Sitting of 3 December 1993

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

  Adjournment (Christmas)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House, at its rising on Friday 17th December, do adjourn until Tuesday 11th January.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Madam Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have not selected either of the amendments. Of course, hon. Members are free to vote against the substantive motion if they are opposed to it.
  9.35 am
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful to be called this morning, Madam Speaker, and I am particularly grateful to be called so early. There were times in the old days when the House had Adjournment debates which were not restricted to three hours, and which went on and on. It was a good idea to change the format, because a three-hour limit on the debate means that we have quite short speeches.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: Get on with it.
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: Get on with what?
  I want to raise a subject that I have raised before, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not be surprised to hear it. It is not an airport
  or a hospital, but the question of affordable housing. I think that housing is a vital concern.
  I fear that, if we are not careful, tenants in low-cost housing will increasingly depend on housing benefit. Any reduction in the housing association grant is likely to increase the numbers of tenants who are dependent on housing benefit, and more tenants would be trapped in the poverty trap.
  I remind my right hon. Friend that the Select Committee on the Environment looked at the matter some time ago, and it fired a warning shot across the bows of the Government about the serious consequences if the rate of the housing association grant should fall below 67 per cent. The rate has fallen already to 62 per cent.
  The Government must also bear in mind the effects, not just on people who need housing, but on the construction industry. I am told that around 500,000 construction workers have lost their jobs during the past three years. It has been said over and over again that the cost to the Government of every unemployed person is around £9,000 a year because of the cost of providing benefit, added to which is the amount lost in income tax and national insurance contributions.
  The diminishing of the housing programme is bound to inflame that situation. We desperately need more low-cost housing. By building more, we will lower the unemployment figures, and also rehouse people who are in urgent need. I think particularly of the homeless, of people
  1276
  who are leaving institutions for care in the community, and of the increasing number of elderly people who require specialist housing.
  I worry about people who want to help themselves and who go out to work, often for low wages. They sometimes find that they would have been better off if they had not gone to work but had sat back and relied on benefit. I do not want to see the growth of a benefit-dependency culture. I want more to be done to help people who try to help themselves. That particularly applies to younger people, but the elderly are also disadvantaged.
  All hon. Members will have elderly constituents who, during their working lives, scrimped and scraped to put something aside for the proverbial rainy day. Those people find when they retire that their savings do not help them at all when it comes to getting assistance. As the rules apply at the moment, people with capital of between £3,000 and £16,000 find that interest is assumedx2014;that is the all-important word—at the rate of £1 a week for every £250 of capital. I wish that somebody would offer me those terms for my savings—I would put my money with them immediately.
  That gives the elderly no encouragement to save; I believe that it gives them a disincentive. I asked the Government earlier this year urgently to re-examine the situation, so far without a response.
  I am currently concerned about the annual development programme. In the immediate future, the rented programme will be protected, but I am worried about what will happen in a few years' time. The 12 October edition of The Financial Times correctly forecast a £300 million cut in the annual development programme.
  Working on that basis, the Oxford Economic Forecasting Unit predicted the loss of a further 8,000 jobs in the construction industry. However, the increased benefit payments and the loss of income tax and national insurance contributions will mean that the net saving will be only £200 million in the public sector borrowing requirement, not the £300 million that the Government are apparently aiming for. The net effect will be more unemployment in the construction industry and more misery for homeless and overcrowded families. On social and economic grounds, therefore, I plead for careful consideration to be given to the housing association programme.
  I must admit that I get very depressed when I see people sleeping rough on the streets of our cities. I realise that it is happening all over the world, and I know the reason for it—there are more broken marriages than there used to be, and young people perhaps have more independence and leave the nest earlier—but that does not alter the fact that it is a blot on everything that we British stand for.
  Secondly, I want to refer to a subject that is of great concern to my constituency. In August this year, the Department of Trade and Industry asked local authorities to bid for designation as objective 2 areas. The key criteria for description as a declining industrial area under objective 2 are, first, the average rate of unemployment over the past three years must have been above the European Community average; secondly, the percentage share of industrial employment in total employment must have equalled or exceeded the Community average in any reference year from 1975 onwards; thirdly, there must have been an observable fall in industrial employment as compared with the reference year chosen.

  1277
  Trafford—the council area in which my constituency is located—is one of 10 districts that comprise Greater Manchester, and Trafford council has been working with the other nine councils to formulate a Greater Manchester operational programme for objective 2 status for European funding.
  On 11 October, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry announced with a great fanfare that the Government were including more of north-west England in the bid for European funds. He said:
  "This is good news for the region. All current Objective 2 areas are on the list, plus new areas which face job losses, such as Barrow. The new candidates from the North West include Central Lancashire, Fleetwood and Lancaster and Morecambe. All the existing Objective 2 areas of East Lancashire, West Cumbria, West Cheshire, West Lancashire and much of Greater Manchester stay in the list the Government has proposed."
  The parts of Greater Manchester that have been excluded are certain wards in Stockport and Trafford. I want my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to find out why. I remind him that the west midlands areas included both deprived areas and areas of structural decline, and affluent areas on the fringes of the conurbation.
  I want to know why there is one rule for the west midlands and an entirely different one for Greater Manchester. The whole of the Altrincham and Sale constituency has been overlooked. It is impossible to understand what sort of objective criteria formed the basis of the decision.
  The exclusion of certain wards in Trafford is damaging. Without objective 2 status, European regional development fund money, which aids capital projects, cannot be claimed. The exclusion will have significant effects on proposed economic and environmental initiatives in the Broadheath and Altrincham wards. The loss of objective 2 will also have a serious effect on the borough. It will undoubtedly mean a substantial reduction in European social fund money for the South Trafford college.
  I draw my right hon. Friend's attention in particular to the Broadheath area in my constituency. That area contains an industrial estate—not as large as Trafford park, which is world famous—that was once noted for the part it played in the machine tool industry. In 1975, there were more than 6,500 jobs on that estate; now there are about 2,000.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Terrible, isn't it?
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: Yes it is, and the terrible thing is that the decline started when the last Labour Government
  were in power.
  Mr. Cryer: Nonsense.
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: Oh, yes it did.
  Mr. John Marshall: When the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was a Minister.
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: Yes, when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister. There is no point in trying to put the blame on a particular Government.
  Mr. Cryer: Do you remember?
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: Yes. We remember some of the hardships that occurred during that time; some of us have long memories. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman has something to say, I wish he would stand up and say it.
  Unemployment locally is above the Community average. Major companies such as Churchill Machine Tools, Kearns Richards, Linotype, Luke and Spencer and Record Electrical have all been casualties of the structural decline and economic recession.
  Mr. Cryer: Under the Tories.
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: Under successive Governments since the end of the war.
  For the life of me, I cannot understand the exclusion of Broadheath. In my view, it should have been a prime contender for European funding, because it seems to fit the objective 2 criteria like a glove. European funding would have meant new infrastructure investment to help business with better communications and improvements in public transport, and the local community could have continued to enjoy vital training initiatives organised by the local further education college using European social fund finance.
  Broadheath is a prime example of the unfairness of the Department of Trade and Industry ruling, but there are other examples in Trafford, such as parts of Altrincham, where we have redundant British Rail sidings right in the centre of town and other evidence of decline.
  I have a horrible feeling that someone in the Department of Trade and Industry thinks that my constituency is an area of leafy suburbs. It is true that we have good residential areas—I do not deny that—but we also have areas that have problems, where there is an industrial base, and I believe that we have been unjustly penalised.
  My right hon. Friend knows that I never lose my temper and never raise my voice. I am glad to see that the Whip agrees with me. Similarly, I never repeat gossip. I am staking my claim to go upstairs—I do not mean to the House of Lords but in the hereafter.
  Mr. Dicks: You mean downstairs.
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: If I go downstairs, I know who I will see there.
  Mr. John Marshall: Those two below the Gangway—the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: Yes, I will see lots of old friends.
  I want to tell my right hon. Friend that all those virtues that I possess will disappear overnight unless something is done about this matter. I hope that he will go to whoever made the decision in the Department of Trade and Industry and say how angry I am. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is being subjected to all my rage, but if nothing is done, whoever made the decision will be subjected to it, too.
  I hope that, before we rise for Christmas, my right hon. Friend will ensure that the relevant Ministers at the Department are aware of the anger in our area at the fact that Altrincham and Sale and other parts of Trafford have been excluded. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have some good news for me before I go home for Christmas.
  9.46 am
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I agree with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) about the need to build houses in Britain. For many years following the end of the second world war, we built more than 200,000 houses a year, but in the past 14 years there has been hardly any local authority building.
  As for unemployment, I would merely comment that it stood at 1·25 million when the Labour Government left office. I voted against that Government 150-odd times; I was not altogether happy with what they were doing. But I can tell the House that most of my constituents would settle for 1·25 million unemployed now, given half a chance [HON. MEMBERS: "And the inflation?"] And the inflation, caused largely by the previous Tory Government, who left a right old mess, and by the quadrupling of oil prices and the rest. I am not here to talk about that: I just mention it en passant.
  From the top of the hill where Bolsover castle is, near New Station road and High street, there is a beautiful view over the edge of the Pennines across from the industrial side straight over to the edge of the Peak district. About two years ago, some of my constituents in High street and New Station road asked me to see them regarding what was referred to as a landslip at Backhills.
  The local newspaper reports talked about gardens that were disappearing down the side of a hill. Greenhouses were demolished, then garages. I immediately raised the matter with various Ministers, because I could foresee the possibility, given that we were talking about the side of a hill, that eventually some houses might go. That is what happened.
  Having watched the television and seen the hotel at Scarborough disappear down the cliff face, and knowing that the Government had given more than £1 million in grant on that occasion, I thought that it would be feasible for the Government to assist people in the landslip area by allocating similar sums.
  I was told by the Minister concerned that the Scarborough hotel received money from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the Coast Protection Act 1949. We could not apply under that Act, but landslips that occur on the coast and landslips that occur inland should not be treated differently; we should not hand out grants on one hand and, on the other, tell people that they will have to grin and bear it.
  I hope that the Leader of the House will pass a message on to the relevant Ministers that some way should be found to ensure that the people in the Bolsover area—four have seen their houses demolished, and another two houses are likely to be demolished in the next few months—are compensated in some way.
  Derbyshire county council immediately tried to find out the cause of the problem. At first it was difficult because, very cleverly, British Coal, which had mined underneath the area, had ordered what it called a Mott Macdonald study to find out the reason for the landslip from its point of view. British Coal was very quick to get the study into operation, and it came up with findings that the landslip was nothing to do with coal mining—even though British Coal had been mining under the area as recently as 1973.
  I believe that British Coal has some responsibility in the matter. I asked British Coal to compensate these people for the loss of their houses and other assets. British Coal said that, according to the Mott Macdonald study, it was not its
  1280
  responsibility. The study did not include, however, the fact that British Coal had been pumping out millions of tonnes of water in the area. Many local people consider that the dams of water that had built up were part of the reason for the landslip and the houses falling away.
  It is significant that a few yards from the landslip stands the church, which is approximately 40 or 50 yd from the escarpment face. Several years ago, I raised in the House the subject of subsidence in Bolsover church, because of the problems that had been created. Arising out of my questions, a settlement was eventually made by British Coal. If it can pay for subsidence in the church, which is a few yards away from the escarpment face, there is surely an argument that the same should apply to the owners of the houses on High street and New Station road that have been demolished. British Coal still refuses to pay, and that is why the Department of the Environment and/or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should find some way of assisting the residents of that area.
  As I have said, the Scarborough hotel came under the Coast Protection Act 1949, but perhaps the houses in Bolsover could come under another heading. In the mid-1960s, there was a disaster in Wales at Aberfan, where 200-odd kids were killed in a school. I was a member of my local authority at that time. The Government of the day decided to send an inspector to every area in Britain where there were pit tips and said, "If these tips are dangerous, shift them—the Government will find the money." At Clay Cross, we managed to get rid of a pit tip during that period. The money was provided by the Government.
  If it was possible in the aftermath of that awful Aberfan disaster for the Government to find the money to get rid of all those dangerous tips—not only in coalfields but in many other areas around Britain—it should be possible to draw the same parallel for the people in the Bolsover area.
  Probably more than 80 houses are blighted. The house owners cannot get their homes insured—certainly not for the same price that they paid before—because the insurers have said that it is a bit dodgy. Those house owners have suffered in many ways over the past two years.
  British Coal says that it is not its responsibility. I believe that it is, but let us assume that British Coal can sustain its argument that it is not. We then come to the question whether it is a natural occurrence that the people in the area could not have foreseen. It that is the case, it could be argued that Ministers should take a fresh look at the matter, and study the reports sent in by people in the area and the local authorities, to see whether they can assist.
  Bolsover district council and Derbyshire county council have set up an assessment to find out what is causing the problem and what the cost of draining the area of the escarpment would be. There is a lot of water in the area, which we contend has built up from pit workings in the past. It is estimated that to find out what the problem is and how to eliminate it will cost £50,000, and that to eliminate it will cost more than £1 million.
  The people who live on the side of that hill should not be expected to find £1 million to resolve the problem. The Department of the Environment should take the problem into account when making grants available to the Derbyshire county council, which is taking part in the study, and to the Bolsover district council, which is helping to pay for it.
  The massive amount of money that it will cost to drain the whole area should also be taken into account. I hope

  1281
  that the Leader of the House will inform the relevant Ministers of the need to look at ways in which this problem can be settled. I have discussed it with the various local authorities of the area during the past few days.
  Will the relevant Ministers in the Department of the Environment and-or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food meet Bolsover district council, Derbyshire county council and other local representatives of the tenants—the house owners have formed an action group —with a view to considering the possibility of building into the grant settlement, if nothing else, a sum of money to enable the local authorities to eliminate the problem once the assessment has been made?
  The Department of the Environment should meet British Coal and ask all the relevant questions that I have sent to it from D. C. Carter Associates, which is acting on behalf of the residents. It is contended that the dams of water that built up in the area as a result of coal mine workings are part of the problem.
  Will the Leader of the House pass those messages to the relevant Departments, so that a meeting can be arranged with the local authorities concerned? Those authorities will be pleased to come down to discuss the matter.
  I do not believe that the settlements made yesterday took into account the amount of money that will be needed by that area. If British Coal refuses to accept responsibility, that money can come only from the people who live in the area and the local authorities responsible for its administration.
  I hope that the Leader of the House will pass on those messages, and that he will be able to impress on the relevant Ministers the need for them to meet the local area representatives and the residents as soon as possible, so that we can get to the bottom of the problem and ensure that the matter is dealt with as speedily as possible.
  9.59 am
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I am delighted to be called to take part in the Adjournment debate. My subject is the family—at this time of year, as we approach Christmas, that topic is perhaps more important than ever.
  Tuesday's Budget represents a turning point in the economic fortunes of the nation. All the economic indicators point to a period of sustainable growth and a gradual return to sound finance. It might be said that some of the social indicators are less favourable. The numbers of young people involved in criminal activities continue to cause concern. Our divorce rate—at four out of 10 marriages—remains at a high level. In fact, it is the highest in the European Community. The number of children born outside wedlock has soared in the past few years.
  Teachers up and down the land pull their hair out over the unacceptable behaviour of a rising number of five-year-olds who are encountering school and authority for the first time. Policemen express concern at the number of teenagers who take their names and numbers and threaten to report them for assault or wrongful arrest. The nation wrings its hands and searches its soul over the James Bulger case.
  What can be done to stop the apparent rise in the number of young people growing up with no respect for others or for authority, and no apparent knowledge of right and wrong? I wish to make my contribution to the debate
  1282
  on the social issues facing society today. I welcome the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in raising the priority of social issues in today's political agenda.
  I strongly support the range of measures to be introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Certainly, the balance of the criminal justice system needs to be restored—away from the criminal and towards the innocent. I also welcome the wide-ranging debate now under way about the size and shape of the welfare state. Those who oppose such a debate have obviously never read some of the speeches of Beveridge and the other founding fathers of the welfare state.
  I wish to explore one aspect of our social fabric that remains undervalued in modern society. I feel strongly that the role of the family in the past 30 years has been sidelined in a way that has become a significant factor in many of our social problems today. I am delighted that 1994 is to be the United Nations International Year of the Family, providing an opportunity to promote the importance of family relationships.
  As I draw on my own experience of 38 years, as I read report after report and article after article, and as I talk to those involved with law enforcement, I increasingly take the view that children who grow up in a balanced and stable home, where they receive care and affirmation, are much less likely to become involved in crime or to seek financial support from the state, and more likely to achieve well at school. Those factors are becoming as plain as a pikestaff.
  A recent article in The Guardian written by Paul Webster stated:
  "A French study of violent adolescent crime puts most of the blame for aggression on the failure of parents to provide role models … Psychiatrists Bernard Zeiller and Tony Lainé examined 600 files on violent juvenile crime in Paris for the national institute of health and medical research. These included seven murders, one by a child under 13.
  Sixteen children aged 13 to 18 took part in a study aimed at drawing up a portrait of juveniles likely to become criminals. All had an image of a failed father who had not protected them from criminal impulses as they were themselves delinquent, or alcoholic.
  Mothers had failed to provide an environment in which the child's personality could develop. The offenders suffered from narcissism and a constant feeling of insecurity and the fear of abandonment."
  A recent article by Janet Daley which appeared in The Times on 25 November 1993 stated, about two thirds of the way through:
  "Scientific rationalists that we are, we cannot accept the central mystery of the human condition: that we are all born with a capacity for evil and a readiness to be good. How most of us learn to be good rather than evil is a secondary mystery, but there is little doubt that it requires the presence of other people.
  Good behaviour is taught and measured by others, whereas bad behaviour may grow in perverse isolation, feeding on its own introversion. Instructing the young to suppress their innate evil impulses is the individual and collective responsibility of adults. Without constant supervision (and the kind of moral instruction now regarded as authoritarian) the young can and will run amok into amoral, sadistic egoism."
  Surely she hits the nail on the head.
  Can we any longer doubt that each child is born with a potential for good and for bad? Each young life, if properly nurtured with love and consistent discipline, is able to learn from a responsible role model, and is much more likely to develop into a predominantly law-abiding citizen.
  Of course I recognise that some children will have psychological difficulties whatever their parents do. There

