13

  13·26

  3·33

  3·58

  73·66

  75·25

  South Tyne

  21·67

  23·25

  9·61

  2·98

  3·03

  60·54

  63·62

  Sunderland

  42·72

  47·52

  17·02

  5·65

  5·46

  118·37

  113·41

  Isles of Scilly

  0·46

  0·52

  0·23

  0·04

  0·05

  1·30

  1·36

  Avon

  109·54

  119·11

  56·26

  14·59

  15·74

  315·24

  350·59

  Bedfordshire

  78·75

  84·39

  39·16

  10·67

  9·74

  222·71

  220·25

  Berkshire

  97·85

  107·10

  55·63

  13·65

  12·91

  287·14

  272·03

  Buckinghamshire

  86·53

  101·97

  50·56

  10·63

  10·27

  259·97

  255·58

  Cambridge

  85·08

  92·56

  44·10

  10·33

  10·14

  242·20

  249·28

  Cheshire

  121·92

  137·84

  70·54

  14·34

  14·72

  359·37

  370·99

  Cleveland

  90·06

  96·83

  37·94

  11·94

  11·05

  247·82

  253·42

  Cornwall

  59·35

  67·86

  34·30

  6·50

  7·41

  175·42

  170·01

  Cumbria

  60·82

  69·21

  29·24

  6·54

  7·54

  173·35

  183·70

  Derbyshire

  113·98

  130·19

  57·68

  13·55

  14·45

  329·86

  370·13

  Devon

  117·43

  132·59

  62·28

  14·25

  16·56

  343·10

  347·72

  Dorset

  67·40

  77·73

  36·34

  8·25

  10·40

  200·12

  203·35

  Durham

  80·13

  89·11

  35·10

  9·41

  10·20

  223·95

  234·13

  East Sussex

  74·41

  79·40

  40·43

  10·21

  12·52

  216·96

  224·66

  Essex

  196·38

  232·81

  102·76

  23·91

  24·94

  580·81

  557·99

  Gloucestershire

  62·19

  70·31

  35·23

  7·57

  8·10

  183·41

  192·54

  Hampshire

  193·50

  209·81

  109·32

  24·83

  25·18

  562·64

  576·19

  550 551

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  Post 16

  Under 5s

  Others

  Total

  Budget

  Hereford and Worcester

  81·89

  93·97

  46·71

  9·32

  9·99

  241·88

  241·87

  Hertfordshire

  124·08

  142·39

  71·61

  15·80

  16·30

  370·18

  383·25

  Humberside

  119·39

  136·33

  55·27

  15·20

  15·12

  341·30

  361·53

  Isle of Wight

  15·39

  18·00

  10·13

  1·76

  2·26

  47·54

  46·24

  Kent

  192·77

  225·97

  100·21

  24·14

  25·05

  568·13

  539·75

  Lancashire

  191·44

  20·22

  102·65

  24·92

  25·01

  553·25

  563·79

  Leicestershire

  120·51

  130·40

  62·22

  15·86

  15·49

  344·49

  361·69

  Lincolnshire

  73·56

  89·15

  41·99

  8·05

  9·22

  221·98

  219·32

  Norfolk

  88·29

  103·64

  46·83

  10·04

  11·81

  260·61

  261·97

  North Yorkshire

  81·31

  92·43

  50·54

  9·02

  10·54

  243·84

  252·93

  Northamptonshire

  78·25

  88·34

  38·49

  9·55

  9·17

  223·80

  225·98

  Northumberland

  39·04

  45·98

  17·80

  3·99

  4·58

  111·40

  119·79

  Nottinghamshire

  132·00

  146·38

  68·43

  17·96

  18·65

  383·42

  402·22

  Oxfordshire

  66·18

  68·80

  34·76

  8·83

  8·95

  187·52

  201·34

  Shropshire

  52·38

  61·35

  28·19

  5·89

  6·21

  154·01

  164·61

  Somerset

  54·20

  61·35

  30·70

  6·17

  6·81

  159·23

  172·71

  Staffordshire

  132·41

  146·45

  64·11

  15·61

  16·05

  374·64

  380·42

  Suffolk

  73·97

  84·98

  37·60

  9·42

  9·29

  215·27

  229·66

  Surrey

  105·58

  117·17

  73·17

  14·61

  16·01

  326·54

  327·78

  Warwickshire

  57·98

  66·23

  34·43

  6·72

  7·41

  172·77

  182·07

  West Sussex

  78·19

  90·17

  47·25

  9·36

  11·07

  236·04

  225·49

  Wiltshire

  70·36

  77·57

  37·49

  8·57

  8·46

  202·44

  210·12

  Notes:

  1. Information on budgeted expenditure is taken from Local Authorities' returns to the Department of Environment on forms RA92/93 and RA(SG)92/93. Figures have been repriced to outturn.

  2. The education budgets for Inner London authorities have been adjusted to take account of the education grant for Inner London authorities, and make them comparable with education SSAs. Inner London education grants are paid to provide, through the support of expenditure on education, transitional help to local tax-payers in Inner London boroughs and in the City of London where the authorities inherited responsibility for the education service from the Inner London Education Authority.

  3. Figures have been rounded to two decimal places.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many of the appointments made by him as listed in "Public Bodies 1992" came within the categories set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and required a submission to the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Boswell
  Five of the appointments listed in "Public Bodies 1992" required clearance with the Prime Minister.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average pupil-teacher ratio in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in England.

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1992 the pupil:teacher ratios in maintained primary and secondary schools in England were 22·2:1 and 15·8:1 respectively.

  Truancy
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest figures for truancy; and if he will make a statement on measures to reduce its incidence.

  Mr. Forth
  Truancy data will be published in local school performance tables for the first time this autumn. We will then have a clearer understanding of the levels of truancy nationally. My right hon. Friend looks to schools to make maximising attendance one of their key tasks. Unauthorised absences should be pursued with vigour, bringing in LEA education welfare officers as appropriate. A major boost to the fight against truancy has been given by the Government's new reducing truancy initiative under the grants for education support and training scheme for 1993–94. Projects to a total value of some £9 million are being supported in over 70 LEAs.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools within Greater London have opted out of local authority control; and how many have applications being considered by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 86 schools in Greater London are operating as self-governing (GM) state schools. My right hon. Friend has indicated that he is minded to approve a further two schools for GM status. Applications from 26 Greater London schools are under consideration in the Department.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students at teacher training colleges are on courses which include training for special needs education.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend's criteria for the approval of teacher training courses require that by the end of their courses all students should have developed the capacity to identify pupils with special educational needs or learning difficulties. They should also have an understanding of the ways in which such pupils' potential can be developed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Services
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the regional services organised by his Department.

  Mr. Leigh
  One of the Department's objectives is to ensure that its policies respond to the needs of different regions and areas with special difficulties. It has, to this
  553
  end, a network of eight regional offices which are responsible for delivering a wide range of business support schemes and other activities, including work in support of inward investment, the application of European structural funds, action for cities and liaison with business support organisations for small firms. The regional offices are also the Department's main channel of communication with business, monitoring business developments and helping to shape the Department's policies for business. Their work is subject to regular monitoring against targets, ensuring that they contribute effectively to the Department's objectives. Performance targets for the delivery of the main business support schemes are published in accordance with citizens charter principles.

  Direct Selling
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in how many instances trading standards officers took action through the Department of Trade and Industry to enforce the regulations regarding direct selling.

  Mr. Leigh
  Trading standards officers have no enforcement powers under part XI of the Fair Trading Act 1973. Nevertheless trading standards officers around the country regularly draw the Department's attention to schemes that may be in breach of the legislation.

  European Community (Contracts)
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress made in the enforcement of the opening up of public contracts in the EC.

  Mr. Needham
  Enforcement of the EC rules on procurement in the public and utilities sector is largely a matter for the EC suppliers and contractors who benefit from the directives. There are associated directives which require member states to establish review systems under which suppliers can seek legal remedies if harmed or at risk of harm by a breach of EC law. The associated directives also require member states to provide information in case of clear and manifest infringement of the EC rules so that the Commission can consider whether to bring proceedings against the member states under article I 69/EEC. The implementation of the directives is monitored closely by the Commission. In the United Kingdom, the EC rules on the procurement of supplies and works and the associated provisions on remedies have been given effect in SI 91/2679, SI 91/2680 and SI 92/3279.

  Employees (Religious Affiliation)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the annual cost of monitoring the religious affiliation of the employees of the Post Office.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Post Office is unable to disaggregate the costs of monitoring the religious affiliations of its employees in Northern Ireland from the overall costs of complying with the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from British companies involved in aerospace and aero engines concerning future Government support for the development of leading edge materials technologies.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My officials are constantly in touch with the aerospace and aeroengine companies in the United Kingdom, discussing a wide range of issues, including future Government support through the Department's civil aircraft research and demonstration programme. My Department is grant-funding essential pre-competitive work in advanced materials technology, both in metallics and non-metallics, for the aeroengine and airframe manufacturers.

  Business Development, Greater London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take to support and encourage the small business sector in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department provides substantial help to small businesses in London through the overseas trade services, consultancy initiative and technology support available through the south-east regional office. The small firms loan guarantee scheme is available throughout London. In 1993–94 my Department will be providing financial support through the training and enterprise councils in London for a wide range of information, advice and other support to small firms.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of inward investment for industrial development in the Greater London area in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information cannot be provided in the form requested by the hon. Gentleman. I will write to him.

  Strategic Technology
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department received the national strategic technology acquisition plan prepared by his Department's aviation committee; and if he will make a statment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The national strategic technology acquisition plan for aeronautics was formally presented to my Department on 4 November 1992.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to ask the European Commission to consult the public and the European Parliament on any postal services directive under article 100(a) of the treaty of Rome.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: Directives issued by the European Commission under article 100(a) of the treaty of Rome are subject to consultation with the European Parliament. There is also a consultation process with interested parties during the negotiation period of such directives and before their implementation.
  555
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's policy on whether direct mail should be part of the European Community's postal service obligation.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: The Government are of the view that direct mail should be encompassed within the definition of a universal service obligation.

TRANSPORT

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will show for each year since 1963 the level of railway investment, excluding track renewals, expressed in 1991–92 prices.

  Mr. Freeman
  Figures for expenditure on railway investment excluding track renewals are shown in the following table.

  Year

  £ million 1991–92 prices

  1963

  745

  1964

  821

  1965

  863

  1966

  729

  1967

  565

  1968

  488

  1969

  309

  1970

  352

  1971

  399

  1972

  458

  1973

  473

  1974

  526

  1975

  639

  1976

  621

  1977

  595

  1978

  579

  1979

  635

  1980

  618

  1981

  497

  1982

  430

  1983

  442

  1984–85

  558

  1985–86

  584

  1986–87

  546

  1987–88

  626

  1988–89

  680

  1989–90

  812

  Bus

  Underground

  British Rail

  Type of ticket

  Journeys (millions)

  Per cent.

  Journeys (millions)

  Per cent.

  Journeys (millions)

  Per cent.

  Travelcard

  334

  30

  533

  72

  245

  55

  Bus Pass

  203

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Concessionary Fares

  252

  22

  28

  4

  2

  0·5

  Notes:

  1. The British Rail figures cover 1 march 1992 to 27 February 1993: they include all journeys in the Network South East area; separate figures for journey within London are no available.

  2. The figures for concessionary fares are for the local authorities' concessionary fares scheme.

  Road Transport, London
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to speed up road transport in London; and if he will make a statement.
  556

  £ million

  1991–92

  Year

  prices

  1990–91

  765

  1991–92

  869

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 31 March, if he will list the areas within his responsibility not covered by the SAR coverage proposals in(a) day time and (b) night time; and if he will set out the steps he intends to take to improve cover.

  Mr. Norris
  The helicopter criteria for day time and night time coverage is set out in the defence open government document on the "Future Provision of Royal Air Force Search and Rescue Helicopters", annexes A to D, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. The Department of Transport has no plans to change its contribution to SAR helicopter coverage.

  Road Traffic, London
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the level of road traffic flows in London in each year to 2010; what are the methods of calculation; and if he will separately identify the flows for private cars.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has not made estimates of road traffic flows for each year for 2010. However, recent trends indicate that car traffic and hence all motor traffic could grow by less than 1 per cent. per annum in the central area and by between 1 and 2 per cent. per annum in other parts of London.

  Travelcard
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of all bus, rail and underground journeys within London are made using the travelcard; if he will list all three both in figures and as a percentage; how many of all bus, rail and underground journeys are made by concessionary fares in London and how many of all bus journeys are made using bus passes.

  Mr. Norris
  Estimates provided by London Transport and by British Rail for 1992–93 are:

  Mr. Norris
  Government policies for road traffic in London are not designed to increase traffic speeds significantly but rather to ease congestion so that traffic moves freely and safely, with more reliable journey times. These policies include the development of priority, red, routes, improved traffic control systems, the use of cameras to monitor speed and red light offences, stricter
  557
  parking enforcement, and road improvements to remove bottlenecks, facilitate orbital movement and provide access to docklands and east London.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what road improvement and new road building schemes are currently being undertaken in Greater London; what is their cost; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Norris
  The following major road improvement schemes on trunk roads for which the Secretary of State is responsible are being undertaken currently in the Greater London area.

  £ million

  A406

  Hangar Lane to Harrow Road

  116·60

  A40

  Long Lane Junction Improvement

  43·75

  A further £9·5 million has been spent during the financial year 1992–93 on a rolling programme of minor trunk roads scheme. Local authorities in London were provided with transport supplementary grant support of £51 million cash grant towards their schemes. Their programme for 1992–93 included the following major schemes. Each scheme has a total cost in excess of £1 million, and grant is 50 per cent. of accepted expenditure.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what road improvement and new road building schemes are planned in London for the next financial year; what is their cost; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Norris
  The following major road improvement schemes on trunk roads for which the Secretary of State is responsible are due to start work in the 1993–94 financial year.

  £ million

  A406

  East of Falloden Way to Finchley High Road

  42

  A406

  Dysons Road/Hall Lane

  63

  A406

  Ml Junction 1 Improvement

  5

  A13

  West of Heathway to Thames Avenue

  54

  A13

  Thames Avenue to Wennington

  58

  A13

  Blackwall Tunnel/Cotton Street

  8

  A13

  Butcher Row Junction

  1

  A12

  Hackney—Mil Contract 2

  62

  A12

  Hackney—Mil Contract 4

  60

  A40

  Long Lane to West End Road

  4

  There is further rolling programme of minor trunk road schemes costing about £12 million. In addition, there is a transport supplementary programme of about £150 million of local authority schemes.

  In addition to continuing work on schemes started in earlier years, the following schemes are due to start in 1993–94.

  New TSG Major Schemes Accepted for 1993–94

  Authority

  Scheme

  Total Cost £000

  Croydon

  A232 Chepstow Road/Fairfield Road/ Barclay Road

  6,100

  Hillingdon

  A437 Bournes Bridge Hayes

  1,150

  Hounslow

  A315 Hounslow Town Centre Urban Relief Road

  8,247

  Merton

  A219 Wimbledon Town Centre/Alexandra Road Junction Improvement

  5,775

  558

  Authority

  Scheme

  Total Cost £000

  Newham

  All Stratford Gyratory Modifications

  1,500

  Waltham Forest

  A503 Forest Road/Blackhorse Road Junction

  1,100

  Public Service Vehicle Test
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department holds disaggregated by individual operator for the annual PSV test conducted at his Department's testing stations.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The testing of both heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles is conducted by the vehicle inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State. The inspectorate keeps a database on individual vehicle test histories. While the operator of each vehicle is normally included in each test history file, as the test applicant, this information is not, at present, cross-referenced to provide PSV test data for individual operators. Individual test results are released by VI only to other enforcement bodies or the owner of the vehicle.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will relocate the sign board on the M4 on the eastern side of the Severn bridge welcoming motorists to England to its correct geographical position.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have no proposals to move the sign.

  The sign is located immediately to the east of the toll plaza. This is the first place where it can be safely and practically sited on the English side of the border.

  London Commuter Services
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has undertaken on the effect of international rail services on London's commuter services; and if he will publish them.

  Mr. Freeman
  No such studies have been undertaken by the Department of Transport as international rail services are a matter for British Rail. British Rail gave an assurance to Parliament during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Act that commuter services would not be adversely affected by the introduction of international trains. British Rail has every intention of standing by that assurance.

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department issued a licence for the use of truck cargo heavy duty II vehicles by the Ministry of Defence to transport nuclear materials under the International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Series No. 6 Regulations 1985, as amended in 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No such licence is required.

  London Buses
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passenger journeys were made on London Buses Ltd. for each year since 1979.
  559
  Mr. Norris
  The available information is shown in the table. The figures for London Buses Ltd. exclude passengers carried on tendered services, as this information is not readily available. Figures for London Transport bus services comprise all services operated by London Buses Ltd., tendered and non-tendered, together with tendered routes operated by other companies.

  Passenger journeys

  Millions

  London Buses Ltd. (non-tendered services)

  London Transport bus services

  1979

  1,234

  1,234

  1980

  1,183

  1,183

  1981

  1,079

  1,079

  1982

  1,039

  1,039

  1983

  1,089

  1,089

  1984–851

  1,153

  1,153

  1985–86

  1,139

  1,146

  1986–87

  1,094

  1,158

  1987–88

  1,072

  1,211

  1988–89

  985

  1,206

  1989–90

  920

  1,183

  1990–91

  846

  1,180

  1991–92

  745

  1,149

  1 Since 1985–86 London Transport have put an increasing number of routes in their bus network out to tender.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of London buses are beyond their current design life; and how many will be beyond their design life by 1996.

  Mr. Norris
  Some 13 per cent. of London Buses Ltd.'s vehicles are currently beyond their original design life. The majority of these are the popular Routemaster vehicles, with an average age of 28 years. There is a refurbishment programme under way to extend the life of 500 Routemaster vehicles into the next century at a cost of £10 million. All vehicles are regularly maintained to ensure their reliability and continued safe operation. It is not possible to forecast the position for 1996.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much bus mileage the managing directors of London Buses Ltd. subsidiaries expect to be lost as a result of his Department's proposals for deregulation; and what efforts he has made to maintain the current level of mileage.

  Mr. Norris
  It is not for me to comment on the views of the managing directors of the subsidiaries of London Buses Ltd.

  Upon deregulation we shall establish a central bus authority to ensure that routes which are socially necessary but which are not operated commercially are provided on a subsidised basis. As a guide, deregulation outside London has led to an increase of 20 per cent. in bus mileage.

  Thames (Transport Potential)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Government's planned working party to explore the Thames transport potential expects to hold its first meeting; if he will name its members; and when it expects to make its first report.

  Mr. Norris
  I am planning to hold the first meeting of the working group next month. In addition to officials 560
  from my Department and the Department of the Environment, the working group will comprise Mr. David Jeffrey, chief executive of the Port of London Authority, Mr. Dick Barker representing London First, Mr. Eric Sorensen, chief executive of the London Docklands development corporation, Mr. Robin Clement of the London Planning Advisory Committee and Mr. David Bayliss of London Transport. I hope to publish a report towards the end of 1993.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement updating his proposals for the Vehicle Inspectorate.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 10 February,Official Report, column 659.

  Bus Engines
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what fiscal incentives are planned for the bus industry following deregulation to encourage investment in new, cleaner engines.

  Mr. Norris
  Fiscal incentives are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider. Large diesel engines of the type fitted to London buses will have to conform with the requirements of EC directive 91/542/EEC in respect of emissions, the first stage of which came into force in July 1992.

  Development Control Guidance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library details of all transport considerations in development control guidance notes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Development control guidance notes include in them relevant transport considerations. Copies of such notes are placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the appointments made by him as listed in "Public Bodies 1992" came within the categories set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and required a submission to the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Norris
  Appointments of chairmen of the three nationalised industries listed on page 70 of "Public Bodies 1992"—British Rail, the Civil Aviation Authority and London Transport—came within the category set out in paragraph 50(ii)(a) of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and required submissions to the Prime Minister. None of the other appointments listed came within categories requiring a submission to the Prime Minister.

  Thames Crossing
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what considerations have been taken into account by his Department on the need for the east London river crossing, in the light of his Department's proposals for a further Thames crossing between Poplar and Greenwich;
  561
  (2) what bodies have already been consulted by his Department over proposals for the further Thames crossing between Poplar and Greenwich;

  (3) when the consultants employed by his Department to look at the proposed Thames crossing between Poplar and Greenwich are expected to report; and when the proposals will go out to public consultation.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's consultants have reported on their study into a third crossing of the River Thames at Blackwall. The Department has since consulted on an informal basis the London boroughs of Greenwich and of Tower Hamlets and the London Docklands development corporation about the study's findings. It has had similar informal consultation with British Gas because of its wide-ranging Port Greenwich development proposals on its lands at Blackwall peninsula. A public consultation exercise is planned for later next month, and detailed arrangements will be announced shortly.

  The need for the east London river crossing, fully debated at public inquiries in 1985–86, is not diminished by the possibility of a third crossing at Blackwall. It is required to provide a missing strategic link in the trunk road system by completing the extension of the North Circular road from the A13 to the A2.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many heavy goods vehicle drivers have been killed in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There were 55 heavy goods vehicle drivers killed in personal injury road accidents in 1990 and 50 were killed in 1991. A figure for 1992 is not available yet.

  MOT Diesel Smoke Test
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the introduction of the MOT diesel smoke test.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There has been much support for emissions checking during roadworthiness tests, although there has been concern that the diesel smoke test can cause damage to engines which have not been properly maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. That is why we have temporarily suspended the test.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether all examiners and testers authorised for the purpose of carrying out MOT tests on diesel-powered cars will be required to have access to on-site diesel smoke meters.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Yes.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which individuals and organisations he consulted when drawing up smoke meter specifications and test procedures for use in the MOT diesel smoke test; and what was their response.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department consulted representatives of the vehicle and equipment manufacturers about the smoke meter specification and a much wider group of organisations about the test procedure,562
  including representatives of vehicle users and operators, local authority associations, the garage trade and environmental groups. The response to consultation on the smoke meter specification was of a technical nature. Respondents to the proposal to introduce the check, and the associated test procedure, supported this environmental initiative although some concern was expressed about a slight risk of engine damage, which was reflected by the Department in advice to MOT testing stations on how to minimise the risk.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 16 February to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms Walley),Official Report, column 151, when he hopes to reinstate MOT diesel smoke tests by meter.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department is currently investigating reports that the smoke test has caused damage to some engines and, although it would be premature to give a firm date, I hope that the test can be reinstated later in the year.

  Passenger Rail Services (Finance)
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the franchise director will have responsibility from 1 April 1994 for making grants out of the public service obligation to all passenger rail services; and what assessment he has made out of the implications for British Rail of that transfer of responsibility.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government intend that the franchising director should from 1 April 1994 assume responsibility for all subsidy to rail passenger services in Great Britain including those which continue to be provided by British Rail. We are discussing the details of implementation with the board and the franchising director-designate.

  Air Transport Operators' Licences
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the travel companies which failed to renew their ATOL licence by 5 pm on 31 March; and what steps he has taken to protect holidaymakers from the consequences of this.

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority, which administers the air travel organisers' licence, ATOL, system, carries out an annual review of all ATOL holders. Details of travel organisers which did not have their ATOL renewed by 31 March 1993 are given in the lists, which were published by the CAA on 1 April. The lists cover travel organisers which have applied for renewal but which had not then fulfilled the necessary conditions and those which have not applied for renewal.

  Inclusion in the list of travel organisers which have applied for their licences to be renewed does not necessarily mean that the CAA has doubts about an organiser's financial resources. The authority has agreed arrangements where necessary for other ATOL holders to provide cover on a temporary basis until the organisers concerned are able to fulfil the conditions for renewal of their own licences.

  (i) Travel organisers who have applied to have their ATOL renewed but whose licences had not been renewed as at 31 March 1993

  563

  Abbeysun (NI) Limited

  Agricultural Travel Bureau Limited (Barfield Travel, Barfield Business Travel)

  Airline Limited (The Holiday Store)

  Airlink Holidays Limited (Airlink Holidays)

  Aisling Travel (NI) Limited

  Alan Dickson and Co. Limited (Alan Dickson Flights, Alan Dickson Travel, Commodore Flights)

  Allez France Holidays Limited

  Callers-Pegasus Travel Service Limited

  Cerviola Holidays Limited

  Cityjet Travel Limited (Cityjet, Rafaello Holidays)

  Contiki Travel (UK) Limited

  Edwin Doran Travel Limited (Edwin Doran's Travel World, Edwin Doran Sports Travel)

  Emsdale Air Holidays Limited

  Fairs Travel Limited

  Farnell R. A., Farnell Mrs. A. (Sun-Air Flight Line)

  Finlays Skiing Limited

  Gibraltar Travel Limited (Gibraltar Tours, Eagle Tours, Gibraltar Tourism)

  Guardian Travel Limited

  Intergroup Securities Limited (Inter-Air, Inter-Air Holidays and Travel, Mainsale Travel, Volare)

  Islands in the Sun Limited (Islands in the Sun, Island Flights)

  Italian Options Limited (Portuguese Options)

  John Cory Limited (John Cory Travel)

  Justravel Limited

  Kartal, D. (Bigfoot Travel)

  Leisure Villas Limited

  Lotus Travel Limited (Lotus Holidays, Lotus Supertravel)

  Magnum Travel Co. Limited (Magnum Leisure)

  Modern Travel Centre Limited (Jersey Direct, Modernline Holidays, Modern Hotels, Modern Group, Modern Airways)

  Phoenix Holidays Limited

  President Holidays Limited (President Travel, President Flights)

  Savile Row Tours and Travel Limited (Savile Row Tours and Travel)

  Siesta International Holidays Limited (Siesta International)

  Skanza Limited (Express Travel and Tours)

  Skybus Holidays Limited (Euro Skybus, Italy Cityrama, Italy Skybus)

  Strata Travel Limited

  Suntours Holidays Limited (Suntours)

  Sunway Leisure Limited (Sunway Travel, Sunway Holidays)

  Superski Limited (Superski)

  The Travel Centre (Norwich) Limited

  The Weekend Ski Company Limited (Flexiski)

  Transcontinental Travel Service (Scotland) Limited

  Travelines Tour Limited (Travelines)

  Travelwise International (Manchester) Limited

  Travtel International Limited (Travtel)

  Trend Travel Limited (Stakis Holidays, Stakis Hotels)

  Villmar Travel Limited

  Worldspan International Plc

  Zodiac Way Limited (Exclusive Travel)

  (ii) Air Travel Organisers who have not applied for renewal and therefore no longer hold valid licences

  Altours Travel Limited

  Contact Travel Limited

  Paradise Tours and Travel Limited (Paradise Tours and Travel)

  Sports Instruction Schools Limited (SIS Golf Schools, SIS Holidays, The European School of Golf)

  Sunwheel Travel Limited (Sunwheel Holidays, Air Savers, Greek Island Holidays)

  Susi Madron's Cycling Holidays Limited (Cycling for Softies)

  Topflight Holidays Limited (Topflight)

  Travac Tours and Charters (UK) Limited (Travac, The Imaginative Traveller)

  Travel Economy Limited

  (iii) Licence holders who were due to have their ATOLs renewed but who have ceased to trade

  Novotour Limited (Novotours, Cyprus Passport, Passport USA, Florida Passport, Turkey Passport, Flight Passport, Airspace, Family Fun Passport, Passport to Florida,
  564
  American Passport)

  Gigantes Villas and Travel Limited (Ski Mondial)

  Euro Express limited (Daybreaks Europe, Euro Express, Euro America, Kaleidoscope Travel, Distinctive Villas, Euro Canada, Corsican Gold)

  Riva Travel Limited (Riva Travel, Riva Holidays, Riva Seats, Riva, Riva Beachlife)

  Medina Holidays (Europe) Limited (Medina Holidays, Greek Express, Beach Comber Holidays, Corfu Holiday Centre)

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foie Gras
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to press for an EC ban on foie gras.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government are committed to seeking improvements in welfare standards and the use of humane production methods throughout the Community at every suitable opportunity. A European Parliament resolution is under consideration which would recommend a ban on force feeding of animals in the Community.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage farmers to apply for exemption from 1 July cutting requirements on rotational set-aside land; what assessment he has made of the environmental damage which this requirement will otherwise cause; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  It is open to any farmer to apply for an exemption from any of the set-aside management rules, including the cutting requirement, on environmental grounds. The arable area payments scheme explanatory booklet explains how to do this. The booklet also gives general advice on how to manage set-aside land to achieve environmental benefits.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on restrictions on the spraying of chemicals to reduce noxious weeds on set-aside land in the United Kingdom; and in particular whether similar restrictions are imposed upon farmers in other EC countries.

  Mr. Curry
  The management rules for 1992–93 allow the application of non-residual herbicides by spot treatment or with a wick applicator on set-aside land. Any farmer can also seek permission to apply herbicides by other methods in order to control severe infestations of weeds. The management rules in other member states vary. Most include restrictions or a complete ban on the use of herbicides on set-aside land.

  Dog Poisoning
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 77, about the death of a pet dog through a suspected poisoned carcase, if he will inform the hon. Member for Taunton of the outcome of his inquiries into a second such suspected poisoning in the same area on or around 20 March.

  Mr. Soames
  Yes.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink farms are currently licensed, by county, in England.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Northumberland

  1

  Lancashire

  9

  West Yorkshire

  2

  Staffordshire

  1

  Suffolk

  2

  Hampshire

  1

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Cornwall

  1

  Comfrey
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultation period was permitted for consumers and users of comfrey tablets and capsules to assess the relevant toxicological reports, prior to the withdrawal of these products.

  Mr. Soames
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), announced in March 1991 that the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment and the Food Advisory Committee would undertake a review of various herbal ingredients including comfrey. During the course of the COT's review of the toxicity of comfrey a number of organisations, including the National Institute of Medical Herbalists, made submissions to this Department and the Department of Health. The advice from both committees to me on the completion of their reviews was unequivocal. I could not, therefore, allow a further period for consultation before acting to secure the withdrawal of those comfrey products containing the highest concentrations of toxic alkaloids.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Workington of 23 March,Official Report, column 863, if he will place in the Library all information he has had made available to him or his officials concerning the payment of subsidies both direct and indirect paid by national Governments and the European Commission to potato processors and producers in the European Community in the last three years.

  Mr. Curry
  I am not aware that any information has been made available in the way the hon. Member suggests.

  Under EC regulation 866/90 United Kingdom potato processors have been awarded £6 million in grants towards the capital cost of new investment over the three years 1991–93. Nationally financed grant of £l·2 million has also been made available in conjuction with the EC scheme. Similar information for other member states is not available.

  Certain other assistance is also available to potato processors from Industry Departments in England, Scotland and Wales under a number of schemes.
  566
  United Kingdom potato producers may also benefit from the group marketing grant.

  Since November 1991 the EC Commission has published in the C series of the Official Journal brief details of the state aids to which it has raised no objection. These include our own potato marketing scheme and are summarised as follows:

  Aids to potato processors and producers in the EC

  Denmark

  1. 1988 Expenditure and 1990 Draft Budget for potato trade association funds.
  Adopted: 30 October 1991 Published: OJ C 18/8 of 24 January 1992

  2. Aid for potato quality control.
  Adopted: 25 March 1992 Published: OJ C 155/7 of 20 June 1992

  Italy

  1. Aid to support the horticulture sector (potatoes).
  Adopted: 21 January 1992 Published: OJ C 185/6 of 22 July 1992

  2. Special intervention by AIMA for new potatoes for consumption.
  Adopted: 31 August 1992 Published: OJ C 286/9 of 4 November 1992

  3. AIMA national programme for private storage of potatoes for consumption 1992 marketing year.
  Adopted: 15 October 1992 Published: OJ C 316/6 of 3 December 1992

  Luxembourg
  1. Assistance to farmers suffering from natural disasters in 1991 (including potato producers).
  Adopted: 11 March 1992 Published: OJ C 185/6 of 22 July 1992

  United Kingdom

  1. 1991 Crop arrangements.
  Adopted: 29 October 1991 Published: OJ C 32/7 of 8 February 1992

  2. 1992 Crop arrangements.
  Adopted: 16 July 1992 Published: OJ C 286/6 of 4 November 1992

  During the 1992 season, France, Italy and Spain have provided assistance to their potato growers but we do not know the sums involved. In Great Britain, the Potato Marketing Board has operated the statutory guarantee arrangements. The cost to the Government is expected to be in the region of £1·5 million.

  Beef
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce legislation ensuring all beef is marked or labelled at the point of sale showing its country of origin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I have no plans to do so.

  European Community rules on labelling already require the place of origin to be given on food if its omission could mislead the consumer. The Government are keen that consumers should be given information about the origin of all food products so that they can make informed choices and have been encouraging retailers to provide this information where appropriate.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the appointments made by him as listed in "Public Bodies 1992" came within the
  567
  categories set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and required a submission to the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Curry
  The Prime Minister is consulted on appointments where necessary. Currently, three appointments made by my right hon. Friend and listed in "Public Bodies 1992" were referred to the Prime Minister.

  Intervention Beef
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of British beef were held in intervention stores at 31 March and at the equivalent date in each of the past four years.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Date

  Tonnes (Product weight)

  31 March 1989

  27,044

  31 March 1990

  13,141

  31 March 1991

  95,007

  31 March 1992

  140,799

  31 March 1993

  1164,537

  1 Provisional

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total cost of the common agricultural policy for 1992–93; how much of this will be paid by the United Kingdom; and how much of its proceeds will be derived as income for British farmers.

  Mr. Curry
  Table 22 of the 1993 departmental report by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Intervention Board provides the relevant information on the EC budget, the United Kingdom contribution, and United Kingdom receipts from it in relation to the CAP. Table 20 of the same publication provides information on expenditure within the United Kingdom. A copy of the departmental report has been lodged in the House of Commons Library.

  Environmental and Conservation Programmes
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the major environmental and conservation programmes administered by his Department, giving the budget for each for 1992–93.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food administers the following environmental and conservation schemes:

  Forecast payments to fanners in 1992–93
  (£ million)

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  10·8

  Farm and conservation grant scheme

  28·9

  Farm woodland schemes

  1·5

  Pilot nitrate sensitive areas

  1·4

  568
  It also administers the following schemes which have environmental conditions and benefits:

  Forecast payments to farmers in 1992–93 (£ million)

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances

  34·0

  Pilot extensification scheme

  0·4

  Set-Aside

  25·8

  Data Protection Act 1984
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many certificates have been signed under the terms of section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984 for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Oil Dispersants
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why oil dispersants are not tested on marine animal and plant life present in surface waters.

  Mr. Curry
  Oil dispersants are tested using the brown shrimp Crangon crangon, for the sea test, and the common limpet Patella vulgata, for the rocky shore test. These marine animal species are considered to be suitably representative of marine life for the tests, which are intended to assess the toxicity of a dispersant, or a dispersant mixed with oil, in comparison with the toxicity of oil alone. However, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 1 April at column 329 which announced a review of the current arrangements for the testing and approval of oil dispersants.

  Departmental Forms
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his plans for reducing the number of forms which have to be filled in by farmers produced by his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  A baseline list of forms associated with Ministry regulations which impose a burden on industry has been established. Forms listed in the baseline are subject to review under Ministry deregulation plans. The aim is to identify those which might be simplified or abolished in order to reduce the burden that can be imposed on industry.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many forms he produced to be filled in by farmers for any purpose including making claims for quotas and grants in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Curry
  The number of forms filled in specifically by farmers in 1993 is not available. Nor is this information available on a historical basis. However, the total number of forms associated with Ministry regulations which impose a burden on industry which the agriculture and food sectors taken as a whole are currently asked to complete is just under 450.

DEFENCE

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the report, "Brown and Root: The Track Record", a copy of which has been sent to him, in regard to the contractorisation of the atomic weapons establishments from 1 April.

  Mr. Aitken
  The report refers to Brown and Root Inc, which is a United States-managed and operated company. Its allegations do not relate to Brown and Root Ltd., which is a member of the Hunting-BRAE consortium selected to operate AWE. Brown and Root Ltd. is the lead partner in the consortium running Devonport dockyard, where their nuclear safety record has been first class. In selecting Hunting-BRAE Ltd. as the contractor to operate AWE, careful account was taken of the corporate experience of all members of the consortium including their commitment to safety.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) of 19 March,Official Report, column 391, if he will make it his practice to itemise the costs levied on each nuclear test conducted by the United Kingdom in Nevada to cover the management and disposal of radioactive wastes associated with each respective test.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 29 March 1993,Official Report, column 16.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has made for the establishment of Z-berths for nuclear-powered submarines operating in the Persian gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. The term "Z-berth" applies only to locations within the United Kingdom or United Kingdom dependent territories.

  Surplus Departmental Properties
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many properties are currently surplus to the long-term requirements of his Department; and if he will list the number of such properties at each of his Department's sites.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's properties were purchased by(a) housing associations, (b) private developers, (c) under do-it-yourself shared ownership schemes, and (d) under shared-ownership schemes in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:
  570

  Number

  (a) housing associations

  1990–91

  96

  1991–92

  221

  1992–93

  299

  (b) private developers

  1990–91

  875

  1991–92

  392

  1992–93

  110

  As far as my Department is aware no properties have been purchased directly from the MoD under the DIYSO or shared-ownership schemes. These schemes are run by the Housing Corporation and housing associations. Some of the properties purchased by housing associations or private developers may subsequently have been resold under such schemes.

  Helicopter Carrier
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons a limit of three weeks has been set for the contenders to modify their bids for the helicopter carrier; whether he will allow extra time, if this proves to be insufficient time to make the necessary adjustments; and if he will make it his policy to assess the rival bids purely on merits and price.

  Mr. Aitken
  In response to requests from the tenderers, additional time has been allowed for them to respond to the invitation to clarify their bids. We will hold a full and fair competition for the contract using our normal technical and value for money criteria.

  Journalists (Transport and Accommodation)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy relating to(a) the provision of funding for the transport of journalists, and (b) the provision of MoD accommodation for journalists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  MPs (Transport and Accommodation)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy relating to(a) the provision of funding for the transport of hon. Members and (b) the provision of MoD accommodation for hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Scott Inquiry
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 759, what was the number of documents requested by the Scott inquiry and that he was unable to provide: if he will state their nature; if he will divide his answer into those documents that he was unable to provide because (a) they had been destroyed, (b) they had been lost and (c) for other reasons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Lord Justice Scott's inquiry has requested a wide range of documents from my Department and no
  571
  document requested is being witheld. As Lord Justice Scott made clear at his press conference on 31 March 1993, these requests are continuing and a great deal of work is being done to meet them. It would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail on the number and nature of these requests, which are matters between my Department and Lord Justice Scott's inquiry.

  Bosnia No-fly Zone
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what consideration has been given to the deployment of Tornado aircraft to enforce the no-fly zone in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recent consideration has been given to the deployment of British military forces to enforce the no-fly zone in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Up to 12 Tornado F3 fighter aircraft and their air-to-air refuelling support have been offered to NATO as part of operations to implement Security Council resolution 816 to enforce the no-fly zone over Bosnia. The force for the initial deployment is made up of French, Dutch and American aircraft. British and other allies' aircraft are on standby to augment the force if requested to do so.

  Falkland Islands
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) journalists and (b) hon. Members have visited the Falklands since 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no MoD requirement for a permanent record of visits to the Falklands Islands by journalists and hon. Members. No detailed lists are therefore maintained.

  Data Protection Act 1984
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many certificates have been signed under the terms of section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984 for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training is given to Her Majesty's forces about war crimes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Army's common military syllabus, the basis of all initial training, contains a module on the law of armed conflict, part of which embodies the correct treatment of prisoners of war.

  In addition, individual and collective training, prior to relevant operations, highlights instruction in the law of armed conflict, the Geneva convention and the rules of engagement specific to the operation in question.

  Grade

  Registered disabled1

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Non-registered disabled1

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Ethnic minority2

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Women

  Percentage of staff in grade

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  2

  4·2

  —

  —

  2

  4·3

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4·0

  5

  —

  —

  9

  2·9

  11

  3·5

  14

  4·5

  Redundancies
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel will now be made redundant under "Options for Change"; how many of those being made redundant are from Scottish regiments or have been previously posted to Scotland; and of those, how many are currently in single accommodation within the services and how many are in family accommodation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  To date, a total of 12,440 service personnel have been selected for redundancy. In addition, in my answer to the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on 1 April,Official Report, column 323, I said that a maximum in the order of 2,300 redundancies would take place in the Royal Navy between April and November 1994. Further redundancies in each of the services beyond these will depend on the manning situation.

  A total of 486 personnel from Scottish regiments have been selected for redundancy in phases 1 and 2 of the Army's redundancy programme. Information about the number of personnel selected for redundancy who have served in Scotland and about the type of accommodation occupied by personnel made redundant is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Army Houses
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of unoccupied houses owned by the armed services in Scotland which are(a) uninhabitable and (b)inhabitable.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 31 December 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, 270 unoccupied service married quarters in Scotland were uninhabitable and 547 inhabitable. The uninhabitable properties were either undergoing or awaiting major works services while many of the inhabitable ones were either allocated to service families who were due to move in shortly or under consideration for disposal. In addition, 171 surplus married quarters were in the process of being sold.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people.

  Mr. Aitken
  The numbers of women, disabled and ethnic minority staff in grade levels 1 to 7 and overall are given in the table. These figures exclude our executive agencies, the Meteorological Office and the Defence Research Agency. I have asked the chief executives to write to the hon. and learned Member.
  573

  Grade

  Registered disabled1

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Non-registered disabled1

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Ethnic minority2

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Women

  Percentage of staff in grade

  6

  —

  —

  10

  1·9

  <10

  <1·0

  15

  2·9

  7

  3

  0·1

  77

  3·8

  31

  1·5

  130

  6·4

  Total3

  1,439

  1·1

  3,312

  4·0

  1,849

  1·5

  40,634

  32·0

  1 Figures based on responses to voluntary disability surveys.

  2 Figures based on responses to voluntary ethnic origin survey.

  3 Non-industrial and industrial staff.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Greville Janner, dated 14 April 1993;

  In his written reply to your Parliamentary Question on the

  (1)

  (1)

  (2)

  Grade

  Registered disabled

  Percentage of staff in Grade

  Non-registered disabled

  Percentage of staff in Grade

  Ethnic minority

  Percentage of staff in Grade

  Women

  Percentage of staff in grade

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  1

  2·40

  —

  —

  1

  2·40

  6

  —

  —

  8

  3·80

  —

  —

  3

  1·40

  7

  1

  0·10

  33

  3·80

  10

  1·2

  29

  3·30

  Total Non-industrial staff (3)

  69

  0·86

  253

  3·18

  133

  1·67

  2,824

  35·50

  Notes:

  (1) Figures based on responses to voluntary disability surveys.

  (2) Figures based on responses to voluntary ethnic origin survey.

  (3) Statistics on the 2,606 Industrial staff cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost and administrative effort.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Greville fanner, dated 5 April 1993:

  The figures below give the details for the Meteorological Office, as requested in your recent Parliamentary Question:

  Grades 1–4

  : 0 (out of 3)

  Grade 5

  : 1 disabled (12·5 per cent.)

  Grade 6

  : 2 women (6·5 per cent.)

  Grade 7

  : 2 disabled (1·3 per cent.), 1 from an ethnic minority (0·7 per cent.), 7 women (4·1 per cent.)

  Overall

  : 10 disabled (0·9 per cent.), 23 from ethnic minorities (1·0 per cent.), 447 women (17·7 per cent.).

  Note: Only those registered disabled are included in the 'disabled' figures.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Correspondence
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect to receive a reply to his letter dated 27 January anent certain matters relating to ministerial statements.

  Mr. Newton
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Middle East
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is taking in support of the middle east peace process.
  574
  numbers of women, people from ethnic minorities and disabled people working in MOD, the Secretary of State for Defence informed you that I would be replying directly to you in respect of the Defence Research Agency. The information you request, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library, is as follows:

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our priority is an early resumption of the middle east peace process. The United Kingdom was represented on a European Community troika mission to the middle east from 30 March to 2 April. The troika urged all parties to accept the co-sponsors' invitation to the next round of negotiations in Washington on 20 April.

  Russia
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet his Russian counterpart to discuss United Kingdom-Russian relations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans at present for a further meeting with Mr. Kozyrev, but we keep in regular contact. They discussed British-Russian relations when they met in Moscow earlier this month.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received to date about holding a referendum on the Maastricht treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There have been several such calls. We do not believe that a referendum on the treaty is either necessary or appropriate.

  Singapore
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current status of Britain's relations with Singapore.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Our relations with Singapore are excellent, as I was able to confirm during my visit from 5 to 7 April.

  While in Singapore, I had talks with the Prime Minister, Mr. Goh Chok Tong, the senior Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, and other Ministers on a range of issues. I also met leading figures in the economic and commercial sectors, and was able to reiterate the growing interest of British firms in doing business with Singapore, now the United Kingdom's 19th largest export market with two-way trade in 1992 totalling over £2 billion.

  Relations are strong, too, in the fields of English language teaching and education, with some 3,000 Singaporean students attending tertiary courses in the United Kingdom. We continue to attach importance to defence co-operation, through the five power defence arrangements and the Royal Navy's use of two berths at Sembawang.

  South Africa
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards the holding of multiracial elections in South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A multi-party planning conference was held on 5–6 March which agreed that multi-party talks will resume on 1 April. All major parties, except the Azanian People's organisation, are represented in the 26-member committee which is preparing for the talks. These talks are expected to lead to the establishment of a transitional executive structure later this year, followed by free non-racial elections.

  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the status of talks aimed at the establishment of an interim Government in South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Constitutional negotiations involving all significant political groupings in South Africa are due to begin on 1 or 2 April. These talks are expected to lead to the establishment of a transitional executive structure in June, followed by elections to a constitution-making body and the establishment of an interim government of national unity.

  Iran
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the links between Iran and international terrorism.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our European partners made clear at the Edinburgh summit in December our concern at Iranian behaviour in a number of areas, particularly the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and terrorism.
  576

  Bosnia
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the situation in Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our EC partners have welcomed the Bosnian Muslim and Croat agreement to the international conference's peace plan for Bosnia. The Bosnian Serbs must now sign. Urgent work is in hand in New York to apply pressure on the Serbs to secure their agreement.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will detail the remit, which he and other EC Foreign Ministers gave at the Edinburgh summit, to the team charged with investigating allegations of rape in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The remit of the EC investigative mission into allegations of abuse of women in Bosnia-Herzegovina is set out in the declaration issued by the EC Foreign Ministers at the conclusion of the Edinburgh summit. The declaration was issued as a UN Security Council document. A copy is in the Library.

  European Community (Responsibility)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the principal areas of policy or administration for which the European Community has exclusive responsibility.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  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.

  Japan
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Japan.

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about United Kingdom relations with Japan.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Japan from 6 to 7 April. Following his discussions with the Japanese Government as well as with a wide range of people from different walks of life, we remain strongly of the view that our relations with Japan are excellent. We hold similar views on the major world issues. We shall be working hard to make the relationship yet closer and more productive.

  Angola
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he is planning through the United Nations to end the fighting in Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In accordance with the mandate conferred by United Nations Security Council resolution
  577
  811 of 12 March, the United Nations Secretary General is now consulting the Government of Angola and UNITA to establish the date, place and agenda for direct UNITA/Government of Angola talks under United Nations auspices. We are actively supporting his efforts.

  Sudan
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department last made representations about human rights to the Government of Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I last raised Sudan's human rights performance with the Sudanese ambassador on 22 February. My right honourable and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey also raised the issue with him on 1 April. We were in the lead in securing a resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on 10 March providing for a public investigation of the human rights situation in Sudan.

  United Nations (Reform)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what view Her Majesty's Government take of current proposals for reform of the structures and powers of the United Nations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have long worked for and support steps to reform the workings of the United Nations which promote efficiency and streamline the organisation. We have backed the Secretary-General's reforms of the secretariat. With our European Community partners, we have been at the forefront of moves to restructure and revitalise the Economic and Social Council and to promote good management and administration in the United Nations specialised agencies.

  Yugoslavia
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his ministerial colleagues from other member states of the Security Council of the United Nations to discuss the enforcement of UN resolutions 713, 757 and 787 relating to trade and arms embargoes against the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last discussed these issues with the US Secretary of State on 25 March. We are in regular contact with other member states represented at the Security Council.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's ambassador to the United Nations will propose enforcement. of the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Kingdom co-sponsored UN Security Council resolution 816, which authorises enforcement of the no-fly zone established by Security Council resolutions 781 of 9 October 1992 and 786 of 11 November 1992.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his 578
  answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) of 25 March, Official Report, column 653, if he has received a copy of the UNPROFOR report on the recent breach of the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina; what was the origin, destination and type of the aircraft concerned; and on what basis it was identified as a Bosnian-Serb aircraft.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have received a copy of Note Verbale S/24900/Add.27 of 16 March from the United Nations Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, which gives details of the three aircraft observed bombing the village of Gladovici.

  The report does not specify the origin of the aircraft. One aircraft was a single-engined propellor-driven biplane, the other two being single-engined propellor-driven monoplanes. It was not possible to determine the precise type of destination of the aircraft, but all three withdrew towards the Bosnian/Serbian border. The circumstantial evidence therefore suggests that the aircraft were operated by the Bosnian Serbs.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Nations monitors are in place at each Bosnian-Serb airfield in the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and each airfield in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and how many combat missions have departed from any of these airfields since their installation.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  UNPROFOR airfield monitors are stationed in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at Batajnica/Surcin, Ponikve, Kraljevo, Berane, Podgorica, Pristina and Nis and in Bosnia at Mahorljani, Zaluzahi, Cazin and Tuzla.

  No sorties positively identified as for combat purposes have been recorded departing from any of the airfields at which UNPROFOR monitors are stationed.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the oral answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 1 April 1993 to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), c. 499.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when was the last occasion on which fixed wing or propeller aircraft from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia crossed into Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The last occasions on which aircraft unauthorised by UNPROFOR were observed crossing from Serbian airspace into Bosnia-Herzegovina were on 14 March, when violations by three separate aircraft—one helicopter, one biplane and one monoplane—were reported.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the total number of violations of the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina by(a) Bosnian-Serb fixed wing aircraft, (b) Bosnian-Serb helicopters, (c) Bosnian-Muslim fixed wing aircraft, (d) Bosnian-Muslim helicopters, (e) Croatian fixed wing aircraft and (f) Croatian helicopters since its introduction.
  579
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  UNPROFOR reports of violations of the no-fly zone do not normally attribute individual violations to parties. Nor is it in many cases possible to determine whether the violating aircraft is fixed or rotary wing.

  Kenya
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on relations with Kenya following the policy decisions of the international financial institutions.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are urging the Kenyan Government to reopen discussions with the IMF/World Bank with a view to reaching agreement at the earliest opportunity.

  Know-how Funds
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the know-how funds for the Confederation of Independent States, central and eastern Europe.

  Mr. Douglas-Hogg
  The know-how fund is kept regularly under review. The fund is well regarded for its effective and flexible contributions to economic and political reform.

  Israel
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to assist the ending of the Arab trade boycott of Israel.

  Mr. Douglas-Hogg
  We consider the Arab boycott to be iniquitous and incompatible with the spirit of the peace process. Calls on the Arab League to lift the boycott were made at the 1991 London economic summit, at the Lisbon European Council of June 1992, and in a series of European Community demarches in September 1992. We shall continue to pursue this issue with Arab Governments.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had with the Israeli Government on whether Israeli settlements in the west bank, Gaza strip, Golan heights and East Jerusalem are continuing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Ministers have regularly discussed the settlement issue with the Israelis; most recently with the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and the Israeli Minister of Housing who were both in London last month. The Israeli Government instituted some curbs on settlement activity in the west bank and Gaza shortly after its formation last year. This was a welcome move, but fell short of the total ban on settlements in the occupied territories which we, and other members of the international community, had called for. It remains our view that all settlements in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has 580
  recently received on changes in Israeli settlements in the west bank, Gaza strip, Golan heights and east Jerusalem; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Israeli Government instituted some curbs on settlement activity in the west bank and Gaza shortly after its formation last year. This was a welcome move but fell short of the total ban on settlements in the occupied territories which we, and other members of the international community, had called for. Settlement activity continues in East Jerusalem. It remains our view that all settlements in the occupied territories, including east Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information Her Majesty's Government possess on the violation of the human rights of Palestinians in Israel in each month since January 1992.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We receive regular information from a variety of sources on the human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories. The situation there remains a matter of great concern as my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), made clear in a speech to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on 9 February.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Israel concerning the imprisonment of Mordechai Vanunu; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have raised with the Israelis concerns over humanitarian aspects of this case. They have assured us that the conditions under which Mr. Vanunu is detained have now improved. We have no formal locus to intervene.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken within the nuclear non-proliferation treaty concerning Israeli nuclear capability; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As Israel is not a party to the non-proliferation treaty, it is not subject to its provisions. We are, however, concerned by reports that Israel has a nuclear weapons programme, although we have no direct evidence to confirm that this is the case, and would like Israel to accede to the treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state as soon as possible.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department was represented at the meeting launching the appeal for a nuclear test ban held in Committee Room 6 on 30 March.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No.

  Weapons Conventions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legislation is required before(a) the 1977 additional protocols to the Geneva convention and (b) the 1981 inhumane weapons convention can be ratified by Her Majesty's Government.
  581
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Should we decide to ratify the 1977 additional protocols to the Geneva conventions, legislation would be needed at least in the form of an amendment to the Geneva Conventions Act of 1957, to create criminal offences in respect of grave breaches of additional protocol I, as required by article 85 of that protocol. The need for legislation on any further points is under consideration.

  It is not thought that legislation would be required to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the appointments made by him as listed in "Public Bodies 1992" came within the categories set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and required a submission to the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  One.

  Norway
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Norway's application to join the European Community, in regard to environment and foreign and security policy.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We welcome Norway's application to join the Community and look forward to the swift conclusion of accession, negotiations, which began on 5 April. Norway has said that she is ready to participate fully in the common foreign and security policy and has played a full role in international environment policy. The precise terms of accession in these and other areas will be the subject of negotiation.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 441, how many vehicles were imported free of tax into St. Helena owned by United Kingdom or St. Helena Government employees.

  Mr. Garet-Jones
  The available figures for private vehicles imported free of tax, on first arrival, by employees of the United Kingdom and St. Helena Governments are as follows:

  Vehicles imported free of tax by employees of the United Kingdom and St. Helena Governments

  Year

  Number

  1987

  3

  1988

  21

  1989

  4

  1990

  11

  1991

  10

  1992

  8

  TOTAL

  57

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters in regard to nuclear non-proliferation were discussed during his recent meetings in the United States of America.
  582
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed nuclear non-proliferation matters in the context of preparations for the 1995 nuclear non-proliferation treaty extension and review conference, notably current problems with North Korea and Ukraine.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Iraqi interests section of the Jordanian embassy about the release of funds for Iraqi students and their host academic institutions in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have urged the Iraqi interests section of the Royal Jordanian embassy on many occasions to settle outstanding bills in respect of students sponsored by the Iraqi Government. We have recently assisted them to set up a mechanism which facilitates the settlement of these bills. This mechanism conforms to the provisions of the United Nations sanctions regime.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the latest position over the UN-supervised programme of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; and if he will itemise what has so far been destroyed and the likely number yet to be dealt with.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  UN inspectors continue to carry out inspections and monitoring in Iraq in accordance with Security Council resolution 687.