  1283
  are also those well-raised children who are derailed by incidents of circumstances later in life. However, as a general rule, children raised in stable and secure homes are overwhelmingly more likely to make a positive contribution to society, and are also more likely to pass on that capability to the next generation. As we debate the Christmas Adjournment, it is an appropriate time to consider the implications of the family in this nation.
  An article in The Evening Standard on 4 March 1993 states:
  "Mrs. Roberts, chief probation officer for Hereford and Worcester, told the association's annual conference in London: 'Tackling shortcomings and equipping young people with basic social skills are the components of the successful reduction of offending behaviour.
  These skills include dealing with people in authority, learning how not to lose your temper, getting what you need by legitimate and acceptable means and finding positive opportunities for creativity and achievement.'
  In a reasonably stable and supportive home environment, young people were tremendously responsive, Mrs. Roberts said.
  'But sadly, in some of the more desperate urban settings, motivation is less easily tapped,' she added.
  'What is needed to reduce persistent offending is what most people acquire during childhood through stable family life, education, the learning of skills and the availability of opportunity.'"
  Mr. Michael Connarty: We all agree about what we wish to see in society. I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman does not appear to be willing to define the family. Much has been written about the family as a nuclear family, with male and female parents and a number of children. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that many studies have shown that, although the trauma of divorce greatly disturbs children, if they come through the divorce and are left with one caring, loving parent who teaches them as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, that parent can be just as successful in bringing up the child in a balanced way and keeping him or her on what the hon. Gentleman would call the right path?
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I accept what he says. If he is patient, I shall come to that issue.
  Sadly, it is also true that children raised in a setting in which mother or father or both do not care, do not love and do not discipline consistently, are much more likely to develop into adolescents and adults who live in conflict with others and end up in trouble with the law. Importantly, there is also a tendency to pass those problems on to the next generation.
  I realise that I am making generalisations, but I trust that the House will not condemn me for that. I recognise that exceptions to general principles can always be found, but I believe that the evidence in support of my general premise is overwhelming.
  The way in which a child is raised does not involve simply financial circumstances. Children from rich homes who are deprived of love and consistent discipline are also likely to develop into irresponsible adults. Children from the poorest home, where a mother and father valiantly try to bring them up well, are likely to grow into citizens who make a positive contribution.
  My argument is that whether each child born in this nation develops into a predominantly law-abiding citizen, or someone likely to slide into crime or lean on the state, depends largely on the forces that shape and nurture that life in its early years in the home and then in school. Care and affirmation produce children who are at peace with
  1284
  themselves and others. A strong and stable family unit is the best vehicle—perhaps the only vehicle—for delivering children who make a positive contribution, because a stable family offers the best context for parenting and a role model for children.
  If we are to find long-term solutions to rising crime or welfare dependency, we must find ways of encouraging and strengthening stable relationships between parents and their children. So many things that we now seek to do as a Government, or as local authorities or other statutory agencies—whether it be seeking to prevent crime or caring for elderly people—should and can be done better by the family. Many of our social problems would gradually disappear if we established family relationships as the cornerstone on which our society is based.
  For that reason, I believe that Government should actively seek new ways to support and encourage the family. That would have long-standing and far-reaching benefits to our nation. If we strengthen family relationships, that will also strengthen individual responsibility and responsible citizenship. If we strengthen family relationships, that will foster a great sense of community and neighbourhood. The healthy future for our nation lies in the proper balance of individual responsibility, the stable family and active community, not in ever-increasing state provision.
  Many will shake their heads and say that it cannot be done, that it is not the role of Government to tell people how to live their lives. I agree that freedom of choice is paramount, but surely it is the job of Government to set the direction and create the environment in which those choices can be made. When better to consider those matters than now, as we approach Chistmas?
  It is also right to give a lead in social policy, and not merely follow behind people's choices, picking up the pieces no matter how high the cost. We must be prepared to make value judgments. If it is right that the personal, social and financial costs of family breakdown are so damaging to our nation, should we be reticent about saying so? If we believe that family relationships are important, we should say so and seek to give a lead.
  We have allowed the fear of upsetting minority groups to undermine our moral leadership and social policy for far too long. It is now considered discriminatory to say that we wish to encourage the family. We fear a critical backlash from those who choose an alternative life style, so we remain silent. We must now move the agenda forward. The family is better because it is better for society as a whole. It is sound common sense. People who chose an alternative life style are free to do so, but we must not let the tail wag the dog.
  The stable family unit should be our goal, not because of some fancy moral argument, but because it delivers maximum social benefits. It is a practical matter. We have the right to make that call. I do not hark back to a golden age of perfect family life, for it never existed. My call is to learn the lessons of yesterday and today to make tomorrow better.
  It is important to stress that, in promoting the family, I am attacking not lone parents but neglectful parents. Research appears to support the view that two parents are better than one. The presence of mother and father enables the burdensome responsibilities of child care and breadwinning to be shared. Let me make my view clear: thousands of single parents up and down the land are doing

  1285
  a magnificent job in raising their children in difficult circumstances. They deserve our support, not our condemnation.
  The challenge is to find ways to prevent so much family breakdown in the future, to produce better parents and reduce the number of children who grow up outside a framework of security and discipline. I hope that, as we approach Christmas, we can debate those issues.
  Our divorce statistics are truly horrifying, yet when I speak to young people about their aspirations for the future, I find that they aspire to long-term commitment. Most people are looking for a partner to whom they can commit and with whom they can share their life. They want a secure home in which to raise their children. That is their dream, but sadly today, too many lack the skills, the understanding or the benefit of a role model to make that dream a reality for them.
  In seeking to support and encourage the family, we are not cutting across the grain of people's aspirations; we are cutting with the grain, seeking ways to help people to achieve their goal in life. We have helped people to own their homes. Let us help them to achieve the personal security that we all seek.
  What can be done? We need to reach a consensus that family is important, that family is better and that family can deliver the social benefits that we rightly seek. I suspect that we are much closer to that consensus now than we were even three years ago. What we lack is any clear view on how to take the debate forward and convert it into practical action.
  In closing, I shall make some brief suggestions. First, it is clear that too many young people grow up without learning the skills of being a parent or a spouse. We must commit ourselves to educating young people about their relationships and the complexities of partnership and parenthood. A great deal more can be done in our schools to educate young people in those areas. Of course there is no magic formula to being a good spouse or partner and a good parent, but there are timeless principles involved that can be taught and passed on.
  Secondly, there is value in more proactive counselling, and teaching young couples before marriage is entered into—and during it. For several years, my wife helped run a pre-marriage counselling course in our church in Plymouth. In some cases, it was amazing how little some young couples on the threshold of marriage knew about each other.
  In every case, the course proved of benefit to those taking it. Approximately one in five young couples decided not to get married, or deferred their marriage, as a result of being confronted by important issues that they had not previously considered. Surely that should be seen as a success, not a failure.
  We also know from our own experience and with being involved with other couples that expert and wise counselling at the right time for all couples going through a bad patch can mean the difference between reconciliation and separation. We need to explore ways of reaching couples before marital problems become marital crises.
  Thirdly, having taught people the skills, and having given them the counselling and backup necessary, parents must be made to face up to their responsibilities. The Child Support Agency has made a valuable start in addressing
  1286
  financial responsibility. Although there is some concern about the way in which the Child Support Act 1991 is being implemented, no one appears to dispute that the principle is right.
  We need to extend that parental responsibility to areas of conduct of children for which parents must be responsible. There should be few exceptions to that. There is no doubt in my mind that if parents knew that they would be increasingly responsible for the actions of their children, they would be more careful in how they sought to raise their children in the first place.
  Fourthly, our primary school teachers can spot the extreme potential troublemakers and lawbreakers at an early stage of their time at school. Often, such a child is simply reflecting its background, and is unlikely to change its ways without special attention. We can do more in directing resources at that point in a child's life to seek to place that person on the straight and narrow, rather than waiting until he or she has broken into our homes or stolen our car. I should like to see more active thought given to how direct intervention into that child's life might take place in a way that would make a real difference.
  Fifthly, we need a gradual increase in the penalties for crime. Having given the help and the skills to encourage people to develop as law-abiding citizens, we must then punish severely those who choose to offend. The absence of a realistic deterrent is one of the biggest issues facing us today. I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for his excellent attempts to redress that imbalance.
  Finally, it has long been my view that we should encourage responsible behaviour and discourage irresponsible behaviour through our tax and financial systems. More thought needs to be given to how our tax system can be designed to enable people to come together in long-term relationships and to stay together. Having recognised the importance of stable families, we should be ready to defend that institution through our tax and benefit structure. That would represent the investment in excellence that we need to see in our nation.
  Not for a moment would I suggest that that is a matter for Government alone. I call upon the Church and all opinion formers to recognise the importance of strong family relationships and to redouble their efforts to promote the right message. Let us all work together on that vital task.
  There are no short-term, quick-fix solutions, but we can do positive things to build for the future quality relationships in the home. It is a mighty mountain to move, but the lessons learned from some of the more extreme incidents of the past few years compel us to start that task. The tragic James Bulger case is but one.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given an important lead in his call to get back to basics and to espouse traditional values. It is for all of us to respond. As we approach Christmas, let us trust that the strong and stable family unit will once again become the foundation on which our nation is built.
  10.21 am
  Mr. David Rendel: I shall raise a rather more parochial issue—although one that is of concern in other constituencies apart from mine—than that addressed by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter). It is that of the A34, the Euro-route that passes from

  1287
  Southampton up towards the midlands and is the main trade route from our south coast ports to the midlands. The road has been improved year after year in its various different parts, until now the only remaining section that is not at least dual carriageway is that just to the south, and through parts, of Newbury.
  Hon. Members will no doubt remember that in March this year the Government made a dramatic announcement that the route for the Newbury bypass had finally been agreed, and it would therefore go ahead. Interestingly, that announcement was made only a short while after it became clear that there would be a by-election for the parliamentary seat of Newbury. I am sure that the Government would not wish it to be felt that that announcement had been made purely because the by-election was about to take place and that they would not wish the electorate to believe that any such announcement could be made before a by-election and then not fulfilled after it.
  Therefore, it is disappointing, to say the least, that since May this year, there has been no firm guarantee that the money for that bypass will be forthcoming. Indeed, we have heard from the Minister that he is conducting a review of the full roads programme, and it seems likely, in view of the Budget announcement, that at least some of the roads that we had believed would go ahead will not be built—or, at the very least, will be deferred.
  I spoke to the Minister the other day about other problems on the A34, when I and those with me suggested that the traffic could only get heavier once the bypass had been built and the road was dual carriageway from Southampton to Birmingham. He said that we could not make the assumption that the bypass would be built in the near future. That was a great disappointment to me and the people of Newbury.
  The problems on the A34 are many and numerous. There is the immediate problem that the traffic through the centre of Newbury is extremely heavy and there are long queues, particularly during the rush hours in the morning and the evening. Those are a cause of great annoyance not only to those trying to get across the country from Southampton to Birmingham and vice versa but to the inhabitants of Newbury trying to go about their daily lives.
  There is also the problem of blight along the route of the A34 bypass. A number of people live in houses that are not close enough to the route to be subject to compulsory purchase but are close enough to be severely affected once the bypass is built. Those people cannot sell their houses on the open market, and the Minister, sadly, is being slow to use his discretionary power to purchase them.
  Thirdly, there is danger on the route itself. The section of the A34 immediately to the south of Newbury is a notorious accident black spot, with acccidents every month, if not every week, frequently causing damage not just to vehicles but to people. If all those problems are to be solved, we badly need the money to be firmly allocated to that project.
  Another problem with the A34 is the noise it creates. I am speaking here particularly on behalf of the two communities of Chieveley and East Ilsley, just to the north of where the A34 crosses the M4. New road surfaces, some of which are still being researched but some of which have been proven, can reduce the noise on trunk roads. Sadly, they are more expensive and harder to maintain than the normal surfaces.
  1288
  There is a major noise pollution problem near trunk roads, and the A34 is a case in point. I urge the Minister to ensure that we take note of the need to introduce one of the new surfaces wherever there is a significant noise problem, even if that means a greater expense.
  The Government have often made it known that they wish to do something about pollution, and I suggest that they do something about noise pollution, just as they are aiming to do something about atmospheric and water pollution. Apart from the new noise reduction surfaces, a number of other measures, such as noise reduction fencing or banking, can be used. I urge the Minister to consider those solutions as well in our case.
  Perhaps the most significant change that could be made would be to legislation on noise pollution. It is ridiculuous that some people are eligible for grants to install noise insulation and others are not.
  Let us take a hypothetical case of two towns joined by a major road, which passes through two villages, which constitute two bottlenecks. The Government decide to improve the road on the route, and remove one bottleneck through one village. Unfortunately, the other bottleneck still exists, so the increased traffic on the road will not reach the level at which grants for noise insulation are triggered.
  The Government go ahead with the futher improvement in the other village at that point, and because both bottlenecks have been removed, the traffic up that route suddenly increases considerably. The grant level is therefore triggered, and the second village becomes eligible for grants for noise insulation. Unfortunately, although the traffic has risen by exactly the same amount in both villages, only the village where the work is being done is eligible for grants. That does not seem to be either logical or fair. As I said, it must apply not only to Newbury, but to other parts of the country.
  If a route is improved and traffic levels increase, all affected houses on the route should be eligible for noise insulation grants—as in Chieveley and East Ilsley—not merely those immediately adjacent to the final work.
  In the case of those two villages, the main reason why they are not eligible for grants is that the road running through was improved in advance of the new grant mechanism coming into play. Nevertheless, they suffer, because the road has since been improved in many other places and has gone from being a small, rural route to a major Euro-route that carries all the freight traffic that passes between the south coast and the midlands. That has led to considerable noise pollution in the villages, and so far Government have refused to do anything about it, either through noise reduction methods or by allocating grants for insulation.
  Those problems on the A34 deserve urgent attention. I urge the Minister to ensure that something is done to address the problems with the bypass, which will solve some of the traffic problems in central Newbury, and the problems of noise pollution along the line of the A34 as it passes through Berkshire, and I ask that the necessary legislation is introduced before Christmas.
  10.32 am
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is somewhat ironic to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) when I, too, wish to discuss roads in my constituency and would not wish the House to adjourn

  1289
  until I have had some response to the special issues that I wish to raise. The hon. Gentleman's complaint is that there is too much traffic on the A34; my complaint concerns the need to upgrade the roads to make Hastings prosperous. I make no apology for once again returning to the subject—one which my predecessor raised regularly as, I suspect, shall I. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me.
  The economy of Hastings is exceedingly fragile and, as if in recognition of that, while unemployment fell across the country in the past month, it rose in Hastings. I know exactly where that unemployment arose. Some of it related to what I consider to be a welcome decline in the need for such an extensive defence industry. However, I have enormous sympathy for the people who are consequently on the unemployment register. This shows how large decisions can have a dramatic impact on a small town such as Hastings.
  Because our problems in Hastings were recognised, it was granted assisted area status, which is exceedingly welcome, especially as the Department of Trade and Industry has received well over 100 grant applications for assisted area status grants. However, the Department of Trade and Industry was clearly not prepared for the sheer volume of applications. Hastings is perilously close to losing potential business because the Department is not responding as quickly as it originally thought it could and it is even extending the revised period in which grants will be awarded to people in Hastings.
  The key reason that Hastings has assisted area status is the appalling state of our roads. One local business man in my constituency recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport and he has gone even further in his condemnation of the roads than my usual argument that they would be recognised by 18th-century smugglers. His view is that if the current state of our roads had pertained in 1066, King Harold would not have been killed at the battle of Hastings as nobody would have been able to get in and out of town.
  The A21 is a single-track country lane—the main road through which 40-tonne trucks carry goods and services in and out of Hastings and it is almost blocked because of resurfacing work. The A259, the main south coast route, is undergoing significant remedial work to the west, and the eastern part has been totally closed for what has become seven weeks, but was allegedly to be 10 days. That has caused enormous problems not just for business but for residents trying to do what little shopping they can in Hastings in the run-up to the Christmas period. Clearly, local business men and women are exceedingly upset. Our problem is not just that the roads are worn out, hence the remedial work, but that they are not of good enough quality to create the stable economy that Hastings needs.
  I was struck with terror during the Budget speech when I heard that there were to be reductions in, and a slowing down of, the roads programme. It is ironic that almost every roads proposal produces instant and aggressive reaction but few hon. Members do little other than recommend more roads for their constituents. There must not be any further delay in the upgrading of the A21 and the A259 in Hastings. I understand that the Department of Transport is actively considering a number of bypass proposals, any one of which should improve our roads. However, they are all at different stages of development
  1290
  and none is linked. The A21 ceases to be a dual carriageway south of Tonbridge. There are at least six different proposals—all at different stages—for draft orders and public inquiries, but none has been given the go-ahead. None of the proposals for the A259 has yet reached public inquiry stage.
  The problem is not only that delays are being built into the schemes and that the Minister for Roads and Traffic promised draft orders for the Hastings bypass in spring, but that he is now promising the orders in late autumn. As I reminded him in a recent letter, there are only four weeks before the end of the year. How is late autumn defined?
  The links between the various proposals are out of phase and are not logical, resulting in excess costs. Each time a bypass is proposed, and because it is not logically linked to a subsequent portion, we dodge backwards and forwards across the A589 and it becomes a zig-zag instead of a straight line. That costs extra money, when the road is eventually built, and takes extra time. I am not surprised that the Department of Transport has come up with ideas to reduce from 11 years the time taken to get a road from the original proposal stage through to final planning permission stage.
  When I was first selected for Hastings and Rye, a venerable gentleman metaphorically patted me on the head and said, "Don't worry about roads. We have been trying to improve them since before the first world war." I should hate to think that there would be another world war or that we could not get our roads improved. We must ensure that we link many of the bypasses and that we use the speeded-up process so that we get a logical road. We must move quickly so that my constituents can benefit from logical and sensible roads which will help them to build up the economy of Hastings, which we all wish to see.
  It is dispiriting to talk to people wishing to invest in Hastings who say that it is only half a town and that the other half is the fish in the channel. It is hard enough to attract business to a small town on the south coast without penalising ourselves and without the Department of Transport penalising us by slowing down the roads programme, which is so crucial to ensure that our unemployment goes down and that our average wage, which is one third of the national average wage, becomes a competitive wage so that we can ensure that we have prosperity in a town that desperately needs it. I should hate us to go into the Christmas recess without some comment from the Department of Transport about its proposals for the A21 and the A259 to benefit my constituents.
  10.41 am
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Having heard several pleas for roads, it comes to my mind that everyone has a road in which he or she wishes to see some investment. I put on record my disappointment that the Scottish Office is unwilling to fund the bypass that would avoid the Avon gorge between Lothian and Central regions. There have been a number of serious accidents there, although, thank goodness, no deaths, over the past 20 years. However, that is not the reason why I stayed in the Chamber to speak today.
  I was interested that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) let us know that he was involved in church work and I was interested by his definition of the concept "saved". He spoke about pre-marriage counselling for some of the people in his church and said that he saved

  1291
  one fifth of them from taking the step of getting married. That is a new definition of "saved" for me. I refer him and other hon. Members who listened and nodded sagely to a new book by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the second-in-command on our Front-Bench Treasury team, called "The Century Gap". Males especially should read the book. Her thesis is that whereas men are living in the 20th century, women have advanced into the 21st century, and that it is about time that men joined them before they find themselves out of step. We would achieve better results for our children if we regarded their upbringing not as a family matter, but as a parenting matter. It is not only the structure, but the quality of relationships that is important for the future.
  I stayed to speak today because I was informed that there would be a debate on agriculture on the motion for the Adjournment. Scottish agriculture is suffering badly at the hands of the European Community. I feel some debt to the National Farmers Union of the Forth valley and I wanted to speak on their behalf. It is a pity that we are not having such a debate and I hope that we shall have it at some time. I recall the change to the sheep meat regime causing consternation among the hill sheep farmers. We had a debate here about that. People in Scotland are suffering.
  Another problem is the milk quotas. When I was leader of the council in Stirling district, it was predicted that one tenth of farmers would be out of business, and would have to sell their farms or give up their tenancies by the end of the decade as a result of the quotas because they had invested heavily in new milk parlours. That has come to pass in the Forth valley and it is a great shame. There is a deficit in the milk supply in Europe, yet we do not transfer quotas across boundaries to this country. As a result, many of the companies that process milk have gone to other European countries, taking manufacturing jobs with them. That was verified when we met the Food and Drink Manufacturers Association just before the Budget statement. We have been remiss in a number of areas.
  In cereal production, set-aside is being forced on Scotland next year because of the quality and productivity of Scottish farming. I deprecate the fact that Scottish farmers will be punished when cereal production quotas could be transferred to Scotland to allow them to continue to produce cereals. It is a pity that we did not have an agriculture debate today. I would have been happy to take part in it and to speak on behalf of farmers, although there are few in my constituency. It is a national problem in Scotland and it is probably also a United Kingdom problem.
  I intend to speak about a matter that is not as specific as the roads pleas earlier. I shall speak about the orange badge scheme—the disabled sticker scheme. I do not know whether the scheme works in the same way in England and Wales. In Scotland, it is becoming a regime that takes away a small benefit which gives disabled people a quality of life that they could not otherwise have.
  I hope that the House will think about the scheme. It is not a great financial gift and it is not a licence for people to park wherever they like. Many road traffic schemes, especially double yellow line schemes, mean that people cannot park on certain roads even with an orange badge. Last Christmas, Strathclyde clamped down heavily on parking. A person with an orange badge who did not know the regulations well enough parked near the shopping centre. When he came back to find his car, he saw that it
  1292
  had been towed away by a private security firm hired for the purpose. He had to pay more than £50, and he was lucky enough to have money and a credit card with him so that he could get his car out of the pound. However, he had to walk and to take a taxi for almost a mile and a half.
  People cannot use the scheme to park wherever they like, and that is correct. However, I wrote to Strathclyde council saying that it was being rather harsh and that there should be some zoned parking on roads that had double yellow lines near the shopping centre at Christmas for people with orange badges. The incident was a great shock to my constituent, and there has been great hardship for many orange badge users who have had to park far away from the shopping centre.
  The scheme has been amended by regulation, not by debate in the House. The purpose of the regulation was to stop abuses, and I applaud that. There were many abuses. When the Labour Government were in power, my good friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford, from whom I took over, was a Scottish Office Minister. He spoke to some of my pupils when I was a teacher of children with learning difficulties. He told them about the orange badge schemes and he pointed out the many abuses. The problem became greater as the 1980s went on. It is right that the regulations should be used to stop abuses, but they have now gone too far and the scheme is far too rigid.
  The regulations seem to make it practically impossible for people to get a new orange badge unless they can prove that they have had a double amputation and that they cannot even wheel themselves along. They are asked whether they can travel 200 yds by any means. Let us consider the case of my constituent Mr. Andrews of Grangemouth which illustrates the point well. He had had an orange badge for more than five years and he was told that he had to fill in a new form. He is a very honest gentleman in his mid-70s who has for some time suffered a number of problems with walking and who has had several operations. He said that if he leant on his wife's arm and stopped every 20 yds or so for a rest, he could probably travel 200 yds without a wheelchair. He was then denied renewal of his orange badge. The bottom line was that he could travel 200 yds by some means. It would not have mattered if he could only get himself over 200 yds on his hands and knees. He would still have been denied renewal of his orange badge.
  I applaud Mr. Andrews's attitude, which I recommend to anyone who finds himself in such a situation. With personal advocacy that would have done any hon. Member proud, Mr. Andrews took the matter up in the press and contacted the television company; he fought a battle. The council did not say that it was wrong. It said that it would send him a new form and that if he wrote that he could not travel 200 yds under his own steam, it would give him a badge. That is ludicrous. He had to be less honest than he wanted in informing the authorities of his circumstances, to obtain an orange badge. The scheme is now so strict that people who need badges are losing them and that small addition to their quality of life is taken away.
  I am reminded of the new incapacity allowance. The suggested method of proving that one qualifies for that allowance reflects the same attitude. One must prove that one is so incapacitated that one cannot do anything for oneself. I hope that is not the purpose of the allowance, which should be to add to an individual's quality of life, not to transform people from being vegetables into active citizens.

  1293
  The inflexibility of the new orange badge regulations works against those who are temporarily incapacitated for one or two years and who have been advised by their doctor that they cannot get about under their own steam. The provision of a badge would help such people more easily to shop and in other ways. The regulations do not allow for a temporary badge. Must the applicant lie and state that he or she is permanently incapacitated, and not admit that—if the doctor is right—they will be able to get about in one or two years? Are such people merely to state that they are disabled and, after a couple of years, hang on to their badges as long as they can? To use a phrase that is common in politics and in life generally, such people are caught between a rock and a hard place. It is time that the Government examined the scheme's inflexibility.
  Mrs. Reid from Bo'ness is one constituent who has written to me on that subject. The Scottish Office says that the regulations are set, but that a flexibility clause allows a local authority to use discretion but not grant temporary badges. There is something wrong if flexibility and discretion cannot be used to assist a person who is temporarily disabled or incapacitated. I will be harsh on the Scottish Office and say that it sets the regulations and then passes the buck. That is a favoured way of doing things. I was for 10 years the leader of a council that was weighed down with regulations with which it had to conform, but it was not given the resources to do so.
  The transport planning authority appears to have chosen a person—I will not name the gentleman—having the least heart and soul in the bureaucracy to administer the scheme. The terms and tone of his letters upset people, in that he does not countenance any flexibility if he can get away with it—and the regulations allow him to deny flexibility. The Scottish Office Minister responsible should add flexibility to the regulations and exhort local authorities to use the discretion that will give the incapacitated the small addition to their quality of life that the orange badge scheme can provide.
  The regulations appear to give plaudits and prizes for being rigid and inflexible, and I am sure that is not the scheme's true purpose. I enter a plea on behalf of my constituents and other people in Scotland and in England and Wales who find it difficult to renew their orange badge, and who are expected to enjoy a lower quality of life. The Government are providing a lower quality of life in everything that they do, but I am sure that they do not want publicly to be found out. I ask the Minister responsible to reconsider the scheme and to introduce a regulation that will provide for easier orange badge renewal by people who have owned one for a number of years—and certainly for those who are in the later years of their life—but which still keeps abusers out of the picture. I hope that we may see changes in the next couple of months.
  10.53 am
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The House should address four matters in the context of my constituency before it adjourns for Christmas. The House will not be surprised to know that they are the high-speed rail link, as it passes through Kent; grant-maintained schools; the application for objective 2 status within the European Community; and the routing of ambulances.
  1294
  The high-speed rail link has been a major problem for the people of Kent, as alternative routes have twisted and turned across my constituency and elsewhere in Kent over the past five years. I will highlight the plight of 90 households at Pepper Hill, under whose properties Union Rail currently wants to drive a tunnel. Union Rail blatantly states that those residents will suffer no noise or vibration. That is why I called for a geological survey to be commissioned, to assess the noise and vibration impact on those residents—what I call the rumble.
  As the A2 action group of local residents and I are not experts in geological surveys, I asked the then Conservative-controlled Gravesham borough council to appoint a geological expert to investigate the Union Rail survey. I understand that the council eventually did so, and that that expert is already at work.
  The ball is now in the court of Union Rail. Last month, it delivered to me and to the borough council a preliminary report on its geological survey. It promised—we know about British Rail's promises—that the result of laboratory tests would be delivered to Gravesham borough council by 29 November.
  They have not yet been delivered.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport kindly gave Gravesham borough council and myself until 31 December to give our views, which will not least be based on the results of the geological survey. I ask that all pressure be put on Union Rail to deliver the test results now, as they are already nearly one week overdue.
  I believe that the rumble will be felt by those residents living over the proposed tunnel, which strengthens the case for the alternative route 226. It would take the tunnel—and a tunnel would be of advantage to all residents of Northfleet—away from properties, to run under an electricity substation.
  I understand that the National Grid Company, which owns and operates that substation, produced an option report on the costs and practicalities of renewing that ancient switching substation or resiting it. I hope that the Department of Transport will study that report with a positive mind, to ascertain whether a solution can be found. One must be found, because the existing plan is totally unreasonable for the residents concerned.
  The Department of Transport paper for the channel tunnel rail link high-level forum, "Property Purchase and Compensation Policy", commented on compensation safeguarding when the route is announced by Ministers in January. That paper states:
  "Safeguarding also brings into play the statutory blight provisions (and purchase notices) of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A blight notice may be served by the owner of any domestic property within the safeguarded zone seeking purchase."
  I cite the case of six householders sandwiched between the A2 motorway, which itself will be widened southwards nearer to their homes, and the high-speed rail link route announced. Those houses have for many years been sandwiched between two main transport arteries. They are four houses at Longview off Henhurst road, Cobham, and two houses in Scalers hill, also in the parish of Cobham.
  The capital and amenity values of those properties have been ruined by public transport, and their owners must be compensated. I am told that their owners want to move. Those properties should be included in the safeguarded zone, so that their owners' rights will be taken into account.

  1295
  Reverting to the 90 households over the tunnel, I note that the same document states:
  "Blight notices would not be accepted for properties within safeguarded zones over bored tunnels except where there are surface works such as ventilation shafts."
  That is quite wrong as a policy. The tunnel does damage to the capital value and amenity of the 90 households that live above, and it is not fair to claim that the costs of that compensation make the high-speed rail link that much less viable. It is not fair to the residents, because the other side of the coin is that the proposal makes the capital value, and amenity value, of residents' houses equally less valuable, and they are less capable of sustaining that loss.
  I shall now discuss grant-maintained schools. Conservative Kent county council was traditionally in the forefront of local financial management. It put, as a matter of policy, 90 per cent. of the funding of schools directly local financial management. It was not surprising, therefore, that, with the advent of grant-maintained school status, many Kent schools advanced to take 100 per cent. responsibility for funds and decisions relating to education.
  It is not surprising that the support of parents of children in so many schools for adopting grant-maintained status was overwhelming; indeed, 50 per cent. of secondary schools in Kent have already become grant maintained. In my borough of Gravesham alone, five of the eight secondary schools and two of the primary schools have voted to become grant maintained, and two further schools are balloting for such status at the moment. Those that have become grant maintained have been successful. They are vibrant; they are go-ahead; they give good education to the young people concerned. The response of the new Labour-Liberal coalition that runs Kent county council has been one of unremitting hostility. The Lib-Lab coalition that is running Kent has allocated £100,000 of education funds to the mindless pursuit of opposing the will of parents in grant-maintained schools—£100,000 from the education budget, which could have been spent on new classrooms, on repairs to school buildings and on new equipment for our schools, just to pursue the petty party political prejudices of the Labour and Liberal parties.
  What justification do they give for that approach? The Labour education spokesman on Kent county council, County Councillor Mrs. Esterson, said that, in previous votes of parents before the most recent county council election,
  "parents voted against Conservative Kent County Council."
  Let us consider that. Now, at St. John's Roman Catholic Secondary School in Gravesend the parents have voted on the matter, and 75 per cent. voted for the school to become a grant-maintained school.
  Let us see the logic of Councillor Mrs. Esterson. Presumably the parents voted against the Lib-Lab coalition that runs Kent county council. What rubbish! Of course they did not. They did not vote on political grounds. They voted on the grounds of the education of their children. They voted positively because they felt that in that school they had a good headmaster, good governors, good teachers—indeed, a very good school—and they believe that they will get better education by having 100 per cent. power over the decisions and the spending of the education funds relative to their children.
  That does not bother the new Lib-Lab coalition that is running Kent county council. The council is now circulating a misleading letter to parents who are due to
  1296
  vote in such cases. I shall take as an example the letter sent to parents of children at the St. Joseph's Roman Catholic aided primary school in Northfleet.
  The first claim made to the parents by the Lib-Lab Kent county council is:
  "The Grant Maintained sector has not grown as Government Policy had hoped."
  That is an odd statement to make, because what the Government hoped is irrelevant. What counts is what the parents decide, and progress has been made, because in those schools the parents have decided that it is in the interests of their children.
  That letter goes on to ask, rhetorically:
  "Do you want your Headteacher and senior staff to be heavily involved in non-educational duties? Or do you want money spent hiring extra staff to do such work?"
  Non-educational duties? When one has those "Headteachers and senior staff' working on the delivery of quality education locally in their school? That is what they are working on, and they are deciding the best means of so doing. When one bears in mind the fact that the school gets an extra 10 per cent. of funds, they can judge what to spend it on, and that may be partly on administrative and clerical support if they so judge.
  The letter also says:
  "There is no published evidence whatsoever which indicates that standards in the Grant Maintained sector are either better or worse than in Local Authority Schools."
  Where have the authors of those letters been living in the past few weeks? We have seen lists of exam results from schools up and down the country, and what does one note? The grant-maintained schools predominate in the top of that list.
  I would point out that high up in that list is the Northfleet school for boys in the borough of Gravesham in my constituency—not a grammar school—a school which is exceptionally well run. The parents are so supportive that the school has become grant maintained, and it has done exceptionally well, as those lists prove.
  Here is another extract from that letter from the Lib-Lab county council:
  "Whilst the early schools which joined the Grant Maintained sector received significant additional money this was not 'new' money. It has been and is being removed from existing schools, in other words robbing Peter to pay Paul."
  That claim is the most pernicious of all. The logic of transferring that 10 per cent. of funds is that that is the amount of education funds that had to date been spent on administrative and advisory support to those schools from county hall. The grant-maintained decisions show that the schools believe that they can get better value for the same money locally in the school than can the county hall bureaucrats.
  The problem for Kent county council and other councils is that they are losing that 10 per cent. of funds. How do they react? They should either win contracts from the grant-maintained schools to provide those same services, or they should cut the bureaucracy that provided those so-called services proportionately. Given the petty warfare of Kent county council, under its Lib-Lab control, against the grant-maintained schools, it is unlikely that they would win any such contracts.
  My constituents, and even hon. Members, are great enthusiasts for that television programme "Yes Minister". We remember that Sir Humphrey always presented to Ministers painful cuts in services rather than cuts in Sir Humphrey's empire. That is precisely what is happening at the moment at Kent county council.

  1297
  Let us remember that the letter referred to "existing schools". The new Lib-Lab masters of Kent county council go on about cutting schools and nursery schools as a consequence, but they are addressing the wrong options. At the very first test of its competence, the Lib-Lab pact in Kent has failed. It claims that Kent taxpayers are confronted with only two options: either to pay higher council tax or to cut education services. That is not the choice. The bureaucracy has a responsibility to scale down accordingly, and we shall be watching to see whether it does so.
  Incidentally, I welcome the 13 per cent. increase in the revenue support grant from the Government to Kent county council, and I would think that, with that 13 per cent., it should be well able in the coming year to develop services and impose no council tax increase whatsoever on the people of Kent.
  Lastly, I shall discuss the British application to the European Community for designation of north Gravesham—indeed, of a wide area of Thames-side in Kent—for objective 2 status for European structural funds. My hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and I have long campaigned for such status, with the support of our Member of the European Parliament, Ben Patterson, and the local borough councils.
  We particularly appreciate the enthusiasm of our right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry in making the application, and I should like to highlight two projects to which objective 2 funding from the European Community could contribute.
  The first is Northfleet town bypass. Northfleet is an historic urban area which has always been dependent on heavy industry, but its roads were not built for heavy goods vehicles. Northfleet high street and the Springhead and Dover roads are quite inadequate for the heavy goods vehicles that daily pound along them.
  There have been long-standing plans for such a bypass known as the Thames-side industrial route fourth phase. It is now known apparently, as the south Thames development route fourth phase. It would extend from the Springhead lower roundabout westwards to Dartford. This would be a very good project, with which financial support from the Community would help.
  The second project that I wish to highlight is the north-east Gravesend access road. There is poor, ancient access to the two business areas—the Norfolk road industrial area; and the Old Denton industrial area, which has large companies such as Comma and Southern Water. We need a new road from the Lion roundabout to the Denton industrial estate, over the north Kent line and onwards to Denton wharf.
  This road would bring relief to the residents of Old Denton, an historic and compact area. Heavy goods vehicles are currently rumbling along ancient roads such as Range road, which are lined with very small terrace houses that cannot withstand the vibration those vehicles generate.
  We have heard in the House that paramedics on our ambulances now have the expertise to diagnose emergency patients and therefore take them directly to the most appropriate medical centre. In particular, Ministers have highlighted the fact that paramedics can identify appropriate cases and take them directly to trauma centres
  1298
  —intensive care units. My belief is that if they can diagnose up to specialist cases, surely they can diagnose down.
  Our intensive care unit in Gravesham is at the Joyce Green hospital, Dartford—an excellent unit, but many miles away. The accident and emergency unit to which all ambulance cases are taken is at West Hill hospital in Dartford, which is also excellent but is miles away. If we now have highly specialised paramedics, I do not see why they cannot diagnose down emergency cases that require, for example, stitches or treatment of burns, which could easily go to the casualty unit at Gravesend and North Kent hospital, which is in our town and is far more convenient. I hope that the national health service will consider this proposal for convenience and for cost-saving.
  11.12 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall speak reasonably briefly because time is, alas, too short, which is one of the reasons why I tabled an amendment. On Thursday, 21 subjects were requested for debate. The proposal that we should abandon Parliament from 17 December to 11 January seems wrong. The notion that we should occupy only three hours of a Friday when five hours are available for debate is entirely wrong. There are enough Members here well to fill the three hours available and I have no doubt that other hon. Members, had they been presented with the opportunity of a five-hour debate, would have been here to debate issues.
  Mr. John Marshall: Where are they?
  Mr. Cryer: It is inept of the Government to allow a three-hour debate when five hours are possible.
  If the Parliamentary Private Secretary, behind his master, keeps making little jokes, I shall have to analyse in great detail all his silly comments. The Conservative Members behind him, who wish to take part in the debate, will be very reluctant for him to continue his silly antics.
  May I continue last night's Adjournment debate on the Child Support Agency? I was here for part of the debate, which was instituted by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), and was particularly interested and concerned by the Minister's reply, because, like many hon. Members, I have been presented with cases that are disturbing and distressing for the people involved and for hon. Members.
  The Minister's response to my hon. Friend's valid points was simply lacklustre and inadequate. There is a head of steam to get the Child Support Agency legislation changed; the Government should take note of it, because people from all walks of life are adversely affected.
  It is worth remembering that the Child Support Act 1991 was presented to the House as legislation to ensure that irresponsible fathers who were not paying maintenance would be traced and would make a contribution to their children. Everybody regarded that as a perfectly just and proper aim, but the aim of the agency is now to tackle the easy money—that of fathers who are paying, who are known, but who are being subjected to an entirely restrictive and unfair formula.
  Hon. Members who write to Ministers who piloted the Act through Parliament are shrugged off with an inadequate response, and told that the chief executive will reply. When a reply is received, it is simply a straightforward computer printout that tells Members, for