  Destruction on prohibited items, facilities and components is under way. The UN estimates that destruction of chemical agents will continue for a further nine to 10 months; the extent of other destruction activity has yet to be determined.

  Inspectors have so far supervised the destruction of:

  62 Ballistic Missiles and Supergun

  62 ballistic missiles

  10 ballistic missile launchers

  18 fixed sound launch pads

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government and the UN towards the sale of oil by the Iraqi regime; what response there has been so far from the regime; and what steps have been taken to publicise the reasons for the present UN policy among the populations of UN member states.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The sale of oil by the Iraqi regime is forbidden under the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 687 until the Government of Iraq comply with the provisions of that resolution which laid out the terms of the ceasefire. But under the provisions of two subsequent UN Security Council resolutions, 706 and 712, Iraq is able to export up to $1·6 billion worth of oil in exchange for the financing of humanitarian imports. The Iraqi Government have chosen not to implement these resolutions. We have consistently called on Iraq to implement all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We also hope that Iraq will take advantage of the opportunity to export oil. We have made our position clear on frequent occasions, notably with other members so the Security Council at the regular reviews of UN sanctions against Iraq.

  Korea
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the report made by the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the IAEA's board of governors on 31 March on the nuclear status of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  In accordance with the IAEA board of governors' resolutions of 25 February and 18 March, the Director-General of the IAEA made a statement to the board of governors on 31 March on safeguards in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Dr. Blix reported that the IAEA was unable to verify that there has been no diversion by the DPRK of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and that the DPRK was in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement with the agency.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give an estimate of the number of retired pensioners of the Hong Kong Government there will be at the date when control of the colony passes to China.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Based on present retirement patterns, the estimated number of Hong Kong Government pensioners at the end of June 1997 should stand at some 51,000.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Bradford, West about the murder of Mrs. Hamida Mattoo by security forces in Indian-occupied Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I shall be writing to the hon. Gentleman shortly about the death of Mrs. Hamida Mattoo.

  Cyprus
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Nations talks on Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Nations Secretary-General held a formal meeting with the leaders of the two Cypriot communities in New York on 30 March. The two leaders expressed their willingness to resume talks in New York on 24 May and to use the "Set of Ideas" for the purpose of reaching a mutually acceptable overall framework agreement. We continue actively to support the UN initiative.

  Somalia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Somali asylum seekers have been interviewed at the British embassy in Cairo for each of the past 12 months.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No Somali asylum-seekers have been interviewed at the British embassy in Cairo in the last 584
  12 months. However, the number of Somali nationals interviewed in the British embassy, Cairo in connection with their applications to join sponsors who have claimed asylum in the United Kingdom is as follows:

  Numbers interviewed

  Dependents of applicants

  April 1992

  1

  3

  May 1992

  1

  4

  June 1992

  1

  0

  July 1992

  2

  1

  August 1992

  1

  0

  September 1992

  0

  0

  October 1992

  1

  1

  November 1992

  0

  0

  December 1992

  0

  0

  January 1993

  0

  0

  February 1993

  0

  0

  March 1993

  2

  3

  Total

  9

  12

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect he expects the transfer of undertakings (protection of employees) legislation to have on the proposed local government reforms; what cost implications there will be and on which bodies they will fall; and what account was taken of the calculations prepared for his Department by Touche Ross.

  Mr. Stewart
  The question of whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations will apply can be determined only in the light of individual circumstances and following careful legal consideration. We envisage that most local authority staff who are currently employed by local authorities will in any case, by one means or another, become the employees of the new authorities. In preparing its report on costs, Touche Ross assumed that all staff would transfer to the new authorities and that any surplus staff would be made redundant by those authorities.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of the implications for public sector expenditure over the next five years of the proposed reform of local government in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Office engaged consultants last year to estimate the costs and savings likely to arise from a move to a single-tier structure of local government in Scotland. The consultants' findings are at present being refined in the light of comments on their report. The available evidence suggests that our reform proposals will give rise to transitional costs which will be quickly recovered by savings arising from the new structure. An indication of the likely financial consequences of reform will be included in due course in a White Paper setting out our proposals.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision he will make for accountability when transferring existing local authority powers from directly elected Scottish local councils to the Scottish Office and to non-elected bodies.
  585
  Mr. Stewart
  Local authority functions are regularly reviewed. New duties are placed on local government in appropriate circumstances and some functions are assumed at other times by other bodies or agencies. Questions of accountability, service delivery and a range of other issues are given full consideration in each case.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will specify the reasons which underlay the Government's decision to establish a local government commission to inquire into local government reform in England but not in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The fact that a commission has been appointed in England to consider local government restructuring is not itself a necessary reason for adopting a similar procedure in Scotland. It is appropriate to adopt Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. Similarly, no such commission has been appointed in Wales. The present structure of local government in Scotland and the evidence available from previous reviews mean that the current reform exercise is of a smaller scale and less complex than that in England. The Government have recently completed a very full consultation exercise about the shape of the new single-tier structure to which over 3,300 responses were submitted. These are now being carefully analysed.

  Transplants
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many patients are on waiting lists for bone marrow transplants, and for transplants for cases of genetic and metabolic disorders;

  (2) what provision is made for patients who require a bone marrow transplant; and what provision is made for funding transplants for genetic and metabolic disorders.

  Mr. Stewart
  It is for health boards to negotiate contracts for the provision of bone marrow transplant services. As at 31 March 1993 there were four adult patients waiting for bone marrow transplants in Scotland. There is no waiting list for bone marrow transplants for genetic or metabolic disorders.

  Agency Nurses
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that agency nurses employed in NHS hospitals are always suitably qualified and experienced for the wards to which they are allocated.

  Mr. Stewart
  In Scotland agencies for the supply of nurses are licensed under part III of the Nurses (Scotland) Act 1951. The licensing authority for nurses agencies in Scotland is the health board for the area in which the agency's premises are situated.

  Conditions attached to the granting of a licence are stringent and include a requirement that agencies supply only nurses on the register of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. These, and other conditions, are enforced by the licensing authority. In addition, my noble Friend the Minister of State announced on 15 June 1992 the intention that all patients would have a named nurse to ensure that in all circumstances suitably qualified and experienced nurses are available to patients.

  European Community
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 687, what is the total number of persons, and of what grade or level, seconded to (a) the European Commission and (b) the UKREP to the EC since 1973; and how many of those who have completed their secondment are still employed by his Department.

  Mr. Stewart
  Between 1981 and 1993 13 Scottish Office staff between higher executive officer and unified grade 7 level or professional equivalent have been seconded to the European Commission, of whom 11 are still employed by the Department. Figures for the period 1973–81 are not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate expense.

  Since 1973, seven Scottish Office staff have been seconded to UKREP, of whom six are still employed by the Department. Two were at higher executive officer level, two at unified grade 7 and three at unified grade 5 level.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are Her Majesty's Government's current intentions in relation to(a) the future of the Forest Enterprise wing of the Forestry Commission and (b) the future of the regulatory functions of the Forestry Commission in England, Wales and Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands, (Mr. Knox) on 30 March 1993,Official Report, column 150. We have no plans at present to change the regulatory functions of the Forestry Commission.

  Pupil-teacher Ratio
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average pupil-teacher ratio in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average pupil-teacher ratio at September 1991 in education authority schools in Scotland was 19·5 in primary and 12·4 in secondary.

  This information was published in the Scottish Office Education Department statistical bulletin, "Schools, Pupils and Teachers in Scotland" (Edn/A1/1993/1), tables 4 and 6. A copy of the bulletin is in the House of Commons Library.

  Countryside (Access)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to charge for access to parts of the countryside in public ownership; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what discussion he has had with land owners concerning access to the countryside; and if he will make a statement;.

  (3) what representations he has received concerning access to the countryside.

  Sir Hector Monro
  All aspects of access to the countryside, whether in public or private ownership, are
  587
  currently under active review by Scottish Natural Heritage. SNH issued a public consultation paper in January 1993. The consultation period ends on 16 April 1993, following which it will be developing policy proposals for the consideration of Government and other interests. I cannot anticipate at this stage what these might be.

  Fishing Exclusion Zone
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to extend the fishing exclusion zone to encompass areas where high levels of oil contamination have been found associated with sediment south of the current exclusion zone.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Detailed monitoring has been carried out by Government scientists since oil-contaminated sediments were first found to the south-east of Fair Isle. Results have shown that while sediments have been contaminated by Braer oil, hydrocarbon concentrations in the water column and in samples of fish from the vicinity have been within background levels. In these circumstances I see no need to extend the existing exclusion zone.

  Al (Upgrading)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his plans for upgrading the Al road in Scotland, giving the timetable for construction and completion of each section and the estimated costs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government consider that it would be desirable for the A 1 to be dualled over its full length in Scotland. Work is currently under way on the £1·6 million dualling scheme at Marshall Meadows which will tie into a Department of Transport improvement at the national border. This scheme will be completed during the summer. The major route priority is the construction of a dual carriageway from Tranent to Haddington. Draft orders for this scheme were published on 30 March and, subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, construction of this £33 million scheme will commence in 1994–95. The preparation of the Haddington-Dunbar scheme, which is also estimated to cost in excess of £30 million, is following the earlier scheme at an interval of about 12 months.

  Between Dunbar and the Border, some six further dualling schemes are being prepared along the route for early construction. Subject to satisfactory completion of the necessary procedures, up to three of these should start this financial year with the remainder planned to follow in the current public expenditure period. The schemes are:

  £ million

  Cement Works-Innerwick

  2·6

  Tower-Penmanshiel

  1·5

  Howburn-Lemington

  2·1

  Thistly Cross-Broxburn

  4·4

  Broxburn-Cement Works

  1·75

  Houndwood-Howburn

  1·75

  In addition to the above, local schemes to provide early safety and operational improvements on the route will continue to be brought forward.
  588
  The timing of all the above schemes will be dependent on the completion of the necessary preparatory work and statutory procedures and, for the later schemes, the availability of finance.

  Further schemes will be identified and constructed as they compete for, and find, places in future programmes.

  Child Care
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been given to Scottish Enterprise in 1993–94 for the new after-school child care initiative.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: Resources for a new programme for the provision of out-of-school child care have been included in the overall budget for Scottish Enterprise for 1993–94. The relevant resources have not been separately identified, in accordance with normal budgeting arrangements for these bodies. The detailed allocation of resources to specific activities is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and for the local enterprise companies.

  Health Board Staff
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a list of companies employing staff transferred from employment with health boards; and what information he has on the wage rates they are offering new employees;

  (2) how many health boards have been advised by the Central Legal Office to provide private contractors with details of length of service of their employees.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: Information about companies employing transferred staff is not collected. Under the terms of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981., existing rates and conditions of service would apply in the case of any staff affected by such a relevant transfer.

  No advice has been given by the central legal office of the NHS to health boards to provide contractors with details of service of employees.

  Forestry
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what input has been received from non-governmental organisations in relation to the development of the national plan to implement the non-binding statement of forest principles agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development;

  (2) what progress has been made with regard to the development of the national plan to implement the non-binding statement of forest principles agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 1 February 1993, Official Report, column 18. The national plan is still in course of preparation. We have not yet sought the views of non-governmental organisations, but will do so later this year before the plan is completed.
  589
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what incentives exist for the production of hardwoods from broadleaved woodlands in the United Kingdom.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: The Government provide grants, through the woodland grant scheme, to encourage the establishment of new broadleaved woodlands and the better management of existing broadleaved woodlands to meet a range of objectives, including the production of quality hardwood timber. The grants are supported by advice, which is summarised in Forestry Commission Handbook No. 9, "Growing Broadleaves for Timber", a copy of which is in the Library of the House

  Untreated Cream
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to allow low capacity establishments with a proven hygiene record to sell untreated cream in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Scottish milk hygiene legislation is being reviewed in the context of implementation of EC directive 92/46 which lays down health rules for the production and marketing of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products. The Government will invite views on all aspects of the present legislation in the course of consultation on new draft regulations later this year.

  Hunting
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost of a permit or licence to hunt on Forestry Commission land.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 January 1993,Official Report, column 247.

  Historic Scotland
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the key performance targets he has set for Historic Scotland for 1993–94.

  Mr. Lang
  I have set Historic Scotland the following key performance targets for 1993–94:

  Protecting the built heritage

  Target

  i. Number of ancient monuments of national importance to be scheduled

  340

  ii. Number of listed buildings resurvey units to be completed

  150

  iii. Number of historic building repair grants accepted

  135

  iv. Conservation of monuments in care

  reduce maintenance backlog

  Promoting and presenting the built heritage

  i. Number of visitors to monuments in care

  2·4 million

  ii. Total income

  £7·5 million

  Management

  i. Value for money savings on maintenance of monuments in care (per cent.)

  3·5

  Mink
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mink farms are currently licensed in each region of Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There is one licensed mink farm operating in Scotland, in Grampian region.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the time it took between reports of incidents involving breaches of health and safety laws in the offshore oil and gas industries and referrals made to the procurator fiscal in each of the past seven years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding Answer 24 March 1993]: Problems have been experienced in recovering data stored on computer and many records formerly held by the procurator fiscal's office at Aberdeen were destroyed by fire in April 1989. Information for each of the past seven years is therefore not fully available.

  In such highly technical cases it can also be difficult to select a single point as marking the date of the start of the procurator fiscal's investigations, but in a survey of 10 cases the time taken between the receipt of cases by the procurator fiscal and the start of court proceedings varied as shown in the table. Much depended on the complexity of the technical evidence and on the scale of the specialised investigation required.

  In addition there are two substantial investigations which have been in progress since 1990, and two dating from 1991, in which decisions on prosecution will shortly be taken.

  After Receipt of Reports

  Proceedings Begun

  Number of Cases

  within 1 month

  1

  within 3 months but over 1 month

  2

  within 6 months but over 3 months

  0

  within 1 year but over 6 months

  3

  within 18 months but over I year

  2

  within 2 years but over 18 months

  1

  within 2½ years but over 2 years

  l

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the additional funds for the care in the community programme, announced on 23 March, relates to(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: The additional £28 million for the care in the community programme will be used for bridging finance and distributed as follows: (a) £4 million 1993–94, (b) £9 million 1994–95 and (c) £15 million 1995–96.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the additional allocation to the care in the community programme over the period 1993–94 to 1995–96, announced on 23 March(a) is bridging finance to health boards and (b) is in addition to bridging finance for the period 1992–93 to 1994–95 announced on 23 January 1992.
  591
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: The £28 million which I announced on 23 March for the care in the community programme is for bridging finance to health boards and is additional to that announced on 23 January 1992.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the bridging finance for the care in the community programme, announced on 23 January 1992, relates to(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95.

  Mr. Lang
  In addition to an original £15 million bridging finance provision, apportioned equally over the three each financial years 1992–92 to 1993–94, the 23 January 1992 announcement confirmed an additional £18 million of bridging finance to be allocated on the basis of £6 million for each financial year, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much of the bridging finance for the care in the community programme, announced on 23 January 1992, relates to(a) care of the mentally ill, (b) care of the mentally handicapped and (c) care of the elderly;

  (2) how much of the additional funds for the care in the community programme announced on 23 March relates to (a) care of the mentally ill, (b) care of the mentally handicapped and (c) care of the elderly.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 April 1993]: The amounts of bridging finance announced are available for distribution to all three client groups. Allocations to individual health boards reflect differing demands at their local level and so may be directed to any one or more of the client groups.

  River Clyde (Dredging)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the overall cost of the dredging of the channel of the River Clyde in each of the past eight years; which organisation is responsible for the maintenance of the channel; which organisations make an annual financial contribution to the dredging operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 April 1993]: The gross costs incurred by the Clyde Port Authority in dredging the River Clyde in each of the past eight years were as follows:

  £ million

  1984

  918,000

  1985

  931,000

  1986

  884,000

  1987

  1,012,000

  1988

  1,043,000

  1989

  1,068,000

  1990

  1,209,000

  1991

  1,112,000

  Clydeport Ltd., as successor to the former Clyde Port Authority, has a permissive power to dredge the river channel to the extent that it is considered necessary for the maintenance and improvement of the port, but has no statutory duty to dredge.

  Strathclyde regional council, Glasgow district council, Yarrow Shipbuilders and Kvaerner Govan have all made
  592
  contributions towards the cost of dredging in recent years. It remains the Government's policy that port authorities, including Clydeport Ltd. should manage their businesses on a commercial basis and that the costs of dredging should be met by charges to the users of ports, or by other parties who benefit from the dredging.

  Young People
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to publish statistics and other information about the number of persons aged 16 to 17 years in each local enterprise company area who are(a) without a job, (b) not on an approved training course and (c) not undertaking a full-time education course.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 April 1993]: None. This information is not available in the form requested.

  Employment Protection
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Cleaning and Support Services Association in relation to the implementation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and compulsory competitive tendering by regional, island and district councils and health boards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 April 1993]: I received a number of representations from the Cleaning and Support Services Association about the implementation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. My right hon. Friend made his position clear in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) on 11 March 1993, c. 716–17.

  Edinburgh Dental School
  Mr. Alistair Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department will meet the cost incurred by the University of Edinburgh in making redundant the staff employed at the Edinburgh dental school following the decision that the school will close in 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployed Young People
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether children between the age of 16 and 18 years who are estranged from their parents and receiving income support while unemployed are excluded from the total unemployment monthly figures.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Those aged 16 to 17 who receive unemployment-related benefits as special hardship cases are included in the headline total of the monthly claimant unemployment count, but not in the corresponding consistent, seasonally adjusted series. In order to maintain consistency, over time the latter is restricted to those aged 18 and over.

  Job Schemes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the age requirements that govern eligibility for each job scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  For each of the job programmes run by the Employment Service, the lower age limit is the 18th birthday and there is no upper age limit.

  Unemployment, Llanfair Caereinion
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals she has for reducing unemployment in Llanfair Caereinion; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Employment Service and training and enterprise councils deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help the employment prospects of unemployed people. These are available to people living in Llanfair Caereinion, as elsewhere, to help them find the quickest and best route back to employment.

  Lost Working Days
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost per 1,000 workers in the United Kingdom during each of the last two years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There were 24 working days lost per 1,000 workers in labour disputes in 1992, compared with 34 working days lost per 1,000 workers in 1991.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the appointments made by her as listed in "Public Bodies 1992" came within the categories set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and required a submission to the Prime Minister.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Within the non-departmental public bodies covered by the Employment Department group, seven appointments came within the categories referred to in paragraphs 49 and 50 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". These seven were given approval by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, although actually appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Gas Boilers
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to review safety standards for domestic gas boilers and flues; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am advised by the Department of Trade and Industry that the safety requirements for all non-industrial gas applicances were reviewed recently during the development of the EC Gas Appliance Directive, adopted on 29 June 1990 and due to come fully into effect on 1 January 1996. In accordance with the requirement of this directive, European harmonised product safety standards for all gas appliances within the scope of the directive are currently under consideration by the European standardisation body, CEN.

  Vocational Training
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will respond to the recommendations of the Equal Opportunity Commission's formal investigation into the publicly funded vocational training system in England and Wales; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We welcome the Equal Opportunities Commission's report as a positive contribution to promoting equality of opportunity for women. We are pleased to see that the report contains many examples of effective and innovative training practice introduced by the training and enterprise councils. We look forward to continued partnership with the commission in considering its recommendations.

  Data Protection Act 1984
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many certificates have been signed under the terms of section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984 for each year since 1987.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am aware of two such certificates so far as the Employment Department group is concerned.

  Family Size
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 17 March,Official Report, column 267, on families with four or more children, if she will indicate what is meant by a one plus child family.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This phrase was used to describe families with one or more children in order to provide a concise answer to my hon. Friend's original question; I regret any misunderstanding that this may have caused.

  Training Programmes
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people participated in(a) employment training, (b) youth training and (c) employment action in Great Britain in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92; and at what average cost per trainee in (i) cash terms and (ii) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is given in the following tables:

  Table 1

  Great Britain—Number of Starts Employment training, youth training and employment action April 1989 to March 1992

  (Numbers)

  April 1989-March 1990

  April 1990-March 1991

  April 1991-March 1992

  Employment training

  430,600

  394,100

  291,600

  Youth training

  383,800

  347,800

  293,000

  Employment action

  n/a

  n/a

  19,300

  Source: SPECTRUM, OSMOSIS, Scotland and Wales management Information and ET Starts Database.

  Notes:

  Employment action did not start until 1 October 1991, therefore no figures are available for 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  1991–92 figures are provisional estimates.

  Youth training includes youth credits.
  595

  Table 2

  Great Britain Employment training, youth training and employment action April 1989 to March 1992

  Cost per trainee in(i) cash terms and (ii) 1992–93 prices

  (£'s)

  April 1989-March 1990

  April 1990-March 1991

  April 1991-March 1992

  Employment training

  (i)

  5,404

  5,384

  6,014

  (ii)

  6,443

  5,944

  6,224

  Youth training

  (i)

  2,620

  2,375

  2,735

  (ii)

  3,124

  2,622

  2,831

  Employment action

  (i)

  n/a

  n/a

  6,100

  (ii)

  n/a

  n/a

  6,314

  Source: Departmental Report and HM Treasury's GDP deflators.

  Notes: Unit cost figures are calculated from the average numbers in training over the year.

  Employment action did not start until 1 October 1991, therefore no figures are available for 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  The EA unit cost figure for 1991–92 is an accruals unit cost, which takes the expenditure back to the year in which the participant weeks are delivered.

  Unit cost figures for Employment Training and Employment Action differ slightly from the figures published in the 1993 departmental report as the departmental report figures covered England only. All figures at 1992–93 prices were calculated using the latest published version (17/3/93) of HM Treasury's GDP deflators.

  Youth training includes youth credits.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list every training programme and employment initiative by her Department with the month and year of its inception and demise and the number of participants since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment further to the answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 209, about amounts spent on training programmes, what are the equivalent figures for 1992–93.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not yet available. I shall write to the hon. Member giving the figures requested, when the information for 1992–93 is complete.

  Part-time Employment
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will estimate the percentage of part-time(a) male and (b) female employees in (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales, (iii) England, (iv) Northern Ireland and (v) Great Britain who earned less than (1) £3·80 an hour, (2) £4.00 an hour, (3) £5.20 an hour and (4) £5.40 an hour in 1992.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The available information for part-time women closest to that requested is given in the following table. Information for part-time men is not available.
  596

  Part-time women on adult rates of pay whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence. Percentage with average gross hourly earnings less than the following amounts: April 1992.

  £3·80

  £4·00

  £4·80

  £5·40

  Scotland

  46·5

  52·6

  69·4

  77·0

  Wales

  54·6

  62·1

  75·9

  82·8

  England

  42·9

  49·3

  68·3

  77·5

  Northern Ireland

  54·3

  59·4

  73·9

  78·4

  Great Britain

  43·8

  50·2

  68·8

  77·7

  Source: New Earnings Survey, Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will estimate the number of(a) male and (b) female employees in (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales, (iii) England, (iv) Northern Ireland and (v) Great Britain who work part-time.

  Mr. McLoughlin: The latest information is as follows:

  Part-time employees in employment: December 1992

  (Thousand)

  Not seasonally adjusted

  Males

  Females

  Scotland

  95

  436

  Wales

  60

  220

  England

  1,009

  4,025

  Northern Ireland

  35

  107

  Great Britain

  1,163

  4,681

  Job Search
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Great Britain took part in(a) job clubs, (b) job interview guarantee and (c) job search seminars in 1990–91; and at what average cost per participant in (i) cash terms and (ii) 1992–93 prices.

  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. M. Fogden to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 14 April 1993:

  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 Jobclubs, Job Interview Guarantee and job search seminars. This is something which falls within the responsibilities she has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  1,140,774 people joined Jobclubs in 1990–91. The average cost per participant in cash terms, excluding fares to attend Jobclub and VAT, was £141. The cost in 1992–93 prices is £158.

  The Job Interview Guarantee (JIG) initiative was not generally available until April 1991 but was piloted in 20 inner city areas from September 1989 to March 1991. During this time 16,661 people were assisted through JIG. The average cost per participant is not available because the pilot phase was not costed separately.

  Job search seminars were not introduced until July 1991, therefore the data you request does not exist.

  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.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the maximum daily travelling
  597
  expenses that can be claimed by unemployed people who participate in job search seminars or in job review workshops when they travel by (a) public or (b) private transport; whether participants in both schemes are entitled to travel expenses to enable them to attend the follow-up support sessions provided by the seminars and workshops; and if she will make a statement.

  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. M. Fodgen to Ms Clare Short, dated 14 April 1993:
  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 travel expenses for participants who attend job search seminars and Job Review Workshops.
  Both programmes are of short duration, normally lasting two full days with some additional follow up. They are designed to help short term unemployed people find work more quickly. The seminars and workshops are run by organisations from the public, private and voluntary sectors, under contract to the Employment Service. People who attend are paid their travelling expenses to the main sessions and to the follow up events. This is done by the programme providers who re-imburse participants the cost of travelling from their homes to the seminar or Workshop. The providers then recover this money from the Employment Service.
  Participants are expected to travel by the most cost effective mode of transport, normally standard class public transport. If participants prefer to use their own car or motorcycle they are paid a mileage allowance of 16p per mile provided this is cost effective, for example, where public transport is poor or there is good reason to use a vehicle. Otherwise if they choose to use their own transport they will receive the equivalent public transport cost.
  People with a disability problem which affects their mobility may claim travelling expenses at the mileage rate if they wish to use their own private vehicle. They may also be re-imbursed parking fees. Taxi fares will also be paid where a person's disability prevents them using either public transport or private vehicle.
  There is no upper limit laid down which states the maximum daily travelling allowance that can be claimed by participants. There is however a network of job search seminar and Job Review Workshop provision throughout the country and we would expect people to be offered places at a convenient location.
  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.

  Career Development Loans
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people took up career development loans in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the number of people taking out a career development loan in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 is as follows:

  Number

  1989–90

  5,805

  1990–91

  8,116

  1991–92

  10,432

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans her Department has to encourage employers in the London area to adopt or maintain workplace nurseries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department encourages employers throughout the country to consider family-friendly employment policies including flexible working and help with child care, through publications such as "The Best of Both Worlds". The new out-of-school child care grant delivered by training and enterprise councils will create some 50,000 new child care places for school aged children over the next three years, which may include workplace facilities.

  Employment Schemes
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average amount spent per person on(a) ET, (b) YT, (c) the job interview guarantee scheme and (d) job clubs for each year for which figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 March 1993, c. 209–10]I regret that my original reply contained an error. The figures given for the average amount spent per participant on YT for Great Britain given in my reply of 3 March 1993,Official Report, col. 209–10; were incorrect, due to a clerical error. The correct information for the average amount spent per person on employment training (ET), youth training (YT), the job interview guarantee scheme (JIG) and job clubs, in Great Britain, for each year for which figures are available is as follows:

  £ thousands

  Programme

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  ET

  n/a

  5,540

  5,404

  5,384

  6,014

  YT

  n/a

  n/a

  2,620

  2,375

  2,735

  JIG

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  57

  Jobclub

  1247

  1190

  140

  141

  147

  1 External Providers (contracted by the Employment Service) only. Figures exclude job clubs run by the Employment Service.

HEALTH

  GP Prescribing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of the annual saving achieved in the NHS hospital sector by general practitioners' prescribing of oral contraceptives in respect of prevention of unwanted pregnancies and of abortions;

  (2) what assessment she has made of the annual savings achieved in the NHS hospital sector by general practitioners' prescribing of (a) anti-hypertensive medicines, (b) medicines for treatment of late onset diabetes, (c) medicines for treatment of psoriasis and eczema and (d)medicines for the treatment of peptic ulcers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has made no such specific assessment. General practitioners are aware that the cost-effective use of drugs can lead both to better patient care and to financial savings elsewhere in the national health service and in the public sector generally.
  599
  Policies on prescribing are designed to encourage such cost-effective prescribing while maintaining the pressure to cut out wasteful expenditure on drugs.

  Health Checks
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it remains her policy for automatic health checks to be given to people who reach the age of 75 years; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It remains policy that family doctors should offer all their patients aged 75 and over an annual health check.

  Medicines
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many cases in 1991–92 the licensing authority determined an application for the grant of a licence under the Medicines Act in a way which differed from the advice of the Medicines Commission; and if she will identify each of those cases.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will place in the Library a copy of the Committee on Safety of Medicines' policy on the disclosure of information about adverse drug reactions;

  (2) if she will place in the Library a copy of the Medicines Control Agency's policy on disclosure of information.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Medicines Control Agency has access to company data about medicinal products to carry out its functions under the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968. The Act places a responsibility on Ministers to protect the confidentiality of that information and makes it an offence for anyone to disclose it except in the performance of their duty.

  It is the policy of the Medicines Control Agency to maintain the commercial confidentiality of information provided by the pharmaceutical industry and to protect the anonymity of individuals identified in information to which it has access; this applies to information made available to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Information on adverse drug reactions is disclosed by the agency to doctors, pharmacists and related groups when relevant to specific safety concerns.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the effect on small pharmacies of the limit on the rise for 1993–94 in the global amount paid by her Department for pharmaceutical services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have offered to increase the global sum out of which pharmacists' fees are paid by 1·5 per cent. in 1993–94. This accords with the Government's wider policy on public sector pay. How this money is allocated is a matter for discussion with the pharmacists' representatives. Those discussions are continuing.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what survey her Department has undertaken on the number of pharmacies closing in the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth areas; and if she will make a statement.
  600
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Three pharmacies have closed between 1 October 1990 and Septemper 1992.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to her statement of 25 February,Official Report, column 1005, when she expects the South West Thames regional health authority to report on its proposals for strengthening accountability of the London ambulance service.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) on 31 March at cols.241–42.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many outpatients' appointments have been cancelled by the London ambulance service for each month since October 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Martin Gorham, chief executive of the London Ambulance Service, for details.

  Drugs
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the 10 established drug substances and six drug classes investigated in 1991–92 because of potential safety hazards not previously recognised; and what are the findings of each of the investigations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested on the potential drug safety hazards investigated by the Medicines Control Agency is as follows:

  The six drug classes

  Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These drugs, used to treat arthritis, can cause rare cases of meningitis of a non-infective origin, and in some patients, kidney damage. The findings of investigations into these issues were published in Current Problems No. 32, issued in October 1991.

  Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Anaphylactoid reactions can occur when patients on ACE inhibitors, undergo renal dialysis with a particular type of dialysis membrane. The findings of an investigation into this issue were published in Current Problems No. 33, issued in February 1992.

  Beta-agonists. Following concerns regarding a possible association between the use of beta-agonists in the treatment of patients with asthma and an increase in asthma mortality and morbidity, a Working Party was set up by the Committee on Safety of Medicines to review information on the safety of beta-agonists in asthma patients. They concluded that available evidence did not support a causal link between beta-agonist use and death from asthma. The findings of the Working Party were published in a report published in early 1992, and summarised in Current Problems No. 33, issued in February 1992.

  Radiographic contrast media. Concerns have been expressed in Europe regarding the comparative safety of intravascular use of high- and low-osmolar contrast media. After review of the data it was concluded that there was no convincing evidence to suggest a difference between these types of media with respect to life-threatening or fatal reactions. The review has been published in Pharmaceutical Medicine 1993, 7; 47–55.

  Quinolones. These antibiotics can cause convulsions in patients with or without a history of epilepsy; this reaction can also be induced by an interaction between these antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The findings of an investigation into this issue have been published in Current Problems No. 32, issued in October 1991.
  601
  Cephalosporins. These antibiotics can cause rare cases of pseudomembraneous colitis, a severe inflammatory condition of the colon. The findings of an investigation into this issue have been published in Current Problems No. 32, issued in October 1991.

  The 10 drug substances

  Gadolinium. Concern was raised from in vitro studies that gadolinium (Magnevist), a radiographic contrast medium, could affect viral infectivity. After review of the data it was concluded that the findings were unlikely to have relevance to the in vivo use of the agent.

  Vitamin K. Concern arose from epidemiological studies reporting an association between intramuscular administration of vitamin K to newborn babies and the subsequent development of childhood cancer. After review of the studies the Committee on Safety of Medicines concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusions reached in the study. A letter was sent to all doctors by the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Nursing Officer in December 1992 informing them about this matter. This issue is being kept under review.

  Terodiline. This drug, used in the treatment of urinary incontinence, can cause rare but serious disturbances of cardiac rhythm. As a result of an investigation into this issue, the Chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines wrote to all doctors, dentists and pharmacists in July 1991, informing them of their findings. Following further reports of such reactions, the drug was withdrawn voluntarily by the pharmaceutical company. The findings of the review of the data were published in Current Problems Number 32, issued in October 1991.

  Triazolam (Halcion). This drug is used in the short-term treatment of severe insomnia. Following a review of the data by the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) this drug was withdrawn from the market in the United Kingdom in October 1991 and all doctors, dentists and pharmacists were informed by a letter from the Chairman of the CSM. The manufacturer of Halcion has appealed against the proposed action to revoke the product licences for Halcion, this matter is still under appeal.

  Atenolol. Concern was raised by an epidemiological study which revealed that men receiving antenolo, had a higher death rate from cancer than those receiving diuretic or placebo. On review of the data it was concluded that it was unlikely that atenolol treatment was causally associated with increased cancer mortality in men and no action was considered necessary. This issue has been kept under review and the decision has been lent further support by two further studies which failed to find an association between alenolol treatment and increased cancer mortality.

  Fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine. These drugs can cause the rare but serious adverse effect of pulmonary hypertension. The findings of an investigation into this issue were published in Current Problems Number 34, issued in June 1992. An epidemiological study is underway to investigate this matter further.

  Carbimazole. This drug, used in the treatment of hyperthyroidism, can cause rare cases of serious white blood cell disorders. The findings of an investigation into this issue were published in Current Problems No. 32, issued in October 1991.

  Flecainide. This drug, used in the treatment of cardiac rhythm disorders, can cause rare long-term adverse effects on the eyes, lungs or nervous system. The findings of an investigation into this issue were published in Current Problems No. 31, issued in June 1991.

  Omeprazole. This drug, used in the treatment of peptic ulcers, can cause skin rashes, diarrhoea and headache, which can be severe. The findings of an investigation into these side effects were published in Current Problems No. 31, issued in June 1991.

  Flucloxacillin. This antibiotic can cause jaundice. The findings of an investigation into this issue were published in Current Problems No. 35, issued in November 1992.

  Copies of all the publications referred to will be placed in the Library.

  Child Health Services
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) to what extent hospitals are meeting the guidelines suggested in "Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital" regarding(a) the provision of a named nurse for each child admitted, (b) the provision of accommodation for parents of children admitted to hospital, (c) education and play facilities for children, (d) separate facilities for adolescents and (e) the provision of separate facilities for children in (i) accident and emergency departments and (ii) out-patients departments;

  (2) what plans she has for monitoring child health services; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) what progress is being made towards ensuring that all children admitted to hospital are accommodated in separate wards.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not available centrally. A recent study by the Audit Commission, "Children First" (HMSO 1993), concluded that the standards set in our good practice guide, "Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital" have not been fully implemented. We intend to address this through the review procedure whereby the national health service management executive holds health authorities to account for specified aspects of their performance.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to reduce inequalities in child health.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government's approach to variations in the health of children and other groups was set out in "The Health of the Nation" Green and White Papers (Cm. 1523 and 1986), copies of which are available in the Library. The five key areas include accidents as the most common cause of death in children over the age of one year, but the White Paper recognises that in other fields too success with children will be crucial to the long-term success of the strategy.

  Our aim is to reduce variations by tackling specific issues and needs which can be targeted for effective action. Examples of such action within the field of child health include national and local initiatives to reduce perinatal death, including cot deaths, which area is already showing significant results; improved immunisation, already at record levels, to ensure protection against death and disability from preventable disease; and increased participation by general practitioners in child health surveillance, thereby providing screening and health promotion for children individually as part of integrated family health care.

  In making such changes, the Government will continue to make the best use of improved arrangements for the delivery of health care. We have provided guidance and are undertaking monitoring to support health authorities in assessing children's health care needs locally, and in integrating family, community and hospital services.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that children engaged in sufficient levels of physical activity to establish good health in later life.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have recently announced the setting up of a "Health of the Nation" task force on physical activity which will consider how to encourage people to
  603
  obtain lifelong benefits from such activity. The task force will be able to build on the Government's recent initiative whereby physical education is a compulsory subject for all pupils in maintained schools between the ages of five to 16. It serves to give young people a knowledge of the long-term benefits of a healthy lifestyle and encourages the practice of health-related exercise.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations she has made to managers of trust hospitals in Leeds concerning pay awards for(a) professional and technical staff and (b) nursing staff;

  (2) what guidelines have been provided to trust hospitals concerning pay awards for ancillary workers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A copy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's letter of 12 November 1992 to chairmen of all health service-employing bodies which set out arrangements for implementing the policy of public sector pay restraint throughout the national health service, is available in the Library. We have made no specific representations to Leeds NHS trusts. Management guidance has been issued by the chief executive of the national health service management executive relating to all staff in health authorities and trusts.

  Child Psychologists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child psychologists were working in the NHS in each of the last five years, by region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Drugs (Side-effects)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to establish a national computer record of the side-effects of drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Such a computer record already exists. Under the yellow card scheme introduced in 1964, doctors are requested to report suspected adverse drug reactions, and pharmaceutical companies have a statutory requirement to report these reactions to the licensing authority. Such reports are entered on to a computer database operated by the Medicines Control Agency. In 1991, a new computer system, adverse drug reactions on-line information tracking—ADROIT—was introduced to improve the speed and effectiveness of monitoring adverse drug reactions.

  Female Circumcision
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Redcar, Ms Mowlam of 18 February,Official Report, column 322, what further guidance she plans to issue to GPs on female circumcision.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Special Health Authorities
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the budget of each special health authority for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; and what is the projected distribution of funds for these authorities for 1994–95.
  604
  Mr. Sackville
  The budget allocations for 1992–93 and 1993–94 for special health authorities are given in the table. The figures include both capital and revenue.

  SHA

  1992–93

  1993–94

  (see notes

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  Central Blood Laboratory Authority/ National Blood Authority (CBLA/NBA)

  4·550

  8·649

  NHS Supplies Authority

  20·767

  16·630

  UK Transplant Special Services Authority (UKTSSA)

  4·479

  5·372

  Bethlem Royal & Maudsley (BR&M)

  36·366

  36·643

  Eastman Dental Hospital (EDH)

  9·092

  9·926

  Hammersmith & Queen Charlotte's (& Acton) (HQC)

  81·408

  83·648

  Moorfields Eye Hospital (MEH)

  22·111

  22·871

  Hospitals for Sick Children (Gt Ormond St & Queen Elizabeth's) (HSC)

  61·467

  67·653

  National Heart & Lung Hospitals (Brompton & London Chest) (NH&LH)

  52·245

  50·562

  National Hospitals for Neurology & Neurosurgery (Queen Square, Maida Vale, Finchley & Chalfont) (NHNN)

  41·356

  37·307

  Royal Marsden Hospital (Fulham & Sutton) (RMH)

  38·085

  39·982

  The figures for UKTSSA do not include money allocated to the SHA for reimbursement of donor hospitals as the money does not contribute to the running costs of the organisation. The HA in effect manages the funds used to reimburse donor hospitals for maintaining cadavers prior to transplantation, for the Department.

  The figures for 1992–93 are subject to validation by audit. The figures for 1993–94 are initial allocations, which will be added to by in-year adjustment, as appropriate.

  Figures for 1994–95 cannot be projected at this early stage. The CBLA became the NBA with effect from 1 April 1993.

  Hepatitis B
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's estimate of the number of hepatitis B carriers in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is estimated that about one person per 1,000 of the population in the United Kingdom is a carrier of hepatitis B. This proportion is unlikely to have changed significantly over the past five years. The number of cases of hepatitis B has been falling over the same period and was at the lowest level recorded in 1991, the latest year for which figures are available, at 517 cases.

  NHS Information
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 751, how information is classified as validated; and what other kinds of information are held by the NHS management executive but not regarded as information held centrally.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Validated information is that which has been checked by the Department for accuracy,
  605
  consistency and statistical reliability. The national health service management executive also holds a disparate range of administrative and management data obtained from a number of sources which may not be compiled on a comparable basis or use common definitions, or which may contain subjective judgments.

  NHS Pay Award
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effects upon recruitment to the national health service of the 1·5 per cent. pay award.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We do not expect recruitment or retention of national health service staff to be adversely affected.

  Child Protection Teams
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child protection teams were working in the NHS in each of the last five years, by region.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not available centrally. The organisation of child protection teams and the planning of the investigations is a matter for local authority social services departments and police, with other agencies which have specialist knowledge such as medical services with the national health service.

  Drug Licences
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average test period for new drugs granted a licence in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EC states.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  For the period January 1992 to December 1992, the average gross time taken to grant a product licence for new drugs was 17 months.

  Comparable statistics for other EC states are not available.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to conduct an inquiry into the numbers and causes of deaths among patients on waiting lists for national health service treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Patients may die from a wide range of causes, in common with the rest of the population, while waiting for non-urgent treatment. Emergencies are always treated immediately and patients who need urgent treatment are given priority.

  Data Protection Act 1984
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many certificates have been signed under the terms of section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984 for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  There have been none so far as the Department of Health is concerned.

  Paediatric Waiting Lists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide details of paediatric waiting lists for each of the last five years by region.
  606
  Mr. Sackville
  Waiting time information by speciality is given in "Hospital Waiting Lists, In-patients and Day Cases", published twice a year, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Child Accident Prevention
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is being spent by her Department on child accident prevention in the current financial year.

  Mr. Yeo
  The cost of the accident prevention work carried out within the national health service cannot he precisely calculated. In 1992–93 we awarded a grant of £103,000 per year for three years to the Child Accident Prevention Trust towards its central administrative costs. In 1993–94 we have awarded the trust a project grant of £10,000 per year for three years towards the cost of a project to promote the adoption of accident prevention measures by health and local authorities.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the up-to-date guidance given to GP fund holders about how they construct their budget.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Budget setting guidance was issued in November 1992 under cover of EL (92)83. A copy is available in the Library.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the guidelines for the financial arrangements governing GP fund holders were last updated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The updated general practitioner fund holder manual of accounts was issued in March 1993.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to ensure that GP fund holders' budgets and accounts are kept in a common form.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The general practitioner fund holder manual of accounts sets out the accounting rules to he followed by all fund holders. It includes common formats for monthly budget monitoring reports and annual accounts.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued by her Department to general practitioners wishing to become fund holders with regard to prior consultation with the patients of the practice concerned.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what audit her Department has carried out to assess the quality of patient care administered by general practitioner fund-holding practices and non-fund holding practices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Every family health services authority was required to establish a medical audit advisory group by 1 April 1991 to direct, co-ordinate and monitor medical audit activities within all general medical practices in its area. In exercising their purchasing role, general practitioner fund holders are also subject to monitoring and scrutiny by regional health authorities, which are responsible for the management of the fund-holding scheme.
  607
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department has received from the Audit Commission in relation to its study of GP fund-holding in 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Apart from discharging its statutory audit responsibility, the Audit Commission did not undertake a study of general practitioner fund-holding in 1991–92.

  Hip Replacement
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to issue advice to patients regarding the most reliable hip replacement implants;

  (2) which hip replacement implants which have been used in the NHS in the last 14 years have the highest (a) failure rate and (b) success rate.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the outcome of hip replacement operations is not available centrally. It is the responsibility of clinicians to give advice to patients on the various types of hip implants available, based upon the individual needs of the patient.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tests are carried out on hip replacement implants before they can be marketed.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no statutory requirements for the marketing of hip replacements implants.

  Since 1986, hip implants have been controlled by the voluntary Department of Health manufacturer registration scheme, which requires that new designs should undergo appropriate testing prior to their release for general sale. There are currently 27 registered manufacturers of hip implants and the vast majority of these products implanted in the United Kingdom are from registered sources.

  From 1 January 1995, the European directive on medical devices will place the control of hip implants on a formal statutory basis, and manufacturers will be required to submit details of manufacturing and design to third party assessment.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce a national register of hip replacements and revisions to provide an accurate measure of revision rate.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no such plans. The national reporting and investigation centre, part of the Department, investigates problems with medical devices notified to them by clinicians.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of hip replacement operations carried out in the last 14 years have required revision.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is not possible to identify precisely what proportion of operations required revision, but in 1989–90 and 1990–91 respectively, an estimated 9·6 per cent. and 9·5 per cent. of hip joint replacements were revisions.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what study she has made of the legal settlement reached by Theresa Aspinall and Wigan council in regard to the council's statutory duties under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; what steps she is taking to draw the implications of this case and the settlement for other disabled people to the attention of other local authorities with legal duties under the Act; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have seen a report of this case, indicating that the difficulties have now been resolved. Local authorities are fully aware of their duties under the 1970 Act.

  Wessex RHA (Computers)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on Government policy on the development of the RISP project by Wessex regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  As the district auditor made clear in his report published in July 1992, the RISP project was characterised by a lack of project and management control. The Government accept this judgment, as does Wessex regional health authority, which has taken extensive remedial action.

  The Department launched a national information management and technology strategy in December 1992. A key component is the need for health authorities to assess all proposed IT investment against an approved criteria to ensure that future IM and T investment obtains value for money.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the state of discussions between her Department and the Wessex regional health authority on the RISP project.

  Mr. Sackville
  Officials from the Department continue to have discussions with Wessex regional health authority on a range of matters including RISP, which was abandoned in April 1990.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library all correspondence from Ministers to the Wessex regional health authority on the subject of RISP from 1 January 1989 to the present; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  A copy of the correspondence has been placed in the Library.

  Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a list of the membership of the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs indicating the area of medical expertise of each member.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The names of the members and their areas of medical expertise are:
  609

  Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs Membership

  Name

  Position

  Chairman

  Dr. J. S. Metters

  Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Department of Health.

  Members

  Professor A. M. Breckenridge

  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool.

  Professor C. M. Castleden

  Professor of Medicine for the Elderly, University of Leicester.

  Mr. D. L. Coleman

  Community pharmacist, Norfolk.

  Professor H. D. Edmondson

  Professor of Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine, Dental School, University of Birmingham.

  Dr. P. R. Fellows

  General Practitioner, Gloucestershire, Chairman of Gloucester LMC.

  Professor D. Ganderton

  Visiting Professor in pharmacy, King's College, London. Chairman of the British Pharmacopoeia Commission.

  Miss A. F. Glasier

  Consultant gynaecologist, Director of Family Planning, Lothian Health Board.

  Dr. C. Grattan

  Consultant dermatologist, Norfolk and Norwich Hospital.

  Dr. G. Hargreaves

  Former GP with experience of the Pharmaceutical Industry.

  Dr. I. C. Heath

  General Practitioner, London.

  Professor S. Holgate

  Specialist in allergic disorders, Southampton University.

  Dr. D. F. Jones

  General Practitioner, South Wales.

  Professor R. M. Jones

  Professor of Anaesthetics, St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, London.

  Mr. A. G. Kerr

  Consultant ENT surgeon, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast.

  Mrs. S. Noyce

  Pharmacist adviser to Sefton FHSA.

  Dr. E. M. E. Poskitt

  Senior Lecturer in Child Health, Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital.

  Dr. S. J. Richards

  General Practitioner, Exeter.

  Dr. C. H. Swan

  Consultant physician (gastro-enterology) City General Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent.

  Professor P. J. Tyrer

  Professor of Community Psychiatry, St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, London.

  Dr. D. M. B. Ward

  General Practitioner, Glasgow.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the chairs, executive and non-executive members of English regional health authorities, indicating(a) the gender of each member and (b) which members are direct appointments by the Secretary of State.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All chairmen and non-executive members of the 14 English regional health authorities are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and are as follows. The appointment of executive members is a matter for regional health authorities.

  Northern

  Mr. P. D. Carr (Chairman)

  Mr. A. G. Brown

  Professor Michael Rawlins

  Mr. R. C. Spoor

  Ms J. Flanagan

  Vacancy

  Yorkshire

  Sir Bryan Askew (Chairman)

  Mr. J. A. Fergusson

  Professor Stanley Brown

  Mrs. J. A. Barden

  Mr. M. A. J. Morgan

  Vacancy

  Trent

  Sir Michael Carlisle (Chairman)

  Mr. M. Dassau

  Dr. Kenneth Edwards

  Mrs. P. B. Wildgoose

  Mr. G. R. H. Clemons

  Mr. D. Bertram

  East Anglia

  Sir Colin Walker (Chairman)

  Mrs. J. L. Hopwood

  610

  Professor Sir David Peters

  Mr. J. B. Mowson

  Mr. L. Rice

  Mrs. S. E. Sida-Lockett

  North West Thames

  Sir William Doughty (Chairman)

  Mr. D. Bucks

  Mrs. J. B. Hanham

  Mrs. E. J. Davies

  Professor Stewart Sutherland

  Mr. J. Taylor

  North East Thames

  Sir William Staveley (Chairman)

  Maj. Gen. R. P. W. Wall

  Mr. P. Holwell

  Baroness Gardner of Parkes

  Dr. Mollie McBride

  Vacancy

  South East Thames

  Mr. P. W. Barker (Chairman)

  Mr. A. J. L. Barnes

  Mr. I. D. Gainsford

  Mrs. J. Rodin

  Mr. R. F. Holland

  Mrs. W. Mitchell

  South West Thames

  Professor Marian Hicks (Chairman)

  Dr. Memos Spathis

  Mr. J. R. Harris

  Mr. G. J. Howe

  Mrs. M. McNaughton

  Vacancy

  Wessex

  Sir Robin Buchanan (Chairman)

  Mrs. J. Perons

  Mrs. F. Sheldon

  Mr. R. C. Donnelly

  Mr. A. S. D. Service

  Mr. P. A. Waring

  611
  Oxford

  Dr. J. S. Burgess (Chairman)

  Mr. P. D. M. Gell

  Professor Sir David Weatherall

  Mr. C. J. N. Ward

  Mrs. V. Rubenstein

  Mr. W. A. Rooke

  South Western

  Ms R. Fritchie (Chairman)

  Mr. D. F. Strachan

  Sir John Kingman

  Mr. U. A. Woodburn

  Dame Margaret Fry

  Vacancy

  West Midlands

  Sir Donald Wilson (Chairman)

  Mr. B. Stoten

  Professor Sir Michael Thompson

  Mr. E. M. Worley

  Mr. T. D. Morris

  Ms J. Cravos

  Mersey

  Professor A. M. Breckenridge (Chairman)

  Mrs. R. H. Hawley

  Mr. J. R. Halliday

  Mr. B. Jenkins

  Mrs. J. Timms

  Vacancy

  North Western

  Sir Bruce Martin (Chairman)

  Professor Robert Boyd

  Dr. Arup Banerjee

  Professor Janet Finch

  2 Vacancies

  Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will conduct an urgent review of the funding arrangements of drug and alcohol rehabilitation services.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have no plans at present to conduct such a review.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 February, to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam Lady Olga Maitland,Official Report, column 202, if she will make it a requirement to register patients suffering from schizophrenia.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have no plans for this type of registration. District health authorities, in collaboration with local social services departments, are required to initiate individually tailored care programmes for all in-patients about to be discharged from mental illness hospitals and all new patients accepted by the specialist psychiatric services.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what communications she has had with the World Health Organisation on schizophrenia.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has regular contact with the World Health Organisation to discuss issues of common concern and exchange information on mental health issues including schizophrenia.

  Care Providers
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to establish minimum national standards of care for care providers.

  Mr. Yeo
  Standards in social care are set in legislation, in codes of practice and formal guidance, and increasingly through contract specification. There are no plans to replace this wide range of controls with a single set of national minimum standards.

  Community Care
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to monitor the way community care is being implemented in practice;

  (2) if she has any plans to review the amount of money that has been allocated to local authorities to provide community care.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 10 November 1992, column 772.

  Health Visitors
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what security measures will be adopted to protect health visitors who visit drug or alcohol users in their homes as part of the community care programme; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The security measures provided to support health visitors in the course of their employment are a matter for their employing authorities. We would expect procedures to be agreed locally to take account of all potentially dangerous situations.

  Hospital Services
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being undertaken or commissioned by her Department or the NHS management executive on the possibility of charging for any hospital services.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to monitor the availability of drug and alcohol rehabilitation services following the full implementation of community care.

  Mr. Yeo
  Goldsmiths' college has been commissioned to undertake a special exercise to monitor the impact of community care on independent sector providers of services to alcohol and drugs misusers. Monthly progress reports will ensure that the Government have information on how these service providers will be affected by the implementation of community care.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she is taking to ensure that guidance issued by her Department to local authorities regarding assessment, admission and fast track procedures for people with drug and alcohol problems is being adhered to.
  613
  Mr. Yeo
  Two guidance circulars have been issued to local authorities which address the needs of this client group: LAC(93)2, which encourages local authorities to pay particular attention to the needs of alcohol and drug misusers within community care, and LAC(93)7, which addresses the question of local authority responsibility for clients whose "ordinary residence" is in their area.

  In addition we have asked the local authority associations to collaborate with independent sector providers in the development of good practice advice on fast track assessment and out-of-area referrals. This was circulated to local authorities on 26 March 1993.

  The performance of local authorities in implementing community care is being monitored by the social services inspectorate.

  Needs Assessment
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to rescind guidelines that were issued to local authorities that the extent of a person's needs should not be assessed unless those needs could be met.

  Mr. Yeo
  No such guidelines have been issued.

  Miss Gibelli
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what inquiries she has made into the circumstances under which Miss Gibelli(a) was taken into a public house and (b) escaped whilst on a visit to the ideal home exhibition while under the secure custody of her Department.

  Mr. Yeo
  As soon as officials from the national health service management executive were made aware of these events they contacted clinicians and managers and obtained full details of the circumstances of the two incidents referred to. Ministers have been kept informed.

  AIDS
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each London borough bid for AIDS support grant for 1993–94; and how much they were awarded.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table. For comparison purposes, details of 1992–93 allocations are also provided.

  1993–94

  1993–94

  1992–93

  Bid

  Allocation

  Allocation

  £

  £

  £

  Barking and Dagenham

  28,396

  28,000

  32,236

  Barnet

  45,277

  40,000

  40,000

  Bexley

  47,643

  46,000

  46,000

  Brent

  429,500

  400,000

  400,000

  Bromley

  43,260

  30,000

  10,500

  Camden

  745,396

  745,000

  730,000

  City of London

  49,990

  47,000

  47,000

  Croydon

  88,406

  49,000

  49,000

  Ealing

  311,200

  290,000

  290,000

  Enfield

  74,170

  50,000

  50,000

  Greenwich

  348,025

  190,000

  190,000

  Hackney

  549,200

  468,000

  460,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,155,000

  1,155,000

  1,129,000

  Haringey

  593,522

  562,000

  500,000

  Harrow

  45,960

  42,000

  42,000

  Havering

  16,100

  16,000

  —

  Hillingdon

  369,330

  120,000

  120,000

  Hounslow

  423,967

  320,000

  320,000

  Islington

  475,693

  360,000

  360,000

  614

  1993–94

  1993–94

  1992–93

  Bid

  Allocation

  Allocation

  £

  £

  £

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,041,000

  988,000

  970,000

  Kingston Upon Thames

  43,871

  43,000

  64,000

  Lambeth

  1,341,600

  948,000

  930,000

  Lewisham

  299,000

  245,000

  240,000

  Merton

  118,146

  66,000

  66,000

  Newham

  411,248

  300,000

  250,000

  Redbridge

  56,371

  30,000

  15,374

  Richmond Upon Thames

  225,000

  220,000

  200,000

  Southwark

  451,200

  355,000

  300,000

  Sutton

  67,916

  57,000

  57,000

  Tower Hamlets

  609,300

  500,000

  481,000

  Waltham Forest

  288,680

  140,000

  135,000

  Wandsworth

  215,614

  190,000

  188,000

  Westminster

  988,838

  958,000

  940,000

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the administrative costs in each of the national health service regions in each year since 1987–88(a) in cash prices, (b) in 1987–88 prices and (c) as a percentage of total expenditure.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 17 March 1993]: Figures for headquarters administration for hospital and community health services in England have been placed in the Library.

  The figures for 1991–92 are provisional and are not comparable with those for earlier years. They include health authorities' expenditure on the purchaser function and, for some regions, other significant costs.

  Wolds Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prison service practice or procedures are not required to be followed by the contractor under the terms of the contract of HM prison Wolds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the prison service. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 April 1993.

  PRISON SERVICE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES AT HM PRISON WOLDS

  The Secretary of State has asked me to write to you directly in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking which Prison Service practices or procedures do not have to be followed by the contractor at HM Prison Wolds.

  2. In response to an earlier Question answered on 23 March, the Minister of State supplied you with a list of Prison Service practices and procedures which Wolds management must follow under the contract. The contractor is bound by the Prison Act 1952, the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the Prison Rules 1964 as amended and the contract. But beyond those items listed in the earlier reply, which are mandatory under the contract, he does not have to follow any other Prison Service practices or procedures. These are numerous and are contained in standing orders, circular instructions, various manuals and other forms of advice to governors. I am afraid that we do not have a consolidated compilation of all this material and it would not be practicable to list it all out. It is up to contractors to draw up their own such instructions.

  Foreign Nationals
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals were held(a) on remand and (b) sentenced in each prison in March; what proportion of these were men; and how many came from (i) Nigeria, (ii) Ghana, (iii) other African countries, (iv) Columbia, (v) other South and Central American countries, (vi) India, (vii) Pakistan, (viii) Bangladesh, (ix) the Irish Republic, (x) the United States of America, (xi) the Netherlands, (xii) other European countries, (xiii) the middle east and (xiv) Jamaica.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the prison service. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 April 1993.

  I have been asked to reply to your question about the numbers of unconvicted and sentenced men and women in our prisons broken down by nationality.

  The latest available provisional figures are for 28 February and are given in the table, which has been placed in the Library.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals were in British prisons for drug-related offences in March; and what proportion this represents of all those in prison for drugs-related offences.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the prison service. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 April 1993.

  I have been asked to reply to your question about foreign nationals in British prisons for drugs-related offences.

  The latest available provisional figures are for 28 February and cover just over 90 per cent. of the prison population. On that date about 680 foreign nationals were recorded centrally as being under sentence for drugs offences in England and Wales, excluding any where drugs offences were not the principal offence. They accounted for 27 per cent. of the total population under sentence for drugs offences. The nationality of some further 70 prisoners under sentence for drugs offences was not recorded.

  Prisoners
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to implement the recommendation in the Woolf report that there should be a new prison rule that no establishment should hold prisoners in excess of its certified normal accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the prison service. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 April 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question, for priority written answer on 14 April, on the implementation of the Woolf report recommendation on overcrowding.

  The recommendation was for there to be a Prison Rule that no establishment should hold more prisoners than is
  616
  provided for in its certified normal level of accommodation, with provision for Parliament to be informed if exceptionally there is to be a material departure from that rule. It was decided however that it would not be practicable to operate such a system at this stage. Instead the Prison Service has improved the overcrowding information provided for Parliament (see annexes 4 and 5 of the Report of the Work of the Prison Service April 1991-March 1992, cm 2087).

  As the white paper on Custody, Care and Justice (cm 1647) explained, the Prison Service plans to provide an estate able to operate in equilibrium without particular prisons or areas suffering from overcrowding. A significant improvement in the situation has already taken place. There are at present nearly 3,000 vacancies in the estate as a whole. Overcrowding is now largely confined to the older local prisons and remand centres and further expansion of this part of the estate is planned. In addition the actual level of overcrowding being experienced has been greatly reduced in recent years. The Prison Service's business plan also includes a commitment to end trebling in cells by the end of March 1994.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) Indian, (b) Pakistani, (c) Bangladeshi, (d) Afro-Caribbean and (e) other ethnic minority people were (i) on remand and (ii) sentenced in each prison in March; and how many in each case were (x) men and (y) women.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the prison service. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 April 1993.

  I have been asked to reply to your question about numbers of unconvicted and convicted men and women in our prisons broken down by nationality.

  The latest available provisional figures are for 28 February and arc given in the table which has been placed in the Library.

  Woolf Report
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to date to implement the recommendations of the Woolf report; and what steps he intends to take to implement its outstanding recommendations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the prison service. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 April 1993.

  Implementation of the Woolf Report

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about the steps taken to implement the recommendations of the Woolf Report.

  The Government's response to the Woolf Report is set out in its White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" (Cm 1647), published in September 1991. This described an ambitious programme of reforms. Our progress in implementing these is set out in the Home Secretary's letter of 8 February responding to Mr. Amess' Question on 14 January, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Our plans for the future are set out in the Prison Service's Corporate Plan, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. This makes it clear that one of the Service's key themes for the next three years will be the implementation of futher reforms flowing from the White Paper.

  Re-offenders
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about re-offending rates for(a) men and (b) women who have served a prison sentence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on reconviction rates of those who have served a prison sentence is published regularly. The latest figures can be found in chapter 9 of "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1989", Cm 1221. Of those discharged in 1986, 63 per cent. of male young offenders, 42 per cent. of adult males and 34 per cent. of adult females were convicted of a further standard list offence within two years of release.

  Prison Accommodation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the certified normal level of accommodation for each prison in England and Wales; and what was the actual population for each prison in March.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the prison service. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 April:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question, for priority written answer on 14 April, on CNA and population.

  The attached table shows certified normal accommodation (CNA) and population for all Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 31 March 1993.

  Establishment CNA and Population figures for 31 March 1993

  Establishment

  CNA

  Population

  Acklington

  676

  545

  Albany

  222

  241

  Aldington

  133

  81

  Ashwell

  404

  378

  Askham Grange

  129

  81

  Aylesbury

  241

  218

  Bedford

  170

  244

  Belmarsh

  841

  671

  Birmingham

  638

  844

  Blantyre House

  95

  94

  Blundeston

  338

  312

  Brinsford

  336

  386

  Bristol

  374

  418

  Brixton

  621

  633

  Brockhill

  156

  148

  Bullingdon

  635

  433

  Bullwood Hall

  125

  104

  Camp Hill

  481

  327

  Canterbury

  104

  179

  Cardiff

  328

  395

  Castington

  300

  214

  Channings Wood

  594

  502

  Chelmsford

  244

  305

  Coldingley

  222

  129

  Cookham Wood

  120

  104

  Dartmoor

  560

  490

  Deerbolt

  432

  325

  Dorchester

  136

  179

  Dover

  316

  160

  Downview

  286

  279

  Drake Hall

  255

  121

  Durham

  364

  492

  East Sutton Park

  85

  74

  Elmley

  635

  614

  618

  Establishment

  CNA

  Population

  Erlestoke

  206

  203

  Everthorpe

  228

  219

  Exeter

  317

  357

  Featherstone

  599

  549

  Feltham

  874

  731

  Finnamore Wood

  112

  63

  Ford

  536

  389

  Frankland

  339

  297

  Full Sutton

  494

  426

  Garth

  512

  505

  Gartree

  258

  236

  Glen Parva

  854

  702

  Gloucester

  207

  220

  Grendon

  216

  182

  Guys Marsh

  300

  143

  Haslar

  136

  134

  Hatfield

  180

  124

  Haverigg

  345

  318

  Hewell Grange

  136

  154

  High Down

  485

  450

  Highpoint

  679

  525

  Hindley

  317

  305

  Hollesley Bay

  629

  265

  Holloway

  517

  436

  Holme House

  649

  520

  Hull

  269

  358

  Huntercombe

  240

  167

  Kingston

  104

  93

  Kirkham

  644

  465

  Kirklevington

  30

  33

  Lancaster

  186

  241

  Lancaster Farms

  115

  120

  Latchmere House

  131

  122

  Leeds

  591

  816

  Leicester

  194

  318

  Lewes

  258

  334

  Leyhill

  410

  415

  Lincoln

  444

  589

  Lindholme

  706

  569

  Littlehey

  543

  520

  Liverpool

  931

  1,224

  Long Lartin

  362

  334

  Low Newton

  199

  228

  Maidstone

  513

  493

  Manchester

  291

  315

  Moorland

  641

  572

  Morton Hall

  168

  164

  The Mount

  484

  424

  New Hall

  122

  130

  North Sea Camp

  204

  198

  Northallerton

  146

  187

  Norwich

  429

  409

  Nottingham

  218

  210

  Onley

  456

  377

  Parkhurst

  286

  204

  Pentonville

  695

  633

  Portland

  424

  328

  Prescoed

  20

  20

  Preston

  324

  484

  Pucklechurch

  56

  50

  Ranby

  331

  275

  Reading

  182

  174

  Risley

  692

  565

  Rochester

  303

  182

  Rudgate

  300

  279

  Send

  113

  107

  Shepton Mallet

  158

  194

  Shrewsbury

  168

  286

  Spring Hill

  210

  203

  Stafford

  476

  524

  Standford Hill

  384

  325

  Stocken

  396

  387

  Stoke Heath

  300

  275

  Styal

  180

  166

  Sudbury

  509

  432

  Swaleside

  504

  486

  Swansea

  213

  234

  Swinfen Hall

  167

  161

  619

  Establishment

  CNA

  Population

  Thorn Cross

  240

  221

  Thorp Arch

  166

  158

  Usk

  221

  179

  The Verne

  552

  487

  Wakefield

  662

  649

  Wandsworth

  965

  772

  Wayland

  580

  485

  Wellingborough

  284

  282

  Werrington

  110

  106

  Wetherby

  120

  105

  Whatton

  217

  212

  Whitemoor

  534

  469

  Winchester

  355

  329

  The Wolds

  320

  309

  Woodhill

  492

  458

  Wormwood Scrubs

  472

  506

  Wymott

  816

  671

  Squatting
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to announce changes to the legislation on squatting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to his question of 3 February at column 203. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes that he will be in a position to announce his proposals on squatting shortly.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the responses to the consultation paper on squatting.

  Mr. Jack
  I have already given a general account of the response made to the consultation paper in my reply of 17 June 1992 to a question from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) at column 522. Respondents were not asked to agree to publication when their comments were invited. It would not therefore be appropriate to publish the 216 replies which we received.

  Police Training College
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would be the security implications of contracting out the police training college; and what safeguards would be introduced.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Careful consideration will be given to any security implications before a decision is made to contract out any of the services which are currently provided by the police staff college.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff who have in the past been employed in the market testing unit at the Home Office and who were involved in the commissioning of the Coopers and Lybrand study of 1992 into businesses suitable for market testing now work for Coopers and Lybrand; and when those appointments were referred to the Permanent Secretary.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We are aware of only one, whose appointment was referred under the normal procedures to my right hon. and learned Friend in October 1992. The civil service cannot apply blanket bans of the subsequent 620
  employment of people who leave the civil service but if the hon. Member is seeking to imply that there was anything irregular or unusual in this case I strongly refute that implication.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given since 3 February to whether the 1993–94 market testing programme should continue in its originally planned form.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A provisional Home Office market testing programme for 1993–94 has been drawn up. Once the details have been finalised, we will make an announcement in the summer.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the provisional market testing list for the period September 1993 to March 1995; and what is the current annual cost of each function.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. I intend to announce in the summer the Home Office programme for the period October 1993 to September 1994.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps will be taken to ensure that operation and financial matters of any function will remain accountable to Parliament in the event of the contracting out of any Home Office function during the market testing period September 1993 to March 1995.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Subject to respect for commercial confidentiality, contracting out does not affect accountability to Parliament for services provided by the Home Office.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation there has been with Home Office unions since the market testing initiative of January 1992; whether the Home Office has published a code of practice on market testing consultation; and whether the first draft of any such document has been issued to the staff associations.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There have been consultations with Home Office unions, including a meeting of the market testing sub-committee of the Home Office departmental Whitley Council. A draft code of practice has been produced and consultation with the unions continues.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on the Home Office functions that are to be market tested during 1993–94.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We consult Home Office legal advisers as necessary about the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a comprehensive list of all Home Office functions which will be market tested during 1993 and 1994; and if he will give details of the savings he expects to make or has set as a target.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We have drawn up a provisional Home Office market testing programme for 1993–94, but I
  621
  propose to consider it further before finalising it. The functions being market tested to 30 September 1993 were published on 25 November 1992 in the "Citizen's Charter First Report: 1992".

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost to the Home Office of defending the judicial review in respect of the contracting out of prison education.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The application by Kent county council for judicial review of decisions taken by the Department on competitive tendering for the future provision of education services in prison establishments in England and Wales has yet to be heard. To date, additional legal costs of just over £8,000 have been incurred by the prison service in connection with the action.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are employed in the market testing unit at the Home Office for the latest date available; and how may of them are legally trained.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  On Tuesday 6 April 1993 the equivalent of 41·7 full-time staff were employed in the Home Office market testing unit. None has any legal training but they consult Home Office legal staff as necessary on legal problems.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would be the security implications of contracting out the police national computer organisation; and what safeguards would be introduced.

  Applications by Somali nationals for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and decisions, 1990 to 1992

  Number of principal applicants

  Applications received

  Decisions1

  Year

  Total applications

  Applied at Port

  Applied in country

  Total decisions

  Recognised as refugee and granted asylum

  Not recognised as refugee, but granted exceptional leave2

  Refusals

  Total refused

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after determination

  Refused on safe third country grounds3

  Refused under para 101 of Immigration Rules4 5

  1990

  1,920

  1,440

  475

  380

  280

  75

  25

  25

  ..

  ..

  1991

  1,995

  910

  1,085

  380

  160

  180

  45

  20

  20

  ..

  61992

  1,575

  890

  685

  2,550

  25

  2,210

  320

  *

  50

  270

  1 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  2 Where it would have been unreasonable or impractical to seek to enforce return to country of origin.

  3 Figures from 1 January 1991 only. Prior to this, these refusals are included in the column "Refused asylum and exceptional leave after determination".

  4 For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to two invitations to interview to establish identity.

  5 Figures from 1 December 1991 only. Prior to this, these refusals are included in the column "Refused asylum and exceptional leave after determination".

  6At end 1992, 2,755 applications were outstanding.

  Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2, and = not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dependants of Somali asylum seekers have been granted residence in the United Kingdom(a) within the rules and (b) exceptionally for each of the past three years

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on acceptances for settlement of dependants of persons who had applied for asylum is not identified separatley in the statistics.
  622
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  If, as a result of the market testing programme, the operation of the Hendon data centre, which is responsible for maintaining the police national computer service, is contracted out, the contract will be placed only with an organisation which is able to maintain at least the present levels of security. The security requirements will be specified in detail if and when bids for the contract are invited.

  Emergency Planning Strategy
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend London's emergency planning strategy; and what plans he has to give the LFCDA extra emergency planning powers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Draft new civil defence regulations were published last December and comments received are being considered. We have no plans to give the LFCDA extra emergency planning powers.

  Emergency plans are drawn up locally by the emergency services, local authorities and other agencies where necessary. The authorities in London have recently agreed, and published, a major disaster plan.

  Somali Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the total numbers of Somali asylum seekers for each of the past three years who have(a) been granted refugee status, (b) been given exceptional leave and (c) leave pending his consideration.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information for 1990–92 (excluding dependants) on applications for asylum by Somali nationals, and on decisions, is given in the table. No applicant is required to leave the United Kingdom until his case has been decided.

  Data Protection Act 1984
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many certificates have been signed under the terms of section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984 for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am aware of none so far as the Home Office is concerned.

  Burglaries
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 1101, if he will give details of the 90 per cent. reduction in burglary in the Sparkbrook area that he quoted.

  Mr. Jack
  The reduction in question occurred on the Primrose estate in the hon. member's constituency. I regret that I mistakenly referred to Sparkbrook in my previous answer.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to amend the provisions in the Criminal Justice Acts concerning video-taped evidence in child abuse cases;

  (2) how many representations he has received concerning the use of video-taped evidence in child abuse hearings.

  Mr. Jack
  Since October 1992, section 54 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 has allowed for video recordings of interviews with children to be admitted as evidence-in-chief in certain criminal proceedings. My Department regularly receives requests for advice both orally and in writing about the operation of this provision. The general impression which they give is that the changes introduced by the Act command widespread support. We have also recently received representations from the NSPCC generally about the needs of abused children in the legal process.

  Although we have no present plans to amend the Act, we have commissioned independent research into the use of video recorded evidence from children in criminal proceedings. We will review the current law in the light of the results of that research and of any representations made to us.

  Safer Cities
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if local authorities are being encouraged to apply for safer city project funding.

  Mr. Jack
  In areas which have safer cities projects, local authorities may apply for grant support to assist with the implementation of local crime prevention initiatives. The safer cities progress report for 1991–92 shows that, since grant funding began in April 1989, £5·3 million out of a total of £16 million has been paid to local authorities for this purpose.

  It is the Government's intention to expand the safer cities programme in line with my statement of 7 January. I am not yet in a position to provide further details of the arrangements for the next phase. However, I would expect local authorities to continue to benefit from safer cities grant funding.

  Domestic Fires
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of fires have occurred in(a) furnished rented accommodation in a single family dwelling and (b) furnished accommodation in houses in multiple occupation since March 1988.
  624
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not collected in the form requested. The table gives the available information on dwelling fires attended by local authority fire brigades in the United Kingdom from April 1988 to the end of 1991.

  Table

  Dwelling fires attended by local authority fire brigades1 in the United Kingdom by occupancy

  April-December 1988, 1989–91

  Year

  Single occupier dwellings2 3

  Multiple occupation

  Houses2

  Other dwellings3

  April-December

  1988

  26,084

  4,411

  13,665

  1989

  34,947

  6,466

  19,048

  1990

  33,535

  6,433

  18,895

  19914

  33,876

  6,466

  19,166

  Source: Home Office Fire Statistics, based on reports from local authority fire brigades.

  2 Includes detached, semi-detached and terraced houses.

  3 Includes flats and maisonettes, etc.

  4 1991 is the latest year for which data are available.

  Body Searches
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of methods for the detection of weapons, metal implements, drugs or explosives concealed within a person's clothing or body as an alternative to strip searching.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The police scientific development branch, on behalf of the Home Office, has carried out extensive research into the effectiveness of metal detectors. A hand-held search tool exists which will locate metal objects which are concealed under clothing when run over the body of a fully clothed person. However, trials have shown that this machine is unable to detect syringe needles and the police scientific development branch has been commissioned to consider a design for a hand-held device which will be capable of detecting them.

  There are methods to detect whether people have been in contact with explosives or drugs, but these do not establish whether an individual is still in possession of them.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the appointments made by him as listed in "Public Bodies 1992" came within the categories set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and required a submission to the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Eight.

  American Visitors (Ethical Beliefs)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to question passengers on arrival from the USA on their ethical beliefs, and to deny entry to any person who sanctions the use of violence in pursuit of their anti-abortion beliefs.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is not generally the practice of the immigration service to question passengers about their ethical beliefs and it would be both oppressive and
  625
  impractical to require them routinely to do so. The immigration piles provide that a passenger requiring leave to enter, except the wife or child under 18 of a person settled in the United Kingdom, may be refused entry on the ground that his exclusion is conducive to the public good. This may arise either because my right hon. and learned Friend has personally so directed or where, from information available to the immigration officer, it seems right to refuse leave to enter on that ground. These powers will continue to be exercised in appropriate cases.

  Entry Decisions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make it his practice to disclose the reasons why individual passengers have been admitted, or refused entry, to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to change existing practice. Reasons for. the grant or refusal of leave to enter are normally only given to the individual concerned or his nominated representative. We do however reserve the right to comment on the reasons for any decision where the person affected by it has sought to publicise the matter, or where it appears to be in the public interest to do so.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment Tribunal
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the total cost to 31 December 1992 of cases brought(a) against local authorities, (b) other public bodies and (c) private businesses, alleging religious and political discrimination, since the establishment of the Fair Employment Tribunal.

  Mr. Atkins
  Estimates cannot be provided as no information is available on the total costs to parties involved in such cases.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed by(a) the Industrial Development Board and (b) the Local Enterprise Development Unit.

  Mr. Atkins
  At 31 March 1993 the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland employed directly 387 people, including 10 on a part-time basis, and the Local Enterprise Development Unit 232 people, including three on a part-time basis.

  Infant Mortality Rates
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the perinatal and infant mortality rates for Northern Ireland within the last year up to the present date.

  Mr. Hanley
  Mortality rates are determined and recorded by calender year. For 1992, the perinatal mortality rate was 8·2 per 1,000 total births. This rate includes still-births of 24 to 27 completed weeks' gestation registered from 1 October 1992, when the gestation period was reduced to 24 weeks. For 1992, the infant mortality rate was 6·0 per 1,000 live births.

  General Consumer Council
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed by the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  Eight full-time and two part-time staff.

  Road Gritting
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent by the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment on road gritting in the province during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:

  Financial Year

  Amount (£ million)

  1988–89

  22·2

  1989–90

  22·7

  1990–91

  24·0

  1991–92

  32·8

  11992–93

  33·3

  1Provisional.

  2including VAT.

  3Excluding VAT.

  EC Secondments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 559, how many of those who have completed their secondment to the European Commission or UKREP are still employed by his Department.

  Mr. Mates
  All the officers who have completed their period of secondment to the EC Commission or UKREP are still employed by the Northern Ireland civil service.

  One officer, having completed the maximum three years period allowed for detached national experts, was given special leave from the NICS to enable him to continue working for the Commission for a further period of five years. The officer is expected to return to the NICS on completion of his current contract with the Commission.

  Another officer was also given special leave to enable him to undertake a period contract with the Northern Ireland centre in Europe, which is located in Brussels.

  Deaths on Duty
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) soldiers, (b) policemen and (c) civil servants have been killed on duty in Northern Ireland during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Mates
  A total of 76 police officers and 71 soldiers have been killed on duty in Northern Ireland in terrorist-related incidents in the period from 1 January 1983 to 31 December 1992. Information on civil servants killed is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Investment
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many international firms are employed by the department of commerce, directly or indirectly through Government Departments, to promote investment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland, acting through the Department of Economic Development, has responsibility for attracting inward investment to Northern Ireland. Across its global target markets, the IDB currently employs the services of:

  (a) three international public relation firms to promote Northern Ireland as an inward investment location. These are, Kommunikation and Burson-Marsteller in Germany; Burson-Marsteller in Korea; and K-Concepts in Taiwan. In both the United States and Japan the selection of a PR agency is underway at present and appointments are expected to be made shortly; and

  (b) two promotional support agencies who represent IDB in Asia Pacific and Brussels. These are Torne Investments Ltd. in Japan and Brussels and Jadehouse Investment Ltd. in Taiwan.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what efforts have been made to attract industrial development to Northern Ireland from the United States of America within the past four years; and what have been the results of such efforts.

  Mr. Atkins
  The search for new investment is spearheaded by IDB staff located in the USA. Until March
  629
  1990 the small team in New York was complemented by other Northern Ireland staff assigned to the British consulate general network throughout the USA.

  With effect from April 1990 Northern Ireland established its own network of offices in New York, Los Angeles and a headquarters in Chicago reflecting the main centres of manufacture within the USA.

  The core work of identifying and meeting potential investors is supported by a continuing promotional programme of cultivation of media, trade organisations and other key business contacts aimed at raising the profile of IDB activities within the USA.

  In the past four years IDB representatives have visited 1,019 companies and encouraged 248 potential investors to visit Northern Ireland. Five major projects entailing an investment to £189 million and promoting 1,600 new jobs have been announced in the last four years.

  In addition to the search for new investors close contact is maintained with the parent companies of the 34 United States-owned operations in Northern Ireland with a view to encouraging further investment. In the past four years 14 of these companies committed to investment programmes totalling £250 million which will provide 1,200 new jobs and safeguard a further 1,850 jobs.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements are made by his Department for publishing information about financial assistance to industry within Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mates
  The Department of Economic Development has available a wide range of publications on financial assistance which is available to industry. These are obtainable from the DED businesses—the Industrial Development Board, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the Training and Employment Agency, the Northern Ireland tourist board, the Industrial Research and Technology Unit and the Energy Efficiency Service.

  The Department of Agriculture produces a wide range of information on the financial assistance available to the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland. This can be obtained from the Department's headquarters or from local county agricultural development offices. The Department also issues press releases on schemes of financial assistance when these are introduced or modified. In addition, the Department is currently updating its "At Your Service" booklet, a guide to the Department's services including financial assistance available and points of contact for further information.

  Belfast Harbour
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the size of the Belfast harbour estate; and how many persons are employed therein.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Belfast harbour estate comprises 765 hectares of land and 440 hectares of water. Approximately 17,000 people are employed therein.

  Prison Visits
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total sum of public money paid in social benefits to dependent relatives resident in Northern Ireland for the purpose of prison visits in Great Britain.
  630
  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie, who wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 6 April.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Peter Robinson dated 6 April 1993:

  As I am responsible for Social Security operational matters your recent Parliamentary Question on the amount of benefit paid to dependent relatives resident in Northern Ireland for the purpose of prison visits in Great Britain has been passed to me for reply.

  During the twelve months ended 31 December 1992 there was a total sum of £30,730 paid under the Prison Visits scheme to people visiting relatives in prisons in Great Britain.

  I hope you find this information helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the official report and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Housing
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present number of first and second preference applicants on the waiting list for each Northern Ireland Housing Executive estate in the borough of Castlereagh.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am advised by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that at 1 March 1993 the information was as follows:

  Number of first and second preference applicants

  Estate

  1st preference applicants

  2nd preference applicants

  Housing Executive District—Castlereagh 1

  Ballybeen

  80

  20

  Braniel

  92

  54

  Brooklands

  3

  9

  Coronation Park

  5

  1

  Geary Road

  0

  1

  Mawhinney Park

  0

  3

  Moatview Park

  3

  4

  Tullycarnet

  25

  17

  Vionville Rural Cottages

  4

  1

  Any estate in District

  17

  9

  Housing Executive District—Castlereagh 2

  Belvoir

  177

  107

  Bests hill

  2

  2

  Carryduff

  41

  31

  Castlereagh

  20

  37

  Cregagh

  174

  107

  Downshire Park

  3

  7

  Labourers Cottages Rural Area

  4

  0

  Milltown Gray's Park

  1

  4

  Milltown/Shaw's Bridge

  2

  15

  Moneyrea

  6

  7

  Newtownbreda Village

  31

  47

  Rosewood Park, Castlereagh

  4

  5

  Ryan Park, Castlereagh

  1

  5

  Sunderland Road Flats

  2

  7

  Any estate in District

  22

  7

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate has been made of the number of squatters in each of the Cregagh, Ballybeen, Belvoir, Tullycarnet, Downshire, Braniel, Carryduff and Twinbrook estates; and what percentage these squats represent of the total housing stock in each estate.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I am advised by its chief executive
  631
  that at 1 March 1993 there were no squatters in Cregagh, Ballybeen, Belvoir, Tullycarnet, Downshire, Braniel or Carryduff estates. There were 44 squatters in the Twinbrook estate which represents 3·2 per cent. of the total housing stock in that estate.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons are employed in the special debt recovery unit of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; and how many staff go out to tenants to collect rent arrears.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am advised by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that the executive does not maintain a special debt recovery unit.

  The executive employs 486 housing officers in its offices throughout the Province to deal with estate management issues, including arrears recovery.

  Transport
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed by(a) Ulsterbus, (b) Citybus, (c) Flexibus and (d) Northern Ireland Railways.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am advised by the companies that the number of people employed by them at 31 March 1993 were:

  Number

  Ulsterbus

  2,107

  Citybus

  751

  Flexibus

  34

  Northern Ireland Railways

  805

  Assistance to Industry
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Government or Government agency loans to industry have been written off and what was the total amount involved, in each of the last six years; and how many firms were involved.

  Mr. Atkins
  The numbers and amounts of loans to industry written off in each of the last six years were as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of loans written off

  Total amount

  Number of firms involved

  £

  1987–88

  30

  928,534

  30

  1988–89

  10

  77,020

  10

  1989–90

  10

  1391,212,635

  10

  1990–91

  38

  2,101,612

  38

  1991–92

  38

  399,722

  38

  1992–93

  57

  2432,744,752

  57

  Notes

  1 Includes £390 million written off in respect of Short Bros Plc.

  2 Includes £414,895,848 written off in respect of Harland and Wolff Plc and £17,370,632 in respect of Lear Fan Ltd.

  The amounts given for each year are for principal only and do not include interest which in some cases was also written off.
  632

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the daily or weekly cost of maintaining a person in(a) a young offenders centre, (b) borstal or (c) prison.

  Mr. Mates
  The average weekly costs in 1991–92, the last year for which confirmed figures are available, and excluding headquarters and other central costs which cannot be readily attributed to individual prison establishments, were as follows:

  Per week

  (i) Young Offenders Centre

  £880

  (ii) Prison

  £1,279

  The cost for the young offenders centre relates specifically to the male young offenders centre at Hydebank Wood; female young offenders are located in Maghaberry prison and separate figures could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  There is no borstal in Northern Ireland.

  Roads
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on(a) road construction and (b) road maintenance in Northern Ireland each year since 1988; and how much is budgeted for 1993.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:

  (a)

  (b)

  Financial Year

  Road Construction Expenditure £ million

  Road Maintenance Expenditure £ million

  1988–89

  319·5

  354·3

  1989–90

  325·2

  363·1

  1990–91

  324·9

  367·8

  1991–92

  428·3

  462·2

  11992–93

  424·0

  465·1

  21993–94

  435·1

  463·4

  1 Provisional.

  2 Planned.

  3 Including VAT.

  4 Excluding VAT.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in Northern Ireland receive more than £100 per week in respect of invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie, who wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 6 April.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Peter Robinson, dated 6 April 1993:

  As I am responsible for Social Security operational matters your recent Parliamentary Question on the number of persons receiving more than £100.00 per week in respect of Invalidity Benefit has been passed to me for reply.
  633
  At 1 April 1993 the number of people in Northern Ireland receiving more than £100.00 per week Invalidity Benefit was 8,559.

  I hope you find this helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the official report and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future role of the Sports Council for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland is a statutory body which operates under the provisions of the Recreation and Youth Service (NI) Order 1986. Under the order, it has duties related to the promotion of sport and physical recreation in Northern Ireland. In addition,

  Permanent

  Temporary

  Totals

  Non-Manual

  Manual

  Non-Manual

  Manual

  Non-Manual

  Manual

  Total

  District Council

  F/T

  P/T

  F/T

  P/T

  F/T

  P/T

  F/T

  P/T

  Antrim

  49

  6

  89

  5

  5

  1

  22

  1

  61

  117

  178

  Ards

  85

  16

  135

  43

  3

  19

  7

  12

  123

  197

  320

  Armagh

  106

  6

  74

  11

  9

  5

  19

  2

  126

  106

  232

  Ballymena

  164

  3

  118

  33

  15

  7

  28

  2

  189

  181

  370

  Ballymoney

  30

  3

  47

  16

  3

  —

  4

  —

  36

  67

  103

  Banbridge

  34

  1

  38

  14

  6

  —

  8

  30

  41

  90

  131

  Belfast

  814

  81

  1,127

  200

  62

  17

  197

  39

  974

  1,563

  2,537

  Carrickfergus

  53

  6

  79

  16

  —

  —

  2

  3

  59

  100

  159

  Castlereagh

  123

  10

  118

  103

  2

  1

  4

  56

  136

  281

  417

  Coleraine

  61

  9

  116

  42

  5

  1

  31

  8

  76

  197

  273

  Cookstown

  29

  3

  57

  10

  1

  1

  2

  —

  34

  69

  103

  Craigavon

  151

  6

  187

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  157

  194

  351

  Derry

  191

  8

  267

  24

  9

  2

  23

  38

  210

  352

  562

  Down

  124

  4

  121

  21

  7

  10

  16

  108

  145

  266

  411

  Dungannon

  35

  —

  80

  23

  5

  1

  31

  —

  41

  134

  175

  Fermanagh

  75

  5

  100

  15

  11

  —

  20

  36

  91

  171

  262

  Larne

  28

  1

  89

  18

  —

  —

  12

  6

  29

  125

  154

  Limavady

  31

  1

  59

  11

  3

  —

  23

  7

  35

  100

  135

  Lisburn

  118

  13

  134

  20

  2

  1

  22

  —

  134

  176

  310

  Magherafelt

  27

  7

  70

  38

  1

  —

  1

  5

  35

  114

  149

  Moyle

  20

  1

  45

  4

  2

  —

  5

  8

  23

  62

  85

  Newry & Mourne

  85

  2

  154

  23

  11

  2

  41

  1

  100

  219

  319

  Newtownabbey

  109

  18

  139

  34

  4

  31

  42

  31

  162

  246

  408

  North Down

  89

  9

  156

  28

  1

  3

  20

  8

  102

  212

  314

  Omagh

  140

  —

  60

  25

  38

  13

  141

  50

  191

  276

  467

  Strabane

  42

  2

  75

  15

  4

  1

  10

  1

  49

  101

  150

  TOTAL

  2,813

  221

  3,734

  799

  209

  116

  731

  452

  3,359

  5,716

  9,075

  F/T = Full Time.

  P/T = Part Time.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the annual cost of monitoring the religious affiliation of the employees of(a) Enterprise Ulster, (b) the Fishery Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland and (c) the Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The annual cost of monitoring in each instance is negligible.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed by(a) the Fair Employment Commission, (b) the Northern Ireland tourist board and (c) the Equal Opportunities Commission.
  634
  it has executive and advisory functions, providing financial and other assistance to a wide range of bodies in connection with sport and physical education.

  A new council has recently been appointed, but its role and responsibilities will remain the same, with the exception that, in due course, it will have the additional responsibility of distributing the funds from the national lottery allocated to sport in Northern Ireland.

  District Councils
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed by each district council in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of employees of each district council as at September 1992 is as set out in the table:

  Mr. Atkins
  At 30 March 1993 the Fair Employment Commission had 66 employees; the Northern Ireland Tourist Board 121; and the Equal Opportunities Commission 32.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons now in the civil service in Northern Ireland became civil servants as a result of the reorganisation of local government.

  Mr. Mates
  Approximately 1,280.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the expenditure on arms and ammunition by the Royal Ulster Constabulary over the past year.
  635
  Mr. Mates
  Expenditure by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland on the purchase of arms and ammunition for the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the financial year ended 31 March 1993, amounted to £1,273,975.

  Tourism
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been spent on the promotion of tourism in Northern Ireland in each of the past six years.

  Mr. Atkins
  Government expenditure on the promotion of tourism in Northern Ireland has increased significantly over the six years as is evidenced by the table:

  Year

  £'000s

  1987–88

  4,960

  1988–89

  5,387

  1989–90

  5,695

  1990–91

  7,357

  1991–92

  7,094

  1992–93

  11,662

  1991 Quarter

  1992 Quarter

  1

  2

  3

  4

  Total

  1

  2

  3

  4

  Total

  Receivership

  1

  15

  14

  3

  33

  6

  2

  6

  4

  18

  Wound-up

  53

  69

  39

  78

  239

  41

  69

  41

  57

  208

  Terrorism
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been killed by terrorists in Northern Ireland since the beginning of the year; and what were the dates and locations of these murders.

  Mr. Mates
  The police are currently investigating 21 incidents in which terrorist organisations are believed to

  Date

  Location

  Number of Deaths

  1.

  3 January

  Lisnagleer

  2

  2.

  11 January

  Dungannon

  1

  3.

  14 January

  Belfast

  1

  4.

  17 January

  Belfast

  1

  5.

  21 January

  Belfast

  1

  6.

  23 January

  Londonderry

  1

  7.

  28 January

  Cookstown

  1

  8.

  2 February

  Ballyronan

  1

  9.

  9 February

  Armagh

  1

  10.

  11 February

  Moy

  1

  11.

  12 February

  Castlederg

  1

  12.

  15 February

  Belfast

  1

  13.

  24 February

  Loughgall

  1

  14.

  25 February

  Crossmaglen

  1

  15.

  8 March

  Keady

  1

  16.

  10 March

  Belfast

  1

  17.

  15 March

  Newtownabbey

  1

  18.

  17 March

  Forkhill

  1

  19.

  24 March

  Belfast

  1

  20.

  25 March

  Castlerock

  4

  21.

  25 March

  Belfast

  1

  Total 25

  636

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many firms have gone bankrupt in Northern Ireland each year since January 1991; how many firms went bankrupt in the previous two years; and how many firms have(a) gone into receivership and (b) been wound up in each quarter of the past two years.

  Mr. Atkins
  The numbers of bankruptcies and companies wound up in the calendar years 1989–1992 are as follows:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Bankruptcies

  238

  286

  366

  404

  Companies wound up

  176

  180

  239

  208

  The quarterly statistics on receiverships and companies wound up for the past two years are shown as follows:

  have killed 25 people in Northern Ireland in the period 1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993. Details of the date and location of these incidents are given in the table below.

  Old People's Homes
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the daily or weekly cost to his Department of maintaining a person in an old people's home.
  637
  Mr. Hanley
  For the year ended 31 March 1992 the average cost of maintaining a resident in a home for the elderly administered by the Northern Ireland health and social services boards was £227 per week. This figure excludes capital and central administration costs.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons are registered as unemployed in Belfast East and West and of these how many are(a) males over 18 years, (b) males under 18 years, (c) females over 18 years and (d) females under 18 years; and what is the total number of people under 18 years unemployed in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of unemployed claimants disaggregated by age and sex for the parliamentary constituencies of Belfast East and Belfast West is set out in the table. The figures given relate to those unemployed on 11 February 1993, the latest date for which information is available.

  Unemployed claimants

  Belfast East

  Belfast West

  Males over 18 years

  3,024

  7,726

  Males 18 years and under

  62

  156

  Females over 18 years

  949

  1,397

  Females 18 years and under

  49

  98

  TOTAL

  4,084

  9,377

  The total number of unemployed aged 18 years and under in Northern Ireland is 3,043.

  Company name

  Product

  Mainland British

  Lynjoy Ltd.

  Telecommunications components

  Forte Airport Services

  In flight meals

  Rumenco Ltd.

  Animal feed stuff additives

  Bowater (NI) Ltd.

  Printing

  D. Evans Assemblies

  Telecommunications components

  ISA Poultry Services Ltd.

  Poultry breeding

  Tensator (NI) Ltd.

  Backwound springs

  Avery Label (NI) Ltd.

  Self adhesive labels

  Audio Processing Technology Ltd.

  Music coding systems

  USA

  Irlandus Circuits

  Printed circuit boards

  Sentronics

  Digital tyre pressure gauges

  DDL Electronics Ltd.

  Circuit boards

  Fruit of the Loom Manufacturing

  Textile products

  Inward Investing Firms
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the number of inward investing firms which have pulled out of Northern Ireland during each of the past four years and on the number of jobs affected.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information on inward investng firms which had accepted offers of selective financial assistance form the Industrial Development Board and subsequently closed is as follows:
  638

  Student Grants
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students from Northern Ireland received grants towards their studies in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total number of students from Northern Ireland in receipt of awards in the 1991–92 academic year was 35,777.

  Manufacturing Plants
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the number of(a) mainland British and (b) United States firms which have set up manufacturing plants in Northern Ireland since 1963; and, in each case, what information he has on the sum total of grants paid out and the number which are still in the Province, listing the names and the products produced by each.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information is available only from September 1982 when the Industrial Development Board was established. Sixteen mainland British and eight USA firms have set up manufacturing plants in Northern Ireland since that date with selective financial assistance from the Industrial Development Board. Grants totalling £5·3 million have been paid to the mainland British firms and £15·8 million to the USA firms. Nine mainland British and four USA firms still operate in Northern Ireland. Details of these are as follows:

  Closures of Inward Investing Firms

  Number of closures

  Employment at date of closure

  1989–90

  4

  257

  1990–91

  9

  352

  1991–92

  13

  552

  1992–93

  12

  1,065

  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in persuading the Gaelic Athletic Association to end its ban on membership of those who have served in the Royal Navy, the Army or the police.
  639
  Mr. Hanley
  As a voluntary sports organisation which receives grant aid, Government officials meet representatives of the GAA from time to time. The Government's regret for GAA membership restrictions is already in the public record but changes on GAA membership rules are a matter for that organisation.

  Belfast International Airport
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much(a) public money and (b) money originating from European funding programmes has been invested in Belfast international airport over the last three years; what proportion of the total sum invested has been spent on improving the infrastructure of the airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Direct Government financial assistance to Belfast international airport ceased in 1989. Over the last three years over £7·5 million of grant aid from the European regional development fund transportation programme has been received, all of which has been spent on improving the airport infrastructure.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to announce the sale of Belfast international airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's decision to privatise the airport was announced by my predecessor in November 1991.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many airport police operate at Belfast international airport; under whose control they currently operate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  A total of 59 airport police are employed at Belfast international airport. They are all employees of Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. and operate fully under their control.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the numbers of flights and (b) the numbers of passengers passing through Belfast international airport over the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  There were 96,510 aircraft movements at Belfast international airport in 1990; 97,213 in 1991; and 96,991 in 1992. Passenger movements in the same three years were 2,293,749; 2,168,226; and 2,245,618 respectively.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were employed at Belfast international airport on 1 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Cost per pupil

  Belfast

  North eastern

  South eastern

  Southern

  Western

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  i. Centrally provided services

  307

  321

  317

  368

  389

  ii. Central administration

  61

  42

  47

  62

  60

  640
  Mr. Atkins
  The figure is 363.

  Port of Belfast
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received regarding the privatisation of the port of Belfast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  As part of the consultation process on the draft Ports (NI) Order 1993 I have received 38 responses. These included 10 which expressed reservations about the possibility of privatising the port of Belfast. I will be considering each of these responses in detail.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy on placing sex offenders selected for community service on schemes in the community.

  Mr. Mates
  Sentencing decisions in individual cases are matters for the courts. Where the courts impose a community service order for a sexual offence, or on an offender who has previously been convicted for sexual offences, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland places the offender on a scheme in which the risk to others and to the offender is minimised, and in which the offender can be closely supervised.

  Ports (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will amend the draft Ports (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 in order to subject it to the affirmative resolution procedure.

  Mr. Atkins
  The draft Ports (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 is already subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

  School Budgets
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average cost per pupil of(a) centrally provided services, (b) such centrally provided services as form part of the potential schools budget and (c) central administration, in each local education authority in the last year for which information is available.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no Northern Ireland equivalent to the potential schools budget used by local education authorities in England and Wales. The remaining information, obtained from the Northern Ireland education and library boards' 1991–92 local management of schools outturn statements, is as follows:
  641

  Trust Ports
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement concerning the procedure for privatising trust ports in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government propose to make an Order in Council to enable the privatisation of trust ports in Northern Ireland. As the proposed order has just concluded its consultation stage I have not yet considered the responses made and accordingly a statement on procedures would be premature.

  Days Lost
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of days lost per 1,000 workers in Northern Ireland during each of the last two years.

  Mr. Atkins
  A total of 32 in 1991 and 15 in 1992.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average pupil-teacher ratio in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North(Mr. Greenway) on 18 March 1993,Official Report, columns 397–98.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the appointments made by him as listed in "Public Bodies 1992" came within the categories set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and required a submission to the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Mates
  The appointments made by my right hon. and learned Friend which require a submission to the Prime Minister are as follows:

  Chairman

  —Industrial Development Board

  Chairman

  —Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  Deputy Chairman and two members

  —Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research has been conducted in hospitals in the Province on myalgic encephalomyelitis.

  Mr. Hanley
  Over the last five years research has been carried out at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast, into the physical causes of myalgic encephalomyelitis and the possibility of devising an objective diagnostic test for the condition.
  642

  Students
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will give further consideration to student financial hardship associated with summer rent demands and the absence of housing benefit entitlement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  In general it is the student support system which is designed to provide financial help for full-time students. Housing benefit, which helps with both rent and rates, is available to vulnerable group students throughout their courses, including the summer vacation.

  There are no plans to change this policy.

  Industrial Development
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show for each council area the number of visits sponsored by the Industrial Development Board by prospective investors, together with the sums invested in(a) manufacturing industry, (b) service industry and (c) banking, in each such area in each of the last three years for which figures are available, by (i) overseas investors, (ii) United Kingdom investors, (iii) Northern Ireland investors and (iv) investors from the Republic of Ireland or as much of such information as is available.

  Mr. Atkins
  Details of visits by prospective investors and planned investments in manufacturing industry and tradeable services are set out in the tables. There have been no investments by the banking sector.

  Visits by prospective investors

  District councils

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Antrim

  61

  81

  38

  Ards

  3

  9

  5

  Armagh

  3

  2

  3

  Ballymena

  3

  10

  3

  Ballymoney

  1

  1

  4

  Banbridge

  1

  —

  —

  Belfast

  188

  213

  141

  Carrickfergus

  13

  19

  7

  Castlereagh

  9

  14

  8

  Coleraine

  4

  28

  4

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  1

  Craigavon

  14

  12

  15

  Derry

  23

  28

  23

  Down

  4

  4

  6

  Dungannon

  1

  1

  3

  Fermanagh

  1

  1

  4

  Larne

  11

  10

  5

  Limavady

  2

  1

  2

  Lisburn

  10

  12

  11

  Magherafelt

  1

  —

  1

  Moyle

  1

  —

  1

  Newry and Mourne

  4

  4

  10

  Newtownabbey

  40

  46

  30

  North Down

  10

  25

  7

  Omagh

  4

  —

  1

  Strabane

  3

  1

  —

  TOTAL

  415

  522

  333

  643

  Planned investment in manufacturing industry 1990–91

  £ thousands

  District councils

  Overseas

  GB

  NI

  ROI

  Totals

  Antrim

  —

  —

  2,178

  —

  2,178

  Ards

  623

  —

  729

  —

  1,352

  Armagh

  —

  —

  2,846

  —

  2,846

  Ballymena

  60,449

  —

  1,221

  —

  61,670

  Ballymoney

  11,777

  9,653

  623

  —

  22,053

  Banbridge

  —

  4,875

  —

  —

  4,875

  Belfast

  22,220

  809

  3,809

  733

  27,571

  Carrickfergus

  —

  —

  1,214

  —

  1,214

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  3,810

  —

  3,810

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  1,117

  —

  1,117

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  35,747

  3,428

  28,711

  853

  68,739

  Derry

  4,035

  356

  11,235

  —

  15,626

  Down

  —

  459

  —

  —

  459

  Dungannon

  —

  63

  18,864

  —

  18,927

  Fermanagh

  —

  —

  3,725

  2,571

  6,296

  Larne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  —

  1,757

  13,586

  —

  15,343

  Magherafelt

  1,240

  —

  4,117

  —

  5,357

  Moyle

  12,021

  —

  —

  —

  12,021

  Newry and Mourne

  —

  6,129

  1,093

  —

  7,222

  Newtownabbey

  —

  —

  1,516

  —

  1,516

  North Down

  —

  4,073

  2,282

  —

  6,355

  Omagh

  —

  —

  4,688

  —

  4,688

  Strabane

  —

  13,445

  —

  478

  13,923

  TOTALS

  148,112

  45,047

  107,364

  4,635

  305,158

  Planned investment in tradeable services

  £ thousands

  District councils

  Overseas

  GB

  NI

  ROI

  Totals

  Antrim

  —

  —

  —

  1,152

  1,152

  Ards

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Armagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymena

  —

  86

  —

  —

  86

  Ballymoney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast

  —

  1.520

  1,849

  —

  3,369

  Carrickfergus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  —

  —

  219

  —

  219

  Derry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fermanagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Larne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Magherafelt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moyle

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  3,733

  —

  —

  —

  3,733

  Newtownabbey

  —

  949

  —

  —

  949

  North Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Omagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strabane

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS

  3,733

  2,555

  2,068

  1,152

  9,508

  Planned Investment in Manufacturing Industry 1991–92

  £ thousands

  District Councils

  Overseas

  GB

  NI

  ROI

  Totals

  Antrim

  —

  —

  900

  —

  900

  Ards

  —

  2,837

  5,404

  —

  8,241

  Armagh

  —

  —

  4,574

  —

  4,574

  Ballymena

  —

  1,810

  1,315

  —

  3,125

  Ballymoney

  —

  10,722

  826

  —

  11,548

  Banbridge

  —

  —

  3,489

  —

  3,489

  644 645

  District Councils

  Overseas

  GB

  NI

  ROI

  Totals

  Belfast

  5,386

  —

  4,666

  4,450

  14,502

  Carrickfergus

  —

  —

  210

  —

  210

  Castlereagh

  —

  4,870

  1,592

  —

  6,462

  Coleraine

  3,774

  —

  2,649

  —

  6,423

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  6,029

  19,603

  84,561

  4,812

  115,005

  Derry

  3,627

  —

  1,815

  —

  5,442

  Down

  —

  —

  1,390

  —

  1,390

  Dungannon

  —

  —

  5,379

  —

  5,379

  Fermanagh

  —

  6,217

  3,735

  —

  9,952

  Larne

  —

  —

  221

  —

  221

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  —

  7,345

  2,727

  —

  10,072

  Magherafelt

  657

  —

  —

  —

  657

  Moyle

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newtownabbey

  11,897

  —

  4,270

  —

  16,167

  North Down

  13,419

  200

  1,481

  —

  15,100

  Omagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strabane

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS

  44,789

  53,604

  131,204

  9,262

  238,859

  Planned investment in tradeable services 1991–92

  £ thousands

  District councils

  Overseas

  GB

  NI

  ROI

  Totals

  Antrim

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ards

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Armagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymena

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymoney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast

  —

  1,253

  —

  317

  1,570

  Carrickfergus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fermanagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Larne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Magherafelt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moyle

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newtownabbey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Omagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strabane

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS

  —

  1,253

  —

  317

  1,570

  Planned investment in manufacturing industry 1992–93 (to end February 1993) £ thousands

  District councils

  Overseas

  GB

  NI

  ROI

  Totals

  Antrim

  56,717

  1,012

  1,600

  —

  59,329

  Ards

  —

  896

  6,084

  —

  6,980

  Armagh

  —

  —

  1,610

  —

  1,610

  Ballymena

  4,954

  1,741

  1,789

  —

  8,484

  Ballymoney

  —

  2,075

  —

  —

  2,075

  Banbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast

  —

  275

  4,859

  —

  5,134

  Carrickfergus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Castlereagh

  10,653

  —

  —

  —

  10,653

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  23,433

  950

  12,429

  2,164

  38,976

  Derry

  69,984

  —

  2,512

  —

  72,496

  Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  646 647

  District councils

  Overseas

  GB

  NI

  ROI

  Totals

  Dungannon

  —

  705

  1,176

  —

  1,881

  Fermanagh

  —

  3,081

  3,228

  —

  6,309

  Larne

  —

  1,359

  —

  —

  1,359

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  —

  7,974

  2,026

  —

  10,000

  Magherafelt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moyle

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  —

  1,336

  1,458

  3,012

  5,806

  Newtownabbey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Omagh

  —

  —

  577

  —

  577

  Strabane

  —

  10,797

  —

  —

  10,797

  TOTALS

  165,741

  32,201

  39,348

  5,176

  242,466

  Planned investment in tradeable services 1992–93 (to end February 1993)

  £ thousands

  District councils

  Overseas

  GB

  NI

  ROI

  Totals

  Antrim

  —

  2,107

  —

  —

  2,107

  Ards

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Armagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymena

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymoney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast

  —

  10,543

  934

  —

  11,477

  Carrickfergus

  —

  260

  —

  —

  260

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fermanagh

  —

  2,349

  —

  —

  2,349

  Larne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Magherafelt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moyle

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newtownabbey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Omagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strabane

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS

  —

  15,259

  934

  —

  16,193

  Job Creation
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show what sums of public money have been(a) paid or (b) committed in each of the last five years per job (i) created and (ii) sustained in each parliamentary constituency in Belfast and in each of the other 25 local council areas; and from which Government agency the money was provided, or as much of such information as is readily available.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following tables show the assistance offered in recent years by the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit to promote and sustain employment.

  Industrial Development Board

  District council area

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Assistance offered £'000

  1988–89

  Antrim

  712

  160

  6,773

  Ards

  164

  —

  1,105

  Armagh

  110

  —

  599

  648

  District council area

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Assistance offered £'000

  Ballymena

  90

  138

  1,310

  Ballymoney

  16

  147

  450

  Banbridge

  99

  —

  775

  Belfast

  303

  705

  13,288

  Carrickfergus

  452

  121

  2,189

  Castlereagh

  95

  175

  2,859

  Coleraine

  115

  —

  1,182

  Cookstown

  16

  42

  332

  Craigavon

  169

  176

  4,511

  Derry

  432

  48

  7,877

  Down

  318

  33

  3,830

  Dungannon

  108

  —

  1,291

  Fermanagh

  296

  71

  4,033

  Larne

  148

  25

  3,763

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  1,039

  19

  33,321

  Magherafelt

  155

  4

  1,075

  Moyle

  —

  —

  —

  Newry & Mourne

  82

  72

  1,248

  Newtownabbey

  720

  331

  14,412

  North Down

  14

  163

  554

  Omagh

  —

  —

  —

  Strabane

  —

  —

  —

  649

  District council area

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Assistance offered £'000

  Total

  5,653

  2,430

  106,777

  District council area

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Assistance offered £'000

  1989–90

  Antrim

  798

  524

  6,829

  Ards

  67

  152

  3,570

  Armagh

  34

  —

  268

  Ballymena

  206

  83

  2,554

  Ballymoney

  40

  —

  195

  Banbridge

  —

  75

  195

  Belfast

  601

  293

  11,069

  Carrickfergus

  100

  —

  3,974

  Castlereagh

  404

  1,234

  5,634

  Coleraine

  127

  30

  2,706

  Cookstown

  70

  20

  1,001

  Craigavon

  417

  107

  7,700

  Derry

  827

  60

  18,774

  Down

  24

  —

  393

  Dungannon

  136

  —

  1,567

  Fermanagh

  76

  521

  4,043

  Larne

  78

  111

  1,277

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  85

  250

  2,652

  Magherafelt

  53

  100

  1,442

  Moyle

  —

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  32

  109

  353

  Newtownabbey

  743

  195

  14,245

  North Down

  147

  275

  1,751

  Omagh

  36

  —

  510

  Strabane

  30

  45

  548

  Total

  5,131

  4,184

  93,250

  District council area

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Assistance offered £'000

  1990–91

  Antrim

  139

  16

  1,333

  Ards

  50

  31

  269

  Armagh

  60

  100

  816

  Ballymena

  411

  25

  10,376

  Ballymoney

  49

  248

  3,549

  Banbridge

  —

  480

  1,459

  Belfast

  1,098

  793

  15,319

  Carrickfergus

  129

  —

  420

  Castlereagh

  68

  —

  873

  Coleraine

  —

  32

  273

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  474

  876

  16,964

  Derry

  371

  2

  4,929

  Down

  —

  24

  146

  Dungannon

  463

  90

  6,677

  Fermanagh

  156

  —

  2,250

  Larne

  —

  —

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  288

  2

  3,746

  Magherafelt

  62

  50

  1,505

  Moyle

  —

  101

  991

  Newry & Mourne

  172

  132

  2,421

  Newtownabbey

  46

  26

  573

  North Down

  —

  215

  1,439

  Omagh

  93

  111

  1,349

  Strabane

  273

  700

  4,648

  Total

  4,402

  4,054

  82,325

  650
  Note:

  The figures relating to new jobs include 1,036 jobs for which no Selective Financial Assistance was offered.