  1299
  example, that courts previously made decisions about this matter—something, apparently, that the agency believes only people on Mars knew.
  Of course we know that information, and that cases varied from court to court. Sometimes that was a strength, because courts took into account differing circumstances. The letter goes on in a pedestrian way, saying that the person can ask for a review, and if they are dissatisfied with it they can appeal. In the meantime, they have to pay for the assessment and collection, which is rubbing salt into deep wounds.
  Last night, as the Leader of the House will confirm, the Minister admitted that, in 616,000 cases, the agency has traced only 9,000 absent fathers. I believe that Government policy is to use the Child Support Agency not as a child support agency but as a Treasury support agency. It has been given the task of raising money from people who already accept their responsibility and pay maintenance.
  I have a typical constituent's letter. I shall not give his name, because these circumstances are always private and distressing to the people involved. He writes:
  "I am an 'absent Father' who firmly believes in the paying of maintenance for my 3½ year old daughter. I made a voluntary arrangement with the DSS … to pay £28·00 a week. I have never missed this payment ever since it was agreed by all parties concerned, approximately 18 months ago. I am currently making arrangements through my solicitor to transfer my equal share of the matrimonial home and its contents into my ex-wife's name.
  I parted from the marriage with my car (value £1,800·00). The house has equity of approximately £12,00000 plus contents.
  I am now in a relationship with a Divorcee who has two children from her previous marriage. She receives £5·00 per week for child maintenance on an irregular basis.
  I have recently had a form from the CSA and find that they do not take into account the fact that I am now in a new relationship with my new partner and that I also provide for two children aged 9 and 4 years. The CSA say they are not my responsibility. I am their Daddy as far as they and everyone else is concerned. They together with myself are going to suffer badly, to a point where we may have to sell our home, if the CSA is allowed to continue.
  I ask you to look at the CSA formula and tell me if you agree with it.
  For the sake of my family, myself and thousands of other absent parents who willingly pay maintenance, I implore you to do something".
  That is not uncharacteristic for a person who is acting fairly and handing over equity in the home.
  The Minister's response is that it is simply nothing to do with the formula that the Government have laid down. That is grossly unfair. If the Tories claim that they are the party of the family, the Child Support Agency is bringing pressure to bear on families which will lead to further break-ups. If they are trying to save taxpayers' money, if there are further break-ups, that will mean further claims on the welfare system. I strongly urge the Leader of the House to pass the information to the Minister who replied so inadequately last night. Things must be changed.
  I shall conclude my remarks about the Child Support Agency by mentioning a female constituent who has written to me. She has received six maintenance payments in three years and has complained about the lack of maintenance. She is the sort of person whom, we were told, the Child Support Agency was designed to support.
  The Child Support agency took several weeks to write a letter. It then got the address wrong, although it had been given the correct address, and then said that it wanted information about the income of the former partner within two weeks. The former partner refused to give that information, so the agency allowed another two weeks. The woman wrote to me within the past few days to say
  1300
  that the information was still not available. On that example, even when the Child Support Agency is doing the work, it is not effective, and the figures given by the Minister bear that out.
  Another young women wrote me an appealing letter. She had a baby and does not seek maintenance. She did not say so in her letter, but she said that she wanted the name of the father on the birth certificate. She does not have much money, but she would like the DNA test to be taken by the man, who disputes the claim. She is having great difficulty.
  I referred her to the Child Support Agency, which told her that it would be three years before it could tackle her case. She is an ideal young woman for the agency to help, because she is a single parent and simply wants the name of the father on the birth certificate so that the child is not fatherless. That is not an unreasonable aspiration.
  Another example is that of a man in a high-earning category—he earned as much as a Member of Parliament. He fathered a child and accepted his responsibility. His marriage has recovered from the sense of betrayal that had been incurred, and he and his wife were settling back. He has two teenage children to look after, and they are ready to go to university.
  Through the door came a letter from the Child Support Agency. There was nothing private or confidential about it. His wife opened the letter—they were exchanging correspondence—and all the old wounds reopened. That day, when he returned from his well-paid, responsible position—a pillar of society, if one likes—his wife had packed her suitcase ready to go. He told me that it had been a difficult week, but it looked as though the marriage could be saved.
  That is the effect in thousands of houses up and down the country. Yet the bland, ineffective reply of the Minister yesterday made it sound as though it was all some sort of administrative procedure. We are talking about an area of great sensitivities and difficulties. Relationships are being trampled on with hobnailed boots. I hope that the Minister will take the message. It is fair to say that the message is not simply coming from Labour Members. Some Tory Members have criticised the agency—there are anxious mothers and fathers battering at their doors as well.
  Another subject that I shall mention is one that I have raised in the House previously—wheel clamping. I am raising the subject again because it has been raised again in Bradford—wheel clampers have been about again. In this case, they clamped the car of an articulate young women who, I am happy to say, will sue them. They held on to her and kept her by her car for two hours while she organised the recovery of the imposition of £75. I have had an Adjournment debate on this subject, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar).
  Wheel clamping is taking place in Bradford, and women are being placed in jeopardy. They are often clamped late at night, at 11 or 11.30 pm. We are not talking about people parking cars in other people's back or front gardens—we are talking about what appears to all intents and purposes to be wasteland. People come out of the Alhambra theatre in Bradford to find that their cars have been clamped and they must find £75. A few months ago, the fine was increased from £50—an arbitrary imposition.
  Many people are angry, because they are placed in danger by these cowboys. Indeed, in one case—it is not West Yorkshire Outdoor Securities Ltd., although that is the most prominent cowboy organisation in Bradford—

  1301
  one clamping company was clamping cars without the permission of the owners of the land. It was simply putting on a clamp and extorting money from innocent car owners.
  A consultative document was issued by the Home Office, and responses to it had to be in by the end of May. However, there is still no sign of any activity by the Home Office. It should produce some proposals as soon as possible. The matter is causing concern.
  I must tell the Minister about a woman who came to Bradford—she is not one of my constituents. She came 10 miles with a companion to go to the Alhambra theatre. Her car was clamped. The last bus and the last train had gone, and she had no other means of getting home. Fortunately, her companion had £50, which was handed over, and she was able to get her car. She went to the police. The police sat on their elbows and said that it was nothing to do with them—it was not a breach of the peace.
  I shall tell the House what I say to people who are clamped and do not have the support of the police. I tell them to say that they will picket on behalf of the National Union of Mineworkers, and see what the police will do then. During the miners' strike, the police discovered all sorts of laws that could be utilised. However, in the case of men and women whose cars are clamped late at night, they cannot do a single thing.
  The law needs clarifying along the lines of the Scottish court decision that clamping on private land in this way is extortion and theft. Since that court decision, there have been no traffic jams in Scotland, following the removal of those cowboy crooks.
  My final point relates to a matter raised yesterday—the "Dispatches" programme about Aims of Industry and British United Industrialists, which have been raising money for the Conservative party. In response, the Leader of the House said that there were all sorts of conspiracies, and that it was not worth troubling his mind about them.
  The Conservative party is a continuing conspiracy. On the programme broadcast on 1 December, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), a former Prime Minister, made the clear statement that, if people were asking others for money for political parties, it was a political donation. A Scottish Minister said exactly the same thing about British United Industrialists. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made the point generally, but specifically referred to Aims of Industry.
  It appears that not only Labour Members are concerned about this—distinguished former Tory Prime Ministers are saying that such donations are for political purposes and therefore should be recorded as political donations. If that is the case, firms such as Lucas, which was named on the programme, are in breach of the law in not declaring such donations as political donations.
  It was made clear that Aims of Industry and British United Industrialists know what they are doing. They are raising money which they have repeatedly said is to help the Conservative party at general elections. That should be sorted out and, if the 1985 legislation has been breached, the Government should call on the relevant Departments to institute prosecutions.
  It was made clear by a member of the Wallasey Conservative party that Aims of Industry had campaigned
  1302
  on behalf of the then Lynda Chalker in Wallasey. If that happened—the programme has strong evidence that it did—the election laws of 1983 must also have been breached.
  The Leader of the House is cautious and believes that the Conservative party is the party of law and order. Here is a test: if it is the party of law and order, he should pass on the message to the Home Office to institute prosecutions against Lucas and other companies that have made illegal donations without admitting them, and certainly to ensure that Aims of Industry is prosecuted over its activities in Wallasey.
  Everybody knows that public buildings and taxpayers' money are being used to subsidise dinners at No. 10. Many of us believe that those who turn up for such dinners include representatives of tobacco companies, which is why there is no ban on advertising cigarettes. The industry influences the Government through the money that it donates to the Conservative party. I believe that the beer barons are also making massive contributions to the Conservative party, which is why they did so well in the Budget.
  If I am wrong, I expect that the Conservative party will want to raise its head over the sleaze surrounding it and start the prosecution process, so that it can refute, clearly and firmly, any accusations by people like me on the basis of evidence provided by television.
  11.31 am
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I wish to discuss the subject of credit card fraud, which is particularly important at Christmas because we are expected to spend some £15 billion in the shops this month, much of which will be transacted on plastic. Unfortunately, fraud using credit cards has doubled in the past five years.
  People in this country have far more credit cards than our European neighbours. The French have 20 million cards and the Italians have only 5 million, yet we have 83 million credit, cheque guarantee or retailer cards.
  Banks and retailers that issue cards are losing more than £400 million a year, or £761 every minute of the day, at the hands of fraudsters. Last year, more than 2 million cards were reported stolen. Of those, 150,000 were taken as a result of muggings and 300,000 during burglaries.
  Black market prices in London suggest that, once stolen, credit cards can be sold to a middleman for between £50 and £150. The platinum cards—whatever they look like—can be sold for some £300. Once a middleman has bought a card, he passes it on to an encasher who uses a team of petty criminals to buy as much as they can using the cards. Those goods are then sold at knockdown prices from the back of a lorry, at car boot sales or elsewhere. By the time the process is completed, the average loss on a stolen card is £600.
  Another problem is counterfeit cards from the far east. The police estimate that between 25 and 50 per cent. of gold card fraud is committed on counterfeit cards. So what measures can be taken to cut that fraud? Credit cards can be passed through an on-line system, which detects whether a card has been stolen. However, that system is expensive and not all retailers are linked up to it. Another system is to check the signature on the back of the card. Hon. Members will have noticed how many times their credit cards are returned to them without the signature being checked. Unfortunately, that is happening too often.

  1303
  Moreover, how many times do signatures differ during the day? Mine certainly differs from time to time, so even that checking procedure is made more difficult.
  The result of the over-reliance on signatures and the reluctance to use on-line system means that 60 per cent. of all card fraud is committed after a card has been reported stolen. Barclays bank has its own system for Visa and Barclaycard. It looks at the purchase pattern of the person using the card and, if it is irregular, staff check up on it. However, the scheme to which I am most attracted uses photo identification and laser-etched signatures on the back of credit cards. It is being used by the Royal Bank of Scotland, the National and Provincial building society and the Trustee Savings bank. The Royal Bank of Scotland launched its pilot scheme in October 1991, when 30,000 customers at 39 selected branches in Edinburgh, London, Glasgow and Manchester were invited to apply for the new-style cards. They are "highline" cards with a photograph on the back and an etched signature.
  The results achieved during the trial period were remarkable. Of the 360 cards lost or stolen, only three were used fraudulently, with a total loss to the bank of £494, as opposed to the £45,000 that it would normally have expected. Following that success, the card is being tested further in Lancashire and is now available to all Royal Bank of Scotland customers.
  The National and Provincial building society has experienced similar success with its photo credit card, which differs from the Switch and hole-in-the-wall card of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Just five months after it was made available to the society's 300,000 Visa card holders, more than a third of the customers have taken up the offer to have their photograph put on the back of the card. It is an encouraging take-up rate and 1,000 customers a day are now applying for those new credit cards. Staff at those branches have Polaroid cameras with which they can take photographs of the customers. They charge £2 for a photograph, which is what customers would expect to pay commercially. Remarkably, no fee is charged for the cards. Too often, customers are asked to pay £12, £20 or even more for credit cards, even without photographs and laser-etched signatures.
  The beauty of having a signature etched on to a card is that a third of cards used fraudulently are intercepted between the time a company sends out the cards and the time the recipients receive them. If a signature is already etched on a card, it is much more difficult for a fraudster to put his signature on it, thus helping to crack down on such fraud.
  The public seem to like the new system. All the polls show that people using the cards back the use of photographs and laser-etched signatures. Retailers also like it and it has been endorsed by the British Retail Consortium because it helps it to crack down on crime. Scotland Yard has also welcomed the scheme. It pointed out that, even if a fraudster could remove the picture of the owner and replace it with his own, he would be reluctant to do so because, where suspicion occurs, the card is retained by a member of staff and the police then have a good idea of what the fraudster looks like. So thieves and fraudsters hate such schemes.
  I am not enamoured of the idea of making such a scheme compulsory, but the evidence shows that companies issuing cards should embrace such new technology. It is a wonderful addition as a form of identity in general. I favour the idea of identity cards. A cheque
  1304
  guarantee or credit card with a photo on the back is an absolute boon. The cost of a card without a photograph is about 25p and with a photograph it is £1·20, but the massive savings that can be achieved will more than pay for the extra price.
  Banks should not drag their feet over implementing new technology to reduce credit card fraud. It wastes police time, when such fraud could be stamped out. Given the fantastic reduction in fraud through using that technology, why should police time be wasted by not using it? Consumers who do not use that technology pay for the fraud every month through credit card protection schemes, inflated borrowing rates and card charges. It is up to us as elected Members to call on the banks to make every effort to tackle this problem. Our constituents have the right to be protected against credit card fraud and no stone should be left unturned in pursuit of that aim.
  11.40 am
  Mr. John Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for his kind comments. I had better not go further because if I did the political editor of New Statesman and Society will see yet another conspiracy. The Leader of the House will be pleased to know that I will not go into the subject of the Child Support Agency which I spoke about yesterday in the Adjournment debate. As I said then, many of the problems being experienced with that agency were raised when the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State for Social Security, introduced the measure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South spoke about wheel clamping. I shall give a brief history of how that matter has been pursued in the House by a number of Members, including myself. In the summer, I secured an Adjournment debate on the subject and had some meetings with Ministers and civil servants. Unfortunately, that did not bring any results, so I introduced a ten-minute Bill, and a consultation document was published. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South said, responses to that were due by the end of May, which was a fairly short response time. Since then, there has been nothing from the Home Department. I have tabled questions and had correspondence with the relevant Minister, but there is still delay in taking a decision.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South said, for well over a year private wheel clamping has been banned in Scotland and there have been no horrific consequences or enormous traffic problems. Such wheel clamping still takes place in other parts of Britain, although there has been a bit of a lull recently. I was interested to hear that there are still problems in Bradford. During the Christmas period, people drive into areas with which they are not familiar to do Christmas shopping or to go to pantomimes. From previous years, we know that that is the peak time for clamping. There will be an upsurge in cases and more unfortunate people will be subjected not only to considerable indignity and inconvenience, but to occasional danger and certainly considerable cost. Given the increased charges in Bradford, it is obvious that the clampers there do not think that inflation is only 1 per cent., as the Chancellor said in his Budget speech.
  The construction industry is facing a bleak Christmas and is experiencing its longest recession for years. As we know, many famous companies, household names, have gone out of business, and the industry believes that at least

  1305
  one other major contractor is likely to go under. The problem affects not just the big names but it is widespread in the industry. Subcontractors are being squeezed at all levels. More than half of the brickwork contractors who were in business a couple of years ago have disappeared. They are experiencing dramatic reductions in orders and a considerable squeeze on their cash flow.
  There has been comment about the time that it takes to get money from main contractors and clients, and I am pleased to see that such matters are being addressed. A former Member of Parliament, Sir Michael Latham, is looking at the issue of contracts in the construction industry, and the industry is looking forward to a report from a man who is knowledgeable in this area.
  I was pleased to hear the Chancellor acknowledge some of the difficulties that are being experienced not just in the construction industry, although that is the industry in which difficulties have been exacerbated, but by small companies who experience delays in the payment of their bills. The Chancellor is looking at some remedial measures including, I am pleased to hear, the German system of compulsory interest after a specific delay. That will help companies to stay in business.
  Such difficulties are also experienced by the work force, the operatives in the industry. There have been major reductions in the number of people working in construction. One of the industry's worries is that many people with valuable skills who have been made redundant two or three times during the prolonged recession will have left the industry never to return. The industry wonders what skills shortages it will face when there is an upturn in building.
  Those who are still lucky enough to be in work face considerable problems over pay reductions and the worsening of conditions. Wages for skilled craftsmen in London have reduced by about a third over the past two or three years. Many of them have been forced into casual employment and, effectively, companies are nodding and winking at such people who also claim benefit. Many companies would not be able to price jobs at current levels and people would not be able to work for current wages if they were not illicitly claiming benefit with the collaboration of companies. If the Chancellor is looking for cuts, I suggest the return of some degree of regulation and proper contractual employment in the building industry.
  Quite apart from what will happen on deregulation, companies face pressure on health and safety standards. Underlying all the problems is the fact that the industry is experiencing its worst slump since the war. A couple of weeks ago an east midlands builder told me that that week he had advertised for bricklayers and for the next three days he was inundated with calls. Many of those who called had been laid off in the previous few weeks because house building companies had constructed to the first level and were leaving the sites vacant over the winter while they waited to see what would happen in the housing market. Far from being static, the situation is declining further.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment should give some encouragement to the building industry about future prospects. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could have done that. Although there was a welcome announcement about the Jubilee line, the commercial property sector is quite flat and house building is still just staggering along
  1306
  and is the only area in which there is likely to be any development. It is worrying that public sector housing is not receiving the necessary support through the Government allowing councils to use capital receipts or encouraging housing associations. Such moves would give a much needed boost to house building.
  Government Departments have not been helpful to the industry, as we have seen with the celebrated Bristol case. The curtain walling contract for the Ministry of Defence procurement office in Bristol will be awarded to a foreign company because only overseas companies were allowed to tender for the project. That was based on an out-of-date, 18-month-old report from the Bath technical institute. That situation has now passed, and British companies would have been able to complete the project.
  The House does not have to take the word of the institute. I have talked to major developers who have been involved in similar projects who say that they have had satisfactory work within an adequate price from British companies. Unfortunately, the attitude of many Departments is to encourage overseas competition in a futile attempt to cut prices. That is done in a way which is inconceivable to any of our foreign competitors. It is unlikely that the French army would allow a British contractor to tender for a curtain walling contract or that the European Parliament in Brussels would invite any non-Belgian company to tender for its roofing work.
  It is also as unlikely as the Bundeswehr inviting a number of overseas companies to tender for its ammunition contracts, as occurred in the infamous bribery case involving a Ministry of Defence official. The core problem is that the Government are encouraging overseas competition to the detriment of British companies. That occurs in a number of areas, but particularly in the Ministry of Defence.
  Finally, I think that the House should review the period of the recess. Prolonged breaks are damaging to our standing with the public. It is not bad for hon. Members, who are thick-skinned about the matter, but it is bad for democracy when the parliamentary representatives are constantly attacked in the press. Hon. Members may safely rebut criticism from highly paid journalists who write about our pay, because they always seem to be reluctant to put their wages and conditions alongside ours. That is a challenge that they seem reluctant to take up.
  We make ourselves targets by having prolonged breaks. There are so many issues which the public are crying out for us to debate and scrutinise. We should hot adjourn until those issues have been fully discussed.
  11.52 pm
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: In the Christmas spirit which should characterise the debate, I should like to begin by asking my right hon. Friend—
  Mr. Dicks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) has not been here for a great deal of the morning. Some hon. Members have been here from 9.30 am waiting to speak.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is entirely for the Chair to choose who is required to speak. To my knowledge, the hon. Member for Eastleigh was here before the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Milligan: I am grateful for your ruling on that issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will try to keep my remarks brief, so that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) will have a chance to make points for his constituents.
  In the Christmas spirit, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to pass on the thanks of my constituents to three of his ministerial colleagues for actions they have taken to help my constituency during the Session.
  First, will my right hon. Friend thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport for receiving a delegation from Eastleigh to consider the future of the British Rail Maintenance Ltd. works? There has been considerable concern about how the jobs there will be affected by rail privatisation. My right hon. Friend received the delegation in a sympathetic way and suggested the setting up of a railway liaison group, which is meeting later today to consider ways in which those jobs can be saved, and my right hon. Friend has promised to attend meetings of the group regularly. In view of his busy schedule, we are extremely grateful for the interest which he has shown.
  Secondly, will my right hon. Friend thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for his sympathetic view of the future of Hampshire in the context of the local government review? There is a strong feeling in Hampshire that it would be wrong to move towards unitary government. Hampshire county council is older than this Parliament, and it is an effective county council which is widely respected. Hampshire brought in the lowest shire council tax in the country last year, and I believe that it would be wrong to abolish the council. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for saying that Hampshire might be an exception which would be allowed to retain a two-tier system.
  Thirdly, I am particularly grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. Only 10 days ago in the House, I made a speech about unemployment and suggested two measures which I though would be of concern, particularly in my constituency, but also across the country. I thought also that those measures would help to reduce unemployment.
  The first measure was more help to small business and, in particular, action to penalise companies that did not pay their debts on time. The second was more help to provide training. I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend adjusted his Budget at the last moment to take account of those two concerns and that he made recommendations in those directions.
  I should like to address my main remarks not to either Front Bench but to the Press Gallery, which is characteristically packed for today's debate. I spent 20 years as a journalist and I have great sympathy for those who ply the trade. I think that journalists come in for a lot of unfair criticism. People do not realise how speedily journalists must produce their articles. One need only look at the coverage this week of the Budget. It was remarkable that most newspapers were able to produce such detailed and extensive coverage within a few hours of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor sitting down.
  I believe that most journalists do a remarkable job. This country is blessed with a press which is much more entertaining than most papers abroad. When the British press is compared with Die Welt, Le Monde or the New York Times, one sees that it is a pretty good read. It is also diversified. We have the highest newspaper readership of
  1308
  any country in Europe. We must admire the quality of the press, which maintains a high standard of language, unlike some of our television companies. One reads much less bad language in the press than one hears on BBC 1 or ITV of a Sunday evening now that swearing and bad language have become commonplace on television.
  Two issues concerning the press have been raised. 'The first is the question of privacy, which has been extensively discussed and which I do not wish to discuss further this morning. The second—which I believe most people would regard as more important—is the accuracy of the press. I was interested to note that the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission said that 70 per cent. of the complaints that the commission receives deal not with privacy but with accuracy.
  As I said, producing accurate articles soon after an event is difficult. Inevitably, mistakes are made. We all make mistakes. Only this week, we have seen typing mistakes in the transcript of the messages between the Government and the IRA. The information was produced quickly and mistakes were made, and that happens in journalism, too. I once made a terrible mistake when I was working for the BBC. The former leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) was standing in the European elections in Italy. We followed him around for a day and watched him eat spaghetti and talk to the Italians, then rushed to the studio to record a piece for the six o'clock news. The opening line in my commentary was, "Sir David Steel is the first Englishman to stand for election in Italy." Within a few minutes, the BBC switchboard was jammed with hundreds of thousands of calls from people complaining that I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman came from Scotland.
  It is easy to make mistakes, but sometimes there is too much of a rush to produce an article without properly investigating the circumstances. Only last week, I was rung up at 11 o'clock at night and asked about a report that money was being filched from the railway pension fund to pay for the royal train. Late that night, I contacted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who made it clear that there was no truth whatever in the report. I pointed that out to the BBC "Breakfast Time" programme, but those concerned were not interested in whether it was true—it was too good a story, so they ran it, with comments from Opposition Members.
  I regret to say that two newspapers did the same, not just reporting the untrue allegations but suggesting that they were true. The Guardian said:
  "The Government has taken £730,000 from the British Rail pension fund and transferred it to the royal train's budget to make the train more attractive for private investors to take over."
  We do not look for favours from the Daily Mirror, but we do expect normal standards of journalism to apply sometimes. That newspaper ran the headline:
  "BR regrets that £730,000 has been diverted to Royal Train".
  The story reads:
  "Transport Secretary John MacGregor has shunted hundreds of thousands of pounds away from British Rail pensioners to keep the Royal Train running."
  The Guardian at least had the grace to publish a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport two days later pointing out how untrue the story was—although, interestingly, right at the bottom of its correspondence column. To my knowledge, the Daily Mirror has made no such apology.