  District council area

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Assistance offered £'000

  1991–92

  Antrim

  77

  —

  246

  Ards

  149

  50

  1,650

  Armagh

  33

  85

  898

  Ballymena

  50

  30

  669

  Ballymoney

  57

  315

  1,771

  Banbridge

  29

  87

  1,428

  Belfast

  458

  585

  5,560

  Carrickfergus

  —

  52

  75

  Castlereagh

  84

  61

  1,205

  Coleraine

  50

  164

  1,648

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  716

  831

  33,022

  Derry

  103

  —

  1,285

  Down

  —

  60

  300

  Dungannon

  76

  —

  1,832

  Fermanagh

  101

  73

  3,333

  Larne

  25

  —

  51

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  Lisbum

  155

  —

  2,249

  Magherafelt

  10

  —

  304

  Moyle

  —

  —

  —

  Newry & Mourne

  —

  —

  40

  Newtownabbey

  114

  16

  3,226

  North Down

  54

  280

  3,048

  Omagh

  —

  —

  —

  Strabane

  —

  —

  500

  Total

  2,341

  2,689

  64,340

  Note: The figures relating to new jobs include 350 jobs for which no Selective Financial Assistance was offered.

  District council area

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Assistance offered £'000

  1992–93 (11 months to end of February 1993)

  Antrim

  869

  —

  17,218

  Ards

  49

  20

  1,298

  Armagh

  20

  5

  366

  Ballymena

  136

  20

  2,598

  Ballymoney

  131

  30

  471

  Banbridge

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast

  294

  184

  6,044

  Carrickfergus

  5

  —

  36

  Castlereagh

  —

  500

  3,365

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  683

  240

  12,065

  Derry

  644

  223

  14,489

  Down

  —

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  25

  —

  436

  Fermanagh

  200

  182

  2,777

  Larne

  2

  28

  185

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  39

  100

  1,941

  Magherafelt

  —

  —

  350

  Moyle

  —

  —

  —

  Newry & Mourne

  75

  115

  1,500

  Newtownabbey

  —

  —

  —

  North Down

  —

  —

  80

  Omagh

  25

  —

  200

  Strabane

  150

  —

  3,400

  Total

  3,347

  1,647

  68,819

  Note: The figures relating to new jobs include 100 jobs for which no Selective Financial Assistance was offered.
  651

  Local enterprise development unit

  District councils

  Promoted jobs

  Assistance offered

  Safeguarded jobs

  Assistance offered

  £'000

  £'000

  1987–88

  Antrim

  80

  369

  0

  0

  Ards

  55

  219

  0

  43

  Armagh

  142

  633

  0

  0

  Ballymena

  143

  494

  24

  93

  Ballymoney

  10

  121

  0

  0

  Banbridge

  10

  42

  0

  0

  Belfast

  918

  3,907

  116

  360

  Carrickfergus

  246

  999

  0

  0

  Castlereagh

  10

  490

  0

  0

  Coleraine

  168

  690

  0

  0

  Cookstown

  61

  384

  0

  0

  Craigavon

  218

  816

  22

  98

  Derry

  361

  1,572

  73

  326

  Down

  112

  673

  0

  0

  Dungannon

  261

  1,099

  112

  440

  Fermanagh

  62

  250

  20

  36

  Larne

  42

  135

  0

  0

  Limavady

  48

  96

  0

  0

  Lisburn

  142

  440

  49

  112

  Magherafelt

  146

  683

  0

  0

  Moyle

  43

  60

  0

  0

  Newry and Mourne

  347

  1,868

  20

  65

  Newtownabbey

  143

  511

  0

  0

  North Down

  149

  589

  0

  0

  Omagh

  47

  359

  0

  12

  Strabane

  143

  688

  52

  322

  Totals

  4,047

  8,187

  488

  1,907

  Local enterprise development unit

  District councils

  Promoted jobs

  Assistance offered

  Safeguarded jobs

  Assistance offered

  £'000

  £'000

  1988–89

  Antrim

  127

  592

  0

  0

  Ards

  107

  426

  7

  17

  Armagh

  107

  487

  0

  23

  Ballymena

  100

  388

  20

  38

  Ballymoney

  39

  192

  0

  0

  Banbridge

  67

  269

  0

  0

  Belfast

  1,108

  4,424

  113

  471

  Carrickfergus

  207

  880

  0

  0

  Castlereagh

  60

  262

  0

  0

  Coleraine

  61

  267

  0

  0

  Cookstown

  126

  615

  0

  0

  Craigavon

  281

  1,303

  19

  70

  Derry

  326

  1,322

  44

  151

  Down

  120

  623

  0

  0

  Dungannon

  311

  1,890

  31

  53

  Fermanagh

  164

  778

  8

  34

  Larne

  85

  305

  15

  49

  Limavady

  80

  456

  0

  0

  Lisburn

  115

  475

  25

  56

  Magherafelt

  87

  413

  55

  263

  Moyle

  10

  52

  0

  0

  Newry and Mourne

  440

  2,322

  0

  0

  Newtownabbey

  115

  325

  14

  33

  North Down

  137

  5,986

  0

  0

  Omagh

  136

  676

  0

  0

  Strabane

  65

  264

  20

  114

  Totals

  4,581

  25,992

  371

  1,372

  652 653

  Local enterprise development unit

  District councils

  Promoted jobs

  Assistance offered

  Safeguarded jobs

  Assistance offered

  £'000

  £'000

  1989–90

  Antrim

  220

  1,514

  0

  0

  Ards

  100

  580

  12

  83

  Armagh

  297

  419

  3

  IS

  Ballymena

  160

  364

  0

  0

  Ballymoney

  48

  117

  0

  0

  Banbridge

  66

  75

  15

  60

  Belfast

  1,510

  5,877

  66

  333

  Carrickfergus

  103

  823

  10

  39

  Castlereagh

  13

  243

  0

  0

  Coleraine

  123

  164

  0

  0

  Cookstown

  40

  179

  0

  10

  Craigavon

  232

  1,612

  34

  152

  Derry

  540

  2,192

  47

  274

  Down

  190

  307

  10

  48

  Dungannon

  252

  1,746

  40

  101

  Fermanagh

  200

  269

  20

  63

  Larne

  46

  366

  0

  0

  Limavady

  28

  299

  0

  0

  Lisburn

  256

  582

  9

  34

  Magherafelt

  108

  906

  0

  0

  Moyle

  16

  233

  0

  0

  Newry and Mourne

  425

  541

  62

  228

  Newtownabbey

  189

  133

  28

  90

  North Down

  154

  1,281

  0

  0

  Omagh

  163

  752

  55

  239

  Strabane

  31

  80

  0

  0

  Totals

  5,510

  21,654

  411

  1,769

  Local enterprise development unit

  District councils

  Promoted jobs

  Assistance offered

  Safeguarded jobs

  Assistance offered

  £'000

  £'000

  1990–91

  Antrim

  195

  300

  19

  81

  Ards

  242

  812

  74

  261

  Armagh

  170

  686

  64

  182

  Ballymena

  178

  574

  64

  153

  Ballymoney

  47

  310

  0

  0

  Banbridge

  35

  515

  0

  0

  Belfast

  1,514

  5,347

  242

  728

  Carrickfergus

  154

  1,333

  0

  0

  Castlereagh

  54

  247

  0

  0

  Coleraine

  170

  480

  0

  0

  Cookstown

  76

  131

  0

  o

  Craigavon

  302

  1,174

  77

  88

  Derry

  329

  597

  97

  226

  Down

  172

  935

  49

  264

  Dungannon

  278

  2,124

  0

  0

  Fermanagh

  148

  361

  0

  0

  Larne

  67

  163

  0

  0

  Limavady

  86

  345

  0

  0

  Lisburn

  216

  943

  0

  0

  Magherafelt

  209

  1,539

  0

  0

  Moyle

  6

  52

  0

  0

  Newry and Mourne

  466

  1,304

  227

  632

  Newtownabbey

  341

  946

  0

  0

  North Down

  208

  713

  0

  16

  Omagh

  254

  684

  0

  0

  Strabane

  87

  309

  54

  64

  Totals

  6,004

  22,924

  967

  2,695

  654 655

  Local enterprise development unit

  District councils

  Promoted jobs

  Assistance offered

  Safeguarded jobs

  Assistance offered

  £'000

  £'000

  1991–92

  Antrim

  81

  237

  0

  0

  Ards

  174

  739

  0

  0

  Armagh

  80

  321

  14

  60

  Ballymena

  59

  220

  0

  0

  Ballymoney

  4

  14

  0

  0

  Banbridge

  34

  316

  0

  0

  Belfast

  844

  4,105

  22

  87

  Carrickfergus

  36

  102

  0

  0

  Castlereagh

  40

  53

  0

  0

  Coleraine

  33

  112

  0

  0

  Cookstown

  94

  376

  0

  0

  Craigavon

  162

  851

  95

  301

  Derry

  181

  713

  0

  0

  Down

  88

  314

  35

  125

  Dungannon

  156

  627

  0

  0

  Fermanagh

  133

  554

  0

  0

  Larne

  26

  80

  0

  0

  Limavady

  23

  68

  0

  0

  Lisburn

  150

  438

  0

  0

  Magherafelt

  66

  217

  0

  0

  Moyle

  17

  111

  0

  0

  Newry and Mourne

  268

  1,047

  25

  80

  Newtownabbey

  174

  624

  8

  48

  North Down

  137

  418

  0

  0

  Omagh

  100

  332

  0

  0

  Strabane

  62

  414

  0

  0

  Totals

  3,222

  13,403

  199

  701

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs will be created by the Seagate investment in Londonderry; what he expects the catchment area for employees to be; how many(a) Roman Catholic and (b) Protestant employees, will represent the balance in the work force consistent with fair employment practices; and what are the proportions of Roman Catholics and Protestants in the expected catchment area of employment.

  Mr. Atkins
  Over the next four years, employment at the Seagate investment in Londonderry is expected to reach 506. Responsibility for recruitment rests with the employer. Under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, all employers are required to afford fair participation in employment to members of both communities. The Fair Employment Commission will provide information and advice on any aspect of fair employment practices, including catchment areas, to any employer.

  Potato Crop
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the acreage of the 1992 potato crop which was not harvested at(a) 1 December 1992, (b) 1 January 1993, (c) 1 February 1993, (d) 1 March 1993 and (e) 1 April 1993; and what percentage of the total acreage this represented at each date of (i) the seed and (ii) the ware crop acreage.

  Mr. Hanley
  Estimates of unharvested potatoes are as follows:
  656

  Week ended

  Area not harvested (acres)

  Unharvested seed as a percentage of total seed area

  Unharvested ware as a percentage of total ware area

  5 December 1992

  6,250

  17·4

  24·3

  2 January 1993

  4,670

  12·6

  18·3

  6 February 1993

  3,909

  9·9

  15·7

  6 March 1993

  2,676

  6·6

  10·8

  27 March 19931

  1,575

  4·5

  6·1

  1 Latest available date.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reply he has sent to Mr. Jim McCormick of the East Belfast Conservative Association to a letter that was sent to him on 19 March.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I wrote to Mr. McCormick on 31 March confirming that the Government remained committed to the objective of finding an effective and permanent solution to the problem about which he had written to me.

  University Funding
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what funding has been made available for(a) teaching, (b) research and (c) other activities in Queen's university, Belfast and the New University of Ulster in the years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992, respectively;

  (2) what is the total quantity of Government funding made available for Queen's university, Belfast and the New University of Ulster in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  The amounts made available by Northern Ireland Departments to each university are as follows:
  657

  Financial year

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Queen's University

  Teaching

  31,272

  31,993

  32,181

  32,125

  31,225

  17,207

  Research

  14,837

  Other activities

  10,122

  12,592

  14,305

  13,442

  14,871

  14,754

  Total funding

  41,394

  44,585

  46,486

  45,567

  46,096

  46,798

  University of Ulster

  Teaching

  29,091

  32,118

  34,626

  34,347

  31,646

  18,136

  Research

  13,775

  Other activities

  8,490

  10,708

  13,308

  14,800

  15,227

  16,037

  Total funding

  37,581

  42,826

  47,934

  49,147

  46,873

  47,948

  Notes:

  1. Departmental funding is not held on calendar year basis and tables give amounts in financial years.

  2. Prior to the 1992–93 financial year, Departmental records do not identify funding for teaching and research separately.

  3. Amounts exclude tuition fees paid under the Northern Ireland Students' Awards Regulations.

  4. The reduction in teaching and research funding between 1990–91 and 1991–92 is accounted for by the shift in funding from these areas to cover increases in tuition fees.

  "Growing a Green Economy"
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many copies of his Department's publication "Growing a Green Economy" have been published; to which organisations and individuals it has been distributed; and what is the cost of the first print run.

  Mr. Atkins
  Ten thousand copies of "Growing a Green Economy" have been printed at a cost of £25,500. The document is being distributed widely within Northern Ireland to industry and commerce, business representative bodies, environmental interest groups and local councils. It is also available on demand at HMSO and a copy has been sent to each Member of Parliament for information.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many mink farms are currently licensed in each county in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no mink farms in Northern Ireland.

  Scale Maps
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange with the Ordnance Survey for the publication of a version or versions of the 1–50,000 scale maps of Northern Ireland showing(a) the townland boundaries, (b) local Government boundaries and (c) parliamentary boundaries.

  Mr. Hanley
  The decision whether to publish a particular type of map is a matter for the director and chief executive of Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland. I understand that some of the maps to which the hon. Gentleman refers are already available.

  Fair Employment Tribunal
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases have been brought against private companies alleging religious and political discrimination, since the establishment of the Fair Employment tribunal until 31 December 1992, indicating the nature of each allegation and the tribunal's decision.
  658
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 April 1993]: It is not possible, until cases are heard, to distinguish between private companies, public limited companies, individuals and partnerships. However, in the period to 31 December 1992, 404 complaints were brought against private employers as distinct from public bodies. The nature of the allegations in such cases and the decisions of the tribunal, where available, are set out in the table.

  Number

  Nature of allegation

  Alleged discriminatory dismissals

  204

  Alleged discriminatory non-appointments

  133

  Alleged discriminatory non-promotions

  14

  Alleged discriminatory harassments

  24

  Alleged discriminatory victimisations

  29

  404

  Decisions of tribunal

  Decisions—dismissed on merits

  49

  Decisions—dismissed following withdrawal

  138

  Decisions—applications allowed

  7

  Decisions—applications conciliated

  14

  Decisions—awaiting hearing

  196

  404

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Maintenance Payments
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the average loss of benefit per claimant if maintenance could no longer be offset against income from 1 April.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims are currently made for housing and community charge benefit where maintenance payments are offset against income for benefit calculation.

  Mr. Burt
  In May 1991, there were an estimated 3,000 housing benefit cases and 4,000 community charge benefit cases.
  659
  Note: Figures apply to Great Britain and were derived from a small number of sample cases supplied by local authorities for the housing benefit and community charge benefit information system annual 1 per cent. sample of cases without income support.

  Some cases received both housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  Child Support Act
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of claims which will be made for housing and council tax benefit where maintenance payments will be offset against income in the first year of operation of the Child Support Act 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  There is no such provision in housing benefit or council tax benefit.

  Boarder Premium
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of a boarder premium of £10 for each member of a homeless family living in(a) bed-and-breakfast accommodation and (b) hostel accommodation, including women's refuges; and if he will give a breakdown of the costs involved.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available.

  Industrial Disablement
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of claimants seeking disability compensation for pneumoconiosis has been successful in each year since 1979; and what has been the annual disability benefit paid in each year.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the numbers of industrial injuries disablement pensions for pneumoconiosis in payment at the end of the statistical period since 1979 are in the table.

  Period

  Pensions current at end of period

  1 October 1978 to 30 September 1979

  28,610

  1 October 1979 to 30 September 1980

  27,580

  1 October 1980 to 30 September 1981

  26,040

  1 October 1981 to 30 September 1982

  24,800

  1 October 1982 to 30 September 1983

  23,770

  1 October 1983 to 30 September 1984

  22,810

  1 October 1984 to 30 September 1985

  22,140

  1 October 1985 to 30 September 1986

  20,740

  1 October 1986 to 4 April 19871

  19,620

  6 April 1987 to 2 April 1988

  18,820

  4 April 1988 to 1 April 1989

  17,830

  3 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  16,680

  2 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  15,990

  I April 1991 to 4 April 1992

  214,610

  Note: These figures are rated up from a 10 per cent. sample.

  1Period covers six months only.

  22 Provisional figures only.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), of 29 March,Official Report, column 77, what consideration he gave to adopting a period of less than the 20 years aggregate of working underground to establish eligibility for industrial injury disablement.
  660
  Mr. Scott
  In its report (Cm 2091) the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which advises the Secretary of State on the prescription of occupational diseases for industrial injuries disablement benefit purposes, recommended extending the list of prescribed diseases to include chronic bronchitis and emphysema in coal miners who meet specified criteria. The Government have accepted the council's recommendation in full.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brentford and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) of 29 March,Official Report, column 77, on industrial injuries disablement benefit for coal miners with bronchitis and emphysema, what decisions underlay the choice of 13 September 1993 as the date from which the regulations will take effect.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his reply to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) mentioned the very large number of claims expected from miners and ex-miners when chronic bronchitis and emphysema are added to the list of prescribed industrial diseases; 13 September is the earliest date that the necessary medical and administrative arrangements can be put in place to deal with these claims.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to include ceramic workers in the list of workers who may claim compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema under the arrangements for payment of industrial injury disablement benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council advises the Secretary of State on the prescription of diseases for industrial injuries disablement benefit purposes. I understand that the council has not received any scientific evidence to suggest that bronchitis and emphysema should be recommended for prescription in relation to ceramic workers.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of underground coal miners with emphysema and chronic bronchitis who would have qualified for benefit from the recommendation in the report sent to him by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in August 1992 but have died since he received the report.

  Mr. Scott
  No such estimate has been made.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of his decision on the recommendation of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Committee in regard to underground miners with emphysema and chronic bronchitis; and how the cost has been computed.

  Mr. Scott
  The current estimate of the net additional full-year benefit cost of implementing the council's recommendation to prescribe chronic bronchitis and emphysema in underground coal miners is in the region of £6 million. This estimate is based on the assumption that around 9,000 awards will be made. Some 4,000 of these will be to miners and ex-miners currently receiving industrial injuries disablement benefit for pneumoconiosis but who, following the prescription of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, will qualify for extra benefit. The remainder will be to those miners and ex-miners who newly qualify for benefit.
  661
  These estimates have drawn upon departmental records concerning pneumonoconiosis cases and upon the assistance of British Coal.

  EC Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he intends to put to the European Social Affairs Council on 5 April.

  Mr. Scott
  None.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the appointments made by him as listed in "Public Bodies 1992" came within the categories set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and required a submission to the Prime Minister.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Two—the chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board, Sir Jeremy Rowe, and the chairman of the Social Security Advisory Committee, Sir Peter Barclay.

  Social Security Research Yearbook
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he has made to distribute to interested non-governmental organisations copies of his Department's social security research yearbook 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  Copies of the yearbook have been sent to the main research organisations and others who have expressed an interest in the Department's research programme.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 376, if he will publish an updated version of the table attached to the letter from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). dated 26 September 1992, showing the percentages of men aged 65 and women aged 60 years who were in receipt of a full category A retirement pension in 1980 and 1991 as a percentage of (a) the relevant population in those years, and (b) category A pensioners; and if he will also publish the explanatory notes in the letter.

  Percentage of Pensioner Unit Age Groups with Gross Income of Less than £5000 per annum in 1989

  Age

  60–64

  65–69

  70–74

  75–79

  80+

  All

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Single pensioners

  68

  67

  71

  82

  87

  77

  Pensioner couples

  1—

  13

  18

  23

  27

  18

  All pensioner units

  68

  38

  48

  62

  76

  55

  Notes:

  1. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person aged at or above state pensionable age (SPA) or a couple where the husband is aged at or above SPA.

  2. The age of the pensioner couple is taken to be the age of the husband.

  1—Under the above definitions there are no pensioner couples in the 60–64 age band.

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the additional cost or saving
  662
  Miss. Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  Entitlement to full category A pension

  Column 1 as percentage of population

  Column 2 as percentage of category A pensioners

  At 28 November 1980

  Men aged 65

  79·47

  96·86

  Women aged 60

  20·01

  53·35

  At 30 September 1992

  Men aged 65

  68·1

  91·8

  Women aged 60

  16·3

  37·1

  Notes:

  1. Great Britain residents only.

  2. Population estimates from mid-1991 based on population projection.

  3. Equivalent figures for invalidity benefit are not currently available.

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the impact on the support ratio in 2030 of(a) maintaining the current state pension ages and (b) equalising state pension age at (i) 60, (ii) 65 and (iii) 67 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On the same basis as the estimates set out in the discussion document, "Options for Equality in State Pension Age", but incorporating the latest Office of Population Census and Surveys population projections, the effects on the support ratio in 2030 are in the table:

  Ratio

  Current state pension ages

  2·2

  Age 60

  1·8

  Age 65

  3·0

  Age 67

  3·2

  Note:

  The support ratio is defined as the number of people of working age per pensioner.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioner tax units had incomes less than £5,000 per annum in the age bands(a) 60 to 64 years, (b) 65 to 69 years, (c) 70 to 74 years, (d) 75 to 79 years, (e) 80 years and over and (f) all ages, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is in the table:

  to the Exchequer of equalising the state pension age at (a) 60, (b) 65 or (c) 67 years compared with the current arrangements
  663
  Miss Widdecombe
  On the same basis as the estimates set out in the discussion document "Options for Equality in State Pension Age," the effects on the Exchequer are in the table:

  1992–93 prices £ billion

  Cost + ve, savings - ve

  2025

  2035

  Age 60

  4·6

  3·6

  Age 65

  -3·7

  -3·1

  Age 67

  -6·4

  -5·7

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the state pension age in(a) Sweden and (b) the United States of America.

  Miss Widdecombe
  State pension age in Sweden is currently 65 for both men and women. In 1992 the Government passed legislation to raise the state pension age to 66. The new pension age will be phased in gradually over a four-year period ending in 1998.

  State pension age in the United States of America is currently 65 for both men and women. In 1983 the Government passed a law to raise the age at which full benefits are payable from 65 to 67. The new age will be phased in very gradually during the first quarter of the next century.

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the impact on the economically active ratio in 2030 of(a) maintaining the current state pension ages and (b) equalising the state pension age at (i) 60, (ii) 65 and (iii) 67 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On the same basis as the estimates set out in the discussion document, "Options for Equality in State Pension Age," the effects on the economically active ratio in 2030 are in the table.

  Ratio

  Current state pension ages

  1·4

  Age 60

  1·4

  Age 65

  1·5

  Age 67

  1·6

  Note: The economically active ratio is defined as the number of active adults per inactive adult.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of recipients of(a) full state retirement pension and (b) reduced state retirement pension for each year since 1979–80.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of retirement pension recipients resident in Great Britain receiving 100 per cent. of the basic pension (full) or less than 100 per cent. (reduced rate) is as follows:

  Thousands

  Category A1

  Category B2

  Full

  Reduced rate

  Full

  Reduced rate

  November 1979

  4,301·5

  344·3

  3,761·0

  116·7

  November 1980

  4,359·2

  401·6

  3,802·8

  111·8

  November 1981

  4,414·9

  452·5

  3,844·6

  106·3

  September 1982

  4,427·3

  516·3

  3,849·9

  106·3

  September 1983

  4,444·6

  588·6

  3,840·9

  103·7

  March 1984

  4,411·9

  627·3

  3,788·1

  100·1

  664

  Category A1

  Category B2

  Full

  Reduced rate

  Full

  Reduced rate

  September 1985

  4,539·3

  674·9

  3,848·9

  99·4

  September 1986

  4,605·3

  700·7

  3,857·9

  94·7

  September 1987

  4,650·1

  712·5

  3,838·3

  93·5

  September 1988

  4,678·2

  717·2

  3,818·3

  92·9

  March 1989

  4,677·6

  720·2

  3,796·8

  92·1

  September 1990

  4,748·3

  756·3

  3,774·5

  92·0

  September 1991

  4,773·2

  780·7

  3,749·7

  93·2

  September 1992

  4,803·9

  816·4

  3,720·3

  99·7

  1 Men and women on own insurance.

  2 Wives and widows on husband's insurance.

  Note:

  Further details can be found in the six-monthly "Retirement Pension: All Cases Tables" available in the Library.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total weekly cost of the state retirement pension for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Basic RP (estimated)

  SERPS (estimated)

  Total weekly cost (estimated)

  1992–93

  £488 million

  £26 million

  £514 million

  1993–94

  £504 million

  £30 million

  £534 million

  Notes:

  1. Source—Departmental Report 1993.

  2. Excludes the cost of the non-contributory over-80 pension.

  3. Weekly cost is based on the number of pension paydays in the year 1 April-31 March.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the operative date for the uprating of the state retirement pension in each year from 1980 to 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The operative dates for uprating—that is, since 1987, the first Monday in the tax year—are as follows:

  Year

  Uprating date

  1980

  24 November 1980

  1981

  23 November 1981

  1982

  22 Novemberr 1982

  1983

  21 November 1983

  1984

  26 November 1984

  1985

  25 November 1985

  1986

  28 July 1986

  1987

  6 April 1987

  1988

  11 April 1988

  1989

  10 April 1989

  1990

  9 April 1990

  1991

  8 April 1991

  1992

  6 April 1992

  1993

  12 April 1993

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what evaluation has been made by his Department of the physical and organic nature of myalgic encephalomyelitis, and of differences from other chronic fatigue syndromes, in his setting of guidelines for benefit support;
  665
  (2) what disability benefits are available for sufferers of myalgic encephalomyelitis who are required to take off extensive periods from work as part of a recovery programme.

  Mr. Scott
  The Department accepts that there may be a physical and organic basis for the condition known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). It may well be that only a small proportion of people with chronic fatigue syndromes meet criteria which have been used to describe ME as a distinct entity. Although there may be aetiological differences between ME and other chronic fatigue syndromes, their disabling effects and the needs arising from them are often similar.

  Eligibility for receipt of disability or incapacity benefits does not depend upon the person being affected by a particular disease or diagnosis, but on the disabling effects of the clinical condition and the care and mobility needs which arise from them; or the effect of the disablement or illness on the capacity for work.

  A wide range of benefits is available to sick and disabled people, including sufferers of myalgic encephalomyelitis, provided they meet the conditions of entitlement.

  Data Protection Act 1984
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many certificates have been signed under the terms of section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984 for each year since 1987.

  Miss Widdecombe
  None.

  Fuel Bills
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what analysis his Department has made of the fuel bills of disabled people and carers, and the effects of a value added tax charge on those bills, in his consideration of the uprating of(a) income-related benefits and (b) other benefits for disabled people and carers.

  Mr. Burt
  Our conclusions in regard to the impact of VAT on people on low incomes, including those who are disabled or carers, will be made public in the normal way in the autumn statement on benefit uprating. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that extra help will be given to poorer pensioners and others on low incomes.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department will take to ensure that disabled people and carers on income-related benefits who have higher than average fuel bills are fully compensated for the introduction of a value added tax charge on domestic fuel.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are being taken to assist single mothers to afford the new tax provision on heating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  In his budget statement the Chancellor said that there would be extra help for poorer pensioners and those on low incomes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be announcing the details of this extra help in the autumn.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefits are available to schizophrenics; what plans he has to extend these; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  A wide range of benefits is available to sick and disabled people, including people with schizophrenia, provided they meet the conditions of entitlement. Many such people will have already benefited from the introduction of disability living allowance in April 1992. We have no plans to further extend benefit provision for schizophrenics.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been made in the past year for judicial review on social fund decisions; and what percentage were successful.

  Mr. Scott
  In 1992–93, five judicial review applications were made. So far, two of these have been heard; neither was successful.

  There have been 12·5 million applications for discretionary social fund payments since they became available in 1988; of these, only 25 have resulted in judicial review applications. Of the 20 applications that have been heard, only three have been successful.

  Domestic Fuel Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures for estimated domestic fuel expenditure by households on income support giving figures separately for expenditure on(a) oil, (b) piped gas, (c) bottled gas, (d) electricity and (e) coal.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]Estimates of average reported fuel expenditure by households headed by an income support (IS) recipient are given in the table. The estimates will include cases where the household fuel expenditure is partly incurred on behalf of other family units not in receipt of IS within the same household. IS recipients who are not heads of households are not included. The estimates are based on the combined 1990 and 1991 Family Expenditure Surveys and so reflect average levels of expenditure for that two-year period.

  Average weekly expenditure on fuel by households headed by a recipient of IS, from the 1990 and 1991 Family Expenditure Surveys

  £

  All domestic fuel

  11·00

  Of which:

  (b) piped gas

  3·70

  (d) electricity

  6·00

  (e) coal, coke

  0·80

  The number of IS households reporting expenditure on oil is too small for a reliable estimate to be given. A separate estimate of expenditure on bottled gas is not available from the Family Expenditure Survey data. Both these items, together with other minor fuels, are included in the estimate of total fuel expenditure.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average level of housing benefit per recipient, in English and Welsh local authorities payable to(a) local authority tenants, (b) local housing association tenants and (c) private sector tenants for 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1992–93.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information is in the table.

  England

  Wales

  Local authority tenants

  Private tenants1

  Local authority tenants

  Private tenants1

  Year

  £

  £

  £

  £

  21990

  20·18

  25·86

  20·37

  22·24

  21991

  23·35

  32·96

  22·57

  29·44

  31992

  27·72

  39·02

  27·03

  34·31

  1 Separate information on the average amount of housing benefit received by housing association tenants is not collected separately. It is therefore included with that of private tenants.

  2 The data source is the housing benefit and community charge

  668
  benefits annual 1 per cent. sample for May.

  3 The data source is the quarterly caseload count for May 1992.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the administrative cost of housing benefit for each English local authority for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A copy of a table showing local authorities' estimates of their housing benefit administration costs for 1991–92 and 1992–93 will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the method of payment of housing benefit to local authorities and their administrative costs.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Both the Department of the Environment and this Department receive representations about housing benefit payments and Government subsidy on these payments, which are most frequently made by tenants, local authorities and local authority associations.

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

Motorway Service Areas: Repair Facilities
Lord Crickhowell Lord Crickhowell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their intention to dispense with the requirement that the proprietors of motorway service areas must allow access to the patrols of the major motoring organisations and other recovery and repair agencies.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government are currently considering a number of representations on the matter.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the committee of the AA. During his consideration of the issues, will my noble friend ensure that if his department is considering changing the long-established rules—as I believe it is—it will take proper account of the fact that if the motoring organisations and independent operators do not have the right of access to motorway service stations, motorists will be at the mercy of the motorway service operators? There will be a real risk of accidents being caused if motorists attempt to have repairs carried out on the hard shoulder or limp in their vehicles to the nearest exit so that they may have the services of the motoring organisations or independent garages.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, safety remains the Government's top priority on motorways. However, we need to be convinced that there is a real safety problem. It has been suggested that if charges are imposed drivers will leave vehicles on the hard shoulder rather than struggle to safer motorway service areas. However, there is little hard evidence to support that so far.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister accept that when, last year, I was involved in a motorway accident, the police would not allow me to wait on the hard shoulder while the RAC came to my rescue? If I had been unable to go to a service area to be rescued, there might have been some difficulties. I hope that the Government will take a serious view of any changes.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we recognise the safety benefits of the motorway service areas. The whole aim of the deregulation policy is to provide more services more quickly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is there not another element attached to this? While we support the representations that have already been made by the AA and the RAC, is there not also the risk that
1060
motorists will be subject to extortionate demands from people, perhaps from the service stations, engaging in the work of repair? I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take back to his colleagues the anxieties that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and by those of us on the Opposition Benches about these matters. We fully support the motoring organisations in that regard.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall, of course, bring the anxieties expressed by the House today to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, it will be for operators to decide whether and what to charge. The position is the same on non-motorway service areas and other private land and there is little evidence of problems there.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I am chairman of the trustees of an employee share ownership scheme of one of the major motorway service organisers. Does the Minister realise that there is deep anxiety that the Government appear to be trying to shift the goal posts after the original contracts have been entered into?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the Question on the Order Paper refers specifically to access for the RAC and the AA to motorway service areas.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Viscount understand that the situation at motorway service stations is quite different from that on the open highway? The service stations are specifically service stations and not simply a method of making money for certain of the Minister's noble friends on the Back Benches.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we agree that motorways are a special case and that is why they are subject to special rules; for example, as to which vehicles may use them. The Department of Transport retains control over minimum standards at the motorway service areas. The question is whether special arrangements are needed over AA and RAC access.

Firearms Amnesties
2.41 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many police forces have offered an amnesty in the past three years to those who hand in guns and knives, and how many weapons have been recovered as a result.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, firearms amnesties are organised on a national basis. The last amnesty was in 1988. Local operations by seven police forces in Great Britain have resulted in the surrender of 7,494 bladed weapons in the past three years.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply although I had hoped that it would be more specific. Will the Minister undertake

1061
to ask his right honourable friend the Home Secretary whether he can instruct the police forces of this country to hold an amnesty? It is widely known that far more criminal offences now, and indeed going back over the past three years, involve the use of guns and knives.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the only amnesty possible is one that relates to firearms. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has to ask his right honourable friend the Attorney-General not to prosecute those people who have broken the law in possessing weapons incorrectly. Clearly, if we have an amnesty too often it undermines the purpose of the law. Knives are in use every day and there is no such thing as an amnesty for them. It is for chief officers periodically to take such initiatives as they wish through which people may voluntarily give up their knives.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the figures he gave include the recent amnesty by Strathclyde police force? Does he agree that one of the problems with an amnesty is that almost everyone who surrenders a knife has no intention of using it in the first place? Does he further agree that the problem lies with those who do not surrender knives and the ready availability of knives and weapons from various retail outlets in this country to irresponsible people? Can I encourage the noble Earl to look closely at that aspect and to try —I accept that it is difficult—to come up with some solution to the problem of supply rather than the problem of surrender?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the figures included Strathclyde where the police had an undertaking called Operation Blade and 4,600 knives were handed in. As to the second question, obviously one is always concerned to prevent people using knives. But the majority of knives are in common, every day use and it is therefore very difficult to prohibit them. Certain knives are prohibited under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, such as swordsticks, belt buckle knives, push daggers, butterfly knives, death stars, footclaws and hand claws. These and all sorts of other things are prohibited; as indeed are flick knives under the offensive weapons Act of 1959.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the case of Strathclyde. Is it not the case that the law in Scotland regarding carrying knives is less strict than it is in England? Would it not be more to the point if the laws of England and Scotland were harmonised rather than more amnesties encouraged?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, people often suggest that the laws of England and Scotland should be harmonised, but it does not always work out in practice.

Slaughter-houses: EC Regulations
2.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the United Kingdom regulations on fresh meat hygiene are a fair reflection of the Community regulations on which they are based; and whether other member states have enforced the regulations in the same way.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I am satisfied that the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations fairly reflect the requirements of the EC red meat directive and consolidate them with previous GB legislation. As one might expect, other member states have reached different stages of implementation but we have no evidence to indicate that their interpretation of specific requirements is different from that of the UK.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, are the Government trying to persuade us that a small number of large slaughter-houses rather than many small ones is a better bet for animals, for producers and for customers; that somehow or other veterinary inspection has a contribution to make which the EHOs were unable to make; and that the regulations in force here are a faithful echo of the directive and do not contain considerable ministerial guidance in addition? Is the Minister aware that his reference to previous legislation heightens my suspicions in that respect?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government have made extensive efforts to minimise the burdens and costs which small slaughter-houses have to bear. We take their problems very seriously. I believe that consumers would have cause to worry if they thought that animals in this country were slaughtered while in a diseased or unfit condition. Vets are uniquely qualified to spot symptoms of diseases in animals and conditions which have significant implications for public health but which may well not be visible at the post-mortem inspection. It is essential to spot and deal with such animals before they get into the human food chain. That is why veterinary supervision is the practice in all other major meat producing countries.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am bewildered, as I am sure are many other people, at the reply he has just given? Is he aware that slaughter-houses have operated in this country for donkeys' years—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: —for a very long time with meat inspectors sent in by the local authorities who have done the job very successfully? Will he confirm that the word "veterinary" means something quite different on the Continent, and that in most

1063
abattoirs on the Continent they have unqualified inspectors and not people with veterinary qualifications as we know them?
Earl Howe: My Lords, veterinary surgeons' qualifications are harmonised throughout the EC and have been for many years. There is no distinction in qualification whether the directive refers to "veterin-ary officer" or "veterinary surgeon", and there is no difference in the standard of training. All member states require veterinary supervision ante mortem. The degree to which slaughter-houses are required to be subject to such supervision may vary, as it does in the UK, according to the size of the premises. Veterinary supervision is a prerequisite of world and intra-Community trade in meat, which is why for a number of years more than half the meat produced in this country, as well as all the meat which we import, is subject to veterinary supervision.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that veterinary inspections are only a part of this problem? Will he accept that the other part of the problem relates to the storage and keeping of meat under forms of refrigeration? Will he confirm that that also is a factor in the regulations? Can he say whether the local authorities and the environmental health officers do in fact go rather further than the regulations ever intended?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe I said in reply to a Question some time ago that we have to be alert to the possibility that local authorities may be enforcing the regulations inconsistently. However, my noble friend made a very good point. What counts as hygienic or unhygienic in terms of slaughtering practice has not changed in United Kingdom law. I am afraid that our previous legislation has not been properly enforced. There can be no compromise where filthy or unhygienic practices put at risk consumer safety.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is no difficulty in any of the member states in interpreting the regulations? Is it not the case that although the meaning of the regulations is fully understood, in some member states there is a deliberate endeavour not to enforce? Is that not the root of the problem, particularly among those countries in the EC, including some major states, that have corrupt administrations?
Earl Howe: My Lords, all member states except Great Britain already have veterinary supervision of abattoirs and therefore do not need to take action to implement that aspect of the directive. We looked carefully into the issue of uniform enforcement. All our inquiries indicate that the level of veterinary supervision required by MAFF guidance to local authorities is lower than in Germany, Denmark, Ireland and Italy and comparable with France and the Netherlands.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the noble Earl care to say what the Government mean by "veterinary supervision"? Do they mean that every
1064
pig, hen or bullock slaughtered has to be inspected by a qualified veterinary surgeon with eight years of training?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my previous replies have indicated that the broad answer to that question is yes, certainly as regards ante mortem inspection. We have said to local authorities that the level of veterinary attendance should be proportionate to the through-put of the particular plant. We have sought to protect low through-put slaughter-houses by exempting them from inspection during slaughter and allowing them to use large animal practitioners—in other words, farm vets—for supervision if need be. But what we should not and will not now do is to relax the requirement for veterinary inspection ante mortem because that process ensures that public health is properly protected.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whether or not these regulations are harmonised, they may not be a very good idea in any case? Recent research shows that they have had the effect of driving away the normal bugs and microbes that usually inhabit a piece of raw meat. They have been replaced by new bugs and microbes of a much more virulent kind which are far more harmful to humans. Will he accept that since these regulations were introduced the result has been that cases of food poisoning from meat have increased by some 47 per cent.?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend referred to incidents of food poisoning but perhaps he should look at the causes of that poisoning. That has been laid at the door much more of culinary practices than of anything that happens in slaughter-houses.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, did the Minister see last night the television programme which raised serious issues and anxiety about the practices in British slaughter-houses and the infection of the human food chain by BSE? Can he give an undertaking that the Government are seriously reviewing their restrictions on slaughter-house practice in respect of BSE? Can he give any indication of whether BSE is prevalent in any country in the EC other than the United Kingdom?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the last part of the noble Lord's question falls somewhat outside the Question on the Order Paper. We take the incidence of BSE extremely seriously. That is one of the main reasons why veterinary supervision ante mortem is so very important.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and I use the same butcher? He is a singular man by the name of Mr. Machonachie. He wears a straw hat and has an immense sense of humour. I visited him the other day only to discover that there was a "For Sale" notice outside his shop. On asking him why it was there, he said, "I have had enough of Brussels' legislation". I looked into the matter more deeply and acquired the statutory instrument concerned. Will the Minister confirm that the Explanatory Memorandum

1065
distinctly excludes butchers' shops? Does he agree that we are entering a state in which both the press and ill informed people dictate what happens even at the very lowest level?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is not alone in his concern for the small butcher's shop. There is nothing in the directive to which I referred in my original Answer which in any way impacts on the butcher's shop. The rules for hygiene in such premises have remained unchanged for many years.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, could the noble Earl indicate the regulations after the meat has left the abattoir and before it is delivered to the butcher's shop? In the high street of our local town I frequently see a lorry with the back open and completely uncovered sides of pork hanging there, subjected to fumes, flies and everything else. That meat is then carried over the porter's shoulder, which is not necessarily as clean as it should be, into the butcher's shop. What protection do we have against infection which arises at that stage?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the circumstances described by the noble Countess appear prima facie to infringe the meat hygiene rules on the transportation of meat which have been in existence for many years.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the chief environmental health officer of the Department of Health stated in February that the regulations:
"have specific requirements which I frankly find it hard to believe are closely related to the protection of public health"?
Does the Minister's department agree with that statement?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the independent report which the Government recently commissioned from Dr. Johnston and Mr. Spurr confirmed that overall the requirements that the Government now impose did not go beyond what was needed to rectify structure-related hygiene problems. Indeed, it criti-cised MAFF in some instances for not being rigorous enough. So we are applying the rules sensibly, and that will continue.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I asked the Minister whether his department agreed with the statement of the chief environmental officer of the Department of Health who said that the regulations:
"have specific requirements which I frankly find it hard to believe are closely related to the protection of public health".
Will he reply to that question?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I fully agree with the conclusions in the report and the Government will look into them.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend make arrangements for translations of the orders published in other member countries to be placed in the Library so that noble Lords have a good opportunity to compare how far departments in each country make a contribution in amplifying those directives which is not justified?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am happy to give my noble friend an undertaking that we shall do our best to acquire the regulations from all other member states. It may take a little time but, as and when we receive them, we shall place copies in the Library.

Mineral Hydrocarbons and Food Processing
3 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is any health risk to consumers from the use of mineral hydrocarbons in food processing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, no adverse effects on human health have been reported. Nevertheless, the Government are aware that long-term exposure to mineral hydrocarbons in the diet may cause problems. That is why the independent Scientific Committee on Toxicity is considering the latest data.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. As she confirmed, the Government's committee on toxicity said that mineral hydrocarbons were unsuitable for use in food processing. Nevertheless, certain foods, such as chewing gum—if one may describe that as a food—and cheese with a waxy outside, such as Edam, still contain a high proportion. Most of us who chew gum can probably think of a more sensible way of disposing of it than to swallow it, but there are people who may nibble at the outside of a cheese. In commercial baking, where mineral hydrocarbons are used to spray machinery, would it not be fair to consumers—both of chewing gum and cheese—to put that fact on the label and so allow people to choose whether or not to buy it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Viscount makes an interesting suggestion. It is one that has not been considered by the committee advising on food and labelling. With pleasure I shall take the suggestion to the committee and seek its views.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her first Answer can only be regarded as encouraging? The Government are obviously concerned with the Question which must come under the heading of being a form of preventive medicine.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that wax has been used as a covering for a whole range of different varieties of cheese for many years and that there has never been any case of someone being taken ill as a result of eating it, if in fact they have been silly enough to do so?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree. It would take a great deal of determination to eat the covering of an Edam cheese.
Lord Desai: My Lords, given the seriousness of the Question, can the noble Baroness explain why, although a report was issued in 1989 regarding draft proposals on toxicity, nothing has been done by the Government to issue any directive in that regard for either consumers or shops?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity suggested that the preparations should be banned. Consultation was then carried out by the Government which brought to light certain complications, including the use of mineral hydrocarbons in some pesticides and veterinary drugs. It became clear also that further relevant research on mineral hydrocarbons was already being undertaken and we were aware that manufacturers had already cut down on their usage. In the light of those developments it was considered wise to defer the planned restrictions until the additional research had been evaluated by the committee on toxicity.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, how far are the Government looking into the use of technical white oil and its effect on the human body? I refer specifically to liquid paraffin which falls into that category. Is the noble Baroness aware that the human body is the one piece of equipment which, the more one lubricates it, the more noise it makes?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as a doctor's daughter I am well aware of that.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, after the debate on drug and alcohol abuse and before the debate on the forestry industry, my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Bosnia.
With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord McNair and Lord Taylor of Gryfe. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and as the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit. But I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it would conform with the spirit of these short debates if they would keep their speeches within the 15 minutes which apply to the mover of the Motion. In the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of five minutes. Should any noble Lord speak at greater length he would do so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Drug and Alcohol Abuse
3.4 p.m.
Lord McNair Lord McNair rose to call attention to the social and legal implications of drug and alcohol abuse and to the case for increased facilities for residential care; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this serious matter and I hope that the effect of the debate will be to clarify some of the issues relating to drug and alcohol abuse and to make some progress towards resolving them. I included in the title reference to provision for residential care. Although such public provision is something of which I have neither much knowledge nor experience, there are many in your Lordships' House who do. I am glad to see that some of those are speaking today.
Before I start perhaps I may ask whether anyone else saw a small article in yesterday's Independent? If any other speaker intended to refer to it, I apologise for getting in first. It states:
"13 April 1816 Samuel Taylor Coleridge writes to James Gillman, a surgeon, accepting treatment for his opium addiction: 'No sixty hours have yet passed without my having taken Laudanum, tho' for the past week comparatively trifling doses. I have full belief that your anxiety will not extend beyond the first week, and for the first week I shall not, I must not be permitted to leave your house, unless I should walk out with you. Delicately or indelicately, this must be done; and the servant must receive an absolute command from you on no account to fetch anything for me. The stimulus of conversation suspends the terror that haunts my mind; but when I am alone, the horrors I have suffered from Laudanum, the degradation, the blighted utility, almost overwhelm me"'.
It appears that little has changed.
When we talk about drug and alcohol abuse we use language in a curious way because it is the person's body and his mind, and in fact his whole being, that are abused by the consumption of the substance. We regard the substance with differing degrees of seriousness depending on several factors: the effect on the person's behaviour; the degree of addiction and the speed with which addiction sets in; the legal background against which consumption takes place; the commercial environment in which the substance is used. For example, does it generate tax revenue? Is it available only on the black market? We consider also the toxic or health-threatening properties of the substance, current medical prescribing practice and what is regarded as acceptable in the culture.
I want to try to illuminate a little the world of the addict. In doing so I must confess that I have never had a drug or alcohol problem myself so that my interest is in a sense vicarious and my experience is a retelling of the experiences of professionals in the field and of former addicts whom I know.
I should like to spend some time on the problem of methadone. This is a synthetic opiate which was first developed by German chemists during the Second World War when Germany was unable to obtain supplies of either morphine or heroin to use as painkillers for their wounded. But its use as a substitute for heroin follows a pattern of unsuccessful substitution which started when morphine was first

1069
used to try to cure alcoholism. The resulting morphine addiction was then treated by substituting diamor-phine or heroin, which is a derivative, like morphine, of opium. Heroin addiction was fuelled by illicit supplies of heroin from Asia and by changing cultural attitudes and the lifestyles of young peoples' role models in the entertainment world.
Methadone is prescribed as a substitute for heroin. It is listed in MIMS as a painkiller, but a GP friend of mine told me that it is only ever used as a heroin substitute. I feel therefore that it would be useful to examine the effects of the drug and the results of the present prescribing regime. It is available both as a linctus and as injectables in ampoule form. It is wholly synthetic so that third world production and smuggling is not a problem, although there is a well established black market in prescribed methadone.
There is one major problem with substituting methadone for heroin. It is much more addictive than heroin and much more difficult to come off. While that is obviously good for the shareholders of Wellcome, the manufacturers, it is a disaster for thousands of heroin addicts who are persuaded to change from heroin to methadone. In the words of one former addict, "Methadone is less vicious but subtly more evil and destructive, both mentally and physically". That is from someone who has used both and who was reassured for years that methadone was harmless.
The same doctor explained to him that as he could no longer use the veins in his arms for injecting, he should inject it into the femoral vein, in the groin—a counsel of despair if ever there was one. It not infrequently happens that people who do this, and who lack adequate anatomical knowledge, manage to inject into the femoral artery, with disastrous results. That, of course, applies whatever substance is injected. Methadone, however, has many physical as well as mental effects, despite the doctors' reassurances. These include bloating of the torso, wasting of the muscles and heart irregularities.
Perhaps at this point I should go into detail about a particularly unpleasant aspect of the addiction industry. I recently discussed with former addicts their experiences of the methadone prescribing practice of certain doctors outside the NHS who are often located in Harley Street or thereabouts. I must stress that what I am about to say applies only to a few unscrupulous doctors. I do not include the sincere pioneers of maintenance prescribing, who are not motivated by profit, even if they are misguided. We calculated the throughput of patients at one surgery on the basis of an average of 10 minutes per patient —there is always a queue—and multiplied that by the average cost of a prescription and the number of patients that a doctor could see in a day. It should be borne in mind that these doctors do not actually have to handle the drugs. They are, if you like, well paid agents for the manufacturers. The prescription for which addicts pay the doctor is simply a permit to go to their chemist and pay two or three times as much as the prescription cost for the actual drugs.
We calculated that these practitioners are earning at the rate of about £300,000 a year. No doubt if
1070
questioned they would plead pitifully that the rents in Harley Street or Wimpole Street are so high, and so on. No doubt this would also be the reason given for their induction procedures and the reluctance to countenance a reduction in the amount of the addict's prescription, which is something that addicts have found. Apart from compliance with the regulations, their main concern when first consulted by a new patient is whether he or she can pay for the prescription on a regular basis. For those addicts who are able to maintain their employment, a job reference will suffice. For others, a bank statement is required. I should add here that it is usually the doctors working within the NHS who try to persuade the addicts to reduce their consumption.
I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House—I have given her notice of this question— what has been the total volume of methadone prescribed each year for the past two years both inside and outside the NHS. I sincerely hope that the Minister will listen carefully to my criticisms of government policy regarding methadone and realise that they are based on the experiences of both former addicts and professionals in the field.
I conclude what I have to say about methadone with this. To encourage someone to change from heroin to methadone is to play upon that person the cruelest practical joke imaginable. Withdrawal from heroin takes three or four days. It may include involuntary muscle spasms and cramps, insomnia and nervousness. But methadone withdrawal can take weeks, during which time the person may experience diarrhoea, back pain, extremely severe abdominal pain and cramps, hot and cold flushes, insomnia, sweating and a deep pain in the bones. This has been described by some as a sensation that their bones are deteriorating. I hope that the Government will swiftly reverse this policy of substituting methadone for heroin. If maintenance prescribing is deemed necessary, then in my view it is better to maintain people on heroin.
There is another very serious situation about which little is spoken. This is the problem of tranquilliser addiction. It is estimated that 2 per cent. of the adult population takes tranquillisers regularly. The majority of people taking tranquillisers regularly would experience serious withdrawal symptoms if they stopped taking them.
Benzodiazepines are drugs of addiction par excellence and the body rapidly acclimatises to them so that progressively larger and larger doses are required not just to maintain the status quo but to prevent the onset of extremely unpleasant withdrawal symptoms even at the regular dose. These consist of a long list of very nasty physical and mental sensations. Stopping taking benzodiazepines brings on severe, intense and seemingly endless withdrawals. The reason why not much is heard of this problem is the incapacitating nature of the suffering. People suffering tranquilliser withdrawals are socially paralysed. They are often too terrified even to pick up the phone or write a letter. Their world seems to come crashing down on them. Thoughts of death and suicide haunt them. It is well nigh impossible for people in this state

1071
to link up with other sufferers to form common interest or pressure groups, so millions suffer in silence. But their suffering is real and the dangers of regular tranquilliser use should be more widely known. Will the Minister tell the House what research the Government have undertaken into this problem and what is the latest advice to doctors? I also have another suggestion which could be put in place in the case of suicides. I should like to see a recording of the prescribed drugs which the person who had committed suicide had been taking in the period leading up to his death.
I should now like to turn to the drug situation in prisons. Because of the unusual economic situation in prisons the inmates have come up with novel means of economic survival. Prisoners divide into those who use drugs and those who want nothing to do with them. However, drugs as well as cigarettes and even phone cards are used as currency in the prisoners' economic system. But, for whatever reason and in whatever way, drugs are freely available in prison. It has even been put to me that the prison authorities prefer to have a certain amount of opiates circulating because it reduces tension. I was told that the atmosphere gets very tense if they are not available.
I suggest that intervention with drug and alcohol rehabilitation in prisons is essential to break the vicious circle of drug induced crime. I know from reading Addiction Counselling World that some initiatives are currently being tried, and I welcome that. This should be a major focus of government policy in the prisons. If you think of the cost of a drug habit as being £500 per week, then in the space of a year the person has to come by a total of £26,000. And this will be repeated year after year. Effective drug rehabilitation, as described in the same publication, at a cost of about £7,000 to £10,000 per person then looks like a worthwhile investment. The cost would be less in prisons because accommodation is already provided.
It is worth noting that any drug is taken initially to produce a positive pleasurable effect. As with alcohol, the drug taker may come to depend on some other property of the drug—for example, anxiety reduction —and may then continue to take it in order to eliminate some negative effect; for example, depress-sion or the onset of withdrawal symptoms. Recognition of this change is often the event that prompts the drug user to seek help. Withdrawal, or "cold turkey", is greatly feared by addicts who, if they have not experienced it themselves, will certainly have discussed it with other addicts. I remember a meeting of the All-Party Group on Drug Misuse at which Dr. John Marks from Liverpool stated that addicts did not want to come off drugs and that they either grew out of their addiction or died, so either way they ceased to be a problem. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and others at that meeting took exception to that callous and self-serving attitude, and former addicts to whom I have spoken all say that deep down all addicts do in fact want to get off drugs.
Something else has come to my attention which I should like the Department of Health to consider carefully. I believe I am right in saying that all
1072
currently available syringes have stamped on them a kind of government health warning to the effect that they should not be re-used. But they still can be re-used by anyone who decides to do so. I know of at least one perfectly practical design, with which I have no financial connection—I expect there are more—for a syringe that is impossible to re-use although it functions normally when used the first time. This is such an eminently sensible idea that I cannot imagine why it was not implemented when re-use of syringes first became a problem. It is something I intend to take up with the Department of Health though I do not expect a full answer when the Minister winds up the debate.
I feel very strongly that the Government should give equal emphasis to educational approaches to prevent children becoming involved with drugs in the first place as they do to the rehabilitation services side of the problem. Last time we debated this subject I spoke about TACADE, the Advisory Council on Alcohol and Drug Education. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, spoke about life education centres. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, will say something about TACADE today. I hope that I do not steal her thunder.
The activities of those two organisations seem to me to complement each other very well. Life education centres have 12 mobile audio-visual demonstration units which tour the country giving a lively presentation of the effects of different kinds of substance abuse and kindle in their young audience a sense of wonder at the way in which their bodies work and an awareness of their own uniqueness. Understanding the mechanisms of peer group pressures, they are better able to resist offers of drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. I have seen one of their mobile units in operation and was very impressed.
I must congratulate the Department of Health on its decision to give TACADE the Section 64 core funding for which it has been asking for the past three years. This funding, modest though welcome, is a recognition of the major contribution that TACADE has made to the educational life of the country. An evaluation of its programme, Skills for the Primary School Child, will be published this summer. However, indications from schools suggest that this programme is having an important, positive effect on the moral outlook of primary school children who are exposed to it. This takes the form of marked reductions in bullying and truancy and improvements in general behaviour, communication skills and the ability to form satisfactory relationships with others.
However, I should like to add a note of caution as regards the programme. It works best when and where it is applied fully after staff have been properly trained to deliver it. That is because the teachers need to understand fully the principles behind the programme and to reflect on their own attitudes and social skills.
The decline of moral values and the reduction in community spirit have been commented on by many people, including the Secretary of State for Education. Skills for the Primary School Child helps greatly to produce the attitudes which collectively make up those desirable attributes and produce the behaviour we

1073
want from our children; and it is in childhood that we need to learn to be good and kind, to respect others and to respect ourselves.
Traditional values were, it must be said, often enforced by a measure of fear, whereas now we need to inculcate positive values on the basis of an understanding that respecting others and oneself makes for a happy life. When society is falling apart all around them, it is doubly necessary to have a part of the school curriculum that makes it possible for children to learn how to grow into emotionally mature people. In that way, they will experience the natural high that is our birthright and will more easily resist the temptation to use drugs and abuse alcohol. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, not only for putting the Motion down on the Order Paper but for using words which allow us to have a wide-ranging debate with a focus within it. There are tremendous legal and social implications. There are legal implications because there are social implications. The social implications connected with the misuse of drugs and alcohol in this country are because we, as a society, quite rightly came to the conclusion that excessive use of alcohol, or indeed any use of illicit drugs, is bad in two ways: it is bad for an individual's health; and it is bad for society as a whole. Both factors are very true. It is because such use is bad for society as a whole and because it is injurious to personal health that we have sought various methods to prevent it. That is where the legal implications come in. We have made it difficult to sell alcohol in the same way that one would sell other products. One sells alcohol through licensed premises and off-licences. That is a method of control.
We control other drugs too. I refer to "other drugs" because alcohol is a drug; it happens to be a rather popular social recreational drug which is an inherent part of western society. However, it is nevertheless a narcotic drug and a very poisonous one at that. Drugs such as cannabis, cocaine and heroin are controlled in another way. In this country we do not make them illegal for the most part; we control them. We have a Misuse of Drugs Act which seeks to prevent ordinary people from using those drugs. One can only obtain drugs such as heroin through a doctor and for very few medical reasons. But heroin is a very useful carefully prescribed medical drug. I have referred to one of the ways in which we control drugs in this country.
We have sanctions for people who do not stick to those rules. If, against our law, people wish to import drugs in large quantities into this country we pour an enormous amount of money into Customs to prevent them from doing that. We have the police to prevent people from possessing, buying or selling drugs or driving cars under the influence of drugs. An enormous amount of police time is taken up in trying to ensure that people keep those laws; on the whole they do not seem to.
1074
We have courts. We take people before the courts if they break those rules and the police catch them. Forty thousand people were taken to the courts last year for the possession of drugs. Only about 1,200 of those 40,000 actually went to prison, and that is probably not a bad thing because there are far more drugs in prison. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, touched upon the issue. The figures vary slightly depending upon whom one listens to, but the 1989 survey indicated that 43 per cent. of male prisoners had used drugs before and during the time they were in prison. Therefore, perhaps prison is not a good place in which to put people with drug problems.
We have another method of control: we tell doctors that they must inform the Home Office if they know that any of their patients use drugs. There are about 20,000 people on that list at present. The figure has increased 74 per cent. from 1987 to 1991, which is the latest figure that I have. The Home Office admits quite openly that probably only one-fifth of those who are addicted to drugs are on that list. The others escape merely because they give false names to the doctors or because the doctors do not choose to register them. I do not believe that the Home Office tries that hard to make sure that the list is accurate. Even accepting those figures, we must assume that there are at least 100,000 addicts in this country. That is what the Home Office believes. I ask noble Lords to remember that figure.
In connection with the law and the courts, we have a variety of other methods to try to stop people taking drugs. They are not always very satisfactory. It appears that most of those who are in prison for a variety of drug offences come out and reoffend. Taking drugs and possessing them is not the only reason for appearing before the courts. Of those who appear before the London magistrates, 83 per cent. have a drink or drug problem as a contributory factor in their offence. Although under the latest Criminal Justice Act there is a treatment provision, it is not often used because there are few treatment facilities to which one can send those people. They come out and reoffend. To keep allowing people to go round and round the system is very expensive. According to the Home Office the cost of drug-related street crime in the Metropolitan Police area currently runs at £1,850 million every single year: it costs you and me £1.85 billion as a result of people stealing to acquire illegal drugs. I am a simpleton in these matters, but my view is that that is an unacceptable figure. We should not accept it, yet we do. Year after year we allow that figure, and it is rising.
I stated that the Home Office admits to 100,000 addicts. Perhaps I may quote from an article in the Evening Standard of 25th January 1993 which states:
"Figures released last week reveal that Customs officers confiscated a record £545 million worth of drugs last year".
I do not know about other noble Lords but I do not believe that 100,000 people can afford to buy £545 million worth of drugs, in particular when we know that if a person steals a cassette player out of a car he will sell it for only £5. We do not need to do much

1075
mathematics to realise that to produce that figure an awful lot more than 100,000 people must be taking drugs. The article continues:
"still the number of users and seizures by drug squads grows. Consequently, says Commander John O'Connor, the best way to tackle the problem is to reduce demand … In North America, the strategy of the Seventies and Eighties appeared to be to attack the source. But government-backed programmes of crop destruction have had little impact on the tide … that has saturated the US market".
In other words, we cannot control the supply, but we can try to control demand. There are two ways in which we can do that. The first is the prevention/education route, and the other is the treatment route. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, mentioned the two best organisations in the area of prevention and education: TACADE and the Life Education Centres. I. am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, is not in his place to talk about the Life Education Centres because he knows a great deal more about them than me. Those organisations are very effective. As the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said, they teach children to think positively about their health and about what they do with their bodies and minds but—and there is a really big "but" in this— there is no practical evidence that drug prevention in this way works. Just because one teaches people that drugs are not a good thing, it does not mean that they grow up not to take them. All the evidence points to the fact that they do. People cannot learn not to take drugs in the same way that they learn French irregular verbs. Drug taking is partly learned behaviour and the people from whom children learn it are the adults around them—their parents, teachers, and adult family friends. That is where people learn how to take drugs, and that is where we must stop them.
What we do know is that treatment works. If I say that with a certain amount of pique, it is because earlier this year we had European Drug Prevention Week which the Department of Health spent more than £250,000 publicising—I know that because I was told by the company that the department hired to publicise the event—when everybody in the indepen-dent sector told the department that it would not work. Indeed, the previous week the department reversed the community care proposals which allowed treatment to be properly funded. That galls slightly. In fact, that galls a great deal because treatment does work. We know that it works and we can show that it works. However, it only works if it is good treatment in much the same way as a good mechanic will mend one's car but, my God, a bad mechanic will ruin it. We need to make sure that we have some better mechanics.
Therefore, I welcome the report that I read in the Daily Telegraph last week that the Minister responsible, Dr. Mawhinney, has started a study into the way in which we treat drug and alcohol addiction in this country. That must be good. The whole row over community care and its funding took place because social services departments do not want the drug addicts and the alcoholics and neither do the health authorities. For 20 years they were bounced between one and the other, falling between two stools, with the result that this country still has only about
1076
2,000 in-patient beds. America has one such bed for every 2,000 per head of population, whereas in this country we still have only one bed for every 220,000 per head of population. We cannot allow that to continue because it is too expensive to leave those people untreated. We must change that.
There will, of course, be endless debates about whether we should prescribe methadone. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, described it carefully. I have severe doubts about methadone. It has a role, but only a very limited one. There is no doubt that the noble Lord is right that methadone is massively over-prescribed. It is very expensive and extremely dangerous. We need to think about it carefully. One does not swop somebody from one drug to another. It is not a good thing to do. It is possible to persuade people to stop drug use and to abstain. One could say to an addict when he comes through the door, "Listen old boy, we have two choices for you: either you can go next door and we can give you some stuff to keep you level and everything will he hunky-dory, or you can go into an abstinence programme which will he hard work and unpleasant". But what will be his reaction? He will say, "Thanks very much, guy, I think I'll have the drug". We should not give people who are weak and vulnerable such decisions to make because they are not in the right frame of mind for making them.
We do not need more huge amounts of public money, but we do need the money which is currently being spent to be spent properly. As yet, there are no qualifications for drug counsellors in this country and we have no registration of facilities. The existing facilities are registered either as nursing homes or psychiatric hospitals—and they are neither. Although psychiatrists seem to play an increasing role in this area—wrongly, in my view—we must remember that very nearly 100 years ago Sigmund Freud wrote that alcoholism is not a psychiatric illness. It is very important that we get these people off the psychiatrist's couch where no good is done them but where an awful lot of money is wasted.
It is true that there are not enough treatment beds. We need far more. Not only that, we need out-patient treatment; but we will not get that until we have good in-patient treatments. It is no good the Government saying, "It is up to the market and the treatment providers" when the treatment providers do not have enough money from the local authorities to provide the treatment. The Government must give a lead in helping these places to get going. They must give a lead in ensuring that they are properly registered and that they receive the correct amount of money and in ensuring that there are proper outcome studies to see how they work, to fine-tune them and to improve them.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, mentioned treatment in prison. He was talking about the remarkable Addictive Diseases Trust programme at Downview Prison. Fourteen patients can be treated at any one time which is the equivalent of 120 each year. The cost of treating those equals the cost to the Home Office of one prisoner returning to the prison. Therefore, if only one of the patients being treated in

1077
any one month stays off drugs and does not come back to prison, that pays for the cost of the whole programme. That is cost-effective. That is the way in which we want to run treatment. That is the way in which it should be run.
In the remaining minute left to me, perhaps I may conclude by saying that it is very important to realise that historic attempts to control the supply of drugs have failed, will continue to fail, and will fail at an ever faster rate because drugs are entering this country ever more rapidly. Therefore, we should review the money that is spent on Customs and on the crop replacement schemes, which have proved absolutely useless. We must review the law, the way in which we control drugs, and the role of the courts and the prison system in drug control generally. We must not expect education and prevention to provide all the answers, although we do need to keep trying in that area. We do need to concentrate on treatment and to do so now, and hard. We need to combine drug and alcohol treatments. We do not need two sets of civil servants and two sets of experts. We should combine them.
There is an answer to the drug problem—and that answer is treatment. It is good, effective, cost-effective, in-patient treatment, followed by out-patient treat-ment. It does not require more money; it just requires a little bit of thought.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for introducing the debate. That would be so even if the debate had provided only an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to make the excellent speech that he has just given. I found myself in profound agreement with much of what he said, especially with the view that treatment works. There is now a great body of experience which is perhaps at risk for financial reasons, but I shall come to that. I agree that drug and alcohol addiction is not a psychiatric problem. To confuse mental illness with alcoholism and drug addiction is not to understand the nature of mental illness or the other problems of addiction that this debate is all about.
The debate is well timed, coming just two weeks after local authorities have taken over their new responsibilities for community care. That care includes the two forms of abuse we are considering. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord McNair, who opened the debate, I want to concentrate on residential care, including treatment, and some of the related legal problems—not because I do not think that many of the other problems are important, but because the noble Lord has cast the debate so wide that it enables us to concentrate on other issues which seem more important to some of us.
The debate on community care, both nationally and locally, has concentrated on the largest groups for which local authorities have responsibility. I am thinking of the elderly, in particular the very elderly who need so much more care, including nursing care and appropriate housing care. The groups include also the disabled, those with some form of mental illness,
1078
and those with learning difficulties. I suppose that those categories will receive more attention from local authorities having responsibilities which they did not have previously rather than the care and treatment of those with drug and alcohol abuse problems.
It is my view—I have expressed it before in the presence of the Minister—that the local authorities have been funded inadequately by the Department of Health to the tune of £200 million or £250 million a year. What the figure is, and how right we are, as opposed to the Government's view, will be discovered in time. It may be discovered due to inadequate community care. I hope that that will not be the case. But we must watch the matter carefully. A big responsibility is rightly being put on the local authorities.
Today we are considering, or arguing, the case for one of the categories for which local authorities are responsible —those suffering from drug or alcohol abuse. It is interesting to consider the numbers. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, deal with the figures. He asked a question. It is one that I wish to put in a positive way. What is the Government's assessment of the numbers with which we are dealing? The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned 100,000. Is that a fair estimate? It is important that we should have the answer when we look at the inadequate number of residential treatment centres which are run mainly by voluntary organisations. As he said, the figure given may be far lower. But it is obviously increasing greatly.
As a junior Minister in the Home Office with responsibility, among others, for this problem—admittedly, it was the 1960s—I was horrified to discover that there were 4,700 registered addicts. I said then that whatever the number of registered addicts it would be a drop in the ocean. My first question is: what sort of numbers are we dealing with? To what extent are they increasing? Perhaps the Minister will say why they are increasing. For local authorities assuming these responsibilities, they are largely new problems.
Many will remember the progress of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill through this place. We passed an amendment about the ring-fencing of community care. Ministers in another place then made a change which did not touch upon the generality of community care but upon the aspect of drug and alcohol abuse. Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the then Secretary of State, tabled an amendment to the Bill which provided for the earmarking of cash for local authorities to be given only to drug and alcohol projects. He said that money would be ring-fenced and local authorities would be able to spend it only on grants to such bodies. That was a clear statement upon which voluntary organisations operated from then on.
On the same day, Virginia Bottomley, then Minister of State for Health, said:
"Specific grants shall be available for those who are drug addicts or alcoholics".
However, in October 1992 charities learned that ring-fencing had been abandoned. None of us should under estimate the importance of the decision the

1079
Government took not to ring-fence those sums that local authorities needed to provide the services about which we are talking today.
I wish to say a word about the London-based Alcohol Recovery Project which is seeking leave—or was two months ago—for a judicial review of the policy after a High Court judge accepted that Mrs. Bottomley may have acted unfairly when she reversed government policies to guarantee funding for voluntary drug and alcohol projects. I am afraid that I do not know the outcome of the case: I hope that the Minister will tell me. If everyone else here knows, I apologise for my ignorance. Mr. Justice Auld said that he was troubled that the reversal of policy had prejudiced the Alcohol Recovery Project financially because it had relied upon the word of Mrs. Bottomley and her predecessor that money for the projects would he ring-fenced or safeguarded. The judge agreed that the review should be arranged urgently after the Queen's Counsel appearing for the Department of Health said:
"The timetable targeted of April 1, 1993, (for the introduction of the new policy) will be put in jeopardy if there remains a degree of uncertainty".
I take another example. The problem of homeless people is still growing. The new community care arrangements may lead to an increase in the number of homeless people—I shall be interested to know whether the Government expect that to be the case —many of whom have drink and drug-related problems. They may have other social problems that explain their homelessness, but the fact that they are homeless has been established clearly. I was presiding recently at a conference in the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre at which a Minister was speaking. It was a conference organised by Telethon and Centrepoint, Soho. It was considering the problem of young homeless people, many of whom had drug and alcohol-related problems. We were looking at the unsatisfactory way in which during the first 12 months of the implementation of the Children Act local authorities had been able to meet the needs of those homeless people. It would be helpful to know the Minister's view on that matter.
I understand—this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—that there is to be a review of alcohol and drug treatment. I understand, as he said, that it is to be carried out by Dr. Brian Mawhinney who is worried that policies have grown in a haphazard fashion with no overall strategy. It is interesting to hear a Minister make that announcement about what his Government have been up to. It may be that it is an important survey to carry out at this time. I hope that there will be close co-operation and consultation with the local authorities and the voluntary organisations which have far more information about these issues than the statutory bodies themselves. It has often been bad and sad that the voluntary organisations have been told what is to affect them and have not been consulted adequately about what government policy should be. It is said that an independent, outside figure is expected to be asked to head the review. It will be charged with assessing the clinical effectiveness of the various drug and alcohol treatments and rehabilitation facilities.
1080
I hope that the terms of reference will include sustaining the residential treatment centres which both the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and I have emphasised are important, not just because of the experience that they have built up, which can be passed on to others, but because of the grave risk they now face. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will say something about her experience in the field. That includes an experience, which I share, of Phoenix House. Not long ago, as many as half of those treatment centres were expecting that they might have to close their doors because the local authorities will be, as they see it, giving a high priority to the care of the elderly and the other groups to which I have referred; the mentally ill and those with learning difficulties. As they have not yet had any experience of funding drug and alcohol abuse centres they might receive low priority and therefore suffer. I hope that the Minister will tell us what action has been taken in recent months to ensure that such dangerous results do not occur.
Sometimes one welcomes reviews but sometimes one is suspicious of them. I am often suspicious of the Government, every time they want to save money, deciding to have a review and calling it by any name other than "How we shall save money". When debating the Unstarred Question later this evening we shall discuss ways of changing the powers which doctors have for treating patients and for including the best treatments. A review has drawn the conclusion that there is a great deal of money to be saved. I hope that the forthcoming review, which is to be carried out by the department, will not have the same purpose. I heard on the "Today" programme that there is to be a new review into mental health. I do not know whether it will again take in the experience of the voluntary agencies—I must declare my interest as president of MIND—but I hope that there will be the fullest consultation because, frankly, the Government's record on consultation is not good.
I hope that in reply the Minister will find time to comment on the Mawhinney inquiry and on the mental health inquiry. Presumably that will not exclude the subjects that we are discussing today. I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for introducing the debate and I look forward with great interest to hearing the information which the Minister will give in reply.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject. There is on today's Order Paper two debates on drugs; this, the first, is on the abuse of drugs and the second, the Unstarred Question, is on limiting some useful medications. Both debates are associated with The Health of the Nation but in different ways. I felt that I should say a few words in both debates as anxieties need to be aired. It is hoped that the Government will take note.
There is no doubt in my mind that people abuse their bodies not only with drugs and alcohol but with tobacco, which I also include as a drug of abuse and

1081
addiction. All those contribute to much ill health and I congratulate the Government on their White Paper, The Health of the Nation. Drugs, alcohol and smoking abuse are all contributory factors in the priority targets of the White Paper; those are coronary heart disease and strokes, cancers, mental illness, HIV/AIDS and sexual health, and accidents.
There is also a connection between alcohol, drugs and despair. At the root of abuse is an existential void, due to the absence of values and lack of self-confidence. This is a world problem but as we move into Europe anxieties about the adverse effects of alcohol consumption and the harm to European economic and social integration are expressed in the report of a working group of the World Health Organisation. Will the Minister tell the House today what the ministerial group is doing about the problem? What are its recommendations?
The report states that awareness of alcohol-related problems is greater at national level than at Community level and for most European countries integration will imply the relaxation of alcohol controls, lower taxes and more alcohol available on the market. Many of the control measures now in force will have to be lifted since they discriminate against foreign beverages.
Alcohol is particularly difficult because it is legal. Does the Minister believe that GPs have enough training about the problems and does she believe that some GPs perceive questions about alcohol as being embarrassing and intruding upon patients' privacy? Does the Minister agree that there is a problem of alcoholism among GPs? With so much emphasis on primary health care I wish to ask the Minister whether she discusses these problems with the medical colleges and the BMA.
In the North the spread of drug abuse came later than in the South. However, now the increase in crime is very evident and the public are most anxious especially at the growth in crime among young people. Some time ago a group of parents from Glasgow came to your Lordships' House to make some of us aware of the terrible problems that they were having in trying to keep their children away from drugs. One example they gave was of old-age pensioners who are prescribed free sleeping pills and tranquillisers and who sell them to children who mix the drugs and inject themselves. Such problems cannot be tackled by parents alone. They need the support of the health authorities, the social services, the probation service, the education authorities, the police and the voluntary agencies, which understand the problems. It was very disappointing when the Government rejected the amendment which I moved in the previous education Bill to make "life" skills a mandatory part of the school curriculum. That would have given emphasis to the vital need.
It was also worrying when last year the Government stopped the pump-priming grant for the provision of health education drug co-ordinators. Those posts were an important link between health and education and with so many changes in the health service that seemed the very worst time to be removing
1082
the security provided by the co-ordinators. No doubt the small-time local pushers who target young people are laughing.
On 3rd April this year The Times featured an article on a drug smuggler who stole a woman's identity. There were two pictures of a Nigerian woman who hijacked the life of Susan Cole, a blond young woman, in order to smuggle cocaine into Britain. Is it not time that everybody possessed an identity card with a photograph in order to stop such things happening? Many people working in security jobs now have such cards, but we are not facing up to the ever-growing dangers of drug smuggling which end up with the devastating results of drug abuse within families.
I turn now to the problems facing residential care houses dealing with drug and alcohol rehabilitation. I have heard from those running a small house in the New Forest which takes 20 adults and six children. Priority is given to Wessex residents but only about 10 per cent. are from Wessex. The largest proportion comes from London, with several people from Liverpool and Glasgow, among other areas. During the run-up to 1st April and care in the community, those running the centre became increasingly alarmed by the changes being made; that is, the changes in funding and in attitudes. They have been told that many London authorities will no longer be funding people wishing to enter a rehabilitation house outside London. That is just one example of the new policy.
There appears also to be an increase in the prescribing of methadone without the previous programme of dose reduction and eventual drug-free status. Does that mean that care in the community, in so far as it affects drug users, is coming to mean giving unlimited methadone but with no encouragement to give up drugs? Could that be seen as a cheaper option than residential care? I have heard that methadone addiction is more difficult to remedy than heroin addiction, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord McNair. Therefore, in the long run it may lead to increased drug abuse, increased crime to fund it, and the whole community paying dearly.
Obtaining sufficient funds has always been an uphill struggle for rehabilitation houses as drug users do not receive a good press. The young people who go to the home which I mentioned and to similar homes —many of whom are seriously deprived and some are parents with their young children—are not simply helped to break the drug-taking habit which has disrupted their lives but are trained in the many skills, both educational and "life", to enable them to return to the community as useful citizens and not as criminals.
It costs only £227 per week to keep a young person off the streets, not committing crimes and not going to prison and also learning how to improve his or her life for the future. Those who go with children are shown how to become better parents. All are shown how to live together in harmony. That home does not know how it will survive in the future. Is it not wise to have a choice of homes, because different people respond to different methods of treatment? It is possible that some of the best homes will have to close.

1083
Last year with some colleagues from Parliament I visited prisoners held in police cells here in London. Having seen with my own eyes a seriously alcoholic prisoner, I asked the doctor who was processing him through the system what would become of him. The doctor said, "If I could have one thing, it would be some secure detox centres to send people like him for treatment". The prisoner wished to try to reform but without facilities he will stay at risk to himself and others, going in and out of the prison system.
For many years I have been associated with Phoenix House, which has several drug rehabilitation and re-entry houses throughout England. Phoenix House has tackled that most difficult problem for years and has found a much better way of treatment than incarcerating people in prison who will not have faced up to their addiction while in prison but may have helped to spread both drugs and HIV to other prisoners within the system.
The major current concern as predicted by Phoenix House is the fate of those people leaving custody. Last year nearly 75 per cent. of the residents of Phoenix House came through the criminal justice system and it is by no means clear who is responsible for funding such people. An example is a man referred to Phoenix House nine months ago from a prison in Kent. He was sentenced four years ago from Lewisham and stayed in a total of four or five prisons across the country throughout the time of his sentence. The Parole Board agreed to parole him on the basis that he had a clear desire to leave prison and go to Phoenix House. Understandably, Kent is reluctant to pay for the funding, given that the man's only reason for being in Kent was because of a Home Office prison transfer. Lewisham is reluctant to fund him because four years out of the borough is a long time. It is probably worried about the precedent which that may set so early on in the light of the Act. The ridiculous position may arise where the man elects to remain in custody while that problem is being sorted out despite a release date having been identified for this week.
There is still no clear guidance from the Department of Health or indeed the Home Office despite the repeated requests for clarification on that issue. Perhaps the Minister will be able to do something about that. Unless government departments work closely in co-operation over these matters, the uncertainty will continue. That is neither cost effective for the taxpayer nor beneficial for the rehabilitation of the individual. The community care legislation may mean that a significant number of referrals will be made through the criminal justice system.
Last week's Yorkshire Post had the headline:
"Prisoners try to stay in jail because of drug supplies".
The article said that drug use in Britain's first private jail is rife. That is the Wolds remand prison at Everthorpe, North Humberside. It is rather worrying that that institution has not allowed the board of visitors from Wetherby young offenders institution, which is nearby, to visit, after two requests.
Members of the board of visitors are appointed by the Secretary of State and the Home Office. Several members of the Wetherby board of visitors are
1084
magistrates and the board members are responsible members of society. They are interested only in the well-being of the inmates and the institution. They were interested to visit the Wolds, as they are interested to visit other penal establishments. Perhaps the Minister will ask why the Wetherby board of visitors has not been made welcome. I should like to know also whether the Home Office will inquire into the alleged drug problem. Perhaps the Minister will pass on that request and reply to me by letter.
Unless all interested departments, agencies and individuals pull together to promote education against drug and alcohol abuse, there will not be the united front so desperately needed for good healthy living instead of the depressing deprivations of the drug culture.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for raising this vitally important topic. I believe that I should refer to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. It is my great pleasure to congratulate her today because a little mole tells me that it is her birthday.
The noble Baroness is right to say that GPs have not been adequately trained in the past to deal with the problems of drug and alcohol abuse. That problem is now being addressed. The Royal College of General Practitioners is fully aware of that need, as are academic departments of general practice dealing with the training of undergraduate medical students throughout the country. In my practice we try hard to collaborate with the local drug treatment unit and alcohol advisory unit attached to University College Hospital, Middlesex.
There is a difficulty as regards training GPs throughout the country because to do the job properly it is necessary to collaborate with other counselling services in the local community. All too often they do not exist for GPs to collaborate with. That is particularly so with regard to out patient treatment units for people with drug problems.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, pointed out, there is little doubt that both alcohol and drug abuse is increasing in this country but there is also little doubt that both are more common in societies under stress. People turn to drugs and excessive use of alcohol to escape from uncomfortable feelings. Young people in Britain feel that they are rejected and unwanted by society. That applies to all unemployed people. Those who become addicted from all walks of life are of a more dependent personality than those who can drink appropriate amounts at appropriate times or use drugs occasionally or "recreationally" —I like that word. However, where there is mass unhappiness, more people turn to those means of relief and become enmeshed in what is a way of life with its own imperatives and values. Instead of developing skills which are of use to the whole of society, their ingenuity is devoted to outwitting that society because they feel that they are outside it—and with good reason.
I shall not describe the health impact of the misuse of these substances in any great detail. Suffice it to say

1085
that addiction to some drugs is fatal. Heroin has a mortality rate of 10 per cent. during a phase of addiction. However, unless an overdose is taken it is not the drug itself which kills; it is the way in which it is used that makes it so deadly. The problem is that street heroin is of variable strength and purity. The 10 or so recent deaths in the King's Cross district seem to have occurred—and this was described in the Independent newspaper article referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McNair—because a batch of unexpectedly high strength of heroin was sold on the street. Another explanation is that it had been cut or mixed—that is, diluted—with a poisonous substance as yet unidentified.
I saw three drug addicts in my surgery this morning. One of them said, "Some of the stuff they mix with heroin is lethal. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't put some strychnine in this, or that someone had a wish to get rid of someone that they sold the drug to". I am not at all sure that that is not possible. However, in this particular case I think that it was an unexpectedly strong preparation of heroin that was the cause of the trouble.
Of course, as all noble Lords know, HIV infection and AIDS have now to be added to the dangers of the use of injected drugs.
The direct damage to health caused by excessive alcohol consumption is quite well known, but the indirect damage is more costly to the nation and to the National Health Service. Serious road accidents apart, many hospital admissions are due in part to the poor nutrition and self-neglect that are associated with alcohol abuse. One study found that 25 per cent. of acute admissions were at least in part alcohol related. While saying that, I do not deny—in fact, I fully accept—all the evidence which shows that light to moderate alcohol consumption is actually beneficial to health, particularly in relation to heart disease.
However, as other speakers have outlined, the social consequences far outweigh the damage to physical health. In the case of drug abuse the result is petty crime. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, repeated the figure that he gave us a year or so back of £1.8 billion worth of goods that are stolen by drug users to finance their habit. That is in the metropolitan area alone, and drugs are used all over the country. On the other hand, more often than not alcohol plays a part in violent crime and serious road accidents. However, more serious even than that is the damage it inflicts on family life, with harm possibly showing itself in the next generation.
What are we doing about all that? Action to prevent the problem needs to be considered first. I am following something along the lines of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Primary prevention—to remove the underlying cause—is the basic need. Here the Government seem quite helpless. There are many steps that could be taken to give the youth of this country a greater sense that they are valued. If jobs cannot be created overnight, training courses could be extended and improved. Much more could be done to ensure that the courses lead to real jobs afterwards. I do not accept that because there is a recession the
1086
Government can sit by making only token and ineffectual gestures which sometimes serve only to increase the cynicism of youth—and of all unemployed people in Britain. All other methods to prevent drug and alcohol abuse are doomed to work against the current as long as a large proportion of the population has so little hope.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, pointed out, a great deal of time, money and ingenuity is devoted to trying to stop drug imports getting through, with much congratulation when a big haul is unearthed. But the ingenuity of the traffickers is very effective, and the sheer volume is such that far more always gets through than is discovered.
Much thought is also given to reducing demand, first by health education. However, most workers in the drugs field feel that the money spent on big advertising campaigns has been wasted and could have been better employed in the provision of more and better treatment and rehabilitation centres. (If I say on each occasion that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said what I am saying my speech will be rather longer than I mean it to be. But I thoroughly concur with many—although not all—of the views that he holds.) However, that is not to say that carefully targeted health education in schools, for instance, cannot be effective; but there has been remarkably little evaluation of the effect of any health education activities. I know that it is an extremely difficult area to tackle, but I wonder whether the noble Baroness, in her reply, can point to any research which has demonstrated that health education in the drugs and alcohol field actually works to reduce demand in any location where it is given.
That brings me to the second part of the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord McNair: what do we do about those in our midst who are afflicted? After all, they are the ones who are giving us a headache. Drug and alcohol treatment centres nearly all work on the principle of helping users to give up their habit smoothly, but nearly all have a very high relapse rate. There is often too high an expectation of success by the staff and a false optimism on the part of the users who may agree to treatment for a variety of reasons before they are really motivated to give up and to become abstinent.
Cynics may say that addicts often come off drugs or alcohol finally without help—they just grit their teeth and give themselves the cold turkey treatment, with the suffering that that entails. But I do not take such a Spartan view. There are drug users and alcoholics who, with much patience, can be helped. While they are being counselled (and in the case of drug users being given substitute drugs to relieve them of the necessity to raise £100 daily to finance their habit) the harm that they do to the rest of the community is much reduced.
The clinic run by Dr. John Marks in Liverpool (which has already been referred to) recognises that most addicts cannot give up until the right moment for them, which may be several years ahead. They receive maintenance treatment meanwhile, sometimes methadone; but in that clinic not only methadone. I agree with some of the worries expressed by the noble Lord,

1087
Lord McNair, about methadone. But I do not think it is quite as bad as he made out. In fact, while people are receiving it as maintenance treatment, many car radios and television sets are saved from being stolen.
As a result of the policy of Dr. John Marks's clinic, he has a much higher final success rate than most units, with the added advantage that the crime rate in Liverpool around his clinic has actually come down against the national trend of increasing crime, despite the area being one of the most deprived in the country. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, is right to say that he has a callous approach. Far from it: I think that Dr. Marks actually has a much more realistic and effective approach. Indeed, if one talks to him one realises that he is not in the least callous; in fact, he is an extremely caring man.
Finally, I should like to talk about residential centres as they are referred to in the title of the Motion and other speakers have mentioned them. There is a proportion of alcoholics and drug abusers whose lifestyle is so chaotic that they cannot cope with out-patient treatment. They need to get away from their family or environmental setting to be able to start their rehabilitation. Some are sent to the centres by court order. If they can tolerate the regime they often make great progress only to relapse on or shortly after returning home—to the same circumstances from which they came. Several admissions may often be needed. That is why it is the most costly form of rehabilitation. Because of the relapse rate, there is some doubt as to whether residential centres are cost-effective. However, against that it should be remembered that those who go to the centres are often the most intractable cases who cause the most damage in the community, either by stealing goods from other people or by harm to their own families.
Several noble Lords have mentioned the financial difficulties which these centres are already experiencing and which they will certainly experience more and more this year. I wish to ask the noble Baroness, perhaps as a parting shot, if she will state whether, as has been suggested in some quarters, the Government feel that these units, which are nearly all run by the voluntary sector, are not cost-effective. Does she still think that they have a definite role in helping to curb the suffering of their clients and the communities in which they live? If so, I hope she will be able to reassure us that a satisfactory method of funding these residential units will be found and applied soon, before they start closing, as they surely will if this funding does not materialise.
4.20 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord McNair for tabling this debate today and for providing such a wide Motion. I cannot say that I looked forward to the debate. It is my intention to concentrate on the alcohol part of the Motion, and I have learnt over the eight or nine years that I have spent in your Lordships' House that one has to walk rather a tightrope when speaking about alcohol problems in order not to clear the Chamber. I shall try to avoid talking about the evils of drink. I have always tried to avoid doing so.
1088
One must nevertheless face the fact that there has always been a sizeable drink problem in this country. In most of the developed countries of the world there is a sizeable alcohol problem of one type or another. As regards the developing countries, it seems that the quicker they develop the more their alcohol problems increase. No one can say precisely why that is so. Alcohol is a socially acceptable mood-changing substance. On the good side it gives people a lot of comfort and happiness. It is used to celebrate events and to toast people. It is consumed on people's birthdays. At this stage I join in the good wishes paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, on her birthday which falls today. I thank her for the tireless work she does in this area.
A sum in excess of £50 million is spent on drink per day in this country. However, that is not really the problem. In France people spend double that amount per day on drink. Our actual consumption of raw alcohol is relatively modest. It is the pattern of abuse of alcohol in this country which is worrying. A number of important changes have occurred in recent times. The most helpful change—a cultural change —is in the attitude towards drink and driving. When I was a young man it was considered part of one's training to drink too much and to drive. One was considered rather a Jack-the-lad if one did so successfully. Nowadays I look back with horror at the experiences I had as a young man. I am glad that most people now accept that it is extremely dangerous to drink and drive. Young people in particular have been made aware of the rapid effect that drink can have on their handling of cars and other machinery. As a motor cyclist I know that it is almost impossible to ride a motor cycle with a feeling of security even after one drink. I am happy to say that few motor cyclists drink and ride.
A phrase that sticks with me was that uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, when he said that treatment works. That is the truest statement I have heard today and in my opinion the most important aspect of our debate. Treatment works for those who abuse drugs and for those who abuse alcohol. Those who abuse both kinds of mood-changing substances are treated in approximately the same way. Enormous steps have been taken in the development of treatment which works quickly and which has a permanent effect. However, problems arise with the diagnosis of people in the first place and the ability to get them into treatment. When I first became involved in the matter it struck me that there was probably more argument, discussion and jealousy in the caring professions than in any other area apart from academia. I was amazed to discover the number of people involved in the field of alcohol abuse or the treatment of it who were not speaking to one another.
In preparation for the debate I rang the director of policy of a local authority. The authority has an important treatment centre within its boundaries and is making great efforts to make the new community care legislation work amid all the difficulties that that entails. The director said that one of his main problems was to obtain a common attitude within his local authority as regards the treatment of alcoholics

1089
and drug addicts. He said that there was a difference of philosophy among various people acting within that area. The matter has been highlighted by other noble Lords who have mentioned GPs who often face the difficult task—one must acknowledge that it is difficult—of dealing with a patient who appears to be anxious and depressed and who shows no outward signs of being a misuser either of drugs or of alcohol. The GP then prescribes certain drugs to deal with the perceived anxiety and depression.
Recently a study was conducted in Ireland in a home for women alcoholics. The study showed that 94 women had been at first diagnosed as clinically depressed and had been treated. It was subsequently discovered, when they were treated, that only one of the 94 was clinically depressed. I am not saying that would happen here but I have consulted specialists this morning and they tell me that that is the problem they face.
One of the problems in this area is the conventional wisdom that detoxification and medical intervention are acceptable but counselling is not. There is a distinct resistance on the part of some people in the medical profession and some psychiatrists to counselling. It appears they object to any moral content in the counselling. That also applies to what one might call the primary care agencies. Social workers are often loath to deal with what they perceive and know to be an alcohol problem in this way. They use various terms to describe what they face; for example, role legitimacy and role adequacy. Some noble Lords may understand those terms better than I. As I understand it, they mean that if one is a social worker and one drinks, one feels it is improper to bring judgment to bear on someone who is clearly abusing drink and one avoids doing so.
Women drinkers give rise to particular concern. There has been a marked rise in drinking among women, mostly among women who have been the victims of a family break-up. They may have been abandoned or divorced and seem to turn to drink as a means of enhancing the feeling of their own identity which they have lost. They have lost their sense of identity as wives or mothers. Increasing numbers of young women in the age group 25 to 40, many of them successful, are independent and competing in a man's world. Often they drink as part of that lifestyle without realising the difficulties which they face because of their physical inability as women to tolerate the same amount of alcohol as men.
Another important problem which needs to be addressed seriously is the increase in criminal behaviour among juveniles. It is not possible to say exactly how many under age children are drinking but it is a large number. A recent study of children of secondary school age showed that at least 90,000 children in that age group are drinking more than the amounts prescribed in respect of the public at large, namely 14 units for a female and 21 units for a male. That is a serious figure. It does not take into account those who have not yet reached that dangerous level of intake. It is often reported that some children arrive in classrooms suffering from the effects of drink or even
1090
drunk. The link between criminal behaviour and drink is clear. It is a problem which all those involved with law enforcement and social work have to deal with every day.
It is unnecessary to complain again about the community care legislation, disappointed though we were that the ring-fencing of funds for care related to drug and alcohol problems was moved into the general area of local authority control. There has been an indication that there will be helpful and serious monitoring. I am fearful that while that monitoring is taking place many residential homes will close. I am afraid that it will be too late to save a number of them.
The fact that many people suffering from these problems are often hostile to the moral content of counselling within the residential environment is a further disadvantage. We shall have to address that problem later because I am sure that it will be raised as a result of the monitoring process.
It is not helpful to continue the endless debate about the distinction between heavy social drinkers and alcoholics. Such a distinction is meaningless. We all know people who abuse drink. We all know people who are clearly alcoholics. There are many people with problems, many of them helpless and vulnerable. The Government are making the right noises. I hope that in her summing up the noble Baroness will be able to give us some encouragement to believe that this enormously difficult problem will be approached and dealt with more successfully than in the past.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for giving us this opportunity for a wide-ranging debate on the subject before the House. I also join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on her birthday.
Because the Motion has been formulated so broadly, and following so many good speeches, I shall take the opportunity to devote the first half of my speech to the broad social and legal implications of drug and alcohol abuse and then move on to the more particular and urgent problem of residential care. It may be helpful to start with the example which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, gave concerning the way in which legal changes can make actions which were not previously criminal illegal or decriminalise acts which were previously thought to be criminal. A good example is drinking and driving. Something which was socially acceptable, if not boasted about, was made criminal by a careful law which no subsequent government have repealed. Tight enforcement of that law has now produced a fundamental change in social attitudes towards drinking and driving. Therefore, activities which were not previously criminal can be criminalised if we consider them to be harmful. Similarly, activities which were previously thought to be criminal can be decrimi-nalised, as in the case of homosexual behaviour among consenting adults. Therefore, we have to distinguish between what is physically and socially

1091
harmful, whether or not it is illegal, and activities which can be made legal or illegal in line with current convention and practice.
I do not propose that we ought to change the law in any of these matters, but I should like the Government at some stage to take a broader look at activities relating to the possession and use of drugs which are currently criminal offences and consider whether there are aspects which could be decrimi-nalised and which it would not be desirable to decriminalise. I believe that that is a question which ought to be brought out into the open.
I have no views on the matter and we have no policy on the subject, but the question of drug abuse and crime is important. If, for example, we decided that smoking would be banned because it was individually and socially harmful or we decided that the drinking of alcohol would be banned except under prescription for health reasons, we would have a very different society. I do not advocate such changes, but in the United States, for example, the debate about passive smoking has altered certain forms of behaviour.
Therefore, when we discuss the social and legal implications of drug and alcohol abuse we should remember that the context can change rapidly and can be made to change rapidly. What we call a crime today we may not call a crime tomorrow, and we may make certain activities criminal. Therefore, perhaps at some stage we should have a more wide-ranging debate on or an inquiry into the social and legal implications of drug and alcohol abuse. We have not had such a debate recently.
That leads me to the interesting question of the extent of alcohol and drug abuse which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, raised in his interesting speech. He said that figures relating to the number of drug addicts admitted by the Home Office (100,000) and the value of drugs seized by Customs (roughly £0.5 billion) do not accurately reflect the extent of the problem. The inquiry announced by a Minister in another place will not cover that aspect, but we ought to take up the question.
As a statistician I imagine that those figures are both serious underestimates. The figures for the number of admitted drug addicts, the amount of drugs seized and the amount stolen by drug addicts are all serious underestimates, in differing proportions. For our own information we should take up the question of how many drug addicts there are in society and what that is costing society.
I believe that the economics of the matter should be looked at in a much broader way, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said. It is not just narrowly the amount of money which we spend on drug and alcohol abuse as part of a certain budget, but also the ramifications in the Home Office budget; the unreported thefts; the unreported costs of drug and alcohol abuse visited upon citizens who are mugged or have something stolen from them. Those are additional costs and we ought to ask ourselves whether there are better ways of treatment and of implementing or changing the law which will minimise
1092
the current heavy costs on people. We may not call it drug abuse but crime or theft, yet it may all be interlinked.
The true cost-effectiveness of treatment of one form or another—it may be prevention or effective counselling rather than treatment—ought not to be looked at in the narrow economic sense of costs per bed but of costs saved by preventing the return of one person to drug addiction. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, pointed that out.
In that regard we could justify a much more carefully worked out and better resourced programme to do something about drug and alcohol abuse than we have had so far. I agree that it may be difficult to alter the supply of drugs, except for synthetic drugs like methadone, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNair. I assume that most other drugs are imported because they are not home-produced. If that is the case, it would be difficult to affect the supply of those drugs. One should try to do one's best about the demand for them, but that is not easy in the short run. It is difficult to alter people's habits in the short run.
We may try to concentrate on preventing people from entering the phase of becoming drug or alcohol abusers, but it is difficult to diminish the demand from people already addicted because the drugs are habit-forming. However, it may be possible by treatment to prevent people returning to being drug abusers. That is the way the Government ought to move, looking at the effectiveness of the money spent on drug and alcohol abuse.
The second part of the Motion calls attention,
"to the case for increased facilities for residential care".
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for including that because, as many noble Lords have pointed out, the situation is now that residential care facilities are under great threat. I honestly believe that this was not intended by the Government. There was no knowingly evil intention on their part. However, the fact that the ring-fencing on drug and alcohol abuse has been dropped has raised serious anxiety in the minds of the people who are active in the field.
I am involved in one drug intervention agency, City Roads, so I must declare an interest. People who work in the area are dedicated. They work under the most difficult circumstances, in jobs which are not badly paid but are certainly not well paid. The social value of what they do far exceeds the income they receive and they work very hard. There is serious anxiety among them, as was shown by a survey conducted by Alcohol Concern and SCODA. Many agencies feel that they are likely to have to shut down because of the change in the rules for funding. That may be alarmist but I should like to know the Government's assessment of the situation.
Given that there is this feeling, are the Government doing anything urgently to avoid the situation where the few residential care facilities that we have are shut down? They are inadequate, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, pointed out, in relation to those in the United States. Once the facilities are shut down they

1093
will be difficult to re-open because people's acquired skills in the field will be lost. They will find jobs elsewhere and soon the skills will not be available.
From that point of view, yes, I should like increased facilities for residential care. But right now what are the Government doing to prevent the erosion of facilities for residential care, which is likely given the change in the rules? I have been out of the country for two weeks and a revolution may have happened in the meantime in those matters, but I should like to know what is going on. I should also like to know whether there is any prospect of an increase in resources in the field. Such funding as is available is not good enough. The rise in the figures for crime and drug abuse, which are not unconnected with the problem, make me feel that perhaps more resources devoted to residential care may be a better crime-fighting tactic than firmer policing, which is not to be sneezed at. I should like to know from the noble Baroness the Government's latest position on the matter.
Given that local authorities have not had adequate time to prepare their programmes, with the change in the rules which came rather late, and given that often drug and alcohol abusers do not have priority in the local authority's mind —there certainly is not a strong lobby on their side—to obtain resources from the local authority budget, will the Government consider issuing directives rather than just guidelines? Those would tell the local authority how to assess and meet needs as they arise. Currently the problem is very serious. I concede that there is no intention on the part of the Government to affect the sector adversely, but we may be doing so unintentionally. I should like us to avoid the unintended consequences of a late change in policy. I wish that the Minister would give me some hope when she replies. I thank all noble Lords for the excellent debate and look forward to the reply from the Minister.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for initiating this debate and enabling people with enormous knowledge and expertise on the subject to express their views in your Lordships' House and for me to have the opportunity to restate the Government's commitment in this important area.
There is a great deal of common ground between noble Lords, particularly those who have spoken today, and the Government. I should like to start by stressing the very high priority which the Government have in tackling the problems associated with the misuse of alcohol and drugs. We recognise the terrible loss and waste of young lives which can occur when young people succumb to these temptations, particularly drug abuse, and the misery and anguish it causes not only to misusers but to their families and friends, diminishing society as a whole. Prevention is always better than cure, but when prevention fails then residential treatment and rehabilitation play an important part; but it is only a part, and over the years the Government have evolved a comprehensive strategy to tackle alcohol and drug misuse.
1094
The drugs strategy involves co-ordinated action on five main fronts: first, to improve international co-operation in order to reduce supplies from abroad; secondly, to increase the effectiveness of police and Customs enforcement; thirdly, to maintain effective deterrents and tight domestic controls; fourthly, to develop prevention publicity and education; and last, but not least, to improve treatment and rehabilitation.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft mentioned the range of sanctions employed to control drugs. He urged us to accept the supply but reduce the demand. I fear that that is a counsel of despair and I think that it is right that we should also try to reduce the supply so far as possible.
Indeed, we have introduced tough penalties to deter drug traffickers and dealers, including a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for supplying or having possession with intent to supply Class A substances such as heroin, and 14 years for a substance such as cannabis. Drug trafficking is an international problem and has been described as the biggest commercial and criminal business in the world. Enforcement is a key component and the latest statistics show that the number of people dealt with for drugs offences rose to 54,000 in 1991: an increase of 3,600 over the previous year. That gives some encouragement to those determined to contain and eventually to conquer this serious crime.
Alcohol is a different matter and noble Lords will know that its consumption in sensible quantities and in appropriate circumstances provides many people with enjoyment. I share that view, expressed also by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland; indeed I am prompted at this moment to drink a toast to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on her birthday —alas, on the Front Bench I have only water.
Although drinking can be pleasurable, in excess it can cause not only harm to health—progressively increasing the risk of raised blood pressure and strokes, and other conditions such as cancers and liver cirrhosis—but alcohol consumption on inappropriate occasions can lead to accidents, particularly on the roads, and to reduced concentration and efficiency at work. Heavy drinking is also often associated with violent and sexual crimes, family break-up and disorderly behaviour.
The White Paper The Health of the Nation reflects the importance the Government attach to tackling health problems associated with both alcohol and drug misuse, and includes targets for both. The White Paper also emphasises that government, at both national and local level, has a role to play in ensuring that there continues to be a comprehensive range of services to meet the needs of alcohol and drug misusers.
It is against that background that the future of residential treatment and rehabilitation needs to be seen. There are at present around 2,000 places in residential centres, very nearly all of them provided by the independent sector. I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Rea, and Lord Desai, that the Government recognise and value the contribution which they and

1095
non-residential centres make, and are committed to developing further services for people with alcohol and drug problems.
In 1991 we introduced a specific grant which enables local authorities to make payments to voluntary organisations. In the three years since its introduction the grant has supported a wide range of services. For example, The Richmond Fellowship has now received three years' support for the development of services for women substance misusers and their pre-school children. Turning Point, whose Griffin project was opened in September 1992 by the Princess of Wales, received a grant of £160,000 to provide a service for drug misusers who are HIV positive.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, specifically mentioned the work of TACADE. As he indicated, it is a very effective and valuable organisation, one of many which are supported by the Government. With regard to the importance of drugs education in schools, the noble Lord may be interested to know that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will shortly publish a report on drugs education in schools to which the Government will give careful consideration.
I turn now to the specific grant. In the two years of the grant, £3.5 million was provided by the Department of Health and other local sources provided a further £1.5 million; 176 awards were made, and over £2 million was spent on residential care. The rest was allocated to non-residential services, either to increase the effectiveness of the residential services or for training.
In the current year the grant has been increased by 9 per cent., with £2.3 million to be provided by the Department of Health. Residential services will continue to receive £1.6 million, but the scope of the grant has been widened to ensure that adequate and suitable community-based services will also be available for those drug misusers who do not need residential care.
The community care arrangements, introduced this month, ensure that local authorities will have the lead responsibility for the assessment of people who may be in need of care and, where appropriate, to make arrangements and pay for the social care costs. The network of residential services will therefore need to be responsive to local needs. A total of £565 million has been transferred to local authorities, ring-fenced for the implementation of community care.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has frequently sparred on the subject of ring-fencing. His view is that there should be a specific sum of money. But the Government decided not to ring-fence funds solely for drugs and alcohol abuse, but to ring-fence a total amount for community care. That view and decision were supported by the judicial review which took place. The application of that judicial review was dismissed. The court upheld the action of the Secretary of State to ring-fence the entire sum of money. The £565 million includes resources for the purchase of services for alcohol and drug misusers. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggests, the Government recognise that alcohol and drug misusers have not traditionally looked to statutory bodies for
1096
help; many will have no settled address and may lead transient lifestyles. I hope that I can reassure him and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, when I say that we have now issued special guidance to local authorities which encourages them to make sure that eligibility criteria and assessment procedures are sensitive to the particular needs of alcohol and drug misusers, including those recently released from prison.
At our request, the Local Government Drugs Forum has been working with the local authority associations to draw up advice on "fast track" assessments, which will ensure that people in urgent need of care, whether living in their home area, away from home, or without settled accommodation, and for whom a delay may result in increased harm to them or their families, receive a rapid response to their needs. The advice to local authorities was issued by the Local Government Drugs Forum at the end of March.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and other noble Lords, that the Government have also listened to the concerns expressed by those in the independent sector who provide services. Due to the relatively short length of stay in alcohol and drug rehabilitation and residential homes, any changes in referral patterns or delays as the new community care arrangements settle down could have a disproportionate effect on those services. We have therefore decided to establish special monitoring arrangements through Goldsmith's College to identify local authority referral patterns, and occupancy levels in residential homes.
The noble Lords, Lord McNair and Lord Ennals, my noble friend Lord Mancroft, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, raised reservations about the use of methadone. I understand those reservations. Abstinence must remain our ultimate goal in drug treatment. But prescribing substitute drugs such as methadone can be a useful tool in helping to change the behaviour of some drug misusers. The aim is to reduce the injecting substances which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, suggested, puts users at risk of acquiring HIV and spreading it among drug users, and from them to the wider population. Provision of methadone should be part of a planned programme of treatment.
The noble Lord asked how much methadone is prescribed. Approximately 300 million milligrammes of oral methadone was prescribed by regional health and family health service authorities in 1991–92. Around 1 million ampoules of methadone was also prescribed. He also asked for the cost of the prescription. The cost of methadone prescribed in 1991–92 was £4.4 million. That sum will be increased by the usual prescribing costs, which include the time of the doctor and the relevant fees. Figures for 1992–93 are not yet available.
Concerning the leakage of methadone into the black market, figures of police drug seizures show that very little methadone is seized. The view of the Home Office drugs inspectorate is that leakage is small. Methadone mixture is not generally considered by drug misusers to be a particularly attractive street drug.