  1309
  Newspapers have a duty to try to check the accuracy of stories before they print them, and when they get them wrong, as inevitably they will, to print proper corrections. Some newspapers have now introduced local ombudsmen who look into complaints and that is a significant improvement. I should like to suggest another simple change. Most newspaper editors could adopt the practice of American newspapers such as the New York Times and print a regular corrections column—not dictated by politicians but in the interests of their readers, and put things right where mistakes have been made. That would be good for the readers and for the reputation of newspapers. The Times, when it was the top people's newspaper, made a regular habit of printing corrections. Alas, that happens no longer. If local and national newspapers introduced a regular corrections column, they would be doing their readers a great service. In the Christmas spirit, I offer that suggestion, and I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend's comments.
  11.59 am
  Mr. Terry Dicks: I was in the Chamber for the start of business and, except when I went to the toilet on one occasion, I have been here ever since.
  I should like an answer before the Christmas recess to the issue that I am about to raise. It is almost a business question and, as the Leader of the House is here, perhaps he will agree to a debate on airport capacity, particularly as it affects Heathrow airport in my constituency.
  Everyone knows that Heathrow airport is the busiest international airport in the world and that there is a great deal of pressure on it to expand. A planning application for terminal 5 is currently with the Secretary of State for the Environment, and we are expecting the pre-consultation approach at the beginning of next year.
  Linked to that, the British Airports Authority has asked the Department of Transport for permission to contribute towards the widening of the M4 in my constituency. It is amazing that the Department of Transport can have consultations about the widening of the M4, as it relates to terminal 5, before there has been a planning inquiry and an acceptance of the need for terminal 5 and the proposal to build it.
  A working party looked at runway capacity requirement for the south-east into the next century. The working party sat for many months and came up with the wonderful recommendation that it would keep all the options open and make no recommendations. I do not know what it cost the public purse, but it was a joke.
  The Department of Transport has said that it will require from August of this year until May of next year to consult on all the options, about which the working party could not come to a conclusion.
  One of the options is a third runway at Heathrow. That is one of the most nonsensical ideas that I have ever come across, since I have been a Member of Parliament or before. Even the air traffic control people have said that if there were a third runway at Heathrow it would never be more than 30 per cent. utilised because the congestion is not on the ground but in the sky.
  I do not know why that was an option, especially as Stansted has capacity for approximately 8 million
  1310
  passengers, and only approximately 2 million use it. If ever there was a case for Stansted to use its vacant runway and terminal capacities, it is this.
  The Secretary of State for Transport has said that he must keep the consultations open. He said, "Unofficially, Terry, I can tell you that in my view there will be no third runway at Heathrow." His spokesman for aviation has said much the same. The Department of the Environment has said that it would never agree to pulling down thousands of homes in three villages in my constituency in order to put a third runway at Heathrow.
  While all this behind the back, nudge nudge, wink wink attitude is taken, the issue is driving people crazy. My constituents want a definite assurance that there will be no third runway at Heathrow. People are concerned that their homes are blighted, that, having lived there for many years, they will have to move away. They are concerned that they will not get the right compensation if they have to move, which they do not want to do. I cannot understand why this situation should be allowed to go on.
  The Labour party has earned no great credit in this matter. Its candidate at the last election has been winding up people there. Old people have been worried sick because he told them, prior to the 1992 election, that within six weeks of the Tories getting back into power there would be a Cabinet announcement that a third runway would be built at Heathrow. All this time later, there has still not been such an announcement. There will not be such an announcement, but he is trying to get people in my constituency worked up. He has linked the opposition to the runway with the opposition to the fifth terminal, and he has united people in the battle.
  Another issue is that we still have night flights. Anybody who was in London overnight will know that the first flight coming in from east to west, across central London and above the M4, was at 5.25 am. I am told, "Don't worry, Mr. MP, people do not usually stay awake after they have been woken up by an aeroplane; they go back to sleep." That is another nonsensical report that has been produced by idiots who have nothing better to do with their time.
  There should be a move towards the complete abolition of night flights. We should say to the aviation industry—to the airlines and the British Airports Authority in particular—that Heathrow is situated within a community and that that community should not be manipulated for the benefit of airline passengers, airlines and airport owners. They should adjust to the needs of the community.
  Many of those people were there long before the airport. Others came later, and obtain good-value properties under the flight path. However, the airlines tend to believe that because the economic benefits come from Heathrow, that is the overriding factor and nothing else should be considered.
  I have a simple answer to solve much of the problem. There are 77,000 domestic flights a year in and out of the world's busiest international airport. There is no reason not to halve that number by telling people flying from airports such as Manchester, Liverpool and Plymouth that they cannnot come to the world's busiest airport, but must go to other airports such as London City, Luton or Stansted. We cannot continue to have 77,000 movements a year, plus general aviation movements at Heathrow, when there is a demand for international airlines to use it. If we halved the

  1311
  number of domestic flights to Heathrow, we could use some of the space created for international flight use. We could also cap the level of movements.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House must tell his colleague, the Secretary of State for Transport, that I want an answer to the problem before Christmas. I want an announcement before Christmas that there will be no third runway at Heathrow—it is unnecessary and impractical. I want the fears of my constituents, especially old age pensioners, who do not understand what is going on, allayed immediately. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, does not allay their fears, he will face the biggest row and fight that he has ever experienced over transport.
  12.6 pm
  Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to raise three issues. They do not, on this occasion, include Pitsea post office, as I am prepared to let the guilty parties, the post office and Tesco superstore, wrestle with their consciences.
  I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for his magnificent effort in yesterday securing more than £300,000 in Konver from the European Community. I also pay tribute to the excellent European Member of Parliament, Miss Patricia Rawlings, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. My constituents and the rest of Essex will benefit greatly from that extra money.
  First, I have been the unpaid spokesman for hospital radio broadcasting for as long as I have been a Member of Parliament. I am beginning to think that I have not done a fat lot of good, as, each year, I have made the same speech, but have been unable to deliver the goods to interest the House in that important issue.
  All Members of Parliament receive letters from constituents about hospital radio broadcasting. They make the right noises, but there has not been the will in the House to deliver to hospital radio broadcasting what it wants. At first, we tried to obtain zero-rated VAT for hospital radio broadcasting. We then tried to get hospital radio broadcasting its own frequency. We have now reduced our expectations and merely want to replace the present induction loop system with a generalised frequency.
  There are 640 hospitals with more than 260,000 beds. The organisation employs more than 12,000 volunteers, and is the largest voluntary organisation in the country. It broadcasts more than 10,000 hours of programmes every week to 8.2 million people. I hope to goodness that the House will take the subject seriously. We all have constituents who work as volunteers in hospital broadcasting. Let us give them what they want—the Christmas present of their own frequency.
  My second topic for discussion is China. I was appalled that, by just one vote, Beijing failed to win the Olympic games. What is the world thinking of? Have we forgotten Tiananmen square and the disgraceful events that took place there? It is outrageous that we seem to have forgotten the atrocities that took place in China a short time ago.
  Basildon constituents are interested in matters in China. I wish to bring to the attention of the House the position of Bishop Cosmas Shi Enxiang. He is a Catholic bishop who is loyal to the Vatican, which puts him at odds with the Chinese communist authorities that require Catholics to be submitted to the Government-controlled Chinese Catholic
  1312
  Patriotic Association. I suppose that he is in an old folks' home. In reality, he is in detention. I hope that, before Christmas, the Government will do everything they possibly can to secure the release of that bishop.
  Thirdly, in 1991, I introduced a ten-minute Bill to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951. I appeal to the House to explain to our constituents that purchasing pets before Christmas is a serious matter. It is a disgrace that that Act, which is more than 40 years old, enables children under 16 years of age to go to pet shops and purchase kittens, dogs, alligators and other amphibians without proper parental consent and information on how to look after them.
  I hope that the House will have a happy Christmas recess. I hope that the nation will enjoy the Christmas break. From one Essex man to another, I have great expectations of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I hope that he will give a Christmas present to hospital radio broadcasting, to the Chinese bishop and to pets throughout the country.
  12.10 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: It seems like only a few weeks ago that we last held a debate of this kind; indeed, it was only a few weeks ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) was right to draw our attention to the way in which people view what must seem to them—they even seem to me—to be protracted breaks. They are longer than the electorate expect the House to have.
  The Leader of the House seems anxious to pack us off for the Christmas recess as soon as he can, so much so that the debate is held on a Friday, and many of my hon. Friends anticipate the wishes of the Leader of the House on those matters. It is not hard to see why. The debate today has focused on deprivation and hardship. It has been demonstrated from the Conservative Benches that deprivation and hardship can be found in parts of the country where Labour Members, perhaps, do not look for it closely enough.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), who opened the debate, spoke movingly of affordable housing, of the importance of objective 2 status and of economic deprivation. I thought that he might talk about Jarrow, where he used to be a teacher, or Hebburn, where he served on the urban district council, as it then was. I thought that he might talk about Consett, in the north of England, which was his first parliamentary battle.
  But no; instead, he told us of the economic deprivation in his constituency. I thought of Prestbury and Alderly Edge and the communities that seem to be having a rough time. I thought of the industrial decline, to which he referred, since the end of the war—I assume that he meant the Falklands war—his cry that something must be clone and his hope that the Department of Trade and Industry would do something before he went upstairs. I took that to be a reference to the Committee Corridor and the 1922 Committee.
  The theme of deprivation and neglect by Government departments was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who referred to British Coal's responsibility, or its attempt to avoid it, for subsidence and housing damage in the high street and New Station road part of his constituency.
  The theme found an echo on Conservative Benches. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) also spoke

  1313
  about tunnelling undermining property and property values. Although one appeal was directed at the Department of Trade and Industry and British Coal, the other was directed at British Rail.
  The theme, however, is the same. If those great engineering works are to be undertaken, responsibility must be accepted for the homes of those who will be affected by them. The rapid abandonment of Britain's coal mining industry by the Government leaves environmental problems behind. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is quite right to draw the attention of the House to that and to demand an adequate response from the Government.
  The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) spoke of a turning point in the economic fortunes of the nation and drew our attention to crime, divorce, badly behaved children and the undermining of the institution of the family, perhaps pointing to the direction in which he thought that our economic fortunes had turned. I agree with the emphasis that he gave to poor parenting. He chose a French study as evidence, but there is also evidence to be drawn from a study by Professor Colvin, based on samples drawn from Newcastle, which makes much the same point. At the heart of the problems is poor parenting, rather than single parenting, so it is on that that we should concentrate, but the study also drew attention to economic deprivation.
  The hon. Member for Sutton drew attention to the duty of the tax system to underpin the family. I take that to suggest that he will oppose the Chancellor's pinning of the married couple's allowance to the new 15 per cent. rate and that he does not fully support the way in which the Child Support Agency works. That theme was taken up later by others.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) hoped that the Government would reward his constituents for voting Liberal by building them a new bypass, which suggests that he does not quite have the measure of the present Administration.
  The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) gave us a reprise of "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" by telling us that average wages in Hastings were only a third of the national average. Presumably, she will have something to say to her constituents when their disposable income is hit by the 4 per cent. extra tax burden resulting from the Budget, when those in the public sector have to get by with their wages frozen and when the council tax for Hastings and Rye, like that of every other council, goes up well ahead of the rate of inflation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) rightly drew our attention in this pre-Christmas debate to the plight of the disabled and, in particular, to the inflexibility of the regulations governing the orange badge scheme.
  I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Gravesham making common cause with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover about the effects of underground works on property values and the right to a compensation scheme. If he focused his complaints on Kent county council rather than on the Government generally, we can understand the political reasoning behind that. I hope that I do him no harm by identifying him with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. My hon. Friend is as well known in his
  1314
  constituency as the hon. Gentleman is in his. That unique partnership might carry a certain bipartisan value in Kent. I understand that that is the way in which public administration is now conducted in that county.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spoke for both sides of the House when he drew attention again to the shortcomings of the Child Support Agency. Hon. Members are complaining not aboout the principle of the agency but about the way in which it operates in practice. People who made agreements that they thought were lawful and reasonable, and that were accepted by both parties, are being hunted down for more money and those whom we assumed that the legislation and the agency were directed at are getting away with not making payments.
  The sums of money involved can be high, as I know from my constituency case load. In one case, which is not unique, a constituent is having to pay £60 a week from a £200 income. Not only is that a substantial amount of money, but it is not the sort of money that he would be able to pay, or be expected to pay, were the child still within his household.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) spoke with authority about counterfeit credit cards and credit card fraud and rightly drew to the attention of the House the spectacular rise in crime under the present administration. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West drew our attention to another aspect of crime: the way in which the wheel clamping industry is operated by cowboys against the interests of citizens who do not deserve to be punished or penalised in such a vigorous manner.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) drew our attention to unemployment and to what I hope is an unrelated matter, the standards of journalism, and suggested that regular corrections columns should be carried in newspapers. He especially referred to The Guardian. The idea that a newspaper should have a corrections column as a regular feature says something about standards of accuracy that are now expected. It is probably right that there should be some facility for putting right yesterday's errors. Perhaps that suggestion should also be recommended to the Editor of Hansard so that such a facility was available to us as well as to our friends in the press.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Disgraceful—an attack on Hansard.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman shouts disgraceful as if Labour Members would want to make exclusive use of such a facility. Of course not; it would be available to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) spoke of the defence industry in Essex, of the Konver programme and of defence diversification. It is a policy that Conservative Members seem to oppose in general but are happy to have specifically applied to the areas that they represent.
  I should like to comment on the area that I represent, which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale knows well. It is, of course, the area that contains the Swan Hunter yard. It is a yard in receivership, which some six months ago directly employed 3,000 people and now employs fewer than 1,000 people who can expect to lose their jobs if no action is taken in the next six months. I accept
  that there is a case for defence diversification in Essex, but I

  1315
  expect that, if the Government still pretend to represent the whole country, they should accept that areas that once relied on defence industry employment, such as Tyneside, Merseyside and Barrow in Furness, deserve and need assistance, and they need it now. The work force at Swan Hunter have served the country well in peace and war and deserve better from the Government than neglect, the rundown yard, the redundancies and long-term unemployment that will be their fate if something is not done and done shortly.
  12.23 pm
  The Leader of the House (Mr. Tony Newton): I shall mildly correct the wrong impression given by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) in saying that it had only been a few weeks since we debated such a motion. He may have misremembered or misthought that we had such a debate before prorogation. In fact, the previous recess motion debate was some considerable time ago—in July, when large numbers of hon. Members were complaining that it had not come earlier.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I was referring to parliamentary weeks. We were not sitting throughout the summer.
  Mr. Cryer: Very good: what a mistake to make.
  Mr. Newton: I missed that, but I am sure that it was entertaining.
  The other thing that struck me was that nobody referred to the other amendment on the Order Paper or whether it is the official policy of the Opposition not to have a recess. I see from the Order Paper that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) wants the House to sit until 24 December, and among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), assiduous as are all Essex Members of Parliament, wishes the House to resume on Sunday 26 December. [Interruption.] If every motion before the House today were passed, hon. Members from the northern parts of the country would not even get home for Christmas lunch before they would have to turn round and come back.
  I am not sure whether that point applies to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, but I know that it applies to a number of hon. Members. I find some of the complaints a little ironic in view of the constant pressure —not, I accept, from the hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—for me to seek to advance the Jopling report to ease the burden of work in the House so that hon. Members can spend more time on their other work in their constituencies.
  I shall not be able to comment in full on every speech. However, in view of the friendly references to the county to whose representation we both contribute, I shall make some quick reference to what my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) said, not least because he was kind enough to pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who has just appeared in the Chamber, and to myself as the right hon. Member for Braintree. At this moment, we also have here my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). Indeed, we have one third of the parliamentary representation of the county of Essex in the Chamber. No other part of the country can make that claim.
  Mr. Dicks: Only for the past five minutes. It is a plot.
  Mr. Newton: I am prepared to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) publicly that there is no conspiracy in this. I did not know that any of my hon. Friends from the county would be here today. The quality of their representation has been revealed.
  I shall not be able to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon on every point, but I have one important point to put to him. According to press reports in Hong Kong and in the European Catholic press, Bishops Shi Enxiang and Chen Jianzhang—fortunately there is an aid to pronunciation in the notes in front of me—were released on or around 20 November. Both names were on the list of cases of concern prepared by Amnesty International and they have been the subject of western representations. I am not sure whether there has been absolute confirmation of their release, but I know that the reports have appeared. Both my hon. Friend and I will welcome the bishops' release if it proves to be the case.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) made a number of points about housing matters, about the social security system and about the position on objective 2 assisted area status for his constituency. I will, of course, draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I know that my right hon. Friend regretted that it was not possible to propose Altrincham and Sale for objective 2 status. The straightforward reason was that the unemployment rate in the relevant period was well below the national and Community averages.
  I hope that, in considering what he said to us about housing matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale will acknowledge that the Housing Corporation's programme will provide for 53,000 new homes next year, producing a total output of around 173,000 over the three years 1992–93 to 1994–95. That is 20,000 more homes than we promised in 1992. It is important that I should put that point on the record.
  One other contribution to which I especially wish to refer is the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover, because it was different from the contributions that he sometimes makes in proceedings in which I am involved. I much respected the way in which he put the case on behalf of his constituents, who clearly have an extremely difficult problem. I will ensure that his comments this morning are looked at thoroughly by the Ministers concerned. He will know that the Government, with the support of both sides of the House, have approved the subsidence regime under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, which provides extensively for the repair of or compensation for properties damaged by coal mining subsidence.
  I realise that the question whether coal mining has caused the subsidence is one of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. I will ensure that the specific issues raised by him are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. My right hon. Friend will consult local authorities until 10 January on his proposals for the revenue support grant in 1994–95.
  I understand that no approach has been made on the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but my right hon. Friend stands ready to meet any right hon. or hon. Member or authority to discuss proposals during that period. That responds to some of the hon. Gentleman's

  1317
  requests. I cannot promise a successful outcome, but I can guarantee that the hon. Gentleman's representations will be carefully considered.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) made a lengthy and thoughtful contribution to the debate on family matters, which I am sure will be studied by Ministers in the Home Office, Department of Health and Department of Social Security. My hon. Friend will accept that it is not possible for my response to be as wide-ranging as his speech.
  My hon. Friend recognised the importance that people generally attach to the traditional family and that many lone parents are doing a magnificent job in difficult circumstances. I am sure that he much welcomed the proposal in the Budget speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, amplified in a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, to help towards the child care costs of those who seek to maintain or to regain their independence by making use of family credit. They will include many lone parents, but not only them.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) remarked extensively on the importance of road schemes in their localities. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the statutory orders for the scheme with which he is concerned have been made. Construction is not due to commence in the current financial year, but is a priority in the programme, and it is being considered in the review announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in August. At this stage, I cannot pre-empt the results of that review, which are due to be announced early in the new year.
  Progress on a number of schemes in the Hastings area—where there are currently five schemes in the national road programme for improving various stretches of the A21—will greatly depend on the time needed for the statutory procedures. My right hon. Friend recently announced a package of measures to cut the time that it takes to progress new roads, and it is hoped that the A21 and A259 schemes mentioned by my hon. Friend will benefit from those proposals.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) commented on the tightening up of the orange badge scheme, and I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) raised a large number of matters relating to his constituency—in particular, those arising from the channel tunnel rail link, which he also raised in an Adjournment debate a month or so ago. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has promised that the Government will take full account of the comments of my hon. Friend and those of Gravesham council in reaching decisions. I have no doubt that they will carefully consider the points that my hon. Friend made today.
  The Government share his view that it is unacceptable for local authorities to seek to obstruct or to undermine the case for grant-maintained status through the dissemination of inaccurate or partisan information. I urge my hon. Friend to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the information that he revealed today.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I have done so.
  Mr. Newton: I am glad to learn that.
  I am about to run out of time, so I will not add much to the comments of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security in last night's Adjournment debate on the Child Support Agency, when he acknowledged genuine concerns and the need to investigate them, as Ministers are doing—which the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) might have acknowledged.
  I assure all those right hon. and hon. Members to whose speeches I have not been able to respond that their messages will be faithfully transmitted, and I hope that they will receive an appropriate response—
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic Adjournments).
  The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 5.

  Division No. 8]

  [12.34 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Malone, Gerald

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Amess, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Merchant, Piers

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Baldry, Tony

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Booth, Hartley

  Nelson, Anthony

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Bowis, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Norris, Steve

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Ottaway, Richard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Paice, James

  Burns, Simon

  Patnick, Irvine

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Pickles, Eric

  Conway, Derek

  Rendel, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Richards, Rod

  Couchman, James

  Riddick, Graham

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Dicks, Terry

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Dover, Den

  Sackville, Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Evennett, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Sproat, Iain

  French, Douglas

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Steen, Anthony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Stewart, Allan

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Streeter, Gary

  Hague, William

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Thomason, Roy

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

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

  Jack, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Trend, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Waller, Gary

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Wood, Timothy

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Yeo, Tim

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Lightbown, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  MacKay, Andrew

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  1319

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald

  (Swansea E)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Wise, Audrey

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House, at its rising on Friday 17th December, do adjourn until Tuesday 11th January.

  Transport (South-east London)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  12.44 pm
  Mr. David Evennett: Naturally, I am pleased to be able to raise the subject of transport in south-east London this afternoon. It is a matter of great importance for my constituents, and I know from discussions with my colleagues in south-east London and north-west Kent that it is one which features heavily in their constituency correspondence.
  One of the most vocal critics of our poor transport service has been my hon. Friend the Members for Dartford (Mr. Dunn)—my good friend and neighbour. Unfortunately, he is unable to be with us for this debate as he has a long-standing and pressing constituency engagement. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will read the proceedings closely and with great interest. His constituents and mine share many of the same problems. However, I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) in his place—he will participate in the debate as well. Similarly, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) shares the same transport problems as we all do in south-east London.
  I have raised the issue on many occasions in debates, questions and meetings with various Ministers at the Department. But I regret to advise that to date there has been relatively little improvement in transport provision in our area. Today, I do not want merely to highlight the inadequacy of transport in south-east London, nor to speak only on behalf of the hard-pressed local commuters, although I intend to speak on those matters. I want to range widely over both road and rail transport problems in our area. There are major concerns.
  At the outset, I must say that I share the concerns of my constituents and experience the same problems as I journey from my home in Crayford to Westminster either by road or rail. At the start, I shall be positive and thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his recent visit to my constituency to see at first hand both the local problems and the considerable potential in our area. The visit was much appreciated by all involved.
  Regrettably, as we told the Minister during his visit, many people in my area feel that the Government do not have a coherent strategy for transport in south-east London. While applauding in general terms the Government's aims to increase road building and to improve railway services through increased expenditure and a coherent strategy nationally, we feel somewhat neglected in our area. There appears to be no real rail strategy, and no road strategy either.
  I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), who is in his place, in discussions that we had with the Department.
  1320
  When one looks at the increased number of new Networker trains now starting to operate on Network SouthEast in north Kent and south-east London, I am sure that all hon. Members will be encouraged and delighted. However, if one is travelling every day from Crayford station, Erith station, Barnehurst or Bexleyheath, and is subject to delays, cancellations and overcrowding on a regular basis, the individual traveller sees little benefit and questions the strategy of British Rail. Similarly, if one is travelling to London to shop, to a film, to the theatre, travelling to visit friends or relatives, going on holiday or whatever, the service provided on the British Rail lines through my constituency and the borough of Bexley in general is extremely bad.
  My postbag regularly contains horror stories from my constituents about late, poor or non-existent services. To add insult to injury, already hard-pressed travellers and commuters in my constituency face a large increase of 8 per cent. on the cost of their fares from 1 January.
  Commuters from Bexley are justifiably angry at having to pay for an increase far above the inflation rate. They commend the Government on keeping inflation so low but criticise British Rail for putting up fares so much. They are irritated at having to pay so much more for an inadequate and appalling service. People are late for work, appointments and social engagements simply because of British Rail's failure to deliver a first-class service.
  In the mornings I listen to the radio—either Capital FM or my local community station, RTM Radio on 103.8 FM —which regularly lists cancellations on local services. RTM gives an excellent report each morning, highlighting both good and bad news for commuters and travellers. Regrettably, the news is too often bad.
  British Rail may apologise, and sometimes does. Occasionally it even informs the public. But in general its attitude is wrong and it appears unconcerned. New timetables have made the position worse and the decision to close Charing Cross station for rebuilding work for several weeks during the summer angered the travelling public even more and made the service even worse in August.
  I have often raised the issue of British Rail in the House, even in Adjournment debates. I have met British Rail executives and taken up the issue of the poor value for money provided by British Rail with the Government and British Rail. Unfortunately, there has been little improvement. The fact that people travelling on commuter lines from south-east London and north-west Kent are still experiencing one of the worst services in the country is unacceptable. I hope that when British Rail is privatised and lines are franchised, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will look for more effective operators of our local railway service, because improvement is essential. We are putting our trust and hopes for the future in my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State.
  Three railway lines serve my constituency. One runs along the river, through Abbey Wood, Belvedere, Erith and Slade Green en route to Dartford. The second goes through Bexleyheath and Barnehurst, located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath. Those stations are well used by residents in my wards of Bostall and Crayford, and Northumberland Heath, as well as by my hon. Friend's constituents. The third line goes through

  1321
  Sidcup and Bexley and serves Crayford—the town where I have a home. I regularly use Crayford station and know about the problems suffered by Crayford line travellers.
  In theory, one would think that my constituents were well served by such a network of railway lines and collection of stations, yet in practice nothing could be further from the truth. At my regular surgery at Erith town hall on Friday evenings, my constituents tell me of the poor service and my postbag contains even more complaints. The existence of the hardware—trains, stations and tracks —does not make a good service by itself. British Rail should adopt a different approach to its customers. It needs a commitment to service, concern, and value for money for travellers. The citizens charter has had some effect and publicity clearly brings some results. This Adjournment debate has resulted in many groups contacting me and trying to put a gloss on their operations.
  A letter from the divisional director of Nework SouthEast, Mr. Fearn, is indicative of some of the problems that we have been suffering. Mr. Fearn says that British Rail is providing 15 new Networker trains in daily service in our area and that customers have commented favourably on those trains. That is only natural when one compares them with the old cattle trucks that are used for the rest of the time. Anything would be an improvement on those. However, I admit that those trains are super and very good news.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: When they work.
  Mr. Evennett: I endorse the comment by the hon. Member for Greenwich.
  However, in our area we have no competition. Competition, publicity and private enterprise bring choice and better services for consumers.
  Mr. Fearn's letter shows that the passengers charter has highlighted poor results in our area. It says:
  "we fell short of the demanding train service punctuality standard set under the Passenger's Charter on Kent Link for the 12 months to 5 November. This has triggered a 5 per cent. discount payment on renewal of customers' season tickets."
  The fact that BR failed to meet its requirements is well known to my constituents and those of other hon. Members.
  One example of how Network SouthEast does not look after passengers is that it stopped the half-hourly Sunday service and substituted an hourly service on the Bexleyheath line and other lines in my area. Mr. Fearn's letter states:
  "In terms of the timetable, we reinstated the Sunday half-hourly service on the North Kent and Bexleyheath lines to Dartford in October this year."
  Those services should not have been cancelled in the first place. It is fine to say that those of us who campaigned to have the half-hourly service reinstated have had some success, but the half-hourly Sunday service should never have been cancelled. However, we welcome a sinner repenting.
  On the issue of fares, Mr. Fearn's letter states that the number of fraudulent passengers has been reduced to less than 1 per cent. compared with 4 to 5 per cent. in the past. That is also good news. I learned from Mr. Fearn's letter that Erith and Slade Green stations are to receive major facelifts by next spring, subject, of course, to the contract being granted to private contractors. That is good news
  1322
  because Erith station has been in desperate need of restoration and refurbishment for many years, and the platform buildings at Slade Green need refurbishment.
  South-east London suffers from the great disadvantage of the lack of choice. It has no underground network and in that respect it is the most underprivileged part of the metropolis.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My hon. Friend puts his case superbly. Is he aware of the campaign that I and others have been running against the British Rail tactic of having no staff on stations in the evenings? For a public service that is disgraceful and downright dangerous.
  Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend and endorse his comments. I am aware of his campaign and have supported it. He is right to demand a first-class service that passengers must at all times feel safe in using. In the absence of staff, severe problems could arise.
  As I say, we in south-east London do not have an underground network and have to rely exclusively on British Rail. Not for us the choice and competition that exists, for example, in north-east London where there is real choice between various BR lines and a substantial underground network.
  Many people in Erith and Crayford and in neighbouring areas in the south-east of London look with considerable interest to the extension of the Jubilee line to south-east London. The 12-month delay in the go-ahead for this essential addition to our local transport network caused great local disappointment. I have followed the history of the proposal and I understand the difficulties that have been encountered, but, to say the least, the delay has been unfortunate.
  My area needs the Jubilee line extension much more than the crossrail link is needed across northern London. Whatever our political persuasion, we all eagerly look forward to its completion and operation. It is the first step towards giving more choice to south-east London travellers. The Jubilee line extension is welcome and positive news.
  Yesterday, I took part in the debate on the Budget, with which I was delighted. In his Budget speech my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor gave the go-ahead to the extension of the docklands light railway which will go south of the Thames to Lewisham. There is some movement, I am delighted to see, not only on the Jubilee line but with the extension to the docklands railway into south-east London. For that I must congratulate my hon. Friend The Minister for Transport in London and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on the work that they have done in getting the finance and the go-ahead.
  I am always disappointed that some Labour Members do not welcome such developments. They should, because we can always debate station locations or whatever once we have the principle and once the projects are up and running. I think that that is important.
  I am grateful for the money that has been invested in London transport. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury mentioned a figure of £1.75 billion yesterday. That sum includes the cost of work on the Jubilee line and on the docklands extension. That is big money, and we are extremely grateful in south-east London for that development. It is something for which we have worked

  1323
  hard. My hon. Friends the Members for Eltham and for Bexleyheath have campaigned behind the scenes on the issue.
  We want an improved and extended tube network. That is not a subject for debate today, and I will not go into the details of the enlarging of financing for the tube across London. I want to talk about subjects that relate to south-east London and are most important to my constituents.
  I will say, however, that tube financing has again hit the headlines of The Evening Standard in today's lunchtime edition. The paper reports on capital expenditure and whether it should come from private or public funding, or from a mixture of both. I have to say that it is of no concern to my constituents whether the funding or ownership is public or private. They want a first-class service to which they have greater access and on which they can rely. I am disappointed with the headlines in The Evening Standard, because it is a first-class evening newspaper for the whole of London. I was rather disappointed that it should have taken that view. The funding is of no consequence to the travelling public in my constituency who want a first-class service.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is probably fair to The Evening Standard to say that the editorial is rather more thoughtful. We should make the point that journalists respond in the same way as hon. Members. They should be patted on the back, and then one should pass over the headline.
  Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his witty intervention, and I believe that my hon. Friend is a former journalist. I endorse what he said. The paper's editorials are read with great interest by a vast number of my constituents. The editorials are always well thought out, and I enjoy them. The headlines in today's paper are disappointing. I will leave the issue of the tube by saying that we want it in south-east London, we like it, but, at the moment, we ain't got it.
  I wish to speak now about roads, a subject in which my hon. Friend the Minister is even more involved. One desperately needed improvement in our transport network in south-east London which was proposed was the building of the east London river crossing. As my hon. Friend knows following his recent visit, my constituents in Crayford and Erith are suffering the daily nuisance and disturbance of hundreds of heavy goods vehicles using suburban roads and the high streets.
  Those roads are wholly inadequate to deal with the heavy burden of traffic, especially the large lorries which cause delays to traffic trying to negotiate town centres. It has also proved to be dangerous to other road users and to pedestrians. In particular, I am concerned about young children and the elderly who are put at the greatest risk by the juggernauts which go through, for example, the centre of Crayford and try to negotiate the one-way system there.
  The lorries use residential roads to cut through from the industrial estates to make their way to the Dartford tunnel or the Blackwall tunnel. The latter, of course, is not large enough to cope with the volume of traffic that is travelling from south-east London across to east London, to Essex or to the M11 and destinations in East Anglia or the north.
  The Queen Elizabeth bridge has made the traffic flow on the M25 much better. We all welcome that excellent addition to our road network in the area. But using the
  1324
  crossing point at Dartford puts many miles on the clock for those wishing to travel from south-east London up to the M11—and for those who wish to travel to the north circular and north London, who have to travel east before they can go north and west—and takes much longer because the number of such journeys adds to the traffic congestion.
  I warmly welcome the recent statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham to the effect that the approach road to the proposed east London river crossing would not destroy any of Oxleas wood. Many people in my area campaigned vigorously to save that historic woodland. We all share the view that it is important to keep such woodlands and open spaces. It is excellent news that the woods are to be saved from destruction and that the motorway approach will not plough through that attractive area. Yet we in south-east London are left rather in limbo as a result of the decision.
  I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reappraise the situation and examine alternative solutions to the problem. My constituents in Erith and Crayford would welcome an announcement from the Government about what they propose to do to deal with the traffic problems in our area. Is the east London river crossing to proceed, and if so, when? If not, what do the Government propose to do to improve traffic flow and alleviate traffic problems in south-east London?
  Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous traffic pressure on the Blackwall tunnel and the A2, especially during the rush hour? I am sure he is. When the tunnel is closed for repairs or when an accident happens, the snarling up is tremendous. There are too many cars trying to gain access to too few river crossing points in our area. We need answers from my hon. Friend, and I urge him to review the position and perhaps suggest that some of his colleagues and officials in the Department try the commute from Crayford, using the A2 and the Blackwall tunnel, at around 8.15 in the morning, when they will see the snarl-up developing.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will also enlighten me about suggestions that we have read in the paper about the possibility of a new bridge at Blackwall to relieve some of the congestion. The existing tunnels are inadequate for the traffic that they serve. Moreover, they bend, and that slows down the flow of traffic.
  As I said earlier, we were absolutely delighted when my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London visited my constituency and met Bexley council leader, Councillor Len Newton and his officials at the new Erith leisure centre. The centre, provided by the council, is an excellent amenity for the north of the Bexley borough. My hon. Friend came to discuss the problems of traffic and road transport in our locality. Having known him for many years, and being a friend of his, I am particularly grateful for the time and interest that he took, despite the inclement weather. Standing on the waterfront at Erith, my hon. Friend received a frosty welcome—not from the residents or council officials but from the weather. I am glad that he has had the opportunity to see at first hand the problems created by juggernauts using inadequate roads. My hon. Friend is now well briefed on Bexley's proposals and hopes and we await his decisions and actions in that respect.
  Councillor Newton and I emphasised to my hon. Friend the concerns of the councillors and residents of Bexley