1097
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked what advice is given to doctors on prescribing tranquillisers. Advice to doctors encourages them to limit the prescribing of tranquillisers to short periods to arrest acute symptoms. Guidelines on clinical management of drug misuse have been issued to all doctors, covering treatment and management of misuse of all drugs.
I am pleased that the intention of my honourable friend the Minister to carry out a comprehensive review has been welcomed in your Lordships' House. I am sure that he will consider the views expressed, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. The details of the review have not yet been finalised but I shall ensure that your Lordships are kept informed as the proposals develop.
With regard to the first ever national survey of mental illness in Britain, announced today, field work on the survey will start a week today to try to discover the true extent of psychiatric illness among the adult population. Among other things, it will try to measure the smoking, drinking and drug-taking habits of people with mental illness.
The noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Desai, asked how many drug addicts there were. It is difficult to assess the scale of a problem which is essentially an illegal activity. The Home Office addicts index, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred, currently shows about 20,000 addicts registered. That index relies on the notification by doctors of people who attend their clinics and who they consider are dependent on a range of controlled drugs. Clearly, therefore, it is an underestimate of the true numbers of addicts, many of whom will not have seen a doctor and may not be in touch with any services.
As I said, drug misuse is an illegal and clandestine activity. We need more information. The results of a large-scale Home Office survey will be published later this year and will give us a better feel for the scale of misuse.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, advocated a range of treatment options to meet the needs of alcohol and drug misusers. There is a wide range of treatment options available. Under the community care arrangements, local authorities are responsible for assessing individual needs and drawing up packages of care to meet the needs of each individual person. Local authorities will be free to purchase that care from whichever service provider is most suitable. The noble Baroness also suggested that identity cards would be of use. That issue has been considered several times in recent years. However, it has been recognised that it would be enormously expensive to set up and maintain a viable system. The noble Baroness asked a series of questions, many of them very detailed and important. I shall write to her in reply.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, questioned the value of publicity campaigns. National publicity campaigns can be effective in drawing public awareness to the problems of drug misuse. However, since 1991–92 the Department of Health has shifted
1098
the emphasis away from major national campaigns to encourage regional campaigns, which can better target local problems.
I shall quickly mention in this context the Home Office drug abuse prevention initiative. It is now established in 20 areas in England, Scotland and Wales, where there is considered to be a substantial risk from the threat of drug misuse. In each location there is a team helping to reinforce, harness and stimulate community action against drugs. An important element of the initiative is that the effectiveness of the prevention programmes being put in place is closely monitored and they are assessed to see what lessons can be learned.
In conclusion, the Government attach a high priority to the provision of suitable services within community care for alcohol and drug misusers. Local authority representatives made clear that they share the view of the Government and your Lordships' House that those services should receive a high priority. There is therefore every reason to expect local authorities to meet their responsibilities for that important client group. We remain confident that local authority commitment and the special measures that we have put in place will ensure that the valuable network of both residential and non-residential services will continue to develop.
5.4 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, we have had an interesting and very wide-ranging debate. I know that your Lordships are anxious for the business to proceed and I shall not keep the House for very long. I am grateful to all those who have spoken.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that treatment works. Moreover, it is relatively easy to measure the effectiveness of treatment programmes. The successful participant, marked out by previous court and hospital appearances, does not reoffend or fall sick.
I feel that the noble Lord was less than fair to education for prevention. Life education centres are carrying out both independent and in-house outcome surveys. The problem is that such surveys take a long time. It is argued that someone who has reached the age of 21 and not yet taken drugs probably will not take them; but proof of the effectiveness of prevention programmes will take 10 to 15 years to appear. The evaluation of TACADE's primary schools programme, to which I referred, will be interesting. As I tried to point out, if it affects positively a cluster of related behaviours and shows that the children who benefit from such a programme are in their lives winning socially and academically and developing high self-esteem, it can be inferred that such children are less likely to become involved in substance abuse, in which the most significant personality trait is low self-esteem.
I was interested to hear of the review of treatment services planned by the Minister of State, Dr. Brian Mawhinney. I hope that the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, are not justified, although I share his suspicions. It was also interesting to hear several speakers emphasise that alcohol and

1099
drug addiction in themselves are not mental illnesses and do not benefit from the intervention of psychiatrists.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Bosnia
5.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"The House will share the Government's feelings of outrage at the artillery attack on Srebrenica on Monday, in which according to reports at least 56 people were killed and 70 wounded. This was a new milestone of inhumanity in a conflict which had already spawned many atrocities. On this occasion, as on many others, the Bosnian Serbs appear to have been responsible. We should remember that the Serbs in Bosnia are not uniquely guilty, though they bear the main responsibility for current events in Bosnia. The other parties too have committed crimes. Indeed, the British soldier who was killed in January while escorting a convoy of sick and wounded did not fall to a Serbian bullet.
"It is not for want of effort by the international community that these horrors continue. The Government have been at the forefront of these efforts. The London conference last August, co-chaired by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, renewed the search for a negotiated settlement of the conflicts in former Yugoslavia—not only in Bosnia. Since then the Government have given their fullest support to the efforts of Lord Owen and Mr. Vance to achieve such a settlement. Success seemed in sight three weeks ago when the Bosnian Moslems joined the Bosnian Croats in signing all the elements of the Owen-Vance peace plan. It is a matter of the deepest regret that the Bosnian Serbs have not yet been prepared to sign. I hope that even at this late stage, and despite all that has happened, they will be prepared to reconsider.
"Meanwhile, our armed forces have been playing a leading and distinguished part both in bringing relief to the suffering in Bosnia and in enforcing the arms embargo against the whole of former Yugoslavia and the wider sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Since November the Cheshire battalion group has escorted over 33,000 tonnes of food and other humanitarian aid to destinations in Bosnia. RAF Hercules aircraft have flown 427 sorties to Sarajevo and delivered nearly 6,000 tonnes of aid. Ships of the Royal Navy, assisted by airborne early warning and maritime patrol aircraft of the RAF, have patrolled the Adriatic and its surrounding airspace, alongside allies in NATO and the Western
1100
European Union, to enforce the embargo and the sanctions. Earlier this week pressure on the warring factions was increased when NATO aircraft began patrolling Bosnian airspace to enforce the no-fly zone in accordance with Security Council Resolution 816. RAF Tornado F3s and tankers are on standby to fly to bases in Italy to join in this operation when called forward by SACEUR to do so.
"The Government fully share the widespread frustration that diplomacy and military pressure have not yet succeeded and that the suffering still continues. Other weapons are available. The sanctions noose is being drawn tighter against Serbia, whose future is grim; she faces isolation and economic ruin.
"At the same time the House will recognise that there are no easy solutions to a conflict in which all three ethnic groups have willingly engaged and which has many of the characteristics of a civil war. If there had been the international community would have applied them long ago. Some argue that, if the outside world is not prepared to intervene militarily, it should at least refrain from enforcing an arms embargo which is bound to favour the Serbs since they have access to the arsenals of the Yugoslav National Army. That is an understandable argument, but we should be clear where it leads.
"Removal of the United Nations arms embargo would certainly result in the Bosnian Moslems being free to acquire all the weapons that they needed. Presumably the Bosnian Serbs for their part would also seek more arms from other countries. The result would be to prolong the conflict and to make it ever bloodier and more vicious than it is today, bringing continuing suffering to innocent civilians. In those circumstances it is difficult to see how UNPROFOR's humanitarian mission could continue. The chances of negotiating aid through the front lines, as at present, would be sharply diminished. Meanwhile the international consensus would almost certainly have been lost.
"The United Nations' efforts in former Yugoslavia so far have been made possible by Russian willingness to support the necessary resolutions and to put pressure on the Serbs. That co-operation has been invaluable, but given the internal situation in Russia it cannot be taken for granted. It would be unlikely to survive an escalation of the conflict through the removal of the arms embargo.
"There have also been calls for the use of air strikes to enforce a peace settlement. There could be circumstances in which the selective use of air power would be relevant. NATO, at the request of the United Nations, is enforcing the no-fly zone at the present time. But the clear military advice received by the Government is that air strikes unsupported by substantial numbers of troops on the ground would be unlikely to be effective given the nature of the conflict, the weapons deployed and the terrain. The chances of civilian casualties

1101
would be high. Meanwhile the risks to British and other United Nations troops, and to the success of the humanitarian relief operation, would remain. While one should not rule out that expedient absolutely, it is one which would change in a fundamental way the role of the United Nations and bring it into the heart of the conflict as a combatant.
"The right course to pursue is the current policy, thankless and frustrating as it is. Diplomacy must continue. Pressure on those responsible for prolonging the conflict must be increased. The plight of the suffering must be alleviated. The international consensus necessary to do all those things must be maintained. Those will continue to be the Government's objectives."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place. The noble Baroness will undoubtedly recognise, as did the Statement she repeated, the widespread frustration that is felt not only in this country but throughout the Community, and, as we read from today's press, in the United States, at the failure of the United Nations policy in the former Yugoslavia.
Is it not the case that the United Nations policy seems to be in some sort of disarray at the moment? Are we clear exactly what the aims are? Are we even clear about the aims of the European Community? Can the noble Baroness respond and say what is the unanimity of view inside the European Community on the former Yugoslavia and the horrific events taking place there at the moment?
I should like to ask the noble Baroness two sets of questions, one political and the other on defence matters. First, in the Statement she repeated she referred to the Owen-Vance solution. How many times must we go on with that? Is it now engraved in stone that there is agreement among some parties and not others? Do we wait until, by some magic, the others agree? Are there any fallback solutions that the United Nations has in mind? Does the new negotiator have any further thoughts he wishes to put forward? I recognise the difficulties of confidentiality that must be maintained. But has the noble Baroness any comments she would like to make on those points this afternoon?
Secondly, are the sanctions against Serbia really being enforced to their limit? That seems to me to be the crux of the matter. We are told that the sanctions are being broken almost daily. If that is happening on the Danube or elsewhere, should not both the European Community and the United Nations be taking strenuous action to ensure that those sanctions apply and indeed are strengthened?
I come now to my questions on the military advice that the Government have received. I echo the Statement's views on the contribution made by our armed forces to humanitarian relief in Bosnia, under enormous difficulty and great danger, as the noble
1102
Baroness pointed out. We congratulate them on what they have done. But are they not simply sitting ducks in the light of the fact that there is no military involvement at all? I refer to the point in the last part of the Statement repeated by the noble Baroness which says,
"There could be circumstances in which the selective use of air power would be relevant".
Can the noble Baroness say what advice the Government are receiving from the chiefs of staff on the circumstances in which such selective use of air power could be relevant? Do we have the air power? Does it need the United States to take out, for instance, Serbian artillery that even this morning was shelling Srebrenica with cluster shells that kill and maim children? What military advice are the Government receiving on that?
Lastly, we support the policy outlined in the Statement. But we must recognise that there is a growing section of public opinion that is frustrated and fed up with the lack of progress being made in the former Yugoslavia. We continue to see on our television screens scenes which we have not seen almost since the Second World War. We never saw them direct on television at that time, which is what we are seeing now. We are seeing pictures of children blinded by the effects of the cluster shells that the Serbs are pouring into Srebrenica. Public opinion will not for ever be calmed—we hope that it is calm but it will not for ever be calmed—by the Statement repeated by the noble Baroness this afternoon.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend in another place. I associate myself with the tributes being paid to our troops for taking on the difficult and dangerous task in which they are involved.
In that connection, amid the many frustrations which the whole operation has provoked, we should not forget the important achievement of humanitarian aid in averting famine. However, there have been reports over the weekend that food supplies and/or money to purchase food for the United Nations are running out. Is that truly the case? Will the Minister comment on that and say what steps are being taken to prevent that happening?
One is obviously concerned at the Russian request to delay the vote in the Security Council on new sanctions to be imposed on Serbia, but I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. What steps are being taken to enforce more rigorously the sanctions that are already in place? It is widely reported that oil is being transported down the Danube in large quantities. It is widely reported that arms are being obtained by the Serbs from Greece and from other countries. It is not very sensible to worry about new sanctions if existing sanctions are not being enforced. I should very much like to hear what the noble Baroness has to say on that topic.
Obviously the events reported this week in Srebrenica are appalling and shocking and add to the feelings of frustration that have been widely expressed here and elsewhere. In the face of those horrors one understands the response of those who say that

1103
something must be done and who suggest among other things that we should arm the Bosnian Moslems. I would only say to that, as has already been said by someone—I cannot quite remember who—that one does not put out a fire by throwing petrol on it. What will happen if Srebrenica falls? It is in the Moslem zone. What will happen then to the Owen-Vance plan? After that, the heat will be turned on to Sarajevo, or Zepa or Goradze. What steps are we taking to ensure that they do not fall also? That is a legitimate question to ask. If those Moslem towns are all occupied, where will that leave the plan on which so many hopes have been pinned?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their questions. I do not believe that the UN policy is in disarray. It is perfectly true that there has been difficulty in persuading the Russians over the enforcement of the no-fly zone and subsequently over the implementation of a tougher sanctions regime. I understand that what happened late last night in New York was that, with the 15-day delay in the enforcement of a tougher sanctions regime, this would take us beyond the date in Moscow when certain very important events are to take place. The discussions which are going on between my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, the Foreign Ministers of the other G7 nations and the Russian Foreign Minister today may give us more information about the difficulties that the Russians were having with this. But those discussions will also be used to persuade the Russians to get the Serbs to sign up to the Vance-Owen peace plan.
We are quite clear about the UN aims and EC aims, which are to enforce the sanctions, to deliver humanitarian aid and to bring as much relief to the suffering as we can. Of that there is no doubt. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked how long we should go along with the Vance-Owen peace plan. We have at least to work through the next fortnight to try to make sure that, if there is any chance of getting not only the Bosnian Serbs to sign up to the Vance-Owen peace plan but also of ensuring that it is implemented, we should try that. The steps that have been suggested by some are extremely serious and take us down a path which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, did not advocate but which we all understand is a very natural human reaction to this desperate situation. Goodness me, I have seen it with my own eyes. There is no way in which I shall ever stand by if anything can reasonably be done to halt this.
The noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Bonham-Carter, asked whether we are enforcing sanctions to the limit. The sanctions missions that are in place—the EC and CSCE sanctions missions—in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia and Ukraine are working much better. We have highlighted several loopholes. We have advised those governments how to close them and monitoring is going on to make sure that that happens. We are also about to establish a new EC/CSCE mission in Albania in case sanctions are being broken there. We have had discussions between the WEU Council and the riparian states on the establishment of the Western European Union flotilla to enforce sanctions on the
1104
Danube. The NATO and WEU monitoring exercise in the Adriatic is making a valuable contribution. We have offered £100,000 to assist with the tightening of sanctions as they are at the moment, and if the stronger sanctions are brought in by UN resolution in a couple of weeks' time all efforts will be made to ensure that the riparian states can implement those sanctions. That indeed has been one of the problems.
I was asked about the Armed Forces' contribution in Bosnia. They are indeed making a tremendous contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to the importance of humanitarian aid. I must remember more than 100 of my own employed staff who are working on the humanitarian convoys, of which there have been more than 400 in Bosnia since November. They are tremendously helped by our Armed Forces. From my own observations and the reports we receive I do not believe that our military are sitting ducks, as the noble Lord described them. However, I do believe that they work extremely carefully in the central Bosnia area. We are not in Eastern Bosnia where the latest terrible atrocities have occurred. We have regular advice on a daily basis from our chiefs of staff. It would not be for me to give that advice in public but we are well aware of the limitations. I would remind the House that we could not evict the Iraqis from Kuwait by air power alone. We had also to have the allies on the ground in order to do it. I therefore ask all those who think that an air strike system might solve the problem of Eastern Bosnia to realise that in a much more accessible military situation in Kuwait we needed ground troops there as well.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in many ways. I can assure him that the food supplies are not running out. Britain was the first donor to respond to the latest UN appeal with a further contribution of more than £15 million, bringing total UK humanitarian aid to more than £92 million. Others have yet to make similar pledges but are beginning to do so. The scale of the problem is huge. The European Commission is looking urgently at making further funds available but there have been some difficulties in the supply line. There is no lack of money and the difficulties in the supply line are being dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked me to speculate on what would happen if Srebrenica fell. He asked about the outcome of the Vance-Owen peace plan and how we would protect other plans. No one can envisage exactly what would happen and certainly it is not my job at this Dispatch Box to speculate. All I can say is that both the British Government and all the other governments who want to see an end to this slaughter are determined that that shall happen. We shall work to that end.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Thatcher: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement that she has been kind enough to make. I ask her two questions although it may take a little time to put them.
First, let us bear in mind that the present policies of food aid, medical aid, plus negotiations, plus

1105
sanctions have been in place for about a year; that the sanctions have been in place in Iraq for two-and-a-half years and have not worked; and that the no-fly zone authority does not permit us to attack a ground target even though it is mortar bombing selectively hospitals and schools. Bearing in mind, therefore, that all of those factors have left the people at the mercy of the Serbs, subject to ethnic cleansing, 2 million refugees subject to massacre and slaughter, with something like 130,000 murdered, is it the Government's stance, as I thought from the noble Baroness's Statement, to leave those things to continue as they are without changing policy? That means the continuing suffering of the Moslem people which we would not tolerate in this country. Alternatively, is it, as I thought I heard the noble Baroness half say in her reply, that we shall give the Bosnian Serbs a fortnight to decide to accept the Vance-Owen proposals and implement them? No one will take their word for anything. If they do not accept the proposals we shall then pursue a more active policy which demonstrates more resolve. Which is it? I submit that we cannot continue with a policy which says to the Moslems, "You must submit and surrender".
My second question is this. The right of self-defence was not invented with the United Nations Charter but is as old as mankind itself. That right is recognised by Article 51 of the Charter which states that,
"nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence".
Bearing those factors in mind, why have the Government left the people, although they have a right of self-defence, without tile means of implementing that right against a vicious aggressor? We would not stand for that in this country. In answering the question, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that there is nothing moral or right about leaving a people defenceless in the path of a determined dictator aggressor?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand fully what my noble friend Lady Thatcher said and why she put it in the terms that she did. However, it would simply do no good for Britain alone to act on the basis of the very strong emotion which every person in this House and in another place feels. Let us have no doubts about that. What we must have is a practical resolution. There is no lack of resolve. I have probably spent more hours on the situation in Bosnia than on any other single situation requiring our frequent attention at this present time, and the same is true for every member of the Government involved. But it is the question of the practicality of action.
The first thing that we must not do is to risk worsening and extending the action. As I made clear in answer to the earlier questions from the Front Benches opposite, we have to take careful note that in Kuwait air strikes did not solve the situation. Ground troops also were needed. This is a much more difficult terrain where we have far less intelligence, where much of the Serb armaments are at times hidden in the hills and cannot be detected. Therefore whatever we do, we
1106
have to do it to help those poor people and also to make sure that what we do works, and works at an affordable risk.
We also need to maintain the broadest international front against Serbian aggression. I have to say to my noble friend that it would become impossible to sustain the humanitarian operation if we were to follow the course which she advocated yesterday on the television. I have had repeated discussions with Mrs. Ogata, the High Commissioner for Refugees, and other leading members of the UN and I am convinced that we should not lightly jeopardise an operation which has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, not over the past year but over the past six months since the British troops were involved on the ground in Bosnia.
I well understand the frustration that sanctions have not brought about an end to the confrontation, but I can assure my noble friend and this House that sanctions are bringing about a very severe financial situation in Serbia. Tightening those sanctions, and indeed extending them, is what we certainly may need to do. It is not a question of leaving people unprotected. It is a question of making sure that we work together to stop an all-out war which many of the solutions advocated by my noble friend could well cause.
The question of using air power is not one that has been totally rejected; but we must indeed ask the questions about humanitarian relief. We must also ask whether using air power would cause the Serbs to desist. There are many ways in which we can continue to help and we shall take whatever steps the Government, in co-operation with all their partners, deem necessary to bring this slaughter to a speedy end.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I approve of Government policy, perhaps because I was in that area 50 years ago when a civil war was taking place and perhaps because I visited Vietnam and saw the mistakes that the Americans made when they tried to deal with a guerilla war situation with the slaughter of heavy bombing and long distance strikes—the sort of action that is being asked for now—and they lost. Guerilla warfare requires a different method of fighting wars and usually the great powers lose.
It is a hateful civil war. The hateful civil war aspect is not new in that part of the world. I have never been back because on all sides the children and women suffer—God only knows—but nobody is right. History hangs heavily in that part of the world and we have to understand it.
I wish to raise two matters. First, on the number of troops, let us remember that when the opportunity arose in 1943 the allies did not go into Yugoslavia with large numbers of soldiers. It would have been easy to do so, but it would have been a grave mistake. The Germans learnt the mistake the hard way. They had as many as 13 divisions—it is true that some were at half strength; let us say that there were seven divisions—but they were beaten by guerilla warfare. With regard to the European Community, do not expect German soldiers to be in Yugoslavia. That aspect of civil war is written into the life blood of the people of that country.

1107
The Americans talk glibly in the UN about long distance strikes. That is different from close support for the army, as the noble Baroness stated. But one requires large numbers of soldiers. One needs close support every five or 10 minutes of the day, picking out the artillery just over the horizon. That will not come from long distance fighter bombers coming from Verona, Treviso or anywhere like that. The chiefs of staff are absolutely right to pour cold water on that. If it is a matter of bombing Belgrade or the other towns in the area from a great height, that would look good on the television, but there are some matters for which there are no solutions. This is one of them. It takes time. I wish the Government well in what they are doing.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. He is so right when he says that the civil war has long gone on. Our 2,000 plus troops in Bosnia are escorting humanitarian aid and maintaining the peace at many checkpoints. They are doing a fantastic job, along with all the aid workers. The noble Lord is also right that long-distance air strikes would not succeed without ground support. The desperate truth about bombing is that it always creates even more civilian casualties. I ask the House not to forget that the EC monitoring mission has some 350 brave people, from 16 countries, monitoring the ceasefires where they exist and seeking to promote dialogue and to assist the humanitarian activity. There is a great deal going on on the ground which is keeping at least some of the peace.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I declare an interest as the father of a serving soldier. May I ask my noble friend to confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to expose British troops to casualties even in dealing with those horrible people in that horrible country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm reports that the President of the United States has indicated to the Serbian side that the Bosnians will be rearmed unless the Vance-Owen proposals are signed?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot speak for the President of the United States, but there has been press comment to that effect.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the premature recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which has never really been a sovereign state, should teach us that impatience is a bad counsellor? Can she also say just how many troops she believes would be required to back up any air bombardment of the Serbs (or anybody else for that matter) because—does she not agree?—atrocities are being committed by Moslems and Croats as well as by Serbs? Finally, can we have her assurance that, before any military commitment takes place in the
1108
former Yugoslavia, this House and the House of Commons will be consulted and empowered to make a decision?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I should say first to the noble Lord that I well understand his impatience. He is right that taking decisions hastily in a matter as serious as this is very poor counsel. He asked how many thousands of troops might be involved. I can only tell him that it would be hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground because of the terrain. Driving over it, as we did for seven and a half hours to reach the headquarters of the British troops, I saw some of the most mountainous country that I have ever seen outside Nepal. It would be an almost impossible job without hundreds of thousands of troops.
Perhaps I may add that atrocities are being committed by Moslems and Croats as well as by Serbs. There is no doubt of that. Today we have launched some help for the women who have suffered in those atrocities. The help will go to Bosnia to assist them there. Any military activity would certainly not be taken by Britain alone. Any military activity would have to be discussed in the United Nations and NATO, so the noble Lord can be assured that there would be discussions both here and in another place.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can enlarge upon one point that she has made. She referred to the WEU flotilla on the Danube. Can she say a bit more about it, bearing in mind that the Danube and the Black Sea areas are of great interest and sensitivity to the Ukraine and Russia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend a great deal more detail except to say that we have found that one of the reasons why the sanctions work was so difficult for the riparian states to implement was the lack of an adequate radio communications network. That is why we are considering giving them the means which will help them to enforce the sanctions even more tightly on the Danube. I well understand the concern of the neighbouring states, but the point must be that if the United Nations has decided on these sanctions—rightly, we believe—they must be fully implemented.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is not a guerilla war; this is Milosevic, in charge of a large and powerful group which he is holding together, successfully attacking ethnic groups in territory that he wants to occupy? Does she also agree that these circumstances are entirely different from what happened in Iraq in that we are dealing with a man who could be persuaded? I know that she will not agree, but would she agree, or perhaps consider, that the tone of the questions, answers and Statement will be of tremendous encouragement to Milosevic in that he has at least a month to continue his appalling work?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, no. The noble Lord is quite wrong to put that interpretation on anything in the Statement that I have repeated in

1109
this House today, on anything that I have said or on anything that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said in the media. It is an entirely different situation from Kuwait, which Iraq invaded. It is a civil war—and it is a civil war that is being played out in the most disgusting way against innocent people. However, there is no way in which even the United Nations (or part of the United Nations or NATO) can rapidly move in, as some have advocated. As the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party in another place has said, that would be adding fuel to the existing flames. I ask the noble Lord to be extremely careful in placing interpretations on what is one of the most difficult of times when it comes to knowing how best to help the innocents in Bosnia.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while most people in this country will be experiencing horror and frustration (and I trust that the Government will take fully into account the points that have been raised by my noble friend Lady Thatcher), does my noble friend agree that there is a vast difference between intervening in a civil war involving at least three factions in ambiguously held territories and in defending Britain's shores against one obvious single enemy in the world war in 1940, a time that some of us who were in the Armed Forces then remember very well?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend could not be more right. This is a very complicated civil war. On my own visits there I found Croats fighting Moslems, Moslems fighting Serbs, Croats and Serbs fighting within Bosnia and battles being played out even within those groups. That is entirely different from defending our shores or even from defending the shores of the Falklands, as my noble friend Lady Thatcher did so wisely. It is a very different situation.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I wonder whether I may gently chide the noble Baroness about her use of the phrase "a perfectly understandable human reaction" in relation to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, expressing the views that she expressed so forcibly yesterday. Is the Minister aware that, like every other Member of your Lordships' House, I speak only for myself and I can assure the noble Baroness that it is not "a perfectly understandable human reaction" on my part to arm people and to allow them to shoot, maim and kill each other almost daily? It is that kind of response—the Minister saying that that is a perfectly understandable human reaction—that gives credibility to the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. We ought not underestimate the degree of support which the noble Baroness and her views have in the country at present. May I also ask the Minister to explain to the noble Baroness that Article 51 of the United Nations treaty refers to "nation states" not to "civil wars"?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is purposely misunderstanding me. I believe that it is right that ordinary people are horrified—perfectly understandably—by what is
1110
going on in Bosnia. That was the use of the phrase that I made, not the one that was attributed to me. No one wishes to increase the number of arms in this already unruly place, and certainly not the British Government.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords—
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the 20 minutes, as recommended in the Companion, are now exhausted, and I believe that the House will wish to begin the debate on forestry.

The Forestry Industry
5.50 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe rose to call attention to the present position of, and the future prospects for, the forestry industry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have waited long for this debate, but those of us who are engaged in forestry are very patient people and, as it happens, forestry is a long-term business, and this debate could not have come at a more appropriate time since the Government have just announced another review of forestry. I hope that the debate will have some influence on those proceedings. I trust that there will be no major departure from the statement issued in September 1991 which reads as follows:
"The main aims are sustainable management of our existing woods and forests and a steady expansion of tree cover to increase the main diverse benefits that forests provide".
In March 1991, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said:
"I have every confidence that the industry itself will increase the number of plantings in the next few years".
The noble and learned Lord who is to reply to the debate today, confronted with the mounting balance of payments problems, stated in November 1992:
"That is why it remains the Government's policy to expand forestry wherever possible".
Despite those optimistic assurances here are the facts: 20 years ago 42,000 hectares were planted in the UK. That has fallen to 14,000 hectares last year. The Forestry Commission planting in the same period fell from 23,000 hectares to 3,000 hectares last year. In its latest corporate plan it envisages dropping to a total planting programme of 1,000 hectares. So much for the promised expansion.
Noble Lords will be interested to note that, thanks to generous grants, 45 per cent. of new planting in the private sector last year was in hardwoods. While that will enhance the environment for future generations, it will contribute little or nothing to our economic well-being and to the balance of payments deficit which now accounts for over £5 billion per annum. I know that the Government spend a great deal of effort and money on promoting exports, and that is commendable, but the reduction of imports is equally important in terms of our balance of payments. I do not suggest that we shall ever be self-sufficient in timber and timber products, but millions could be saved by an aggressive planting programme.
The recent devaluation of sterling will increase our import bill. The cutback in logging in the United

1111
States, transport difficulties in the Soviet Union and the conservation of forests in other parts of the world will all create shortages and make us more and more vulnerable to higher prices. Britain's growing domestic market and the anticipated supply of high quality timber from British forests have attracted no less than £1 billion of new investment in the manufacturing industry in the past eight years. Close to where I live, the Caledonian Paper Company has invested over £215 million—the biggest inward industrial development in Scotland's history. It would be disastrous if we did not maintain a planting programme now to supply its future needs. Exporting countries are less inclined to supply logs—as they used to do—to the UK market. They all want added value in their products. So pulp and processed timber will be offered to us, and we shall lose the manufacturing capacity.
The UK is only 13 per cent. self-sufficient in timber. Let me remind noble Lords, especially those who are worried about the spread of conifer plantations, that apart from Ireland we are the least afforested country in Europe. Only 10 per cent. of our land has woodland cover, as against 30 per cent. in Germany and 27 per cent. in France. Yet we have the soil, the land, the expertise and the market to develop an important manufacturing and productive industry. Our processing sector is already the technological equal of anything in Europe.
In a recent debate in the House great anxiety was expressed about the decline in rural employment. Contraction of forestry can be a major contributor to that decline. People who live in remote areas have few opportunities for retraining for alternative employment. Forestry is not just about planting conifers; it is also about conservation and the provision for recreation. In the past few years, as everyone has observed, there has been a phenomenal increase in hill-walking and countryside pursuits. That is healthy. Many families seek to escape from the dreariness of big cities. The provision of nature trails, wild life protection, camp sites and bird-watching hides are all part of good forestry management. It is an immense contributor to the nation's health and well-being.
Last year there were no fewer than 50 million day visits to the Forestry Commission's estates. That places a substantial demand upon management skills. The Forestry Commission's staff have handled that with commitment and sensitivity as they respond to the public demand for recreation and at the same time protect the countryside. As a young man I lived in Glasgow. We used to go walking in the Trossachs which were within 20 miles of the City of Glasgow. It is an area of great natural beauty, but at each end of the estate the Duke of Montrose had erected toll barriers to provide access to that estate. That estate is now known as the Duke's Pass, but it is also known as the Queen Elizabeth Forest Park, owned and managed by the Forestry Commission, with free access. Last year, 1 million day visits were paid to that estate. That story can be repeated in many parts of the United Kingdom.
It is unfortunate that the Forestry Commission's critics have ready access to a biased and prejudiced
1112
media. It has not received the credit that it requires and which is justified by what it is doing. As a result, politicians have reacted to such pressure by diminishing the role of an organisation of which we should be proud. First, there was the sell off of parts of the estate, which began as a tidying-up operation. However, now the commission is under instruction to dispose of 100,000 hectares of land before the end of the century. In fact, since 1981, 172,000 hectares have been sold to the private sector. Secondly, the planting programme has been slashed from more than 20,000 hectares, which was the figure during my period as chairman and when my noble friend Lord John-Mackie was chairman, to the 1,000 hectares visualised next year.
Perhaps I may say a word or two about the history of the commission. It was established after the First World War because our woodlands had been depleted by the requirements of militarism and industrialisa-tion. We discovered therefore that we were vulnerable and the Forestry Commission was set up. We had to import pit props, for example, to keep the mining industry going. The commission was instructed to plant trees rapidly on land which was unsuitable and not useful for agricultural purposes.
Sitka spruce met those requirements and hardwoods could not be grown on the marginal land which was available to the Forestry Commission. Naturally many of the plantations had a similar age profile and not enough attention was paid to the environmental impact of square blocks of a single species. The Forestry Commission has recognised those early mistakes and now its woodlands enhance the landscape with proper provision for the existing flora and fauna.
I believe that the commission has been hardly judged by many who are resistant to change in the countryside. I have never met a forester who is unconcerned about the environment. That is why they choose such employment; it is because they love the countryside in all its diversities, the richness of the wildlife and the variety of flowers and other plants. The commission has had few opportunities of planting hardwoods, but wherever possible it has sought to protect our ancient native woodlands. New conifer plantations are made more attractive by the sprinkling of larch and the roadside corridors of beech.
Since its inception the Forestry Commission has enjoyed a happy and productive relationship with the private sector. It has been a good neighbour in pest control and a useful guide in research and training. I beg the Government to resume the partnership which contributed so much to the development of our forestry enterprise. People should not be so worried about environmental problems, because 10 per cent. of our countryside is now covered by SSSIs. In the Highlands 40 per cent. is covered by SSSIs. I am also happy to say that in Scotland indicative forestry strategies have been developed with local authorities, local interests and local environmental groups. They are now proceeding.
On 30th March the Government issued a statement setting up an inter-departmental committee to look again at forestry incentives. That is to he welcomed

1113
since the present arrangements have failed to achieve the declared target of 33,000 hectares. However, the statement also contained this ominous reference:
"To review options for the ownership of Forestry Commission woodlands".
This suggests that privatisation is still part of government thinking. The policy would contribute nothing to the expansion of the forestry programme. It would certainly jeopardise the excellent work which is being done in recreation, access and conservation. I beg the Government therefore to banish the spectre of privatisation from the consideration of the committee which is being set up.
The commission was reorganised three years ago following a Select Committee investigation. Here we go again—another committee. The Government should realise that since forestry is a long-term investment it requires conservation and stability, which should be provided. I beg to move for Papers.
6.5 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for bringing to the attention of the House the position of the forestry industry. I agree that forestry is a positive land use which can be beneficial to local and national economies and to the environment. The United Kingdom has a comparatively low percentage of land under forestry and there is scope whereby more land could usefully be put into productive forestry. However, in all cases policy should respect the landowners' right to make decisions and to manage land within the law.
It is important when planning forestry enterprises to ensure that the objectives are clear. Forestry can provide various outputs including the production of quality timber; the generation of income and employment in rural areas; alternative use for agricultural land; habitats for wildlife, access (both actual and visual) and recreation; reducing the impact of global warming; and a stock of environmentally sound capital to pass on to future generations.
Deciduous and mixed species forests attract a greater spread of wildlife (both flora and fauna) than conifer or monoculture forests, whose habitats for different types of wildlife might be more in demand. Mixed and deciduous woodland also attracts more deer than conifer forests. Many would see deer as a positive addition to rural areas. However, these animals are often difficult to manage, and left to their own devices they can do extensive damage to young trees and farm crops.
The major environmental impact of forestry occurs when trees are planted on new land, and other environmental effects are relatively minor when compared to this initial impact. However, afforesta-tion in appropriate areas can have other important environmental benefits; for example, forests can act as buffer zones to stop nitrate run-off into waterways, lock up carbon in a stable form, help to filter carbon dioxide from the air and, therefore, on a global scale can help towards stemming the advance of global warming.
1114
The forestry enterprise has managed the woodland in its ownership to a high standard, including the management of wildlife within those forests and of access. Management at this level can be quite costly and new owners of these forests may not be able to afford management without assistance of some kind. It is important that when these forests are sold continued good management is ensured. Financial assistance from the Government may be necessary either in the form of management grants or tax incentives. While this is important for all types of forest it is particularly important for amenity forests, which are run primarily on a cost basis only as it is difficult to realise realistic returns from this type of woodland.
The CAP reform measures, particularly set-aside, provide both a challenge and an opportunity for the productive use of redundant crop land. There is a strong case for the full utilisation of the new forestry measures proposed in the CAP reform. While both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment have a role to play in forestry policy, the Forestry Commission could be the focus for all forestry policy taking account of MAFF and DoE schemes and initiatives. In essence, there should be a "one stop shop" for advice. It is important that all schemes and initiatives are balanced with regard to the various outputs that forests can provide and are "user friendly" for landowners and farmers. The countryside stewardship scheme is a useful model to follow when designing any new scheme for forestry as it allows the greatest flexibility for all parties concerned and ensures that environmental goods and public access are provided where they are demanded.
Environmental land management services—which although nothing to do with the Dutch shortens down quite nicely to ELMS, a grim reminder of the continued threat to efforts to bring back the mature elm to the English countryside—act as an umbrella under which landowners can enter into contracts with public or private organisations to provide environmental services in return for cash payments.
The schemes for encouraging forestry in the United Kingdom tend to stress broadleaves rather than conifers and amenity rather than commercial forestry. It is vital that commercial forestry is not neglected by government policy. It is possible for commercial forestry to provide environmental benefits and high quality timber so long as forests are managed correctly. That can be expensive, especially as returns from forestry are long-term. Therefore, it is important that there should be a balance in the allocation of government funds between commercial timber production and other uses of woodland and between broadleaves and conifers.
One area in which forestry could provide positive benefits both to the individual landowner and to the nation as a whole is on set-aside land. Currently the provisions on set-aside land are purely rotational on an annual basis only. Therefore, at present there is no scope for using that land for forestry. It is important that the Government should allow for a non-rotational scheme that would allow landowners to use non-productive land for forestry. Within that

1115
flexibility a balance must be maintained between rotational and non-rotational set-aside and the uses of non-rotational set-aside to achieve diversity in the rural economy and the environment. There must also be flexibility for land to be switched back into production should a food shortage situation arise.
In conclusion, landowners need to be assured of adequate financial incentives to enable them to meet the long-term heavy cost of establishing and managing forests for the national benefit. It is vital that a clear national strategy is developed for forestry in the United Kingdom linked with adequate financial incentives for the establishment and future manage-ment of woodland. That is essential because of the extent of market failure in forestry. Returns from commercial timber production are long term and yearly management is costly. That is a significant barrier to entry.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that we have just heard an excellent maiden speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. Some of your Lordships may not be aware that the noble Viscount's father, as Leader of the House, and the father of the noble Viscount's mother, as the then Bishop of London, have both been Members of this House. As something of an endangered species, the noble Viscount has much to be proud of. I thank the noble Viscount on behalf of the whole House for an excellent maiden speech full of constructive ideas. We wish him well in the future.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for giving us the opportunity to discuss forestry today. I am something of a forester, although only in a very modest way. I have, however, planted a few hundred trees in my time. I am roughly the same age as the Forestry Commission and I have observed closely all its policies as implemented in many parts of Wales over the years.
There is great potential in forestry. After all, we produce only some 10 per cent. of our timber needs within the United Kingdom and, given an ideal climate, particularly in parts of Wales and Scotland, we could and should double our present hectarage.
I was disturbed to see figures showing that in recent years the Forestry Commission has introduced no new planting whatever in Wales although it has restocked 1,800 hectares. Private planting is increasing at only 370 hectares per annum. My party and I are fully supportive of private enterprise in forestry but we are against the privatisation of the commission because we believe that to maintain a coherent policy of encouraging the growth of the industry and ensuring proper research and development we need the commission in public ownership. We view with great dismay the piecemeal selling off of woodland which has been taking place with no regard to future development.
In a recent statement the forestry Minister proclaimed that there would be further consultations before any changes took place in forestry policy. However, it seems that those consultations are to take place between government Ministers and their
1116
departments. I should like to see open consultation with all interested parties—farmers' unions and countryside groups—before any decisions are made. Forestry is a great national asset which should not be squandered.
I should like to make one further point about the situation in Wales. Forestry can be an important employer. I believe that at present the public and private sectors employ some 5,000 people. However, what is lacking is the opportunity for training. It has been pointed out to me that there is no course in Wales for training middle management. I should like to see that omission rectified in the near future to ensure that we have the trained staff which we need in this extremely important industry.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury: My Lords, I seek the usual kind indulgence of your Lordships when a maiden speech is afoot. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for giving us the opportunity to offer a few thoughts on forestry. I must declare an interest. I chair a board which acts as a kind of mother hen—mainly an environmental mother hen—to a forestry and woodland management company. I also chair the National Forest Advisory Board which is intent upon establishing a multi-use forest in the Midlands.
I should like to try to help the debate by speaking on one or two outside issues which do not receive much attention. There are two cultures abroad in our countryside which are having a powerful influence on what we do and how we do it. The first is best described as the non-commercial culture. It has developed swiftly in relation to both forestry and farming with which there are strong parallels. It is an issue but it is rarely discussed openly and frankly.
To many countrymen and women with a living to earn, public opinion—that important incubator of political action—seems to have moved so far down the road of environmental virtue that the commercial imperatives of the two industries have become, in the public mind, almost of secondary importance compared with the need to create and maintain what is primarily an access, recreation and landscape and wildlife resource.
I do not make that point lightly. A very revealing litmus paper of public opinion is public meetings. In the past 10 years I must have addressed scores of such meetings. I find that public opinion has changed little in the past 15 years or so. Both industries—forestry and agriculture—are deceiving themselves if they believe that their PR programmes have made headway with the person in the street.
It is still a widespread and passionate view that commercial coniferous forestry is confined to dark satanic woods of wall to wall spruce, ruining the vista, impeding walkers and single-handedly killing off salmon fishing. In tandem, it is believed that modern agriculture is essentially corrupt with high tech farming inevitably a destroying influence. In some quarters even GATT is under fire for getting in the way of an Arcadian countryside where commerce is vile. I know that I exaggerate, but it is worth doing so.

1117
It would be surprising if that were not the public mood given the media policy of keeping up a barrage of horror stories. I am bound to say that I look forward with profound dismay to the tedious prospect of the saga of the flow country, however culpable it was, running on smartly into the next century.
We are all well aware of the problems of projecting an accurate forestry image. The professionalism of the past now seen as a mistake—the rectangular bath-mat designs in the wrong sites, the brutal monocultures—is still with us. The new brilliant forest compositions and inspired new managements still have too new a face on them for people to understand that the leopard is changing its spots. I support the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, so far as concerns the Forestry Commission: it has done absolute wonders in Kielder and Thetford.
But as with agriculture, it is no good leaving everything to the organisations to influence public misconceptions. Everyone with a stake in forestry should regard him or herself as an ambassador and go out and shout from the housetops to anyone who will listen that we are marvellously efficient timber producers; that our United Kingdom trees actually grow twice as fast as those of our traditional suppliers; that our timber processing is world competitive; and that our contribution to trade deficits could in the future be even more compelling than it is today.
I mentioned two cultures. The second is the dependency culture—a close relative of the noncommercial one. More and more money moves into the countryside from public sources. A dependency culture, as exemplified by cascades of public money, also gives rise to concern. It takes us away from the market place where, under GATT and a liberalised world trade, we shall be earning our living in more rigorous commercial circumstances.
I was delighted to hear that the Government are setting up an interdepartmental committee. I believe that its remit includes looking at the options for incentives. I know that if I am controversial I run the risk of receiving a mild rebuke, but I should like to say that it is quite remarkable how effective fiscal reliefs were in comparison to the present grant system. We are all on the side of the angels. We all wish to see an ever more beautiful countryside. I applaud most warmly the fact that the Countryside Commission has just announced that it hopes to see the tree cover extended. It is absolutely marvellous that environmentally sensitive areas have really got off the ground, and I am proud to have had a small originating hand in their coming into being.
Over the past 25 years, first as a founder of the Farming and Wild Life Advisory Group and, secondly, as chairman of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and latterly chairing what was then the Countryside Commission for England and Wales, I have watched with a growing sense of elation the brilliant progress made on those environmental fronts. The success has been beyond our wildest dreams. Now, like some others with a similar background, I have a sense of unease as the market place, commercial component, both in the
1118
public mind and elsewhere, seems to be slipping increasingly into the background of countryside politics.
My offering is a simple one. There is a need to re-state and maintain the dignity and status of the commercial ethic in our countryside affairs. I thank noble Lords for their patience.
6.22 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I could not be more pleased about anything than standing up first and foremost to congratulate my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Barber. I should have liked to have been official and referred to him as my noble friend, but he has gone to the other side so I cannot do so. I have known the noble Lord for many years. I think that what he said today will convince your Lordships that he will be a great asset to the House. His perspective in looking at the situation and putting it the way that he did was very good. I think that we must all congratulate him most heartily and look forward to hearing more from him in the near future.
The five-minute time limit on speeches makes it very difficult for me to say all that I should like to have said. Like my noble friend, I am a former chairman of the Forestry Commission. I should like to make just one point. On the whole, commercial forestry is found in the thinly populated areas of the country—Wales, the north of England, and the north and west of Scotland. Those are the typical areas of commercial forestry. In many areas it is the only industry. I believe that my noble friend Lord Taylor pointed out that the processing industries are moving to where the raw materials are to be found. That is good. But in the meantime, and generally speaking, it is in those areas that forestry as such is the only industry.
I should like to concentrate on the position in Scotland. My noble friend touched on the main figures for the country. I should like to put forward the figures for Scotland which very much emphasise the situation. Since the Conservative Government took over in 1979 the average deficiency per year in Scotland for the 12 years after they took over, and for the 12 years before, is 8,828 hectares. The average labour force required to look after 1,000 hectares is about 10 foresters. The unemployment figure for the west and north of Scotland is 16.3 per cent., which is far above the average in the rest of Scotland. That is 16.3 per cent. of the workforce. The drop in planting has meant that about 1,000 men do not have a job. I have also worked out figures for the private sector for the three years since the Government stopped the tax benefit. It works out at about 7,000 acres per year. That is a loss of 70 jobs a year. In my opinion it is a very serious situation.
Some time ago I asked a Minister when the Government would make good that loss of planting. His reply was, "What's 10 years in the life of a tree?" I am sorry that that Minister is not present on the Front Bench today to reply to the following question. What is 12 years in the life of an unemployed forester? I think that that is something that should be thought about very carefully. The present depreciation in planting trees has created many unemployed foresters

1119
in such areas. I hope that the Minister who is to reply will convey that fact to the Minister who was supposed to have been on the Front Bench.
There are many rumours about what the Government will do about forestry and the commission, but one of them is not a rumour: it is evident that they are to stop the farm woodland premium scheme in Scotland. Indeed, that was announced recently. That seems to be a very retrograde step. I hope that an explanation will be forthcoming from the Minister.
Quite frankly, I suggest that the Government have interfered plenty and that they should leave things alone. So far as I can see, the knowledge that seems to be obvious to everyone does not seem to be obvious to them. The remarks of my noble friend and those of other people should make them think very deeply—otherwise, they should leave things as they are at present.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I believe that we should all thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for initiating the debate. We should also congratulate the two maiden speakers, my noble friend Lord Addison and the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, for their contributions. If I may say so, the latter, having done so much for the countryside and having been chairman of the Countryside Commission in Britain, was always one of those people who was never against forestry as such. He quite rightly pointed out his opposition to badly shaped patterns of conifers. However, he also said the Forestry Commission had learnt a lot in that respect. He attended an outing one day as a guest of the Forestry Commission. He told us that we should sell our conifer policy rather better than we did. That was possibly a difficult thing for the chairman of the Countryside Commission to say. I respect him very much for saying that.
I wish to mention the immense amount of new machinery that has been installed in the forestry industry since the 1980s. That process was, of course, helped by government grant. However, the industry needs a large and continuing supply of timber to operate. I wish we could provide more of that timber from our home forests. As has already been said, timber imports in 1991 were costing £4.5 billion. That represented a significant part of our balance of payments deficit which at that date was running at £14 billion. No doubt the Chancellor is more than aware of that fact.
What is limiting the acreage of conifer forests? We are near the bottom of the European league table in this area. It is well known that most of the demand today is for softwood rather than broadleaved timber. New planting has shrunk from 29,500 hectares in 1989 to 17,300 hectares in 1992. The Government's target is still over double that figure.
Since 1988 people in the private sector of forestry have known that the Schedule D option was to come to an end. Last week that occurred. It is too early yet to judge whether the increased grants will do the trick. However, my own apprehension is that they will not. It is important that confidence in that side of the
1120
industry is renewed. In 1988 the Treasury had a great deal of support for abolishing the Schedule D option —it had wanted to abolish it for many years—from the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Lord Ridley, who was against conifers.
I wish to refer specifically to planting in Wales—this subject has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Geraint —and the effect this has on employment. New planting in Wales is down to a few hundred hectares and yet there is so much bracken-covered land that is suitable for planting. I know that if conifers are planted near watercourses the acidification problem arises, but there is a great deal of land that is situated a long way from watercourses that could be planted. I hope the Government will do what they can to increase the amount of planting in Wales. After all, today local authorities, in conjunction with the Forestry Commission, have strict approval regulations.
The working group has already been referred to. I approve of the review of the incentives for forestry investment but I am certainly opposed to privatisation of the Forestry Commission. One reason I oppose that step is that the private sector of forestry simply cannot provide the assured supply of timber that the industry needs. That arises because private forests are too fragmented and the owners of private forests follow the market a little more carefully than perhaps is the case with the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission has committed itself to assured supplies and assured prices.
I approve of the present policy of selling small areas of uneconomic woods belonging to the Forestry Commission. That process has done a great deal to encourage small forestry owners. A Conservative Government should be in favour of such a policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, over the past few years 171,000 hectares have been absorbed by the market in this way. However, if the Forestry Commission is sold outright that would mean, to my way of thinking, that too much woodland would come onto the market at the same time. Most of that woodland would be bought by people from overseas and that would place in jeopardy the new processing industry that has been established.
6.35 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for raising the subject of the forestry industry and its future prospects. I know he has waited a long time for the opportunity to table this debate. However, as the noble Lord himself said, this debate has occurred at a fortuitous time as a review of this matter is to take place. I hope that my noble and learned friend will take back a fairly strong message from this debate to whoever is to review our forestry industry and our forestry policy.
Perhaps I should start by considering the forestry industry at present and its prospects for the future if we pursue our present course. As has already been said in this debate, we are not planting nearly enough trees. The Forestry Commission has been threatened and its future, which has always been a slightly grey area, is

1121
in doubt. I hope we shall obtain a clear indication at the end of this debate that there is no question of privatising the Forestry Commission. As I have said in previous debates, the Forestry Commission is the backbone of our forestry industry.
If we continue our present course, our production, leaning on past planting, will increase for a certain time and then, quite understandably, it will decrease over a long time, long after we have lost interest in it. There is therefore a tremendous incentive to develop this industry properly. The reasons for doing so are perfectly simple. First of all, we import 80 per cent. of our timber. That is rather ridiculous. Secondly, we have been forced to place 15 per cent. of our agricultural land out of commission as regards agricultural crops. Therefore there is plenty of land available now without taking land in the Highlands or other areas of special beauty or in areas inhabited by special species.
Perhaps the most important reason for increasing the area of land that is planted is to reduce the agricultural unemployment that exists throughout the country as a result of the set-aside policy and descending farm profits over the years. That matter is of enormous importance to agricultural workers and their children. Those people are on the whole oriented towards agricultural work rather than other areas. However, there is no policy of increased planting at present. As I have said, there must be more planting. This is not just a matter of tinkering about with grants. At present the grants are too many and too complicated, although they play their part in agriculture. As I said before, I believe they should be indexed because that is the only reasonable way to deal with a grant which may stretch over 20 years as it is only after that period that a tree will make money for its owner.
The really damaging blow to the forestry industry was the ending of what I shall call corporate forestry. That occurred in the Budget of 1988 when tax relief was removed from forestry. That was a blow to the private sector in forestry. If it is unacceptable to reinstate that relief, some way must be found of organising corporate forestry to establish large and efficient forests and so enable companies to play their part in forestry along with private individuals. Inevitably the forests of private individuals are fragmented. That does not lead to an efficient industry. Companies should at least be treated on an equal footing with individuals. They should really be treated better than individuals. We need large forests as well as pretty little woods all over the place, which are hard to organise. It is also hard to sell the timber from those small woods in an efficient way.
Finally, I do not believe for one moment that forestry on such a large scale is incompatible with the environment. I am sure that by regulations or laws the two could be made to work well together and that the matter could be well enforced.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the two maiden speakers in the debate. It was a pleasure and privilege to hear their views. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for introducing the debate. I agree very much with everything he said, except for the last part, to which I shall refer shortly. He analysed the importance of the forestry industry and the opportunity for wealth creation which it provides throughout the British economy, not only nationally because of the reduction in imports but also at the level of the rural economy, in which I am particularly interested.
I believe that the right way ahead is that suggested by the Government and which the Government are now reviewing, namely, to privatise the forestry industry and Forest Enterprise. It is clear from the way in which forestry production has taken place over the past few years that we are reducing an industry which in other circumstances ought to be increasing. Surely we have all now learnt that one does not achieve the best productivity, the best opportunities, the greatest enthusiasm and the greatest drive to create wealth within government-controlled organisations; that is achieved within the private sector. I am delighted that the Government are now undertaking the review and have already made it clear that the potential for privatising forestry is under discussion.
I should like the Government to consider a number of options. It would be possible to introduce fresh finance into the forestry industry by financing the trees. The Government could no doubt devise an interesting method of raising money by considering that option while retaining the ownership of the land.
Another option would be to create a series of agencies—as the Government have already done—to deal with various parts of the forestry industry. The first step would be to create agencies. Those agencies could then be allowed to be privatised, either through management buy-outs or by bringing fresh money into those agencies. There would be a series of organisations owning forestry throughout the United Kingdom. Alternatively, the Government could put the whole lot up for sale as a whole or in lots to attract a wide range of investment from different sources.
The purpose would be to encourage the growth of the forestry industry, as other noble Lords have suggested, on lower lying land where the opportunity for efficient growth of wood in this country is enormous. It could be grown much more efficiently and economically than in many other parts of the world. That would improve our economy.
I am aware that there is considerable anxiety that such a move to the private sector would act against the interests of the environmental benefits of forestry for the rest of society. That does not seem to be an argument in other areas. As has already been stated, forestry covers 10 per cent. of our land and agriculture covers about 75 per cent. of our land. We have not thought it necessary to privatise all the land in order to ensure the environmental benefits of agricultural land. We have been able to do that by pushing farmers

1123
in one direction by grants or in another by regulations and have achieved a better balance of the economic and environmental benefits to society.
I believe that within the forestry industry we could also create the right balance which is necessary to make forestry available for leisure opportunities, for people to see and use it, to live within it and benefit from it as part of our society. We could do that just as well within the private sector, as in any other business.
There are great opportunities to link forestry and planning and development much more effectively. Why should we not say to some people who cannot develop land because of environmental restrictions that if they were to create forests they could do things within the forest area that they could not do on open land? Such environments would be so much more enjoyable to work and be in. Some noble Lords may be aware that in Herefordshire a planning application has been made to create a burial ground in a forest. That seems a very innovative and interesting use of the forest. It would be a more attractive place to lie than in a bare environment.
Diversity of ownership will create diversity of forest. It is diversity which produces the environmental interest. I believe that opportunities are now available to create wealth from our forests. Those are opportunities which the Government must not miss. I congratulate them on their new initiative and hope that they will now take positive action to create money from those opportunities.
6.44 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, a two-and-a-half hour debate with 22 speakers on the subject of forestry gives new meaning to the word "backwoodsman".
The disallowance of the facility for private landowners to opt for taxation of woodlands under Schedule D may well have stopped tax abuse by some rather greedy but well-known pop stars and media personalities, but it has discouraged the planting of new woodlands, with a consequent reduction of the labour force—drastic in some cases—that will affect essential maintenance over the years and lead to poorer crops eventually. It struck me as highly ironic that that change in the tax law came into force less than a week after the press release relating to the Countryside Commission's excellent policy statement England's Woods and Trees. I can assure noble Lords who have not seen the document that it is available in the PPO. If they have to pay for it it will cost them £2, which will not break them.
I should stress that the document deals with England's woods and trees. We have heard a great deal today about the tree coverage in Scotland and Wales. If it was not for that, the tree coverage of the whole of the British Isles would be even more pathetic than it is now because, compared with Scotland and Wales, England suffers from far and away the least tree cover.
As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the Countryside Commission is the Government's official adviser on the countryside. It tries to promote forestry itself. Perhaps I may give a special plug to the new national forest. I was delighted to hear the maiden
1124
speech today of the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, which was constructive and well worth listening to. He has contributed enormously to getting the new national forest project off the ground. The Countryside Commission also helps with work on community forests and countryside stewardship. I was also glad to hear my noble friend Lord Addison refer to that in his excellent maiden speech.
The main objective set out in the policy document is to see England's acreage of woodland doubled by the middle of the next century. Noble Lords may think that that is pie-in-the-sky. I hope that it is not. It is an excellent aim. The Countryside Commission is perhaps inclined more towards amenity forestry than towards the industry, but I believe that there must be the closest possible co-operation between the amenity planters and commercial forestry interests, be they the Forestry Commission, large companies or national growers. If we squabble among ourselves over the type of forestry and where it will be we shall never achieve that object. If we work together to persuade the Government to be more generous in their incentives towards forestry we can achieve that admirable object.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe not only on his choice of subject but, as others have said, on the appropriate time at which it has come forward.
Five minutes is not enough to deal with everything that needs to be said, but I must respond to one remark of the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton. The Forestry Commission has no monopoly on the planting of forests. If the private sector had so desired there is no reason why it could not have gone ahead and done everything which the noble Lord said it is capable of doing. I wish there was time to develop that point but I shall have to leave it there.
There has been a great deal of speculation about the possible privatisation of the Forestry Commission, couched in terms which seem to indicate that we shall have legislation before us to carry out that promise—or threat, depending on one's point of view. My understanding, however, is that the Secretary of State now has the power to sell all 2 million acres of forest, if he so wishes, without coming back to Parliament for legislation or, indeed, informing Parliament if he feels that way about it. No doubt the Minister who is to sum up will correct me on that if I am wrong.
We have heard from my noble friend Lord Taylor about the amount of land which has been sold and is earmarked for sale between now and the end of the century. In a speech last November, Mr. Dorrell, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was reported as saying:
"The conventional question was 'What can we sell?' Now we should ask ourselves 'What must we keep?"
Against that background, it seems to me that the Forestry Commission holdings are very vulnerable.
We have also heard from my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe about the proposed interdepartmental body. I welcome it, but I have a number of straight questions to put to the Minister to which I hope to receive answers. It is vital that the group considers all

1125
aspects of possible disposals, as my noble friend said. First, will interested organisations and individuals be able to submit evidence to the group? Secondly, will the group's proposals be made the subject of public consultation before they are adopted by Ministers? Thirdly, will the management and improvement of existing woodlands be part of the discussion, or are they only concerned with new forestry? Fourthly, do the Government consider management for wildlife an important objective? If so, will the statutory conservation bodies be involved in the discussions with the new group?
Some may ask: why does it matter who owns our forests? The answer is that it need not matter if the Government are prepared to establish and enforce a sensible forestry strategy. It would have to be a strategy backed up, where necessary, by financial help, as many other noble Lords have said. But the strategy would have to be a sensible one and it would need to be enforced. It would have to encompass all aspects of the industry, not just the economic ones. It would have to encompass the environmental, social and recreational aspects as well.
The report from the Select Committee in another place, which was published on 10th March this year, stresses the importance of involving local communities in developing new forests and managing existing ones. Do the Government support that approach? The environmental and recreational benefits of forestry, as many of us have said, are as important as the economic benefits. The German approach to managing forests in the interests of all aspects is well known. Given the will, there is no reason why we could not do as well.
The record on public access to previous Forestry Commission holdings so far is abysmal. Only one access agreement has been signed since the new legislation came into force in 1991. It must become firm policy that access to previously held Forestry Commission land must be maintained and the only way to do that is by establishing rights of way. I know that that is not a popular suggestion, but it is the only certain way under our present laws to keep access safe for the public.
I have run out of time, but I should like briefly to mention a subject which I have raised on previous occasions—the care, maintenance and planting of motorway verges. There seems to be a certain amount of confusion about who is responsible. Will the Minister say whether that is to be one of the responsibilities of the new interdepartmental group?
6.54 p.m.
Lord Clinton: My Lords, it is a privilege and pleasure to congratulate the two maiden speakers on their contrasting speeches. I found myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Addison, and not quite so much with the noble Lord, Lord Barber. However, it was a great privilege for me to receive a plantation competition prize at the Royal Show when the noble Lord, Lord Barber, was president of the show last year. That was certainly a commercial plantation planted.
1126
Nearly 700 years ago, believe it or not, the first Lord Clinton planted trees and harvested them for one reason only —it was probably commercial. My great-grandfather, the second chairman of the commission, rushed down from London the night after the first meeting of the commission and planted a tree in Eggesford Forest in Devon to commemorate the first tree to be planted by the commission. That tree was a Douglas fir, a conifer, as it was to become part of the conifer forest on that site, some of which even stands today. Several years ago I had the privilege to go to the same site to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the commission and planted a Douglas fir.
The point of those two stories is to emphasise, first, that the right trees should be planted on the right sites; and, secondly, that we should not lose sight of the fact that growing timber is a commercial exercise. It is also to show my wholehearted support for the Forestry Commission. The first Lord Clinton, I am sure, planted and harvested oak for its many uses. Today we plant conifers for the same commercial reasons.
I must emphasise that good silviculture should be given a high priority to make sure that the right trees on the right soils and for the right purposes are planted. We should realise at the same time that commercial forestry can be practised sympathetically.
The balance has now, in my opinion, gone away from that end and has been dissipated too much towards amenity considerations. To see that happening in agriculture was to me bad enough, with set-aside and quotas, but one must accept that there was over-production in the industry. But surely not in timber. Surely it has been recognised time and time again in this debate and elsewhere that some of the land which we are talking about—over 1 million hectares —could be taken up and planted with trees. At the moment the lack of information as to the conditions of set-aside under the reform of the CAP is holding back that planting.
I believe that there are two priorities: one is a strong forestry body to make sure that timber production is given the highest priority, both in its planting and in its harvesting, especially in the private sector. Secondly, one Minister of the Crown and a department of state should be responsible for carrying this out. On one side, I see too many admirals trying to organise things and, on the other, perhaps too many conservationists who may not know the difference between a lemon tree and a lime tree. That cannot be right; there is obviously a place for both.
However, I see for the future little hope unless we can learn from the past. One message which comes across loud and clear is the damage which was done by politicians who have often not taken the trouble to consult the industry before making very important decisions.
We need a proper, industry-led national forestry strategy which is able to deliver government policy. That, in turn, must be well thought through and left in place for succeeding generations. Stating the obvious in your Lordships' House, especially at what used to be called "this late hour", needs no apology. However, we have to remind ourselves quite often that the final

1127
crop in forestty—I am talking about the conifer—has a life of a little over or a little under that of the average human being. The average term of a government is five years. That means that during that lifetime forestry policy could change at least 10 to 12 times. Once a tree is planted there is not much to say about it. However, the forester who has to manage the forest enterprise for the long term must have planning for it. That is important. Sixty years is a long time and it requires a long-term policy. It should be possible for a government to provide that as the policy should be long-term, non-political and give stability to the industry.
The forestry policy for Great Britain is set out in appendix VI to the 72nd annual report of the Forestry Commission. Paragraph 2, which is headed "Aims", gives again more emphasis to the rural environment. I think that that is a pity; but it then goes on to say:
"Our forestry industry makes a substantial and increasing contribution to meeting the growing national demand for timber and provides … employment to people living in rural communities".
Surely our forestry industry should have that priority. Our future depends upon it, especially as there is so much interest and enthusiasm within the industry to carry that out. We must arrest that confusion and muddle and support commercial forestry again before it is too late. There have been successes (as has already been mentioned) in the extended use of home-grown timber at the Caledonian mill and in Wales which have brought to Britain some of the most advanced wood processing technologies available in the world. Timber will continually be needed for such technologies. We must build on this and other research. Without a robust woodland, managed to produce good quality timber of the right kind in the right place, all will be lost and nothing gained.
7 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have referred both to the environmental and the economic aspects of forestry—or the forestry industry, as it is referred to in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I believe that in many ways those are two sides of the same coin. We have heard about the importance of growing more trees as import substitution of timber. But I would also suggest that forestry has in its environmental dimension a very real import/export role. After all, it encourages visitors to this country—which is clearly an export. It also encourages British people to take their holidays in Britain, which is clearly import substitution. So I do not think that we should regard them necessarily as separate. The employment dimension also applies equally to both.
It was a particular pleasure for me to hear the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, in his maiden speech on the subject cover and touch both angles. I was lucky enough to sit as a member of the Countryside Commission for 10 years under his chairmanship. He was the most brilliant chairman I have ever sat under. I know the great benefits he will bring to membership of your Lordships' House.
I should like to go a little more into the taxation angle, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord
1128
Radnor. As we all know, the change in the forestry taxation regime which was announced in his 1988 Budget by my noble friend Lord Lawson came into effect this month. One understands why that change was made. I am ambivalent as to whether it was on balance desirable to remove the taxation privileges from commercial forestry. I am worried that under the new tax regime there is a real danger that the proper maintenance of non-commercial farm woodland will be lost. We could get zealous tax inspectors dissecting farm and estate accounts and disallowing all expenditure on the maintenance of the amenity farm woodlands.
It is much easier to make a distinction between commercial forestry and amenity woodland than it is between one form of amenity woodland and another. Does one stop at the amenity wood, or the copse, or the spinney, or the big hedge, or the single important trees? I contend that expenditure on the maintenance of those features, which are a crucial part of the countryside, is therefore of great economic significance.
Such maintenance is part of good stewardship by the individual land-holder, whether he be a farmer or a landowner. We are not talking here necessarily about the operations for which grants are given. I support the amenity grants that are given. The new initiatives of the Countryside Commission, to which my noble friend Lord Swinton referred, are to be welcomed. But much maintenance of the countryside is carried out by land-holders through ordinary, everyday good business practice. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will tell us whether the committee which the Secretary of State for Scotland announced last week could look at this so that we get a clear ruling. It should not depend on ad hoc decisions by different tax inspectors in different parts of the country. It would certainly be very damaging to the beauty of the rural environment if the maintenance of the countryside were allowed to suffer from a fall in the cash-flow from people making what is effectively a private contribution with only the tax element as a public contribution.
Finally, I should like to say one word on the privatisation of the Forestry Commission. Traditionally, the political parties in this country—the Labour Party and the Conservative Party (the Liberal Party is always somewhere in the middle on the matter)—have been divided on the question of privatisation. I fear that the privatisation of the Forestry Commission would divide the Conservative Party. My noble friend the Minister has probably received that message already. There are certain areas where privatisation or the selling off of parts of the Forestry Commission estate are desirable, particularly the small woodlands. In many cases the Forestry Commission has not looked after them very well. Anybody who goes to see the woodland where John Makepeace now does his stuff in Dorset will know what I mean.
I believe that there would be real risks to public benefit in a massive sell-off of the publicly-owned forest. The reason is that it is a national asset in more than a "growing of trees" sense. It is an asset in terms

1129
of public access. We know that the Treasury would be loath to allow a sale with covenants requiring public access. Therefore I suggest that the Government continue with what I think is called in local government reform an organic process; it is sensible to sell bits off, but keep the hard core of the Forestry Commission estate intact.
7.6 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for raising this debate and also to the two noble Lords for their excellent maiden speeches. I speak today both as a farmer and a woodland owner and also as an environmentalist involved in the various disciplines that attach to landscape and land use. Outside this House it is often forgotten that we have some of the finest conditions in Europe for growing trees. Our forgetfulness is perhaps understandable, as other noble Lords have pointed out, as we have one of the lowest tree densities in Europe and we import some 86 per cent. of our timber needs at a cost of billions of pounds to our balance of payments. However, what should not be obscured is that forestry in the UK remains a strategic asset of considerable and diverse potential. Its impact depends upon the extent to which woodland schemes and incentives are realistically integrated with other land-use policies.
Nowhere is the need for integration more crucial than in relation to EC agricultural policies. Set-aside is creating a massive stockpile of wasting acres and lost jobs. The cost to the taxpayer of set-aside payments in this financial year alone is £940,000 million. At the same time, the urgent need for increased woodland planting is funded by just £25 million to £30 million per annum. Compared with the £1 billion set-aside scheme, the woodland budget is not only disproportionately modest, given its wider benefits, but—a point of the greatest importance—the woodland schemes themselves are too often a less viable option.
My experience of new woodland planting being discouraged by EC schemes is not untypical. Three years ago I planned to put 30 acres of arable ground into a new broadleaf planting scheme involving some 30,000 trees, rides, glades, proper woodland edges and so forth. However, new EC set-aside and crop subsidy rules acted as a disincentive to the grant-aided woodland scheme. This year that ground sits idle in set-aside. It is very depressing. The ground is better suited to growing trees than arable crops yet now remains in agriculture. It would have removed an encouraging 6 per cent. of our 500 arable acres out of arable cropping; and, like many others pondering current trends, had that new planting gone well it would certainly have tempted more.
The conclusions of such an aborted exercise are inescapable. Until new farm woodlands can be included as part of set-aside and until planting incentives are properly competitive in a wider context, initiatives such as the farm woodland premium scheme will not be a commercial alternative use for that land. Therefore the Government must fight their
1130
corner in the forthcoming EC review in order that such schemes will in future count towards set-aside. The benefits to everyone, including the taxpayer, are numerous. New woodland planting can provide an alternative use for an otherwise wasting asset. It can provide a crop that we need, as evidenced by the huge amount we spend on imported timber. It has notable benefits for rural employment, being labour intensive, and also for the environment.
The contribution to the environment is vital but is too diverse to go into in the time that has been allowed today. Suffice it to say that modern multi-purpose forestry can now simultaneously achieve both commercial objectives and environmental features in terms of land management, landscaping, the creation of habitat, the conservation of species and so forth.
I would also, like my noble friend Lord Addison, mention the link between forestry and the environment. It is estimated that one hectare of trees in this country can now absorb 10 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Ten tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum may sound small; but so is one hectare. If we doubled the area of woodland in this country we should lock up another 23 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year.
Given the obvious benefits of forestry and of encouraging new and better woodlands, especially on idle arable acres, I question the wisdom of the recent review that left woodland planting grants unchanged. I also question the very low rate of management grants and the degree to which their eligibility is restricted. The form filling which attaches to grant applications can still clog the machinery right at the very start. New initiatives need to be kept free from morale sapping delays.
I should like to make one simple practical suggestion and would appreciate a response from my noble friend the Minister. Why not allow some grants to be applied for retrospectively? Their eligibility could be restricted perhaps to restocking, perhaps to areas of less than a certain size, say, 10 hectares or 20 hectares. If one wanted the grant, one would inevitably of one's own free will plant in accordance with the accepted guidelines.
A more fundamental concern is the sweeping fiscal reaction to previous abuses of Schedule D that now prevents all owners from offsetting woodland costs against other incomes. That has undermined many woodlands or conservation countryside management policies, especially those pursued by traditional estates that integrate farmland and woodland. Surely it would be sensible at the very least for a farm or estate to be able to offset its woodland oriented costs against incomes arising from other parts of that same farm or estate.
In conclusion, I urge my noble friend to give us the following assurances: that the Secretary of State will not return from Brussels until the farm premium woodland scheme or other such schemes can count toward set-aside acreage; that woodland planting and management grants will be made more competitive with other land-use policies; that retrospective grant applications will be considered as a sensible option in certain circumstances; that the manner in which the grant system encourages most broadleaf planting to

1131
be at the least density, thus producing the least benefits, will be reviewed; and, finally, that the fiscal arrangements will be revised in a calm and constructive fashion so that those good practices which have been lost will be restored.
Those are just some of the issues that a committed forestry strategy must address if its benefits are to be widespread and long-lasting.
7.12 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for having initiated this debate and bringing to it two excellent maiden speakers who know their briefs extremely well. We look forward to hearing a great deal more from them on this and many other subjects.
I should like to say quickly—there are 22 speakers on the list—how much I support the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Marlesford about the taxation system. It is a little ironic that we are at the beginning of a new financial year and for the first time forestry expenses have been taken out of the taxation system. That may be a good omen. I hope very much that my noble friend will take the point on board and consider it. It is quite serious. The euphoric hopes that have been expressed so well by many speakers with regard to the further expansion of forestry and the fulfilment of all that we—noble Lords, the public and country lovers—wish to see will be frustrated if we do not have some meaningful allowance put back into the taxation system.
My noble friend Lord Addison was concerned about the possibility of using set-aside land for development of forestry, if not for wildlife. I wanted to comment on what he said but I shall be out of order if I do so. Other speakers have referred to the development of forestry and set-aside land. I should like to utter a word of caution in this area. It is not only forestry and woodlands that encourage habitat and wildlife but also plain, bare fallow land. Indeed, this year I was pleasantly surprised to see a rather larger number than usual of yellow hammers and barn owls around at home which I believe have been encouraged by the proliferation of set-aside. I should not like my noble friend to be carried away with the thought that we must develop forestry on bare land purely because of habitat.
Another danger is that the set-aside arrangements may not continue for long. One does not know. I do not argue the case for or against set-aside but merely state the fact. As many noble Lords know, if one plants virgin land, the difficulties of restoring it to agriculture are compounded. No one should rush into planting new woodlands on virgin land. The matter has to be treated with great caution. Our traditional woodlands, whether they be large commercial woodlands or amenity woodlands planted by our forefathers, were all planted in areas that were basically unsuitable for use as agricultural land. Those areas grew possibly better timber, being on rather higher ground. The trees grown in this country—I do not speak of Scotland, which is obviously higher, or indeed Wales, which is undulating country, but of the north of England more or less—and planted on virgin
1132
agricultural soil do not produce timber of good enough quality for the purposes for which many people want to use it. That is why we import so much Norwegian timber and why Scotland produces excellent larch and first-class timber. It is limited to those sorts of areas. So we must not be carried away by the fact that we could grow a lot more timber or that it would necessarily cut our imports and so on.
I should like to say in a few quick words—I was a little stopped in my track earlier and probably quite rightly—that the age of the planner and the bureaucrat is very much with us. There is a creeping paralysis which, if we are not careful, will overtake the private enterprise that has served us so well in the past. I refer to tree preservation orders. The orders were based originally on individual trees rather than large blocks or areas. I have the dubious privilege—certainly I had 30 years ago—of having the largest tree preservation order on a block of woods in this country. The result has been a running battle with the planners and the tree preservation order people to be allowed to carry out a proper silvicultural policy. I have tried to do the best that I could, but wind blow has occurred. Trees could not be felled because I was not allowed to fell them and others have now blown over. The next thing that can happen is that another lot will blow over.
My time has run out. If we are to develop our private industry, let us have some of the shackles of bureaucratic imposition taken away from us.
7.19 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, we need to examine why we need forestry in the United Kingdom and whether, despite the criticism, both government and industry are not after all striving in the same direction. To do so we must distinguish between industrial timber supply and amenity/sporting/farm woodland. The last two cases are very fine and important. They are worthy of the many grants that are currently available. But they will not serve the appetite of the processors who have made large investments in this country.
It has been stated elsewhere that we need to aim for a sustained production target of about 20 million tonnes per annum. That aim should be achievable by the traditional mixed estate together with the forest enterprise and by the broadening of public participation. The former provider, one of which I own, needs confidence restored by a long-term policy looked after by one Ministry. It needs financial impetus provided by a judicious mixture of grants and common fiscal treatment with other land users, maintaining the present tax-neutral status of timber production. However, associated costs of common works of infrastructure and agricultural integration, like roads and fences, ditches and ponds, should qualify for ordinary tax relief and not be covered by the woodland grant scheme. That scheme would be directed specifically at tree planting.
The second provider of timber—new planting—could be achieved by the broadening of participation through the shareholding public, as in other industries. Minor enabling legislation would permit

1133
the marketing of forestry portfolio schemes based on transferable shares wherein shareholders would be allowed the same tax treatment—neutrality—as individual investors. Those ideas would not involve additional Exchequer costs. The Government should target the intervention better. Intervention is bound to be necessary because of the distortion caused by agricultural subsidies and BES-type schemes.
I believe that the industry's objectives are similar to those of the Government. The industry wants to increase the quality of the resource—mostly industrial roundwood; to manage on a sustainable basis; and to provide a wide range of products and benefits for society. The Government want to stimulate agricultural diversification, rural investment and employment as well as provide social and environmental benefits. Arising from Rio, they also have the obligation to long-term resource creation.
All those aims would be achievable under a system which encouraged new investment but also reassured existing owners. It is vital that the forestry industry does not seek endless public subsidies. A strong flourishing processing sector could lead to better prices and therefore profitability for the landowner. However, part of the equation includes pitching the grants—that is, the incentives—at a realistic level.
The growth of native hardwoods in the UK is hampered by two factors with which the Government could help. The first is the damage done by grey squirrels. I wonder whether the Government have any plans for a co-ordinated publicity action campaign to thwart those horrid animals. The second is the relative lack of progress on genetics and breeding. It is no good growing a tree for 150 years if it is only going to be good for firewood at the end. Is the Minister confident that enough resources are being directed at improving hardwood form? Growing trees without growing timber is to suggest to our children that the world owes us a living, as we do by importing over 80 per cent. of our needs.
Finally, is the Minister aware of the work done by the Forestry Trust for conservation and education, of which I am a trustee. Last year the trust was instrumental in establishing the forest education initiative. This spring it published a handbook of woodlands open to the public with considerable help from the Forestry Commission and the Countryside Commission. However, further funds are needed to sustain the work of that valuable charity in the future.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for giving us the opportunity—it seems to occur so rarely—to discuss this industry. Secondly, I wish to declare my interest since I have spent all my life in the county of Angus —so well known to my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench and indeed to my noble neighbour Lord Mackie. I recall enormous timber operations, clear felling, during World War Two. I recall what was virtually a clear fell during the hurricane of 1953—Coronation year. I recall my school years when it seemed that all we did around Kinnordy was clear up
1134
the damage of the 1953 hurricane. Even at the time I left school, at the time of Suez and Hungary in 1956, we were still clearing up and trying to level out before we even started thinking of replanting.
Schedules B and D of the tax tables were part of my bed-time reading both as a forester and inhabitant of Angus as well as an aspiring member of the chartered accountants of Scotland. But in 1966 we were able to go ahead with some major planting. I am not sure of the acreage. I am told it was 47 hectares of Sitka, spruce and larch. In those 27 years we have noticed a doubling of the roe deer population and a trebling in the number of foxes in the area. However, it seems that we have done our bit for nature conservation. This year we planted close on 40 hectares of hill land, but under new regulations, which we have had to obey, for spacing and for percentage of hardwood, at the same time taking care of an old Pictish settlement. Nevertheless, we did not use military, regimented square blocks. We have what I hope will be a lasting monument to what can be done in mixing both silviculture and nature conservation as well as conservation of birds and wildlife.
My noble friend Lord Addison, in a notable maiden speech, mentioned amenity planting. We seem to have achieved harmony as regards broad leaves with the various planning authorities who sought to guide us in our activities.
Your Lordships will be aware that 1984 was the year of George Orwell. It was also exactly nine years ago today that my noble friend the then Prime Minister suggested that I go to Northern Ireland to administer its Department of Agriculture. That department was responsible for forestry operations. I recall four figures that were dinned into my head day and night. Indeed, they have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I was advised that Northern Ireland's afforested land was 5 per cent.; in Great Britain—England, Scotland and Wales—it was 9 per cent.; in the Federal Republic of Germany it was 24 per cent.; and in France, 24 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has updated those figures. For goodness sake, Great Britain is 10 per cent; the Federal Republic of Germany, together with what I presume is the former East Germany, is 30 per cent.; and France is 27 per cent. They are therefore pulling ahead of what we are doing.
The thrust of today's debate is to encourage whatever methods are necessary—private or public —to close the gap. If there is one thing that my noble and learned friend can do it is to take the message to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to encourage reafforestation, private or public, but to do it.
One of my noble friends mentioned all kinds of activities that may take place in forests, among which he included cemeteries. I looked at the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and perhaps a monument to him may be there. But my noble neighbour Lord Mackie will be aware that not a mile from his house there is a beautiful cemetery, the Piper Hillock cemetery in a little forest glade in Cortachy. So it is mentioned in your Lordships' House, and we have it in Angus!

1135
Before I came into your Lordships' House I was given a leaflet referred to by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, regarding the farm woodland premium scheme in Scotland. I mentioned earlier that I had the honour to serve in Northern Ireland and I know that occasionally Ministers make decisions which they later regret. If what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said is true, perhaps he will consult the little red book which is next door to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. If he consults St. John's Gospel Chapter 8, verse 7, he will see that it says,
"He that is without sin … let him first cast a stone".
I shall not do that. My time is up. However, I will repeat the figures: 5 per cent. now 10 per cent.; the Federal Republic of Germany, 30 per cent.; and France 27 per cent. If my noble and learned friend will encourage the forestry industry, public or private, to close that gap, then our message will have been heard.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should like to use the opportunity very kindly provided by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to argue for increased and co-ordinated government support for users of low grade hardwoods. The opportunity, and indeed the need, is clear. There is a vast amount of such material —large areas of unmanaged woodland that were ravaged in the two world wars; thinnings from commercial forestry; and old coppices. There is very little market for most of it and the consequence is dereliction and decay. It is much more efficient for the Government to support an industry, where 10p of government support might buy £1 of work, than to support a landowner, where one would have to pay him at least £1 to do £1 of work.
There are three industries at or near market which might make use of this material. First, there is charcoal. We import most of our charcoal from South East Asia, which must add to the forest devastation there, but some of it comes from the United States and Spain, which shows that a charcoal industry can be successful in the developed world. There are some small charcoal companies in the UK but, by and large, the industry is fed from imports. There is much interest in the Forestry Commission in introducing new charcoal businesses—the Anglian Woodlands Project comes to mind—but much further help is needed in kiln technology, in the training of the workforce, in helping to co-ordinate the marketing of charcoal produced by many small producers and perhaps through some initial grants to overcome the bad infrastructure.
Secondly, there is power. The Energy Technology Support Unit of the DTI has demonstrated some successful uses of timber in heating where there are local sources of such timber. There are some encouraging figures on the costs of the operation. It now has a project called Borders Biofuels which is intended to generate electrical power from willow coppice and waste wood chips. The project is at a stage where what is needed now is government action, first, in sorting out their position under the non-fossil fuels obligation, and, secondly, in sorting out their position under set-aside. It will be crucial to use set-aside land
1136
for willow coppice. Once that is done, as I am sure the Government will manage to do, a demonstration plant will need to be funded.
Lastly, there is the industry in wood chips and pulp. It is at present the only established user of low grade hardwoods. Most small mills have disappeared. There are two or three large users left, for which a new line would cost perhaps £25 million. However, this would be a major contributor to the uses of such timber because it would absorb about 200,000 tonnes a year. At the moment we appear to be losing such new industrial projects to Europe because they receive better grants. That appears to be because the grants in this country take into account only the employment in the mill and not the employment in the forestry needed to feed that mill.
What we need now is a co-ordinated commitment by government —the one-stop shop approach mentioned in the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Addison. We need that because so many aspects of government are involved in forestry. There are so many spin-offs in different areas; for example, in employment. Employment in the forestry industry is often appropriate for people who are very hard to employ elsewhere. If one is prepared to sit out all night watching a charcoal kiln one is probably not someone who will enjoy an office or shop job. It is important for the balance of payments, which has been mentioned many times. It is important for the non-fossil fuels obligation and for the environment, let alone for forestry. It is a very efficient use of the Government's money to support a user industry rather than just the work in the forest.
The commercial opportunities are at a critical stage. They seem marginal at the moment because of the high uncertainty —there are no existing businesses that can be drawn on for comparisons—and because of the lack of infrastructure in this country for using low grade hardwood timber. They need impetus, demonstration projects and solid support from the Government. If they have that, we may well see the establishment of new industries which in due time can be weaned off government support.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Jeffreys: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for bringing this debate to the House and congratulate our two maiden speakers on their excellent contributions.
In the limited time available I should like to refer to the environmental and recreational benefits of forestry in Britain today. I link these two important areas because, for an increasing number of our people, the pleasure gleaned from visiting our woodland areas is in direct relationship to the environmental benefits that are seen to be at work there.
It is a fact of life that accountability, either corporate or political, necessitates that forestry be managed in a cost effective way. There are, of course, two major problems. First, cost effectiveness does not always work to the benefit of the environment; and, secondly, in an industry where time scales can be very protracted, who can really predict what will be commercially viable in, say, 40 or 50 years time?

1137
I believe that some of the financial risks involved in forestry projects can be stripped out through a greater degree of public participation, at local level, in forestry planting or conservation projects. Perhaps tax breaks could be given to individuals who are not landowners but who wish to invest in local forestry projects and collective planting schemes. That in its turn might allow for a less intensive approach.
As an excellent example of public participation, often at a local level, I commend to your Lordships the work of the Woodland Trust, which, through its 150,000 subscribers, has been able to purchase and manage a number of important tracts of vulnerable woodland around the country. Multi-purpose forestry must be encouraged. Increasingly it is recognised that the commercial viability of forestry is not limited to its eventual timber value. Recreational value can also play a major part. In particular, I am thinking of the period between planting and maturity when funds are required for active management.
The Forestry Commission, along with other commercial growers, has been accused in the past of environmentally damaging policies, particularly with regard to the intensive planting of conifers. I fully support the much greater move that has been seen in recent years towards the planting of native hardwoods. Our climate is much more suited to this type of woodland and of course it does have a greater environmental and recreational appeal. That has very much been taken on board by private landowners, albeit through changes in the grant system. The Government would do well to give that a further boost perhaps through the abolition of inheritance taxes payable on woodland areas, particularly those that give access to the public.
One of the most important by-products of the Forestry Commission's activities is its granting of public access. Whatever happens to the commission it is vital that these rights be maintained. We live in a small, densely populated country with intense recreational demands. If the commission is privatised then problems of access will undoubtedly be raised. On balance, therefore, I am for its retention.
I should like to see forestry policy being co-ordinated at a much more local level. I see no reason at all why a series of "privatised" woodland ares could not be created with priority rights for local shareholders. I would even suggest that the public might be prepared to pay for the use of these parks either through a shareholder scheme or perhaps via a membership format. That would enable a more "user friendly" planting policy and ensure public access in the years to come.
Lastly, I should just like to say a word about set-aside. I am one of those—and this includes many farmers—who find it difficult to accept that any business should be paid to do more or less nothing with a portion of its assets, although I accept that in some respects food production is a special case. Would it not be possible to permit, say, 10 or 20 per cent. of the rotational set-aside to be put over to the planting
1138
of permanent woodland? I understand that that needs to be tackled at European level, but perhaps my noble and learned friend can give me some guidance on that.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I too congratulate the two maiden speakers and express my deep gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, upon having initiated the debate.
If one looks at the history of the country's forestry, one finds a general drift from one extreme to another. First, our woods were devastated by the two world wars. There was then the Schedule D phase, which was ruined by the abuse by forestry companies where excessive areas of sitka and contorta were planted, sometimes by greedy pop stars. The countryside is now bedevilled by poor prices for our timber and by a desire to placate the often mistaken views of our urban dwellers. Forestry is being treated to the same nonsense as the farmers with regard to form-filling bureaucracy, dictation from planners, health and safety regulations and so-called conservationists, ramblers and the like who frequently know little of what is best for the countryside, let alone forestry, and certainly know nothing of rural economics.
I know of several instances where forestry has suffered from wrong decisions by these people, but time does not permit me to quote them today. Harvesting woods is a major problem. It does not seem to be appreciated that forestry depends on harvesting crops. A farmer would not be told that he could not cut his wheat or his barley because it looked nice waving in the breeze, but a forester is told that he cannot cut his crop which he has matured over many years because that might spoil the scenery.
Now that Schedule D tax recovery has mistakenly been removed, we are at the mercy of complicated grant schemes. However, when one such scheme is having the desired effect and is being successful—I refer to the farm woodland grant scheme—we are told today that the money has run out for the scheme in Scotland. That is a sobering thought. It is the one grant that has really been taken up. I should like to know from my noble friend how long we shall be without it.
Let us take another example. The top amount of grant is not available if any softwoods are planted. That seems ridiculous. The situation presumably arose out of complaints from environmentalists about the blanket planting by forestry companies in Caithness and Sunderland of contorta pine. However, one of the best methods of growing hardwoods is to have a nurse crop of Scots pine to push up the hardwoods into nice, clean stems. Anyone who has seen mature hardwoods in the snow will know what cold, draughty places they are. Can woods with no evergreens be the best environment for wild life? Surely it is better to have a mix with some softwood to provide roosting for birds in the new plantation.
There is increasing pressure for more access to the woods of the country. But a large proportion of those already taking access use the opportunity to exercise their dogs. Woodlands will absorb considerably more human beings than the open hill, but some control

1139
over dogs must be available. The harassment and pulling down of deer by dogs being exercised in the woods is substantial around urban areas. Our last surviving hen capercailzie has now left us. She tried to nest for three years and was put off her nest every time by dogs. The forest enterprise receives a recreational grant but the private sector has no help in catering for the public.
Why is the forestry enterprise being allowed to fell plantations which are at the first thinning stage? I gather that the Audit Commission, whose report is shortly to be published, has strongly criticised that practice, which has cost the country millions of pounds. A committee in another place has recently queried the practice. It has been told that the intention was to bring plantations into a more even age classification for environmental reasons. I maintain that that is no excuse. Yesterday I drove from Inverness and passed what used to be well grown plantations which have now reached their first thinning stage. I was horrified to find that instead of thinning, large chunks had been cut out of the plantations, letting in the wind, which has already blown down a considerable number of the remaining trees.
When the Audit Commission has already criticised the practice, why is the vandalism being allowed to continue? Are the Government and forest enterprises so frightened or influenced by the environmental lobby that they can no longer do the right and sensible thing? Are the Government prepared to see millions of pounds of public money being thrown away to please that lobby?
7.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the majority of people have kept to their time well. I might therefore take an extra minute but no more. There is no need for me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for initiating the debate. When he drew the ballot, nothing would have stopped him. In fact one could not have got him to talk on anything else. However, I do congratulate the two maiden speakers. Without any disrespect to the excellent speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, it is good that the noble Lord, Lord Barber, has broken his duck and that we shall now hear him on many occasions in the House.
It has been an interesting debate with one common theme: that the Government must do better. If the Minister will permit me to say so, the Government need to do better. The 1988 change in taxation was an unmitigated disaster. I understand that they are now putting that right. Noble Lords have quoted the figures. From 20,000 hectares privately planted, the figure came down to under 9,000. Therefore the Government have a great deal to put right. I trust that they are facing up to the position with their far from customary zeal.
The withdrawal of the farm woodland grant scheme in Scotland seems extraordinary. Has there been such an enormous take up that the Government could not stretch the money a little? No doubt the Minister will tell us when he replies.
1140
During the past week I have talked to farmers and foresters. It seems extraordinary that despite representations from the Country Landowners' Association, the Government still insist on compart-mentalising the taxation on different enterprises in an estate. It is quite ludicrous that if one has a good year with regard to grouse one cannot put that against an enterprise on which one makes a loss. Surely a Conservative Government should consider the issue so that the large estates can balance one enterprise against another.
If one is lucky and makes a good job of it, at best the return on money is about 2 per cent. One needs to be a dedicated man to accept such a return when one could certainly put the money into the Alliance Trust in Dundee and guarantee that one's heirs would be extremely well off even paying 40 per cent. taxation. We need some consistency from the Government that they will maintain the advantages. There is nothing better than bribing a rich man to expand the assets of the country, both for the beauty and for the wealth of the country, the control of imports and so on. But the position has to be consistent; otherwise the device does not work. That was exactly the position in 1988: it was not maintained consistently and it did not work.
About 40 per cent. of the land in Britain is still owned and operated by large estates. The figure might be a little lower or a little higher. About 60 per cent. is owner occupied. Much of that will be in fairly large blocks which could tackle forestry in a logical manner. There are therefore two factors. A great deal of propaganda needs to be put out about the present grants. A speaker has already made the point about indexation of grants. With luck and good management, if the grants will be available in the future, with tax advantages, an excellent investment could be made by a farmer or owner. A good deal of work needs to be done on this issue.
Again, the Government made a total mess of getting outside money into the industry. There is no reason on earth why Terry Wogan should not put money in. The great fault was that the people doing this and taking the money were trying to plant in impossible areas. In fact, the whole thing was badly done. Everybody knew that it would never work in parts of Caithness. That is why we need the Forestry Commission. Because those concerned were not taking the grants but were doing it out of income, they needed only a simple licence, and the Forestry Commission did not vet the sort of planting that they were doing or the land that they were planting on. That is one reason why we need the Forestry Commission.
If the Forestry Commission is to be a good advisory and administrative body, it needs to have its own estates well managed (they could be criticised by everyone, including the noble Lord, Lord Burton), but if it is relegated to being an advisory body only, it will not carry the necessary weight. Therefore, it is vital that the Forestry Commission is kept in national ownership. I trust that the Minister is listening closely to his noble friend Lord Marlesford and others and ignoring the doctrinaire advice of the noble Lord,

1141
Lord Wade of Chorlton. The Forestry Commission is necessary for the well-being of the industry, and I trust that the Government will continue to think so.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should first congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, on their maiden speeches. Both showed that they are well informed about the subject, perhaps in slightly different ways. They added to the quality of the debate, which is not always the case with maiden speeches. I certainly learned a great deal from them.
I congratulate also my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe on initiating the debate. It has excited a great deal of interest outside the House. I have received many briefs from extremely good outside bodies. It is only fair to mention that they include the Scottish Wildlife Fund, Countryside Link, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and the Countryside Commission. Perhaps most of all I am grateful for the excellent report on forestry produced by the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment. It is a pity that it dealt only with English forestry. However, as the report states, the committee's remit is the environ-ment. It could not therefore consider Scotland and Wales: it had to confine itself to England. Perhaps that could be considered in any future reconstruction of Whitehall. We may need a national body to look after rural affairs instead of proceeding as we do at present.
I spent a large part of the recess reading those reports and enjoyed the experience. However, given the short time that is allowed to me in this debate, perhaps I should put my reading of those reports and the excellent speeches that I have heard down to self-improvement.
Tax relief has been mentioned a number of times. As has been said, the 1988 Finance Act ended a tax incentive which, whatever else it did to forestry, was ultimately very badly received by the public. Perhaps that was because of the bad publicity it received. In a debate on 20th March 1988, when explaining why the incentives were being discouraged, John MacGregor said that he was meeting the public's desire that such a scheme should be stopped.
Perhaps the woodland grant scheme should be looked at again to see whether it is adequate to meet the increased plantings we need. That is a more honest way to run our forestry. It has the advantage that the proper choices of tree species can be planted to suit an overall forestry strategy. Under the old tax relief scheme, there was a feeling that there had to be quick returns, which obviously did not help a good forestry strategy.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the fact that the Scottish farm woodland premium scheme has been suspended. My information is that it has been suspended only until October this year. But why only in Scotland when one considers that new plantings are at their lowest levels for 40 years and that forestry is normally funded on a Great Britain basis? Surely, government policy is to encourage farm woodlands as
1142
a means of reducing agricultural overproduction. EC policy to encourage farm woodlands allows national governments to be reimbursed a proportion of the farm woodland grant schemes. Scotland is the only region among all EC member countries where the farm woodlands policy appears to show some sign of working. It would be to everyone's benefit and in everyone's interest if the Minister could explain why the scheme applies only to Scotland.
I turn to the subject of access. I was very pleased to note that noble Lords who have spoken, all of them very knowledgeable about forestry, have with one exception agreed with the idea that one of the benefits of a national forestry policy should be wider public access to forests. If the public have paid for grants —I am not objecting to that because there must be grants for forestry—the public should then have certain rights of access.
In a Written Answer on 30th March the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
"We have established a small group of officials, with representatives of the Treasury," —
that is always ominous—
"Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Welsh Office, Department of the Environment and the Forestry Commission, under Scottish Office chairmanship, to review the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment, to review options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands and to make proposals for changes which would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to the Government's other economic and environmental policies".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/3/93; col. 150.]
Is that a preliminary step to some big privatisation of the Forestry Commission? The general consensus among noble Lords who have spoken today is that we need the Forestry Commission. Would it not have been better if a statement such as that had been made publicly in the House?
This has been a most interesting debate. Perhaps I shall spend a few days reading up on it before I forget all that I have learnt in the past couple of weeks from the very good briefings that I have been given. It would be helpful if the Minister could enlighten the House on a number of points that have been raised, not only by myself but, much more pertinently, by many others.
8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, in responding to the debate it falls to me, initially, to congratulate those who have made their maiden speeches. First, I add my congratulations to those given to my noble friend Lord Addison on a constructive, eloquent and clearly knowledgeable speech. I extend the same congratula-tions to the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, who brought to the debate a wealth of experience and, without being controversial, introduced a refreshing balance of perspective to a complicated debate. I hope that it will not be another two years before they have the opportunity to contribute to a forestry debate. I appreciate all too well how frustrating that has been for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who secured this debate.

1143
As the noble Lord observed during the debate on the social and economic needs of rural areas on 3rd March, he has been waiting for two years to have the debate. The debate has come at an important time, when internationally forestry has a higher profile than it has ever had, following the Rio conference. And, closer to home, it has come at a time when the Government have recently announced their intention to look into ways of improving the effectiveness of their forestry policy. It is therefore desirable that such a debate should take place in the House.
Anyone who has listened to all or part of the debate, or reads all or part of it, cannot fail to be impressed by the depth of knowledge on this important matter which resides in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is well versed in the subject having at one time, as have other noble Lords, been an eminent chairman of the Forestry Commission. That he still keeps his finger on the pulse is shown by the fact that in his opening speech he voiced a number of concerns—concerns which have been echoed in the House by many noble Lords during the debate.
I can understand those concerns, but I certainly do not share the pessimistic outlook which some noble Lords have displayed. We believe that the forestry industry in this country has an excellent future. The most satisfying consensus reached during the debate is that we in Britain continue to need to plant more trees. It continues to be our policy to encourage the expansion of woodland cover in Great Britain for the many diverse benefits that forests provide. That policy is based upon the realisation of multiple objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, I think it was, said that the leopard has changed its spots. It is perhaps unfortunate that in the way that he meant it that is not yet a matter of as wide a public appreciation as it might be.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said about the possible long-term effects on wood processors if new planting levels remain depressed. But I am sure that he would be the first to acknowledge that we cannot, and should not, take a short-term view of forestry. Although we may have started from a low base, as a nation we have done more than any other country to build up our forestry area. We have doubled our forest area over the past 70 years. Nearly 250,000 hectares of new forests have been created over the past decade alone, mainly by the enterprise and initiative of private owners. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lyell for making his small contribution to the improvement of the braes of Angus.
We shall continue to build upon those resources in the future. A number of noble Lords referred to the effect that removal of the tax reliefs for forestry had on new planting levels in the private sector and on the ability of traditional woodland owners to offset maintenance expenditure. A number of your Lordships pointed to the fact that the five-year transitional period for existing woodlands ended recently.
The removal of forestry tax reliefs was done with the best interests of the forestry industry in mind. It
1144
was doing the industry no good to be seen merely as a tax haven, not just in terms of the public perception of what the industry was about but in the way it worked. The changes made in 1988 and subsequently have put the industry on a much sounder and more acceptable footing. The removal of tax reliefs was matched by a substantial rise in grant levels under the woodland grant scheme. They are substantial. They range from £615 per hectare to £1,575 per hectare. We have made important improvements to the grant system over the past five years. In some cases we have improved it, and will do so increasingly, by simplifying the forms to be used. In 1988 we introduced a better land supplement of £200 per hectare to encourage more planting of better quality land. That may not meet with the approval of my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, but we believe the right trees on the right sites mean that better land on lower levels can be better used. That should encourage more planting on that better quality land.
In 1990 we increased the value of that supplement to £400 per hectare for conifers and £600 for broadleaves. In 1992 we introduced management grants to encourage the positive management of woodlands and forests by a special, higher rate of grant for woodlands of special environmental value. Also in 1992 we introduced a community woodland supplement of £950 per hectare for establishing new woodlands open to the public and within easy reach of towns and cities. Again, if there was a consensus in the debate its purpose to encourage planting on the urban fringe, adding to the amenity and to the overall amount of planting in this country, seemed to be accepted. We have taken initiatives, to which there was some reference, to create major new forests in the English Midlands and the central belt of Scotland.
Our policy for broadleaves, introduced in 1985, has resulted in big increases in broadleaved planting. In 1985, the total broadleaved planting totalled less than 2,000 hectares. By 1992, this had risen to 11,000 hectares. Our native pinewood scheme in the Highlands of Scotland encourages owners to manage their existing valuable remnants of native pinewoods and to create new ones to emulate the native pinewood ecosystems. In just four years the area of native pinewoods has increased very significantly. We have therefore taken steps to target the forestry incentives to deliver our forestry policy objectives.
Let me be quite clear, however, that I share the disappointment expressed by noble Lords that the level of new planting continues to be depressed. In many ways that was only to be expected, given the re-adjustments being asked of the industry. However, we must also bear in mind that the general economic climate has not been conducive to encouraging investment in such a very long-term business as forestry. Given the economic backdrop, it is encouraging that landowners are planting as many new woodlands as they are.
The Government acknowledge the concerns of many—inside and outside the forestry industry—that not enough is being done to encourage the planting of the right trees in the right places and for the right reasons. We have a manifesto commitment to look at

1145
the incentives for planting. In pursuance of this, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced before Easter that he had set up a working group of officials charged with reviewing the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment. We are anxious to see that the best possible use is made of limited public funds by concentrating our efforts where they are most needed. The review will be completed by the end of the year. It will take account of the many concerns voiced by my noble friends Lord Swinton, Lord Radnor and Lord Marlesford and the noble Lord, Lord Geraint. As it reviews the incentives, the working group will be looking at a number of the tax issues that have been mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, raised a number of detailed points with regard to evidence and consultation. It is still early days in the analysis to be done by the working group, but consultation on some issues is a distinct possibility. I can confirm that the management of existing woodlands will be covered by the review and that wildlife and conservation are, and remain, an integral part of our forestry policy.
The working group has also been asked to review the options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and other noble Lords referred to that. In view of the opinions expressed tonight on the Forestry Commission perhaps I may make it clear that there is no predetermined outcome of the review. I say to my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton that obviously a number of proposals might come forward. In addition, a number of sensitive issues have been touched on; for instance, access to Forestry Commission woodlands. Clearly those must be addressed in the context of the review.
We have stated on many occasions that there are no present plans for the privatisation of the Forestry Commission. That remains the case. However, noble Lords will be aware that all activities of government are being reviewed and this examination is part of the process. I heard the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, and other noble Lords indicating their hostility. But I repeat that there is simply a review without a predetermined outcome.
In looking at the incentives and the commission's holdings, the working group's remit is to make proposals for change which will improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives having regard to their other economic and environmental policies. The movement of Forest Enterprise to the private sector is not ruled out but neither is it a foregone conclusion. If changes are proposed as a result of the review the nature and timing will be decided by the Government with the aim of serving the best interests of British forestry.
A number of references were made to the desirability of encouraging greater planting on agricultural land. The Government are certainly keen to see that as a means of taking land out of agricultural production. The farm woodland scheme which was introduced in 1988 has produced more than 11,500 hectares of new planting on farms. It has sowed
1146
the seeds and has encouraged farmers to talk about trees on farms. It was replaced last year by the farm woodland premium scheme which has higher grants and is simpler to understand. It has made an excellent start, with applications so far totalling some 10,000 hectares.
A number of queries stemmed from an announcement or an understanding that a particular scheme in Scotland has come to an end because the money has run out. I am pleased to say that the scheme in Scotland was particularly successful. All that I can say to noble Lords at present is that we are currently considering whether it will be necessary to close the scheme to further applications for the rest of the year. As I understand it, planting will end by the end of next month. However, if such a step has to be taken it will not be taken lightly. We must ensure that sufficient resources are available—
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, will the Minister—
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no, if the noble Lord will allow me, I have little time to answer 23 contributions. I wish briefly to refer to matters raised by my noble friends Lord Lindsay and Lord Addison with regard to tree planting in relation to non-rotational set-aside. The European Commission has not yet decided whether tree planting will be an option on land set aside as part of the farmers' obligations under the new EC arable regime. However, I hope that I can reassure the House without difficulty that the Government will continue to press strongly for such woodland planting to be an acceptable option. We are grateful for the indications of support given to that approach.
The wood-processing sector has invested some £1 billion in new processing plant during the past decade. The new mills and plants incorporate the very latest in new technologies in paper-making, panel production and saw milling. I listened with interest to alternative proposals; for instance, those put forward by my noble friend Lord Lucas with regard to low-grade hardwoods. Wood production from new forests created this century has doubled since 1970 and is set to double again during the next 20 years. As has been said, our timber is of high quality and is in demand by our domestic wood-processing industries. All that has been made possible by that doubling.
After years of restricting woodlands to the poorer soils of the uplands we now have policies in place to encourage the creation of woodlands on better land. We have measures to encourage the development of community woodlands. New opportunities are opening up for the planting of broadleaves and mixed woodlands and in Scotland native pinewoods.
The debate has been long and complicated. I appreciate that a number of specific questions were asked but during the time available to me I have not had an opportunity to answer in detail. I shall scrutinise in Hansard what has been said and where I can identify particular questions I shall ensure that replies are received by noble Lords. I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for introducing the debate. I also thank noble Lords who

1147
contributed for showing a real expertise and, more important, a great concern for the future of the forestry industry.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I thank the Minister but I am sorry that his commitment in relation to privatisation and other issues which have been raised was not as concise as I had hoped. Nevertheless, I am sure that he was impressed by the views expressed in the House, in particular by all the practising foresters who stated them so clearly.
I also thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate. Most of them travelled long distances and arrived in the House only to discover that they had five minutes to speak. I admire their discipline in observing the five-minute rule, during which time they were able to make their anxieties well heard. The message is loud and clear—that foresters in this country want, first, expansion and, secondly, the partnership between the private sector and the state sector to be maintained. I hope that the Minister has received that message loud and clear. I believe that all noble Lords on all sides of the House have conveyed the message in no uncertain terms. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Selected List Prescribing Scheme: Extension
8.18 p.m.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what effect the extension of the selected list scheme will have on the attainment of targets contained in the Health of the Nation White Paper, especially in relation to mental illness.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on 12th November last year the Government announced their intention to extend the selected list scheme, which was originally implemented in 1985 for seven therapeutic categories of drugs, to a further 10 therapeutic categories. These include drugs for the treatment of, for example, anxiety and mental illness, skin diseases, women's vaginal infections and contraceptives.
As with the earlier selected list scheme, the intended result is substantially to reduce the number of drugs in these categories which will be available for prescription under the National Health Service. Altogether some 549 drugs are affected. The Department of Health is not only the regulator of the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry but it is also effectively the monopolistic buyer of its goods. Therefore, the immediate impact of the measures will fall upon the pharmaceutical industry. It will be serious —very serious—for the industry. The net sales of those 549 drugs to the NHS amount to about £450 million per annum. Therefore, it is estimated that the reduction in volume of those sales is likely to be in the region of £250 million to £300 million; in other words, sales will be lost to the industry to that degree.
According to a survey carried out by the ABPI from answers received from 46 out of 65 companies, consequential job losses to the industry will be in the region of 3,000 people and there will be a cut-back on
1148
capital investment in the UK in the pharmaceutical industry of up to £400 million in production and/or research and development. The impact on some companies will be quite devastating. It affects some companies to the degree of 47 per cent., 64 per cent. or 83 per cent. of their total sales. Indeed, five United Kingdom companies whose sales will be affected by up to 100 per cent. literally face extinction.
Serious harm must also be contemplated for overseas companies manufacturing and/or selling their products in this country. There are also serious implications for the United Kingdom economy. The pharmaceutical industry's exports are currently just under £3 billion per annum with a surplus of exports at about £1.3 billion. The pharmaceutical industry is second only as an exporter to the power generating machine industry and is ahead of the oil industry with all its fields in the North Sea. Therefore, who can doubt that the result will be a significant drop in the inward investment into the United Kingdom for one of our prime and most successful industries?
It has been, and is, particularly difficult for the pharmaceutical industry because, as openly stated by the Minister of State in another place, these measures were announced without consultation and without warning. The industry asks, "Are we not meant to be working in co-operation with the Government on the PPRS scheme and elsewhere? Are we not meant to be working with the Government in the interests of patients?" It asks also, "What next?"
In my years in your Lordships' House, particularly during the past 10 years when I have involved myself in matters concerning the pharmaceutical industry, I have never known that industry to be more upset. I am anxious to get on with my speech but I could quote to your Lordships a letter that was written by the chairman of one major pharmaceutical company to the Secretary of State in which he expressed anguish at the decision.
It is often said that the industry is profitable and prosperous and that cries from it are cries of wolf. Perhaps I may cite what has happened to one company at the time of the last selected list scheme in 1985. After development costs of about £75 million, it produced a drug which was able to treat both anxiety and depression. In 11 months it achieved a 6.2 per cent. share of that sector of the United Kingdom market. It was then black-listed at the stroke of a pen. I should add that in the meantime, outside the United Kingdom, that particular drug became a world leader.
I cite also what happened in Canada since it adopted some 20 years ago a cheap drug policy. It moved from being a net exporter to a net importer of pharmaceuticals and almost entirely lost its R&D industry. Perhaps my noble friend will come with me to the end of the story of the little boy and the wolf because it is my recollection that at the end of the story there was a wolf and it is my further recollection that, in the rather macabre account of that tale, the wolf ate the little boy.
I put on record the position of the pharmaceutical industry because I believe that it is right to do so. The serious impact of the selected list scheme should be a matter of grave concern to us all. However, the greater