  1325
  about the ridiculous suggestion that the east London river crossing should go ahead and be built and that traffic should be allowed to flow along the Thamesmead spine road—the A2016. That would increase local congestion and add to the chaos and anger not only in Erith but in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath. Such a scheme would be a disaster for traffic management in our area. In addition, it would fail the basic test, which is that the east London crossing should be part of a strategic road network for south-east London. The Thamesmead spine road solution would increase problems rather than reducing them and is therefore a non-starter.
  My hon. Friend also saw the problems caused by the traffic flow in Crayford town, and how that historic and residential town is being destroyed by the juggernauts, lorries, vans and cars which constantly thunder through the town centre, causing considerable congestion and potential hazard. When he was standing outside Crayford town hall in the bitterly cold weather, chatting to people at the local bus stop, my hon. Friend received first-hand experience of the problem.
  We in south-east London know that there are great plans for the east Thames corridor. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is keen to develop the potential of the area and we are keen for the corridor to go ahead. We are looking for more investment, factories, homes and jobs, and the regeneration of the riverside. In my constituency, both Thamesmead and Erith are ripe for such development.
  The prospect of the corridor is exciting and challenging and offers much scope and potential. To realise that potential and to encourage industrialists, house builders and new residents to come into the area, we need a better transport network. That transport network must include substantial road and rail improvements, and an improvement in services is essential.
  What is the key question for my hon. Friend the Minister? My constituents are growing impatient and I urge my hon. Friend to take action. All is not gloom and doom, because there have been positive signs on the underground, the docklands light railway, the Jubilee line and even British Rail, as described in the letter from the director that I highlighted earlier.
  Another encouraging sign is that we have seen a considerable rise in bus service in the past few years. The Hoppa bus has been a tremendous success, and I praise the Kentish Bus Company. That company's depot is in my constituency, and I visited it recently. The service to local people has improved beyond belief. There are better buses, a more reliable service, cheerful and polite drivers—which is important for passengers—and better routes have been provided. I congratulate the Kentish Bus Company for the improved service.
  Bus services are far better than they were, and many local people—particularly the elderly—are very grateful for the improved service which, together with their bus passes, is a real lifeline for many pensioners.
  When I was a newly elected to the House 10 years ago, I received many letters from disgruntled passengers, whose buses never turned up or were always delayed and many of the staff were not as polite as they should have been. That has changed dramatically. The use of the Hoppa, which picks up people where they need to be picked up and
  1326
  ensures that they do not have to walk considerable distances to a main road bus stop, has been a great improvement for local residents. We have a large elderly population in Erith and Belvedere that is very grateful for the improved service that enables elderly people to get to the Bexleyheath shopping centre and elsewhere.
  I thank my hon. Friend for the attention that he has given to that part of London. We can be proud to have such an effective Minister to deal with the problems of London, particularly problems of transport. I am sure that my hon. Friend's in-tray is full of suggestions from hon. Members who represent London constituencies and that he knows that there is still much to be done.
  We need to improve the road and rail network across the south-east of London. I know that my hon. Friend understands the frustrations of travellers, the annoyance of local people and the concerns of hon. Members. I urge him to look at the problems of our part of London and to come forward with a strategy and proposals to solve them. I know that he will do it, we believe that he will do it, and I hope that he will do it very soon.
  1.14 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on not only arranging the Adjournment debate but on persuading the business managers to allow it to continue for longer than the usual half-hour. The issue of transport in south-east London deserves a lot of attention in Parliament and action on the ground.
  I want to mention the most visible, frequent and popular form of transport—walking. We must remember that, whatever our interests as rail passengers, most of us get to railway stations on foot. Whatever our interests may be as car drivers or passengers or bus passengers, we normally walk to bus stops and make many journeys by foot. We must think of the journeys made by those who have no choice as they have no car in the garage or street and are forced to be pedestrians.
  There was a remarkably sensible editorial in The Evening Standard. I rang up that newspaper this morning to congratulate it on a good editorial and article featured on Monday—I wrote the feature, but it was improved by another writer. The editorial in today's Evening Standard gets even more clearly to the heart of the issue of London Underground than we have to the issue of British Rail surface lines. If we had sustained capital investment in London Underground, it could run without subsidy after a few years, with the potential of increasing its capacity; the Government are providing help with crossrail, the Jubilee line and docklands light railway extensions.
  As London becomes more prosperous—a world city building on financial expertise, flexibility, the fact that English is a common world language and the fact that it houses many universities—there will be less long-term unemployment, more people sharing in prosperity and more people with a choice in life. The key to achieving that aim is London Underground.
  I wish to mention the centre of London before returning to the subject of south-east London. The most recent large line built in London is the Victoria line, which has been up to capacity between Victoria and Green Park. Most people do not want to change trains at Victoria or Green Park, but want to travel across London. That is where crossrail can help. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) talked of crossings over the Thames.

  1327
  There are fewer rail crossings over the Thames in east London than road crossings, which is why I want to redirect attention towards a proposal from the south-east London branch of Friends of the Earth for a rail tunnel at Woolwich. That tunnel would make it possible for people to make connections to Network SouthEast lines as well as to underground lines—a major improvement.
  It will be interesting to listen to my hon. Friend the Minister's words on progress on the possible east London river crossing bridge and, in addition, to hear whether he will say who will consider the economic prospects, and the social and environmental benefits, of having a rail tunnel under the Thames at Woolwich.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford for his words on Oxleas wood, which is currently not in my constituency. The independent impartial boundary commissioners propose to bring the ward which contains it into Eltham constituency. Shrewsbury ward is currently in the constituency of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), and I do not think that I am being controversial when I say that the greatest fuss is about the impact of the southern approach road. The issue of the bridge has successfully cleared two inquiries, but the proposal to wreck Oxleas wood did not clear either of them.
  Where the route should go is a matter for discussion and debate. If one considers the route south of the M11, across the Thames where the proposed bridge might be, the road as previously proposed would have turned south-west towards Brighton. However, we all know that most traffic is trying to get to the channel ports which are to the south-east. Even if the Thamesmead spine route is not used, we should recognise that the economic reasons for the road going south-east are the same as the environmental ones. Although it will be difficult for Members of Parliament and residents of the Bexley area to accept, the road should go through Bexley rather than Eltham.
  On the subject of pedestrians and buses, I echo what has been said about the flexibility of the development of London bus services, which I welcome. I also welcome the non-appearance of the total deregulation of London's buses, which marks a wise decision. The Select Committee on Transport considered the matter and made suggestions to the House and the Government. We need to make bus services more flexible. London Buses has much to contribute, but I do not believe that it will run many buses directly. It is the advantages of tendering and flexibility that matter.
  I shall now give an illustrative example of local people's interests. In Middle Park avenue, on the Middle Park estate, which is in my constituency, there is what could be described as a rat run. If it is not a rat run, it is a tempting run, through which people drive their vehicles too fast. It is a prime candidate for traffic calming. I am sad that London Buses objects to bringing in some traffic-calming measures on the ground that if they were made, it would not run its buses through the estate. In other parts of England, I have seen bus operators perfectly content to negotiate traffic-calming features of one kind or another. I would ask the people in London Buses, and the emergency services, to stop being so stupid in saying a flat no to suggestions on behalf of local residents. Too many of London's casualties are pedestrians and local people who are hit by vehicles driven by local people and outsiders.
  1328
  Slowing the speed of traffic has contributed to bringing the present total number of road deaths to below half the peak level, even though traffic has increased and will continue to increase. I ask bus operators and the emergency services to do all they can to find a way forward, rather than digging out the historic negative that one cannot do something in a new way, because it has never been done in that way before.
  I echo what has been said about the benefits to London of having my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) as the Minister of Transport in London. It is good to have a Minister for Transport in London, but it is even better that it is my hon. Friend, who has a constituency interest in London and a background in the transport industries.
  One reason why road traffic flows in London is the helpful work of the police. Most of their work is in keeping traffic flowing, but there is a problem and I hope that the Select Committee on Transport will make inquiries, both of the Home Office and of the Department of Transport.
  In general, traffic policy is settled by the Department of Transport. Some of the budgets are held by the Home Office. The police, on their performance indicators, will normally be judged on crime, and traffic will not get much of a look-in. That applies also to capital investment in virtually automatic technology, such as speed cameras and cameras to detect red light jumping, and to a variety of ways in which technology can be of value.
  It is important to try to get rid of the rumour that the people in the traffic branches of the Metropolitan police are called black rats, because they are down a sewer and never seen. They should be out in the open, getting respect for their professional expertise and being honoured for the dangerous work that they do. Stopping vehicles or attending scenes of car crashes on busy roads is a dangerous business; it can be as dangerous as it is on the motorways. I hope that that matter will get attention at New Scotland Yard, the Home Office and the Department of Transport.
  We are in the same situation we were in seven years ago, when I was at the Department of Transport, on the question whether local authorities can be trusted to use new technology, or even old technology, to enforce rules on parking on yellow lines. I am not asking my hon. Friend for a detailed response on that matter, but wish to flag it as a matter of significant concern.
  Rail investment matters both above and below ground, Denis Tunnicliffe at London Underground was very open in praising Ministers before the last election on their commitment to getting a level of investment that would allow a decent, modern metro to be maintained and extended. I am sure that hon. Members will want to recognise the efforts made by Transport Ministers in the collegiate discussions with the Treasury over the budget level in a difficult financial year.
  We are not spending enough. I do not believe that we should draw too many lessons from the Central line power failure, because that was unusual, and the Central line has had £700 million of capital investment in addition, that line does not come into south-east London, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford. If we can get tube links into south-east London, which will require some capital investment, that will be good.
  On the surface, when will aproval be given for the doubling up of the rail tracks at Borough Market junction? Anyone who looks towards Westminster from the 29th

  1329
  floor of Guy's hospital will see the bottleneck that stops Thameslink services going through London Bridge. Four times as many people want the service to go through London Bridge as want it to go through the Elephant and Castle. That is the key to all the Kent line services. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to come up today with a detailed policy statement, but I want him to say to those to whom he talks that there will be constant, persistent, consistent pressure, because that is the key to getting the best value for other investments in the Kent services.
  Let me return to the subject of the rail lines going through the south-east constituencies. The main channels of communication go along the railway line. They unite Greenwich and Woolwich, as I was saying to the Local Government Boundary Commission inquiry in my constituency recently. They unite Kidbrooke and Eltham. No doubt my colleague, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will say something on that subject as well. The roads performs the same function. Watling street, the A2, or the Old Dover road—part of it, by the Royal Standard, is still called the Old Dover road—is a natural way of uniting constituencies, at least in the borough of Greenwich.
  I hope that, when the House considers those proposals, it will look at the transport links and decide that if Shooters hill and Shooters Hill road are used as the division, that will make it possible for hon. Members to represent their constituents' transport interests in the House. I look forward to doing that for some years to come, representing Eltham and making sure that my hon. Friend keeps his ministerial job going well.
  If we get better safety provisions for pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists, some access to allow those using cars to commute to central London—although not too many—and improved rail services and choices, we will be able to make sure that London transport contributes to the quality of life in London rather than detracting from it.
  1.26 pm
  Mr. Bridget Prentice: I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on achieving an Adjournment debate on a subject that must be dear to everyone—not just those who represent south-east London—who has to find his or her way from it by road or rail. We do not yet have the sophistication of the tube line, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) pointed out.
  It is important that we accept the principle of a high-quality public transport system, for two good reasons —one economic and one social. The economic reason is that if we are to get the people of south-east London to the centre of London or elsewhere so that they can participate in the prosperity that we hope that a capital city such as London will achieve, we need a good transport network. If we want the tourism of a capital city such as London to develop and enhance the city, we need excellent transport services. If we want serious reductions in unemployment —if we are beginning to see some reduction in unemployment, it is only by 0.5 per cent. in my consitituency—we need to ensure that people can move about the city.
  The vast majority of people who use the buses are women who are tied to their homes through having young
  1330
  families or who have part-time jobs, the elderly, people with disabilities and children of school age, particularly those of secondary school age. For that social reason, it is important that we have a proper and systematic system working throughout the capital but particularly in the south-east, which has been cut off from the rest of London because of defects in the transport system.
  I shall now spend some time bemoaning the state of British Rail and Network SouthEast. I know that other hon. Members will join me in that, because those of us who have to travel on those trains know that they are dirty and overcrowded, with trains being cancelled and delayed. The Kent link and the Kent coast line have the worst punctuality record of all the London lines. We have already accepted that we have a poorer transport system than elsewhere, but we also have the worst service. One in five trains is routinely late and delays and cancellations have exasperated and frustrated commuters for as many years as I can remember. When I travelled in this morning, I did not leave as normal from Hither Green, but left from Catford Bridge and, of course, once again the train was late. Although it was not at peak hour, the train was still quite crowded.
  It is illogical that Ministers or British Rail believes that the reduction in the number of people travelling into the centre of London because of the rise in unemployment during the recession is an excuse for removing huge numbers of trains. Will the Minister tell us, now that, according to the Government, we are coming out of recession, whether there will be more trains on the timetable rather than fewer trains? I doubt it.
  No doubt the Minister will talk about the Networker trains and how wonderful they are. They are much cleaner, brighter and smoother than the old, rickety trains to which we are used. However, they too have had problems. Doors have malfunctioned and elderly people in my constituency have had difficulties boarding them. I hope that that will be considered and that some redesign is possible to remedy that fault.
  The hon. Member for Eltham mentioned the problems that we face in south-east London over the lack of decision on the channel tunnel, which has been going on for many years. Houses down that line are blighted. I am deeply concerned that, in my constituency, two of the major areas, Grove Park and Hither Green, will be affected as long as Waterloo remains the terminal. I know that residents in streets such as Millborough crescent and Springbank road are already under siege because they feel that their properties have been devalued. When we heard that the line was to be changed to run along the east London corridor, there was great relief. Unfortunately, the issue has been thrown back into the pot and it appears that, for several years to come, those constituents will suffer because there will be fewer trains to take them into central London and much heavier use of the track by channel tunnel trains. I should like to be able to reassure my constituents that the Minister thinks that is not likely to happen.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) and I were probably the only hon. Members who gave a small cheer during the Budget debate when the Chancellor said that the docklands light railway was to come to Lewisham. The rest of the House was relatively quiet at the time and it may have sounded rather odd that the Chancellor's only support for that announcement came from the Opposition Benches. However, I am glad that it

  1331
  was only a small cheer, because I received a letter yesterday from the Department of the Environment. It states:
  "The approval we have given remains subject to the condition that no Government grant will be made available."
  That leaves so much uncertainty that we are concerned about whether the whole proposal will eventually go through. I know that the Minister is visiting Lewisham on Monday to look at the plans. I hope that he can confirm that a target date will be set and that the DLR will go ahead. I know that controversy surrounds the scheme, because, for that to happen, other stations on the line may have to be closed, which may not please people elsewhere.
  We conducted a survey on British Rail in my constituency during July and August this year. It was not a straightforward survey which we carried out by standing on the platforms while people waited for cancelled and delayed trains. We did not ask them merely to say yes or no to a series of questions. We handed the questionnaire to people and then let them get on to their trains, once they had arrived. People had to post the completed questionnaires to me, which, as hon. Members know, was asking a lot of them. They had to make an extra effort to respond to the survey.
  The results of the survey were horrifying. I received well over 300 replies in a couple of weeks. Three out of four people, in the past six months of travelling on British Rail trains through Lewisham, had experienced having to stand in the guard's van because the train was so overcrowded. Some 98 per cent. of those replying felt that their trains were overcrowded. Some 84 per cent. said that they could not get a seat and two out of three feared travelling at night. One of the main reasons for that fear is that there are no staff on the stations. Another aspect of that is that people have an opportunity to dodge fares. I pass through stations regularly and I come home with pockets full of tickets that I have not handed in to a member of staff. I may decorate a room with them one day as a way to use them up. Two thirds of those who replied feared travelling at night and two thirds felt that there should be more staff on duty.
  Some Lewisham commuters went further and wrote letters to me explaining some of their more serious worries about the state of British Rail. One described the overall service as appalling, chaotic and perhaps even dangerous. We should all be worried if people travelling in the rush hour fear for their lives or fear injury because of the dangers caused by overcrowded trains.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: On the point about there being no staff on stations, the hon. Lady will be only too well aware that some ghastly sexual crimes have been committed on local railway lines. One of the risks of having no staff on stations is that if there is an incident on a train, there is no one to whom to report it. When I raised that matter with the authorities, I was told that people could ring stations in London and that there were cameras monitoring people. That is wholly unsatisfactory and puts at risk many of the travelling public. That should be unacceptable in this day and age.
  Mrs. Prentice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that intervention; he is right. The lack of staff especially affects women, although not only women. A number of people wrote to me saying that they did not fear travelling at night because they simply did not travel at night any more. They will not travel by train in the evening
  1332
  because of their fears, so they travel by taxi or by minicab instead. It is nonsense for people to be turned away from a public transport system because they fear for their safety. Having staff on stations is crucial for that reason, and is also important in terms of giving people information.
  With the changes in the timetable in the past year, there are stations in south-east London and in Kent where there are no staff on duty. If a passenger misses a train by one or two minutes, he or she may wait on his own for almost an hour because a station is unstaffed. Unfortunately, even in the middle of the day, that is not a pleasant experience in this day and age. I hope that British Rail will heed the needs of passengers in south-east London.
  Some respondents have been travelling on British Rail for 40 years. They say that the service has never been so insultingly bad as it is at present.
  One wrote:
  "I cannot remember when I last had a seat on a rush-hour train out of Lewisham … Cancellation and late running are not the main problem, though the situation is far from ideal. The main problem is that with each new timetable a few more services have disappeared and that the remaining trains are shorter."
  British Rail is suffering from inadequate investment in south-east London. People wanting to travel to work in a positive frame of mind arrive at their offices, factories or shops feeling frustrated, stressed and under considerable tension as a result of travelling into central London.
  I welcome the news that there is to be no deregulation of London's buses, but I am extremely concerned that the Government are still going headlong into privatisation, which is causing considerable anxiety to members of the public who rely on bus services to get around.
  I have written many letters to the Minister on behalf of constituents about the travelcard. I know that he said that its future is safe, but we cannot be convinced of that. I hope that the Minister will reiterate today that the travelcard will remain in existence, come hell or high water.
  I remember the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) speaking some time ago about motorway coning and saying all that would be stopped when he became Prime Minister. Has the Minister ever thought of holding a national no roadworks day, on which motorists could use the roads without having to skirt cones, barriers and other obstacles? Will he at least suggest to the utilities—British Gas, British Telecommunications and London Electricity —that they consult so that, if they must dig up a particular road, they all do so the same day, instead of digging it up separately week after week? I am sure that central London's car users would greatly appreciate such an arrangement. Perhaps there could be at least a London no roadworks day, later extended to other parts of the country.
  I would normally say that one could drive a bus through Government transport policies, but I fear that the bus would be snarled up in the jam on the south circular. This debate has provided a useful opportunity to inform the Minister of problems encountered by rail commuters and others in south-east London. I know that the phrase "an integrated transport policy" sends civil servants into paroxysms, but perhaps the Minister will ensure not only that British Rail is the subject of proper investment and considers the passenger to be of paramount importance but that roads and bus services are considered as part of an overall strategic plan for south-east London travel. The Government should also get their act together in respect of the channel tunnel, so that my constituents using the line