1149
question which we are debating this evening is the impact which the selected list scheme, as now proposed in its extended form, will have on the Government's own policies.
Again, as openly stated by the Minister of State in another place, this is a cost-cutting exercise. Pharmaceuticals account for about 10 per cent. only of the total NHS budget but, quite rightly, the Secretary of State is entitled to look for cuts in costs where it is proper to do so. No part of public expenditure should be immune from cuts. Her Majesty's Treasury should not be treated as, or seen as, the Devil. It acts ultimately on our own behalf.
That brings me to the Health of the Nation. That is an excellent piece of work for which profound congratulations should go to my noble friend and her colleagues in the Department of Health. It sets out an excellent strategy with clear and obtainable objectives. We are also brought to the central and sound policy of this Government, which I fully support, to shift where possible patient care from secondary and more costly hospital care to primary care by general practitioners. For example, I refer to the King's Fund Report on London health care and to the Tomlinson Report, which we debated recently in this House and to Making London Better, the Government's response to the Tomlinson report in February of this year.
However, the inevitable and proper result of that shift to primary care is an increase in the drugs bill because drugs represent the main and less costly means of treatment by GPs. Therefore, the question is whether that extension of the selected list scheme can be achieved without adversely affecting, in the words of the Secretary of State in her announcement on 12th November last year,
"Patients' ability to receive the medicines they need when they need them and for as long as they need them".
The Government believe that that can be achieved. Almost all of those who wrote to me believe that it cannot be achieved. The National Eczema Society wrote to me about the 11.6 million sufferers from eczema and dermatitis. The letter said:
"For many patients a long process of trial and error has been involved before finding the right product for their condition. Unlike tablets and other systematically administered forms of drugs, topical formulations cannot readily be compared with, or substituted for, one another".
I received a letter from the Birth Control Campaign, which wrote to me about the use of contraceptives prescribed in the Well Women's clinics and the difficulty of finding the appropriate contraceptives with acceptable side-effects. The Royal College of Nursing wrote to me about contraceptives, skin drugs and drugs for mental illness. It concluded:
"The RCN believes that the widely endorsed targets set out in the Health of the Nation may be jeopardised by the extension of the selected drugs list. If patients cannot be prescribed products in which they have confidence, patients' compliance will be adversely affected. This may lead to increased morbidity and a subsequent increase in hospital admissions. If the interests of patients are not put first, the reduction of the drugs bill through extension of the selected list may be outweighed by greater costs to the NHS".
I have yet a further example. A survey of GPs reveals
1150
that 62 per cent. of them believe that under the selected list scheme there will be an adverse effect on patient care.
That brings me to the treatment of mental health —a matter of particular concern to the Secretary of State. I refer to her recent speech to the Royal College of Physicians. It is also a particular care in the Health of the Nation because mental health is one of the chosen targets in that fine document. Yet following in the tracks of the benzodiazepines (used for the treatment of anxiety) appearing in the first selected list scheme, there now appear anxiolytics (which again are crucial drugs for the treatment of anxiety but which do not carry the disadvantages of benzodiazepines—concerning, for example, side-effects, interaction with alcohol and major abuse problems), this despite the noble words in paragraph C.21 on page 90 of the Health of the Nation which advocate "further effort" to find replacement drugs for treatment of mental health. It is therefore very worrying that the Government have chosen this particular health-cutting exercise.
No one who has studied the escalating cost of health care can deny that the Government, as custodian of the health of the nation, are facing a very serious problem. In the footsteps of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, two years ago I addressed the Federation of European Pharmaceutical Companies. In that address, a copy of which I have given to my noble friend, I quoted the fearful escalating figures of the cost of health care. There is much to congratulate the Secretary of State and my noble friend on achievements in the field of health care. Actually the United Kingdom has done very well and provided better standards of health care at lower costs than almost any other Western country. Yet the National Health Service simply cannot survive into the 21st century without radical changes. In a sentence: the burden will be too great for future generations to bear. The main cause is the fine demographic changes which are taking place that enable all of us, and most particularly your Lordships, to live longer, but to live longer at the greater cost of health care.
What can be done? I shall put forward—and I shall be bold about it—a few ideas. More private prescribing. My noble friend will know that under Section 1 of the National Health Service Act 1977 there is a limitation on doctors prescribing National Health Service patients with private drugs. Indeed, the only exception made for the selected list came into effect shortly after the list came out in 1985. My noble friend will also be aware of the problems of the pharmaceutical surcharge for private prescribing. That is one area that could perhaps fruitfully be looked at.
Perhaps another area which could be fruitfully looked into is the categories of exemptions for National Health Service prescription charges. Why —and I am being bold—are there free drugs for those who can afford to pay for them? Why are there free consultations for those who can afford to pay for them? Further, why are all drugs for the disorders listed treated as exempt well beyond those essential drugs —and I am not quarrelling with that—for the

1151
treatment of those with say, diabetes? Why not, for example, a separate health tax which matches reasonable income with reasonable expenditure?
Perhaps I may cite France as an example. In that country acute or life-threatening illnesses receive 100 per cent. contribution from the state. Middle illnesses, such as ulcers, receive about a 75 per cent. contribution. But for self-limiting illnesses—for example, colds, flu and so on—there is no contribution from the state.
Finally I should like to speak about the relationship between government and the pharmaceutical industry. It can and does work well. Let us take, for instance, the massive savings to the NHS for the two drugs, both developed in the United Kingdom, for the treatment of ulcers. I know that when my wife was a young doctor, not very far away from here in St. Thomas's Hospital, she can remember that something like three in every five surgical operations were operations concerning ulcers. It was a risky and very costly operation. All of that has gone and has meant a massive benefit to the NHS.
When I was standing in the footsteps of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding at Interlaken in May of 1991 I asked pharmaceutical companies to understand the problems of government. I now ask government to understand the problems of the pharmaceutical industry.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, I accept that there must be some limit to the number of drugs which may be freely prescribed by GPs and paid for by the National Health Service. As a one-time member of a district health authority, I have always supported moves by hospitals and GPS to prescribe generically whenever practicable and possible.
Much as the pharmaceutical industry may wish to have no restrictions imposed upon its activities, it is simply unreal to envisage a situation in which the NHS has no control over the drugs—many of them grossly expensive—which consultants and GPs are free to prescribe. I believe that any reasonable person accepts that there has to be a limited list. In fact I doubt whether there continues to be serious informed opposition to the present selected list with its seven categories.
However, the 10 new categories which the Department of Health proposes to add to the selected list are birds of a different feather. They are much more significant and far reaching in their implications, not least for the vast number of sufferers concerned. The new categories require much closer and most careful consideration.
It would be interesting to know, in passing, who decided upon the extra categories and by what process they arrived at a decision acceptable to the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. I cannot pretend to have expert knowledge of all, or any, of the new categories listed. But coming from a family prone to allergic conditions and disorders of he skin, I know about the reduced quality of life and the distress that these can cause, particularly to
1152
children and the elderly. I recognise the need for a properly integrated, often long-term, treatment based on the availability of a wide range of medicaments.
A drastic reduction in the drugs prescribable by the GP for, say, eczema would in no way fulfil the Secretary of State's absolute assurance that,
"patients will continue to receive the medicines they receive for as long as they are needed, under the new measures"
unless, of course, they spend their lives in hospital, face the costly and counter-productive prospect of continually journeying to and from hospital to collect their prescription or buy the whole package privately, a course completely outside the scope of any but the most well heeled. However, perhaps that is what the Secretary of State means.
I shall go no further into the specific implications of the Government's proposals, except to say that, if they are misjudged, those implications could be extensive —affecting the quality of patient care, the cost to the NHS in terms of flare-ups of disease and hospitalisa-tion and the negative impact on the development of new treatments. Unless the outcome of whatever actions follow on the recommendations of the committee, with its extended membership, is very carefully assessed and allowed for, millions of our people who already lack faith in what this Government blandly reassure us will be in our best interest will simply have their distrust confirmed.
As I said at the start of my argument, there has to be some control over the number of drugs that the NHS can afford to, or should, provide. However, as the Secretary of State herself agrees, there has also to be a sufficient range of medicines to meet the needs of patients for as long as they are needed. Frankly, I am getting so used to the double-talk of this Government that I hope I have not missed some underlying and totally different meaning to her words.
Another recently stated government policy for the NHS, with which I wholly agree, is shift of emphasis from hospital to general practitioner care. I take again the example of skin disorders. Many patients need a dermatologist to diagnose and try out different medications. As some may not work for certain patients and may even produce painful allergic reactions, the appropriate treatment can be found only by trial and error. Once a cream which reduces or contains the condition, for instance eczema, has been identified, why should the patient have to keep going back to the hospital when a GP could follow up the case? But there would, of course, have to be sufficient treatments available for the GP to prescribe. Surely such an arrangement would be an important element in developing the seamless care between hospital-based services and primary care which is one of the Government's stated aims.
In drawing up the selected list which may be appropriate for the majority of cases, I hope that the committee will give special attention to accommodating those patients who may need a particular and/or unusual drug but who are not able to pay for it. Surely, when such drugs are prescribed by a hospital physician there should be opportunities for discussion between primary and secondary levels of care as to the best interests of the patient. The alternative is that

1153
such patients will want to stay with the hospital. That is a very expensive way of providing care and contrary to other aspects of government policy.
When the Minister replies, will she tell the House —the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, mentioned this matter but from a very different point of view—how the Government reconcile their advocacy of shared care between hospital consultants and general practitioners, and agreed protocols, with the extension of the selected lists for GPs?
8.43 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Minister and noble Lords for their kind birthday wishes in the first debate this afternoon. I do not think I would be here today if it were not for antibiotics. I have personal experience of just how important the correct drug can be. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has done a great service in bringing this important matter to the notice of your Lordships this evening. Like the noble Lord, I appreciate the difficulty the Government are having in containing the ever-rising costs of the National Health Service. But I, like many other people associated with various groups of patients, share their concern that extending the selected list scheme may be detrimental to many individual patients and to complicated conditions and research.
The debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is very well timed. The selected list whereby certain medicines in seven therapeutic areas are not reimbursable under the NHS was first introduced in 1985 to contain government spending on health care. The Government, in a further move to curb rising health costs, are proposing to extend it to a further 10 categories, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, so clearly said. These new therapeutic areas will be assessed during 1993 by the advisory committee on NHS drugs. I wish to ask the Minister whether evidence can be given by interested parties before the committee makes recommendations to Ministers. This debate will, I hope, alert some people to the fact that this is taking place and they will then be able to put evidence forward.
A prescribed medicine that is not put on the selected list could continue to be prescribed by GPs but patients would have to pay the full cost and many, particularly those on low incomes, might not wish or be able to do so. If sales fall dramatically, a manufacturing company would need to consider whether it would be justified in keeping the medicine on the market. It would be wrong to concentrate on the cost of medicines alone. Many medicines reduce expensive hospital care and can improve the quality of life for patients.
Many GPs are opposed to the selected list extension. I am concerned that patients may suffer if they do not have an adequate choice. Patients and their conditions and response to treatment can be very different. Some patients respond well to a certain treatment. However, some cannot tolerate it and others would not respond but would respond to
1154
another treatment. As patients differ in their response to treatments, medicine is made much more interesting and challenging but also more expensive.
Before extending the limited list, I think the Government would have been much more popular with patients if they had looked closely at the escalating costs of management, who are not in the direct line of patient care and treatment. For some time I have been president of the Psoriasis Association. I am lucky as I have never been afflicted by a serious skin problem, but I am well aware of both the physical and mental distress caused to those who suffer from such conditions. They need support and advice, which the association gives them. This association fears that if the proposed drugs blacklist goes ahead there will be a decrease in the variety and availability of treatments for this chronic skin condition. Psoriasis is a very individual condition. What suits one person does not necessarily suit another, or indeed that individual all the time.
The emollients and other preparations could be too expensive for many patients to buy over the counter. Pharmaceutical companies could therefore be discouraged from researching and developing new, safer and more cosmetically acceptable treatments. Pharmaceutical companies could also withdraw financial assistance to other research centres.
Now many GPs are finding that when they give several prescriptions to patients who have to pay the prescription charges the patients ask them, "Doctor, which one is the most important because I can only afford one?". Does the Minister agree that conditions such as severe eczema, which often affects children, can be agonising and should be taken seriously? The Minister is helpful and understanding in these matters. The Patient's Charter stresses that patients should receive treatment when they need it. Is that charter being taken into consideration in this matter?
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is right to stress the importance of the treatment of the mentally ill. The Health of the Nation has a whole green book on mental illness. There is anxiety among many people that under so-called "care in the community" and with the closure of so many hospital beds those ill people will not receive adequate treatment. Am I not right in saying that in mental illness the balance of the right drugs and the monitoring of their effect on the patient are most important?
With so many patients needing primary health care does the Minister not agree that it is wise to ensure that there is adequate postgraduate training and refresher courses for general practitioners? Many current courses are sponsored by the drug industries, which may not continue to pay for them if the companies move from the British market.
The financial cost of mental illness to industry has been estimated at over £3.7 billion a year. The benzodiazepines which are used for the treatment of anxiety have, one hears, caused many problems of addiction and abuse. It is feared that safer alternatives may be taken off the white list because they are more expensive. Will that be cost-effective in the long run?
There is also a fear that various products especially targeted at women will go. With both the Secretary of

1155
State for Health and the Minister in this House being women I hope that they will look closely at the well-being of women, who are now often the breadwinners as well as the child bearers.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, in the past I have tended to believe that it is right to place constraints on the drug budget in the National Health Service. Indeed, when I was Secretary of State I strengthened the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme and encouraged officials to operate it strenuously. When Sir Norman Fowler introduced the selected list scheme in 1985 it seemed to me a very reasonable step. It seemed wise to substitute generic products for much more expensive branded products provided that that was done carefully and did not lead to the dangers which my noble friend Lord Hacking so graphically outlined for the pharmaceutical industry. However, the more I have studied the effect of introducing the selected list at that time and how it has worked in practice the more I have come to doubt whether it is a sensible measure.
I begin by quoting from an editorial in the professional journal the Prescriber which said:
"It is disappointing that the DoH has not realised that the introduction of the limited list in 1985 had no effect on the ever-rising costs of drugs in the NHS. A study of the graph of the costs of drugs to the NHS over the past 10 years shows very little short-term change in 1985–86 and no change over the longer period".
That seemed to me a disturbing view, so I asked the medical director of the trust of which I am chairman —the Forest Healthcare Trust—for advice. She wrote me a very helpful note in which she said:
"The vast majority of patients were changed to a generic equivalent i.e. an unbranded version of the blacklisted product or to a therapeutic equivalent, i.e. a different drug from the same therapeutic class. The introduction of the Limited List resulted in a short term fall in the number of NHS prescriptions written (and presumably savings on the NHS drugs bill), but this fall has not been sustained and the widespread view is that it was an inconvenience which Doctors have learnt to avoid. In some instances it will have produced an increase in prescribing costs".
That struck me as an interesting and disturbing conclusion.
I asked for further and better particulars and whether the scheme actually led to a rise in drug costs. I have been provided with a note by the pharmaceutical adviser to our local family health services authority. He took the particular example of antacids, which were put on the list in 1985. Before the blacklist, large numbers of branded antacids were available on the FP10. There were 37 brand names, most of which came in two or three formulations. Most cost between 50p and £1 per 100 millilitres. The British Pharmacopoeia products such as magnesium trisilicate and aluminium hydroxide gel all cost less than 20p. The blacklist aimed to cut prescribing of the big selling branded products such as Asilone and to get GPs to prescribe British Pharmacopoeia products. However, the door was left ajar by not blacklisting everything. Some branded products remained available. Those included Maalox and Mucogel, which were combinations of magnesium and aluminium, Actonorm, which is again magnesium and aluminium
1156
with dimethicone, Mu caine, magnesium and aluminium with anaesthetic, and Gaviscon and Gastrocote, respectively an antacid and alginate for reflux.
When the blacklist was introduced sales of Gaviscon were probably quite small compared with the big selling antacids such as Asilone, Aludrox, Polycrol etc. It cost much the same. However, instead of moving to the cheaper BP products the GPs quickly learnt the names of the branded products that could still be prescribed on FP10 and used those instead. That must have delighted the manufacturers of such products as Maalox, which most people had never heard of until the blacklist and which was no cheaper than the blacklisted products.
The chief beneficiary of all this was Gaviscon because it was the one brand name still available with which most GPs were already familiar. Sales increased dramatically, supported by an advertising campaign which, I am sure my noble friend knows, continues until this day. Eventually the manufacturers of Asilone and some of the other blacklisted products dropped their prices and were allowed back on to the permitted list. Gaviscon was left as the clear market leader with a price far higher than any of the competition.
Whether that entire saga resulted in any change in prescribing expenditure on antacids is anybody's guess. What probably happened was that, first, many people who needed only simple antacids ended up on Gaviscon, a product designed specifically for reflux. Secondly, there was no significant change in the prescribing rates of simple BP antacids because GPs prefer to use brand names unless forced to do otherwise, for example, with diazepam. Thirdly, there was a significant drop in the price of the branded antacids but the unfamiliarity of the brand names combined with the familiarity of the Gaviscon meant that they never achieved the same market shares as those enjoyed by the brand products. The blacklisting of large numbers of familiar branded antacids may have fuelled the growing tendency to use 112 antagonists for even the slightest hint of indigestion. As my noble friend will be aware, those are drugs for the very much more serious condition of gastric ulcers, to which my noble friend Lord Hacking referred.
That was not an isolated case. The same happened with decongestants. Everything except Sudafed was blacklisted, resulting in a bonanza for Wellcome. Sudafed was no cheaper than any of the blacklisted products. The same will be true of the new blacklist categories unless whole categories are banned. To blacklist five out of six topical NSAIDs will simply result in everyone shifting their prescribing to the remaining product, which then has a monopoly.
My noble friend may find that a disturbing story, as I did. The British Government are not alone. That is happening all over the developed world. Governments are picking off the 10 per cent. of their national health costs represented by the drugs budget because that seems to be an easy target. They do not appear to recognise that many drugs prescribed by family doctors are saving far more than their costs by keeping patients out of hospital. The best example was quoted

1157
by my noble friend Lord Hacking, and I shall quote it again, namely, the H2-receptor blocking agents such as Tagamet and Zantac. One survey showed that those medicines increased drug costs for ulcer patients sixfold but have reduced total treatment costs by 66 per cent. It is madness to pick on the drugs budget if we have an example like that where the invention and prescribing of new expensive drugs saves far more than their cost in keeping patients out of hospital. It is misleading simply to judge matters by the increase in the cost of drugs when the overall saving can be much greater.
I read the other day that the Office of Health Economics has calculated that as a result of the reduction in hospital bed days, savings from seven groups of diseases had amounted to nearly £4 billion a year by 1991. By contrast, the cost of all medicines prescribed in general practice for all diseases in that year was only £3.3 billion.
The overall message has to be that medicines are a very cost-effective way of spending on health care resources. My noble friend Lord Hacking pointed out that new categories of drugs are going on to the black list: for example, anxiolytics for mental health patients. What will happen to the Government's mental health targets in the Health of the Nation? Contraceptives are going on the list, yet the Government have set a target for the reduction of teenage pregnancies. It just does not make sense.
Then there are appetite suppressants. What is the consequence of untreated obesity if it is not the danger of heart disease and many other conditions, as I am sure my noble friend the Whip on the Front Bench knows? She is tempting me to go further but I shall not be tempted.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege spelt out to me in a letter the very careful steps that the Government are taking before the new black list is drawn up. I hope that they will proceed with extreme caution in this field. There can be no possible justification for black listing if it does not save costs. I have to tell the Minister that from the studies I have made I have no evidence whatever that the figures which Ministers lightly bandy about of savings of, some say, £65 million or £75 million a year have been achieved. There is some evidence that black listing has led to an increase in costs. So when she comes to answer the Question put by my noble friend Lord Hacking, I hope that the Minister will address those arguments because they are causing widespread anxiety in the health service.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I rise because I have been informed that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is unable to be here tonight. I hope that he is not unwell but, if he is, I hope he is in good medical hands. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, very much for introducing the debate, which is timely. I have just returned from the Far East and was therefore in a position to hear the one o'clock news in Cambridge
1158
before driving here. Apparently the pharmaceutical industry is among the leaders in increased industrial production over the past three months.
I wish to associate myself with the philosophies expressed right down the line by all speakers until now, which imply that the pharmaceutical industry deserves special protection because it is very successful. The wording of the Unstarred Question links pharmaceutical products with Health of the Nation, to which I shall come in a moment. To start with, perhaps I should declare an interest. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred to a recent publication by the Office of Health Economics and for about a decade I was chairman of the editorial committee of the office. I was grateful to him for his good reviews of articles which we published. I wish to make it clear that the Office of Health Economics publications and books are based on research themes. They are a means of putting out information, especially to general practitioners as they go about their business.
I have done a little research and am pleased to be able to quote figures which indicate that our general practitioners are better friends of the Government and of health expenditure in regard to pharmaceutical prescriptions than those in most other countries. For example, in Germany the prescription rate is £122 a year per head; in Italy, it is £107; in France, it is £105 per year, whereas the prescribing rate of our general practitioners is only £70 per head per year. To me that shows that, rather along the lines mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, general practitioners may not be the first people whom we should pick out for major economies: they have a good track record. I find that they have an even better track record when it comes to the prescribing of new medicines, which is presumably what lies behind the new regulation. I find that in the use of new medicines our doctors spend per head about £6 a year, whereas those in Germany spend £21 a year. In France, it is £14 and I have mislaid the figure for Italy but it is very much in excess of our figure—about £30. If I could read my prescription-prone handwriting, I should be able to tell the House more clearly.
Stepping into this arena when I recently returned from the Far East, I got the impression that the Health of the Nation is an important statement. I agree very much with the recognition of it by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and wish to add my congratulations to the Department of Health, which has produced such an important document. I think that the new President of the United States of America would be pleased if such a document had emerged in his country and had the level of backing that it has here.
The integration into this document of the health services, local authorities and various other organisa-tions which are associated with health is a wonderful example of first-class public health planning. Personally, I am particularly pleased with the establishment of the ministerial committee, which means that the idea of health is reaching out beyond the hospitals and general practice into the workplace and everywhere else. Indeed, it is much in the minds of people who work in the health service.

1159
I had rather hoped that in the near future we would hear that the pharmaceutical industry would be called—it may already have been called, and, if so, I hope that the Minister will bang me down—to one of the ministerial Cabinet Committee meetings. If one looks through the document, one sees that 10 per cent. of our NHS activity, namely the pharmaceutical industry's part in our affairs, is not referred to at all. It is a terrible thing for a practising doctor who has relied so much on the pharmaceutical industry to say, but it reads like a document produced by the public health chaps who have their graphs and statistics and are busy, quite rightly, in giving advice on how to improve the shapes of the graphs and the tables.
What concerns me is that, when I read the document—and I read it again in the past 24 hours—I was very conscious that there were all kinds of ways in which progressive pharmaceutical people could make contributions to the health of the nation through achievement of the targets—not only on the question of anxiolytics, which is terribly important. I have received a letter from a company which has developed a non-diazepine anxiolytic and is worried that it may not be able to get it into the "white list". It is obvious that there will be developments in the treatment of circulatory diseases (coronary heart disease and others) related to the great new pharmacological development, the finding of the importance of the gas nitric oxide in dilating the blood vessels of the skin and the heart. I wonder whether we shall have a chance of incorporating that in our attempts to achieve the targets for coronary heart disease.
Another factor which will help coronary heart disease is the control of over-weight. I believe that the pharmaceutical industry could well be brought in for discussions to help with that problem. I am sure that all who are in health promotion—that is one of my lines of business—are thoroughly aware of the importance of exercise. Among elderly people, swimming is a very important form of exercise but is very often inhibited by the inadequacy of our anti-rheumatic therapeutics. I hope that the pharmaceutical industry may be drawn into that area. I am slightly ashamed to say that while I was in America, I was talking to one of their leading authors, who, I knew, used to be a chain smoker. His name is Willie Gaddis. He said, in an American accent which I shall not try to reveal to noble Lords: "I have to tell you how grateful I am to the pharmaceutical industry for the development of nicotine patches. I have been able to give up smoking through this development". Might it not be a good idea, if the conference that I hope to stimulate comes about, for those who are concerned with nicotine patches—and there will, I am sure, be better developments from the industry than nicotine patches—to come forward and help us to cut down smoking and so achieve our target in that field?
I am astonished that in the anxiety we all have to try to control the spread of the AIDS virus, there has not been more interest in the possibility of a viricide which would work in the way ascorbic acid is supposed to work in the case of the common cold—namely, to be taken before people risked exposure. At the moment,
1160
we use the physical means of the condom as our only approach. I would hope that, if the Department of Health could take part in the conference, that kind of idea would be explored.
I have been well aware since I was chairman of the Medicines Commission of the very great importance of the PPRS (the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme). It was explained to me 10, 12 or 15 years ago that its central theme was like a coin which had two sides. The one side is what we are all worried about in this House—namely, good value for the public from the products of the pharmaceutical industry. But the pharmaceutical industry was interested in the PPRS because it got an assurance that the department would take note of its great dependence on research and development. If, as an innovative industry, it is choked of the possibilities for research and development, it will perish.
The point has already been made by many speakers that this is an industry which depends upon innovation. I am very worried that any changes in our arrangements for prescribing will interfere with the development of the pharmaceutical industry. It is a very important industry not only because it makes a positive balance of payments each year of about £1 billion, but also because it offers young people leaving sixth-form colleges and schools generally the chance to go into a modern, clean industry which uses the brainpower of our young scientists as well as those skilful in marketing.
I hope that it is not too late but it may be too late. On these Cross-Benches we believe that we can improve things. I should like to suggest that some kind of conference—a two-day or even a whole day conference—should be held between the various people who are concerned with trying to achieve our targets. If we are in a position to show the world that we can achieve those targets, national status will rise and the National Health Service will emerge from any shadows in which it has lately stood.
It is to be hoped that we can bring together to work for the health of the nation all the parties, including the brilliant brains of those in the pharmaceutical industry and of the administrators in the Department of Health, in such a way as to produce good and prompt action to find out what we need and to transfer it from the industry into the hands of the general practitioners.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. I totally support his idea of a very widely representative conference to look at The Health of the Nation and to see how in particular the five target areas set out in that very important document can be promoted. It would be nice to have some reaction to that suggestion from the Minister when she comes to reply.
One of my concerns is that so much is done by this Government—and much is done by this Government in the health field—without consultation with the people who are principally affected. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for putting his Question and opening the debate. I was quite staggered to hear—I

1161
shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the ABPI was not consulted about the preparation of the list. Since the ABPI was not consulted, I should like to know just who was consulted about the preparation of the list. I know that it is for examination and that there is an advisory committee, on which additional members will sit, on borderline substances. However, I suspect that certain matters are written in stone, one of which is this list of 10 categories. There may be some argument about which medicines appear in one category or another, but the principal consultation ought to have been about the categories. The people who drew up the categories either had not read The Health of the Nation or did not believe that it was an important document.
I am glad that the interests of the pharmaceutical industry have been put forward. As the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, is aware, I was the Secretary of State in 1977 who signed the PPRS and I did so with a pharmaceutical industry that I tremendously admired. At the time I hoped that it was a reciprocal admiration society. The case need not be put for the pharmaceutical industry but it has been powerfully made. I disagree with some of the conclusions reached by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, but I do not disagree with anything that he said about the pharmaceutical industry.
I wonder what consultation there has been with the doctors. As a nation we now quite rightly believe that people should be treated more and more in primary health care. We want fewer people to stay in hospitals and more to be looked after by their general practitioner and within the field of community care. One of the ways in which the Government intend to strengthen the role of the doctor is to encourage all doctors eventually to have their own budget and to decide for themselves how they spend it. If that is to happen and doctors are to be given the right and power to decide for themselves how to use the money put at their disposal, it makes no sense at all to present to general practitioners and other medical practitioners such a list with all its weaknesses.
I hope that the Minister will explain where, within the philosophy of the future of the health service, comes the thought that doctors are not to be given more choice; that they are to be given less choice. One of my anxieties in regard to the new list is that doctors—GPs, those who know best about most of the treatments in this country—are being denied what they believe to be the best form of treatment for purely financial reasons.
I would say the same about the nurses. I too received a note from the Royal College of Nursing which I saw only this evening. I have tremendous respect for nurses and for the RCN. I am delighted that the nurses are being given, as part of the medical teams, more opportunity to do their own prescribing and to advise their doctors on the sort of prescribing that they should do in cases where the nurses do not have the power. The nurses are opposed in principle not only to the idea of the list but also to the particular categories.
1162
I want to ask the Minister to report fully to the Secretary of State. A tremendously powerful case has been made by those involved in research, those who are in contact with the pharmaceutical industry and those who are involved with the running of the health service at trust level, together with a couple of former Secretaries of State who are not totally ignorant about these matters. I believe that the Government have made a profound error and should think again. I do not finish there. I may repeat that in my final words.
I am particularly concerned with one aspect of the list. We have been reminded that mental health is one of the five key areas targeted for action in the Health of the Nation. The White Paper advocates a range of measures to improve the diagnosis and treatment of mentally ill people. It proposes a switch from benzodiazepines, which, in my view, are currently prescribed far too widely, to psycho-therapeutic methods of treatment and, where appropriate, other medicines. The White Paper speaks of "other medicines" which do not have the disadvantage of benzodiazepines. To go along with the proposal that the list should include anxiolytics as well as hypnotics is absolutely contrary to what the White Paper is saying about how we can better treat mentally ill people.
We need the most modern and effective medicines that do not have the side effects which over the years people have found the benzodiazepines to have. The selected list scheme addresses only the direct costs of medicines and not the overall costs and benefits of a treatment regime of which pharmaceuticals are only one part. In the case of anxiety and depression, that means medicines and psychotherapy or counselling. It is possible that restricting the range of medicines will have the effect of increasing the net expense. Without the benefit of at least some study in that regard the Government may not even achieve a short-term saving. Even a limited piece of work to get this right would surely be worth while.
I was fascinated by the evidence given to the House and to the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who succeeded me as Secretary of State for Health. With all his background experience, his immediate experience and the research of his colleagues upon which he is able to draw, he is saying that the first list did not save anything. Perhaps it did for six months or one year. But, when one looks at the run, it did not save anything. That was a list that many of us were prepared to support because of the nature of the cases that were on the list.
In the present list I have already touched upon the cases that affect mental health. Other noble Lords have spoken about drugs for allergic disorders and drugs to suppress appetite. I want to touch on contraceptives, since I do not think anyone has yet done so. It would be an absolute tragedy if the Government limited the range of contraceptives which general practitioners can prescribe. The advisory committee on NHS drugs is currently reviewing the range of contraceptives available on NHS prescription. This has caused widespread concern among healthcare professionals. The concern is felt not only by the RCN but also by the Royal College of

1163
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Birth Control Trust and the Family Planning Association, with which I have an involvement. I wonder how many of those organisations were consulted before contraceptives were put on the list. What advice did they give to the Ministry? What advice has the Ministry received about the effect of limiting contraceptives in that way?
In the United Kingdom approximately one-quarter to one-third of sexually active women use what is the cheapest form—the COCP—as their chosen method of contraception. Its usage in younger women is widespread. It is the most effective and appropriate contraceptive for most women. The COCP pill contains oestrogen and progesterone and, when taken on a cyclical basis, inhibits ovulation and thereby prevents conception. If those pills are removed from the list there will of course be another range of alternatives, but another range of alternatives which are much less likely to be effective.
I hope the Minister will tell us why contraceptives were included in the list. If we look at Health of the Nation we see that another of the targets is to decrease the number of unwanted children and to reduce the number of abortions. The more unwanted children we have, the more abortions we have, to the moral horror, the health horror and every other horror of the nation. I believe that the Government have got this seriously wrong. I trust that, once the arguments that have just been touched upon by noble Lords from all parts of the House—in fact all noble Lords who have spoken—are deployed by the real experts, the case for the list will be torn up. It will be shown to be nonsense. I do not think that there will be a saving. What is proposed could be disastrous for the health of the nation. I hope that the Government will think again when taking their decisions.
9.28 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate. I became so absorbed in listening to it that I almost forgot that I was down to speak. I shall not say very much because I feel somewhat at a loss among so many distinguished speakers on the subject of health. In fact, if the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, had been present, she would have spoken from the point of view of her long experience of nursing and other health matters.
I am entirely convinced by what I have heard. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for giving us the chance to discuss the subject. He expressed his views with great clarity. That may help me make up my own mind, which certainly was not made up when I entered the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of the list and the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, revealed that we come well down the list of countries as regards the cost of prescriptions by doctors.
I echo the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and others. From where have the Government got their ideas to produce the lists? The health of the nation is as important, if not more important, than any commercial activity. The aims of the Government's White Paper, Health of the Nation, are
1164
admirable. But as with any commercial operation, research and development are essential. I am utterly convinced by the arguments that the effect of lists and the reduction in the amount of choice given to general practitioners and nurses to prescribe on research and development by pharmaceutical companies will be restrictive. I am utterly convinced by the argument that it may well not be cost effective in the long run.
I speak because the debate dovetails with the discussion in which many of us took part on drug addiction and alcoholism. From my experience as trustee of two residential centres for drug and alcohol abuse, there is great difficulty for general practitioners with regard to mental health. Numbers of patients complain of being depressed and anxious. They are diagnosed by doctors quite understandably as being anxious and depressed. However, many of those patients are drug addicts or alcoholics. I have sympathy with doctors who ask the patient questions. I have met some of those patients; they deny that they are abusers of substances. They are prescribed drugs which seriously aggravate their problems, creating complicated addictions which are extremely difficult to treat when they go into care in residential centres which happily are still open, although, given the Government's community care arrangements, somewhat under threat at present.
I should hate to think that the effect of the Government's selected list with regard to benzodiazepines and anxiolytics mean that we shall not be able to develop drugs which, whether prescribed correctly or incorrectly, would not create serious side effects. A Member of your Lordships' House who spoke very convincingly in the last debate told me that if such drugs as valium or librium are taken together with other drugs the effect is to multiply by a factor of three the serious effects of the combination of the two drugs. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to the appalling accounts that we have read of sleeping pills—they may not have been pills—which were taken apart and injected. I refer to Temazepam. Clearly, there are issues that have to be addressed and the list can be nothing but restrictive.
It has been a fascinating debate. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness. She has some serious and well articulated charges to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, produced an utterly sensible idea. In France, as I understand it, funding is applied according to the seriousness of the illness. I would only say to him that that sounds sensible to me. On the two or three occasions in your Lordships' House that I have referred to the French experience in other subjects, it has turned out to be surprisingly unproductive. It may have something to do with the idea that the French eat horses or that their children go to bed late, or something of that kind. Such examples never produce any great effect on the Government. Having said that, I very much look forward to the Minister's comments and thank noble Lords for allowing me to participate in this most interesting debate.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, perhaps I should say first that, by and large, we on these Benches support the Government's initiative. Although with some qualifications, to which I shall come later, by and large, I think that it is a good idea for the Government to examine every aspect of a large budget for cost-effectiveness. The fact that we are talking about only 10 per cent. of that budget is neither here nor there. Indeed, even if we were talking about only 5 per cent., 5 per cent. of £30 billion is a lot of money and we must examine things for cost-effectiveness. Having said that, we have reservations which I shall come to later. Perhaps I should add too that I have checked what I am saying with my Front Bench in another place because the other day I embarrassed the leader of my party in another place when the Prime Minister quoted me against him on the subject of VAT. This time what I am saying is genuinely the party's view. It is not some kite that I am flying but something that I have checked out.
I should like to deal with some of the many things that have been said about the sort of harm that might be done to the pharmaceutical industry and about the fact that such a strategy might not save money and might affect research and development. I admit immediately that I am not a great medical expert, but luckily I am an economist and economists are used to being able to theorise from the abstract on almost anything. It seems to me that, although it is true that the Government are a monopoly buyer, the sellers whom they face are not competitive. They are an oligopoly. The Government must face powerful pharmaceutical firms. It is not as if a very powerful buyer is facing some very weak sellers because the other side comprises powerful sellers. Those powerful sellers have argued that somehow what they do is right and cost-effective and that therefore no restrictions should be placed on their activities.
I am a relative newcomer to these matters, but it seems to me that what the Government are proposing is a consultation exercise—no decisions have yet been made. Putting 10 more items on a list is not really the end of the world as people are pretending it is. If the pharmaceutical industry is as successful as people claim it is—and I know that it is, although I shall not go down in history as a great friend of the pharmaceutical industry, but that is another matter—I think that it is a dubious argument to say that such a small extension to the list of drugs will cause great havoc. I do not think that it pays to say that our successful industries need as much protection as our unsuccessful industries. If that were so, by God, then everybody would get protection and then where should we be?
I am not persuaded that this particular limited list—it is a consultation list and I shall come to the matter of consultation in a moment—poses as great a problem to R&D as has been made out. I admit that I could be wrong, but more and greater things will have to be said before I, as an economist, am convinced that extending the limited list of drugs on the selected list will cause such great damage to R&D.
If it is going to do so, however—let us suppose that
1166
it will—we must ask: what is the right way to correct it? Is it to leave the list unrestricted or to have more selective targeted policies to protect R&D while at the same time saving on NHS drugs bills? When it comes to helping the poor, we are all for targeting. When it comes to taxing the rich, we are also for targeting. If R&D expenditure is the problem in this case—and it could be—the correct way of dealing with that problem is not to go soft on it but to figure out the correct incentives for R&D expenditure. There are ways of doing that. I am not in favour of the unselective, broad-brush strategy.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, with his great knowledge in this field, gave a good example of how the 1985 policy did not work. One could derive various lessons from that. The lesson I derive from it is not that the policy should not be tried again but that, if we want to control costs, we must think carefully about the strategy and not leave out one or two branded drugs just because they have a small market share and the company has five out of seven drugs. Because people will obviously go for branded drugs. This is a oligopolistic industry in which branding a generic drug gives a great deal of extra profit. We go for generic substitution because it tells us that the effectiveness of a medicine does not depend upon its brand name. The brand name is a function of the oligopolistic structure of the industry and is used in order to make extra profits. That may be all right. This has been known to economists for about 50 years. I am not saying anything new.
If it is true that a brand name is not an extra label but is genuinely an innovation, that is fine: there will be no substitutes. There will be no difference between a generic prescription and a brand prescription, but, if there is a cost saving to be made from generic prescription as compared with brand prescription, it behoves a large public agent, such as the NHS, to pursue that saving, to the extent that it does not affect patients' health.
From that point of view, the strategy of controlling costs would be to say, "If you go for generic prescription, you go for ordinary prescription". I should add at this stage that in economics there has been great progress in such thinking, and that perhaps the Government should avail themselves, if they have not already done so, of the new research into what is called industrial organisation. I can supply names in that regard. This is a methodology where people think out carefully the problems of pricing, R&D strategies and such things. We of course want to do things which simultaneously save the public purse and do not affect R&D. I agree with that. I do not agree that criticising the proposed extension of the selected list is necessarily the answer to our problems.
I wish now to deal with the two or three qualifications of the selected list which I have and which some noble Lords have already mentioned. The first is the issue of choice. We all know that medicine is a peculiar area in which consumers can have only a limited choice because they do not know what they want. They must rely on the producers to provide the choices that they need and the doctors to tell them what they need. However, in cases such as

1167
contraception, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ennals, there may be an element of consumer choice but it is restricted—consumer choice may not be sovereign because the consumer may not know what is good for him or her. However, to the extent that there are different items which different people may need we may wish to qualify the items on the selected list.
Apart from the issues mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ennals relating to who is being consulted, I wish to know how wide the consultation has been especially in respect of patient groups. I should like to think that before the final decision is made the Government will consult as widely as possible so that there is no feeling among patients that somehow they are being given the cheap option, though just because an option is cheap it is not necessarily less effective. Let us be sure that the option is cheap and effective. To that extent it would be proper for the Government to consult patient organisations and to include patients in the process more vigorously than has been the case. In that respect the subject of contraceptives raised an anxiety which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ennals. I shall not go into detail, therefore, but I hope that the Minister will comment on it.
I have nothing in particular to say about mental illness except to recall that during our earlier debate on drug and alcohol abuse there was a considerable question about whether certain prescribed drugs mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, were on the borderline of being addictive as well as effective. A careful line must be drawn in that regard.
I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rea, who was to speak in the debate but who was taken unwell during the day. He wished to make one or two points which perhaps I may mention at this stage. First, he believes that many special interest groups are loudly pleading their case. They should be heard but not judged by their decibels. My noble friend believes that the decision should be made on scientific and clinical grounds alone, and I agree with that view.
My noble friend also mentioned the education of GPs. It is a subject about which I know nothing and so I shall merely pass on his views. He mentioned PACT—prescribing, analysis and costs—which is a service for GPs. They need to be educated about the cost-effectiveness of drugs. My noble friend found the service to be so useful that if possible it should be further extended.
Finally, he mentioned the interesting problem of incentives. If the aim of the Government is to save the drugs bill of the NHS, which is an entirely noble aim and which I support, GPs must be given incentives to reduce costs. To the extent to which GPs are effectively reducing costs, especially in prescriptions, some formula should be found to give them rewards for achieving savings without affecting patient care.
I know that the problem is difficult. We do not wish to cut corners as regards patients' health and we do not wish to affect patient choice. We should like not to affect R&D. I am not convinced, although many people more expert than I will not agree, that what the Government are doing is as wrong as it is made out to
1168
be. I am waiting to hear the Minister's reply but cautiously, although somewhat critically, we are with the Government as regards this policy.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I listened with great care to the noble Lord's speech. At no time did he mention the publication Health of the Nation. I find it difficult to follow what guidance he is giving to your Lordships this evening when the Question before the House is what effect the extension of the selected list scheme will have on the Health of the Nation.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is true that I did not mention the Health of the Nation. I know that I should not really say this but I regard all White Papers as containing many good ideas but very little detail. I am worried about the contraception problem. However, I do not believe that this small category of drugs which are to be put on the selected list will have as drastic an effect on the targets in the Health of the Nation as some seem to believe. I hope that I am not being rude but I do not believe that anybody has demonstrated this evening that it will have such a serious effect.
9.51 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hacking for initiating this debate. He is, I know, one of the best informed on this subject and is an international speaker of high reputation as are many of your Lordships. We not only heard from two former Secretaries of State for Social Services, who I believe also share the joint presidency of MIND, but we heard also from a noble Lord who is former vice-chancellor of two universities and past chairman of the Medicines Commission. Other noble Lords have other areas of expertise and personal experience. I believe that the hallmark of the debate has been compassion and concern for others. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is not here this evening especially since, as far as I know, he is the only Peer in your Lordships' House who is actually in possession of a prescription pad.
I shall try to make the Government's position clear on the Health of the Nation targets for mental illness on the one hand and the selected list scheme on the other, and the relationships between the two.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hacking and to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, for their generous comments about the Health of the Nation White Paper. I hope that we shall win over the noble Lord, Lord Desai in due course.
The Health of the Nation White Paper provides for the first time an explicit, coherent strategy for improving and maintaining people's health; and we start from a sound base. Health in this country has never been better. Many diseases have been brought under control and some eliminated. Life expectancy at birth is now 73 years for men and 79 for women, whereas 100 years ago it was 44 for both. But too many people still die prematurely or have the quality of their lives, especially in their later years, impaired by avoidable ill-health. An overall objective of any nation must be to add not only years to life, but life to years.

1169
A leading cause of sickness and disability is mental illness, and it has therefore been included in one of the five key areas for action set out in the White Paper. In the course of a year about one-in-10 of the population suffers from some sort of mental illness. It is three times as common as cancer, and accounts for about 14 per cent. of the certificated sickness absence and roughly the same proportion of NHS in-patient costs. Fifty-one million days are lost from work and mental illness accounts for 18,200 deaths in any single year. But the cost in human misery and suffering to individuals and their families is incalculable.
There is no doubt that the development of new drugs over the past 40 years has revolutionised the treatment of a whole range of psychiatric illnesses. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, rightly said, drug regimes need careful monitoring. That has enabled the vast majority of patients to be treated in the community and for thousands to hold down jobs successfully; people who in former years would have been detained in large forbidding mental institutions "put away for life".
Drugs are a powerful and effective therapeutic weapon to be used against many different kinds of illnesses. But they cost the NHS a lot of money. The biggest element in overall NHS expenditure is of course pay, which is responsible for around 70 per cent. of the total. However, once that is stripped out, the drugs bill accounts for about one-third of total NHS costs. It is, therefore, an element of expenditure which needs to be kept under continuing close scrutiny, to ensure maximum cost effectiveness.
My noble friend Lord Hacking mentioned the hair-raising cost of drugs. He is right. I also welcome the support received from the Opposition Front Bench that the bill needs to be controlled. Over the past 10 years, the total drugs bill for the NHS in England rose from £1.2 billion to £2.9 billion—an increase of 132 per cent. in cash terms, and 39 per cent. in real terms. In the financial year which has just ended, we estimate that the family health services drugs bill will have risen by another 14 per cent. That at a time when inflation is running at under 2 per cent. and NHS staff are being asked to settle for a ceiling in pay of 1.5 per cent.
It is, therefore, not surprising that the Government are concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, in their vulnerable position as the monopoly buyer, at the speed and scale at which the drugs bill has increased and the fear that, without check, the momentum will continue at the expense of other NHS services.
It is against that background that we need to be alert to ensure maximum cost effectiveness in prescribing. One important development is clearly the GP fundholding scheme. GP fundholders have a direct interest in improving the cost effectiveness of prescribing. They can retain any savings on drugs to reduce the demand on the hospital referral element of their budget. That is not just a theory. In 1991–92 fundholders' prescribing costs increased by an average of 3 per cent. less than those of other GPs, and without any loss of quality.
1170
The scheme is being extended to other practices in terms of incentives. Hospital formularies have also shown how savings can be made without diminishing patient care. From my chairmanship of the Brighton Health Authority I know how effective that can be.
The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, mentioned the problem of cost shifting from hospital drug budgets to those of GPs. Our view is quite clear: it is unacceptable to shift prescribing costs in that way. We have always applied the rule that the responsibility for prescribing rests with the doctor who holds clinical responsibility for treating the patient.
The selected list scheme, to which I now turn, should therefore be seen as only one element in a wider strategy to control the rise in the NHS drugs bill. As my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, mentioned, the scheme was originally introduced as long ago as 1985 and included seven therapeutic categories of drugs. Initially there was scepticism and indeed downright hostility. There was hostility from the pharmaceutical industry but the doom and gloom scenarios were not enacted.
My noble friend Lord Hacking made some surprising predictions—surprising because we cannot say how many products will be listed. That depends upon the independent advisory committee to which I shall turn my attention in a moment. However, I should like to reassure noble Lords that there is no preset target. Any possible effects on employment cannot be estimated at this stage. Wild allegations on the impact on patient care also cannot be founded on fact.
I agree with my noble friend, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that keeping people in hospital is expensive. It is not only cheaper but much better to have them in the community. However, that does not necessarily mean that we have to accept an uncontrollable rise in pharmaceutical costs. Controls on some drugs does not mean that a hospital stay is the alternative. We have seen drugs substituted with good effect and no detriment to patients. Many noble Lords have expressed concern at the huge sums of public money that are spent to sustain the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, was correct to say that it is a question of choices. I find it hard to defend a paracetamol which is prescribed at 20 times the price of a standard product of the same efficacy. That particular drug was included in the original selected list and has now been withdrawn without any ill effects.
Fears were expressed that substitution could also lead to more expensive or indeed more inappropriate drug prescribing. In that case the advisory committee on drugs can revisit the category and make further recommendations to prevent such inappropriate prescribing. Unlike the position in 1985, companies now will be consulted and may reduce prices to keep their products prescribable. That is an important difference which should go a long way to avoiding inappropriate substitution. Hostility was also forthcoming from the then chairman of the General Medical Services Committee who said that the limited list of categories represented,
"a serious reduction in the services available to patients"
and would he "a bureaucratic nightmare".

1171
Neither of those prophesies has been fulfilled. Experience with the scheme has demonstrated that downward pressure can be applied to the drugs bill without detriment to patients. Contrary to the fears of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the assertions of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in the first year of the scheme, savings of £75 million alone were realised. It therefore seemed right to extend the scheme to 10 further categories of drugs. The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, asked how these were chosen. The categories were chosen on the basis that they covered a range of products at varying price levels and therefore offered potential scope for savings while enabling all clinical needs to continue to be met.
There are three aspects of the selected list scheme which I wish to emphasise. They address the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, as to the procedure which enables my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health to reach her decisions. First, the decisions on which individual drugs may no longer be available on NHS prescription are taken only on the basis of advice from the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs (ACD). This is an independent body of experienced doctors, dentists and pharmacists appointed following consultation with the relevant professional organisations.
Secondly, the ACD's remit is to ensure that drugs to meet all real clinical need can be provided as economically as possible under the NHS. This means that drugs will not be rejected purely on grounds of cost. The committee will take full account both of the therapeutic value of the drugs under review and of patients' needs. Thirdly, the committee will ensure that manufacturers are informed as soon as possible if their products are to be considered. Manufacturers will also be given an opportunity to make representations to the committee against any provisional view that a product should not be prescribable under the NHS.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, asked how interested parties will be able to present their arguments. Companies whose products will be affected will have at least two opportunities to make representations before a decision is made. The committee may also ask advice from other sources if it chooses, and it will certainly take full account of patients' needs in its review. The manufacturers of products which the committee has considered for possible inclusion in the selected list will have been notified and invited to provide details of the drugs under consideration.
The membership of the committee has been extended to reflect its new remit. The enlarged committee has met on two occasions. It has considered the preliminary reports from the subgroups on the first three categories of drugs, which are topical anti-rheumatics, anti-diarrhoeal drugs and appetite suppressants, and drugs for vaginal and vulval conditions. The manufacturers of products which the committee then recommends for inclusion in the list will be notified and given an opportunity to make representations before final decisions are taken.
On 6th May the committee will also be considering preliminary reports from the subgroups on hypnotics
1172
and anxiolytics, drugs used in anaemia and topical corticosteroids. The committee will receive reports from the subgroups on the remaining categories at its meetings in June and July. The industry will have further opportunities to make representations and the final decisions will be taken by the Secretary of State later in the year.
My noble friend Lord Hacking suggested that some additional ways of reducing the high cost of drugs could be examined. I should like to do that and I shall write to my noble friend in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, mentioned European comparisons. I can assure the House that the changes we are introducing mirror measures being taken throughout Europe to limit growth in the drugs bill.
The noble Lord mentioned nicotine patches as an aid to giving up smoking. I should like to make the point that smoking is a very costly business—£2.20, I am assured, for a packet. I would therefore have thought that smokers might be able to fund their own patches.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, also mentioned the profitability of the industry. The Government are concerned that companies can make a fair return on their sales to the NHS after allowing for research, capital and other expenses. At the same time companies' worldwide returns are holding up well. According to the Financial Times, Glaxo made a 38 per cent. return on capital worldwide last year and Smith Kline Beecham 45 per cent. after research and development costs.
The noble Lord also suggested that a conference should be held to discuss the Health of the Nation and how its targets could be achieved. Fourteen conferences have already been held in all 14 regional health authorities. I apologise to your Lordships' House because clearly the right people were not invited.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, were concerned that there had not been sufficient discussion with the pharmaceutical industry. We have established a strategy working group of officials from the DTI, the Treasury, the Department of Health and the pharmaceutical industry to take a long-term view of the contribution made by pharmaceutical products to health care and the future development of the industry. The first meeting of that working group was held this morning.
Some of your Lordships raised particular concerns about benzodiazepines. The Health of the Nation stresses the need for further effort to review the use of benzodiazepines and replace them as necessary with behavioural, cognitive and other psychotherapeutic methods of treatment and, if appropriate, antidepressants. Benzodiazepines, sedatives and tranquil-lisers have, of course, been within the scope of the selected list scheme since its inception. That reflected the Government's continuing concern, shared by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, about the dangers of long-term and indiscriminate prescribing of benzodiazepines. Although drug treatment with those drugs can be effective in relieving anxiety in the short

1173
term, their effectiveness decreases over time. Long-term use can lead to dependency and they can mask the underlying symptoms of depression which may then remain untreated. Benzodiazepines can still be prescribed under the NHS on a generic basis but, interestingly, the number of prescriptions which were dispensed fell in England by 35 per cent. between 1980 and 1991.
I have listened with great interest to the debate tonight and particularly to the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. I should like to read Hansard carefully and take into account all the points he made and perhaps come back to him at a later date.
1174
In conclusion, we have taken great care that while we control the growth in the drugs bill we also safeguard the ability of patients to receive the medicines they need, when they need them and for as long as they need them. As guardians of the public purse we have a duty to ensure that the resources available to the health service are used more effectively in order to treat yet more patients. It is only by achieving these twin objectives that we shall be able to contain expenditure and, more importantly, achieve the valuable goals set out in the Health of the Nation White Paper.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

  MAASTRICHT TREATY
  MAASTRICHT TREATY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: SOLE COMPETENCE
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: SOLE COMPETENCE
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: SUBSIDIARITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: SUBSIDIARITY
  SEVERE HARDSHIP PAYMENTS TO 16 AND 17 YEAR-OLDS
  SEVERE HARDSHIP PAYMENTS TO 16 AND 17 YEAR-OLDS
  POTATO SUBSIDIES
  POTATO SUBSIDIES
  BENOMYL
  BENOMYL
  PESTICIDES: ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
  PESTICIDES: ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
  PESTICIDES: ADVISORY COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS
  PESTICIDES: ADVISORY COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS
  PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEYS
  PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEYS
  PESTICIDES: ACCIDENTAL MISUSE SURVEYS
  PESTICIDES: ACCIDENTAL MISUSE SURVEYS
  PESTICIDES: REPORTING OF ACCIDENTAL MISUSE
  PESTICIDES: REPORTING OF ACCIDENTAL MISUSE
  BEEF SPECIAL PREMIUM SCHEME
  BEEF SPECIAL PREMIUM SCHEME
  EXCLUSIONS FROM SCHOOLS
  EXCLUSIONS FROM SCHOOLS
  GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS: DUTIES OF GOVERNORS
  GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS: DUTIES OF GOVERNORS
  TOWER OF LONDON
  TOWER OF LONDON
  YEOMAN WARDERS—TOWER OF LONDON
  YEOMAN WARDERS—TOWER OF LONDON
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991: POLICE POWERS OF DESTRUCTION
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991: POLICE POWERS OF DESTRUCTION
  WHITCHURCH SCHOOL
  WHITCHURCH SCHOOL
  LEGAL AID, NORTHERN IRELAND
  LEGAL AID, NORTHERN IRELAND
  ELECTRICITY ACT 1989: SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS UNDER SECTION 22(1)
  ELECTRICITY ACT 1989: SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS UNDER SECTION 22(1)
  SUB-POST OFFICES
  SUB-POST OFFICES
  POST OFFICE CONTRACTS WITH THE PASSPORT AGENCY
  POST OFFICE CONTRACTS WITH THE PASSPORT AGENCY
  DEBENHAMS: TAKEOVER
  DEBENHAMS: TAKEOVER
  ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING: TAKEOVER
  ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING: TAKEOVER
  JOINT LOCAL AUTHORITY TENANCIES
  JOINT LOCAL AUTHORITY TENANCIES
  LEASEHOLD FLATS: TENANT ENFRANCHISEMENT
  LEASEHOLD FLATS: TENANT ENFRANCHISEMENT
  MILITARY BANDS AND THE REGIMENTAL SYSTEM
  MILITARY BANDS AND THE REGIMENTAL SYSTEM
  ROYAL NAVY: MANPOWER REDUCTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY: MANPOWER REDUCTIONS
  BANK OF ENGLAND SUPPORT OPERATIONS: APPROVAL
  BANK OF ENGLAND SUPPORT OPERATIONS: APPROVAL
  NON-THOROUGHBRED HORSE BREEDERS: LIABILITY TO VAT
  NON-THOROUGHBRED HORSE BREEDERS: LIABILITY TO VAT
  EUROPEAN COHESION: FUNDING OF COSTS
  EUROPEAN COHESION: FUNDING OF COSTS
  THE MONARCH: LIABILITY TO VAT
  THE MONARCH: LIABILITY TO VAT
  CONGESTION CHARGING IN LONDON
  CONGESTION CHARGING IN LONDON
  ROAD SCHEMES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
  ROAD SCHEMES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
  MANUFACTURES: TRADE BALANCE
  MANUFACTURES: TRADE BALANCE
  TAX AND EXCISE REVENUE
  TAX AND EXCISE REVENUE
  JUNIOR DOCTORS' WORKING HOURS
  JUNIOR DOCTORS' WORKING HOURS
  NORFOLK DISTRICT HEALTH AUTHORITIES: STAFFING
  NORFOLK DISTRICT HEALTH AUTHORITIES: STAFFING