  1333
  from Hither Green down to Kent stations will not suffer from its heavier use by channel tunnel trains on which they will not be able to commute.
  1.48 pm
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on his good fortune in being called for today's debate, particularly since it has allowed relatively full discussion compared with the normally short Adjournment debate. I congratulate him also on his good choice of subject. He selected a topic of real concern to all right hon. and hon. Members who represent south-east London constituencies. It is noticeable that in today's debate we have heard a unanimous expression of concern from both sides of the House about the serious problems that exist and the way in which people in south-east London are badly served by current transport arrangements.
  Network SouthEast traditionally has been the main transport service for south-east London. It has, I am afraid, an unenviable record which has been mentioned by every speaker who has contributed to the debate. Its punctuality record for the past year, is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) pointed out, the worst of all the Network SouthEast regions, with the possible exception of Thames, which just about matches the failure of Network SouthEast on punctuality.
  The written answer that I received a couple of weeks ago, giving the latest figures, shows that in the most recent period, up to 5 November this year, only 79.9 per cent. of services arrived reasonably punctually on the Kent coast line and only 78.2 per cent. on the Kent link line. On both the Kent coast line and Kent link services, fewer than one in five trains routinely arrive on time, against targets—which are not especially ambitious—of 82 per cent. for the Kent coast line and 88 per cent. for the Kent link. That record of unpunctuality is a daily experience for my constituents and those of every other hon. Member who represents south-east London.
  I shall now quote from a letter that was sent to me on 26 November by a constituent who also happens to work for ITN. I hope that he will have some influence on coverage of the issue.
  "In the past three weeks literally not a single train that I have tried to take has been on time. Many have been delayed by more than 15 minutes, others are cancelled altogether.
  I have written so often to the Network Customer Service Manager that my letters are now ignored—I have not had a reply to the last four anyway."
  No trains and no replies to his letters—what an appalling record.
  In the past, those problems have been attributed to the poor condition of the old, out-dated rolling stock that people have to travel in on the Kent link and Kent coast services. Now the new Networkers are being introduced. We were promised that their introduction would be the solution; they would be modern, comfortable and reliable and we would all have a more attractive and pleasant rail service to and from London.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford that the Networkers are fine when they work, but unfortunately they do not work all that often. For a brand new supply of rolling stock, it is astonishing how many of my constituents—and, I expect, constituents of other hon.
  1334
  Members—have had to write with descriptions of lengthy delays that occur while the doors are made to work. The doors jam, apparently, if passengers lean against them. It seems extraordinary, in 1993, after getting on for two centuries of experience of building rolling stock, that it is impossible to design and build trains whose doors do not jam if passengers lean against them.
  I hope that the Minister can give us some sort of answer as to when we can expect those problems to be sorted out and when Network South-East will run trains whose doors open reliably and do not cause the type of problems and delays that we have come across. I must also ask him for an indication of when Network SouthEast will achieve a reasonable target performance, given the abject failure to which I have referred. It is reasonable for us to expect that at least 90 per cent. of trains arrive punctually as a matter of course. When can we expect even that rather modest target performance to be achieved?
  Investment in the rail service is crucial. There is an urgent need for increased investment, not just in new rolling stock, but in improved signalling and track. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) rightly referred to the bottleneck on the approach to London bridge. That has been a serious problem and it has to be tackled. I ask the Minister, when can we expect that problem to be resolved? Secondly, can we expect any progress on the other rail investment issue that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Eltham—the rail crossing at Woolwich, which would serve a very useful purpose, linking the Kent services with north London and, in the course of so doing, making it possible to run an orbital service around the whole of London? We hear about the problems and the appalling congestion on the M25, but the link at Woolwich offers the opportunity of an orbital rail service around London. When can we expect any news about the possibility of progress on that issue?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East asked about the channel tunnel. When will the uncertainty end, and when can we expect the high-speed link to be operational? That is one of the most disgracefully delayed features of investment in British Rail's infrastructure in the last decade. It may not appear to be directly relevant to south-east London, but, in the absence of a dedicated high-speed rail link, the rail network between London and the Kent ports has to be used to accommodate passenger and freight traffic to and from the channel tunnel.
  It is clear that Network SouthEast is having to change the programming of local services to accommodate additional traffic that will come from the channel tunnel. That was brought to my attention by the Blackheath Society, which is concerned about changes to the timetabling of trains at Blackheath and about the fact that the two trains an hour that run through Blackheath at off-peak times are leaving the station in close proximity to each other. It has reasonably asked that the times should be spaced out at a more reasonable interval, but it was told by Network SouthEast that it was not possible because of the channel tunnel.
  I did not believe that, so I took the matter up with Network SouthEast. It replied:
  "I can understand your frustration at the current situation affecting users of Blackheath Station, the spacing of services is clearly not ideal.
  The current timetable has pathways built into it for Channel Tunnel services. The decision to introduce this in advance of the tunnel opening was taken to enable us to iron out any problems before the new trains take up their pathways."

  1335
  Network SouthEast obviously requires a great deal of time to iron out problems as the current timetable has already been operational for some months.
  "At the time this decision was taken and the timetable process activitated the Channel Tunnel was due to open in May 1993, this date has now of course been postponed. The inclusion of these pathways entailed a complete rewrite of the timetable with both Network SouthEast, European Passenger Services and Railfreight Distributions aspirations to be catered for. British Rail's main commitment was that there would be no curtailment of Network SouthEast services but clearly there would have to be timing changes with considerably more services than in previous years approaching and leaving the London area."
  There we have it—our services will be squeezed even more because of the need to accommodate channel tunnel traffic. Given the likelihood of yet further delay in the construction of the dedicated high-speed link to the channel tunnel, that is likely to be a continuing frustration and problem. As the hon. Member for Eltham said, with the congestion at the approach to London bridge and the difficulty in accommodating the existing volume of traffic, heaven knows what the consequences of a substantial additional volume of traffic from the channel ports will be. Therefore, when can we expect the high-speed link to be operational?
  The London underground has not been available to south-east London. It has been south-east London's traditional complaint that the underground has passed it by. I suppose that we should raise half a cheer for the news that the Jubilee line and docklands light railway extensions may be coming to south-east London. It is only half a cheer because important questions remain unanswered about both.
  There is the important question whether there will be a station on the south-east London part of the Jubilee line. It is extraordinary that there is no commitment as yet—the Minister may be able to assure me that I am wrong—to build a station at north Greenwich, the one point on the Jubilee line that is in south-east London. It would be astonishing if there were a hole in the ground with a concrete box in it and underground trains passed through south-east London for the first time without stopping there. Will this be the fate of south-east London—the tube, at last, but it does not stop for us? Or will we get the worst scenario, which now appears to be under consideration— a park-and-ride facility for 1,000 cars on the north Greenwich site to fund the construction of the station?
  The delay is for the same reason that delayed the Jubilee line for 18 months—the Government's insistence that there had to be a contribution from the private sector towards its construction.
  We all know about the nonsense of the Olympia and York contributions. Supposedly, it was £400 million but that has gradually reduced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) revealed in the House yesterday, it is probably worth no more than £200 million now because of the phasing negotiated with the Government by the bankers acting for Olympia and York. At least that problem is supposedly resolved.
  In the case of North Greenwich station, there is no resolution. I understand that British Gas is reluctant to meet the Government's request for £25 million for the station. That is not surprising, given that the same Department of Transport is proposing to cut a significant part of the development site with its bridge across the Thames at Blackwall. While the negotiations continue, there is uncertainty about the station. The latest proposal I
  1336
  have heard is that there might be a park-and-ride facility for 1,000 cars to provide the money that British Gas will not produce. If that were so, it would be an outrage.
  The area is already grossly overcongested with traffic. To attract a substantial additional volume of commuter traffic into the area simply to pay for the rail link will be a gross disservice. It will not only adversely affect the environment of everyone living in that part of south-east London but ultimately blight the future development of the peninsula. It will be a case of infrastructure investment not assisting development, as most of us believe it should be doing, but distorting future development and creating a pattern that is incompatible with the sort of development that most of us want to enhance and improve our local environment.
  If the Jubilee line station is a problem, the docklands light railway station is an even greater one. We have the supposed announcement of the extension of the docklands light railway accompanied by some interesting figures. The Budget statement announced that a project that was supposed to cost £140 million will now cost £100 million. I grant that the Minister is not responsible for that. It is extraordinary that he is not responsible. It is an amazing comment on transport policy under this Government that the Department of the Environment is now responsible for the docklands light railway. What a way to run a transport system.
  The Government are now saying that the scheme will cost only £100 million, rather than £140 million previously estimated. Like many other hon. Members who have been troubled by the failure of the original section of the docklands light railway to provide a reliable and dependable service, I am naturally concerned about the reduction in cost. Is this another example of cheeseparing leading possibly to malfunction and breakdown of the service? So there is a big question there.
  It seems likely that the real saving, so far as one can identify it, is from a decision to drop two stations from the docklands light railway extension, respectively at Island Gardens and Greenwich Cutty Sark. I am still waiting for answers to the questions that I put to the Department on this matter. But the only explanation appears to be that the cost is such that the two stations must be dropped. What a way to plan a rail system. Stations that were to provide an important access point to people using the facility must be dropped, supposedly because they cannot be financed.
  It is not a question of the scheme not having extremely favourable cost benefit implications. All the financial analysis suggests that it will be one of the most profitable rail investment projects that is feasible. We notice that the Secretary of State for the Environment, in his press release, talked about the great benefits of the scheme. He said that it would help attract tourists to Greenwich. It is astonishing that in the same breath he should be praising the merits of the scheme for bringing tourists to Greenwich when he is proposing to drop the station that would serve tourists who want access to Greenwich town centre. It is nonsense. I am only sorry that the Minister will not be in a position to answer my questions, as the matter is not within his responsibilities.
  The people of Greenwich are feeling sore. They will get a glimpse of two quasi-underground services—the Jubilee line and the docklands light railway—apparently without any new stations. What an extraordinary fate and what a way to plan rail infrastructure investment. It has been planned to serve not the public but merely the whims of the

  1337
  market on the basis that, if a private developer does not stump up the money, we cannot have our station. Such thinking is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with transport planning.
  This morning, we learnt that the Government plan to sell London's underground. It is typical of the Government that such a decision is announced not in an election manifesto or a ministerial statement to the House but simply in a newspaper report that says that the Government have now decided to sell London Transport. It is a wonderful sense of timing, just after two weeks that must have done everything possible to encourage potential buyers that it is an attractive prospect. In the past two weeks, we have seen the worst chaos of London Transport in memory, with a massive power failure that halted the entire Central line for five days. Apparently, the cable concerned is 70 years old. Yesterday, we were told of the extraordinary experiments being run by London Underground on driverless trains.
  The news raises the question about whether the sale is designed to save money rather than improve the quality of the service. But this blinkered vision—I hesitate to say "tunnel vision" because it would be an inappropriate pun —puts all the emphasis on a commercial approach and is typical of the Government. Their policy is sell, sell, sell and, if the thing cannot be made to work, sell it to someone else. It is a deplorable surrender of responsibility. The Government are washing their hands of their responsibility to deliver a proper service to Londoners. It is the product of political dogma seized on by a desperate Government, who have failed lamentably to look after Londoners' transport interests. Incidentally, they have reneged disgracefully on their election pledges to provide desperately needed increased investment in London Underground, a point which the Opposition will continue to make in the months ahead.
  We also notice that the Government have abandoned their manifesto pledges on London's buses. The manifesto pledged to deregulate London's buses and I admit that we welcome the abandonment of that pledge. However, it has only a limited advantage because the Government are proceeding with their other ideological predilection—privatisation. We shall therefore see a privatisation exercise involving net cost tendering, which raises questions about the continuation of services in areas where they may not be commercially viable.
  We all knew about the problems that would be caused by deregulation—chaos in central areas, excessive interest in profitable routes and, consequently, a great deal of traffic congestion and problems. But one of the problems associated with net cost tendering is the disappearance of many less profitable services in areas where whoever seeks to take on the routes simply cannot run them viably.
  The subsidy provision for London Buses in the current year is some 50 per cent. less than it was last year—some £52 million as against £100 million in 1992–93. We do not yet have figures for the revenue support grant for next year. If that downward trend in subsidy continues, a question hangs over whether those unprofitable services can be run in a framework in which the Government are going for net cost tendering. What will happen if a contractor takes on an unviable service, says "We shall try it", and then finds that it cannot make money. If the line does not provide
  1338
  adequate returns, will they say, "We are sorry but we cannot run that service any more"? How will those services be sustained under a privatised framework? I hope that the Minister will answer because we are worried that, following privatisation, the number of services in some parts of London, particularly the south-east where routes are far from profitable, will be seriously reduced.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East asked about the travelcard. I simply endorse her concern that the travelcard must remain available. It is all very well for Ministers to say that they will continue with the travelcard, but can they guarantee that it will continue to be available on the same terms and at the same real cost, without a huge increase in price?
  Many of us are concerned that even if a token travelcard continues to be available, a rapid and considerable increase in cost will take away a great deal of its value.
  I have spoken mainly about public transport and I shall now turn to vehicular traffic in south-east London, which is causing serious problems. Traffic congestion in south-east London must be among the worst in any part of the capital, as those of us who travel through the hopelessly congested main routes into London and some of the smaller routes which are extensively used as rat runs, know all too well. The consequences of such congestion in terms of atmospheric pollution and the health hazards that flow from it are serious.
  It is no coincidence that there is an above-average incidence of asthma, especially among children in south-east London. That together with the figures for the increased emissions of NOx and carbon monoxide and the atmospheric pollution from industrial sources that south-east London unfortunately suffers, constitutes a real health hazard for people there. Against that background, it is worrying that the Government still seem preoccupied with road building and investment in new road infrastructure rather than in improving and extending the public transport network.
  Some hon. Members have spoken about the decision to abandon a ridiculous proposal to bulldoze Oxleas wood as part of the east London river crossing scheme. I hope that the Minister will give a categorical assurance that there will be no reappearance of the ill-fated scheme to drive a road anywhere near that part of south-east London which already suffers excessive traffic volumes and atmospheric pollution. The damage that would be caused to parts of Plumstead and the areas around Oxleas wood would be just as unacceptable as the damage to the wood itself.
  There is severe congestion at Blackwall, and the Department of Transport is right to look at a third crossing to relieve it. The bridge that the Minister appears to favour has certain cost and speed of construction advantages, but a high-level bridge would have serious environmental consequences. Has a low-level bridge with a facility for it to be opened for ships on the Thames been considered? Would such a bridge be feasible and would not it cause less environmental damage than the current proposal?
  More parochially, in the interests of my consituency, what is the possibility of exploring a scheme to divert through traffic from the historic town centre of Greenwich? Everyone who knows the area is aware of its enormous architectural importance and of the damage being caused by the volume of heavy traffic through the area. Progress is being made on a scheme, which I hope the Department of Transport will endorse, for a heavy goods vehicle ban in the town centre. That would be a step forward but to solve

  1339
  the problem we need a proper bypass to keep traffic out of the town centre. Will the Department encourage work reasonably soon at least to study that option?
  We have had a wide-ranging and important debate on an issue of enormous concern to all hon. Members who represent south-east London constituencies. The situation is intolerable and the people of south-east London are ill-served by current policies and transport systems. We shall continue to highlight those failures and will press the Government to change their policy in important areas and increase investment in public transport. As concern has been expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House, I hope that the Minister will deliver some good news and will fight to ensure improved traffic provision and arrangements in south-east London.
  2.10 pm
  Mr. Jim Dowd: May I first apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to other hon. Members? I had intended to be here for the whole debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on getting not just the Adjournment debate but a particularly elongated version. Unfortunately, my plans this morning went awry as I am sure hon. Members will appreciate. It was nothing to do with British Rail, but I did not get here at the time I expected.
  I am grateful for the few moments in which I have been permitted to speak. Obviously, I shall restrict my comments to ground that I feel has not been covered and to which perhaps the Minister could respond. South-east London is particularly prone to problems with Network SouthEast, and people think that hon. Members from that area go on at disproportionate length about it. The reason for that is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, that London underground is to all intents and purposes the north London underground. There are, I believe, 14 stations located south of the river out of a total of 260 stations. Apart from New Cross and New Cross Gate, there are none in south-east London at all.
  Network SouthEast has been working hard recently to improve its performance, but, as has been made plain, it has had mixed results. It is also working hard on its public relations. I was present at a useful meeting at Bromley town hall with representatives from Bromley, Greenwich, Bexley, Croydon and Lewisham. The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Public Transport, was present and we found the meeting to be extremely useful.
  The meeting heard a quite surprising number of relevations about cuts in services or what will, in effect, be cuts in services. Those revelations were made only through that forum, which was an entirely unofficial body. We heard of the problems that making slots available for channel tunnel traffic is likely to cause. We also heard of the details of the franchises that are ultimately to be let for services in the south-east. Will the temporary reductions, or the allegedly temporary reductions, in the normal commuter services for south-east London be made good in the years to come? Ultimately we all hope—if any of us are still alive at the time—that the dedicated link should relieve congestion through south-east London, and then we shall look to those services being returned.
  Another area where the pressure for slots is having an effect is the reduction or the almost complete cancellation of the Thameslink service into south-east London. We have been told by Network SouthEast that all the slots are
  1340
  going to the Gatwick-Luton link. While that is perfectly reasonable in itself, I do not see why we in south-east London should lose all our Thameslink services. The service is immensely useful and it is important for south-east London. Why do all the services need to be sacrificed? A reduced service is better than no service at all. I would ask Network SouthEast to reconsider that.
  My final points relate to the A205, which is part of the south circular road, for which the Minister's Department took responsibility some years ago. Its performance in charge of that route has been problematic, to put it at its mildest. It is a major route, although that part is little more than a disjointed series of highways and byways. The idea that it can be compared with the north circular road is erroneous. The north circular road has the characteristic of being a route in a way that the south circular does not.
  Recent repairs, particularly those at Dulwich common, caused chaos throughout south-east London and not just in the immediate vicinity. People started to re-route their journeys into central London from a long way back. Will the Minister give any assurances on the stewardship of the A205? The red routing of the A205 is under public consultation at the moment and, regardless of people's attitudes, all local authorities are determined to co-operate with the traffic director to ensure that that is as beneficial as possible.
  In conclusion, I will raise with the Minister a subject that I have raised before. Perhaps he will be able to say something about it again. It concerns where the Catford town centre relief road stands in the current order of events. There have been at least five different start dates for the scheme. I wonder whether we are still working to the same one that we were the last time the subject was raised. I believe that the start date was in the latter part of this year or the early part of next year. Those are just a few points, and I am grateful to hon. Members for allowing me to make them.
  2.14 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I have been in this place on and off for about 10 years and I still have not a clue how it works. I came here briefed that my excellent hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennet) and I might have to speak for two and a half hours between us. I now find, after an extraordinarily interesting debate, that I have to make about two and a half hours' worth of replies in about six minutes. I trust that the House will indulge me, therefore. I shall try to cover the major areas and if there are others that I leave untouched, I shall be happy to write to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford for initiating this important debate. He spoke extremely well. It was typical of him that when I went to Bexley recently to look at the problems, at his invitation —I am grateful to Councillor Len Newton and his colleagues for their hospitality to me and my colleagues —my hon. Friend was there with us the entire time. He is absolutely right that it was extremely cold and also that the visit was very useful. I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to the problems of his constituency. I try to get out and about in the city as much as I can. I know it pretty well, as do most hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, but there are always aspects that one needs to know better.

  1341
  I acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend): I will say a word or two later about staffing at stations. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), a former transport Minister of great distinction, spoke with authority. The hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) also spoke.
  Let me just say to the hon. Member for Greenwich that I know that his hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) regards having to speak on transport as something of a demotion, and I know that there is a lot of irritation in the shadow Cabinet about the fact that he, and not the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), whom Conservative Members all desperately miss, is no longer in charge of transport, but I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich will not feel that he has been dealt too poor a hand by his colleagues. The way in which the Labour party works is pretty labyrinthine and impenetrable, and I do not know what kind of signals it is sending by having him demoted to shadowing me, but it is a personal pleasure to see him. I trust that he will stay on the Opposition Benches shadowing me for many years to come.
  Mr. Raynsford: That is an old line.
  Mr. Norris: It is a very old line, and all the better for that.
  I am glad that there is real all-party agreement about our policy on buses which, I repeat is to proceed with privatisation, net cost tendering and the flexibility of routes. It is all extremely good stuff. Just to reassure Opposition Members, I should say that the prospect of deregulation remains firmly on track, although it may not be until the next Parliament that we engage upon the process.
  To the hon. Member for Lewisham, East, let me say that I realise that it is all good knockabout political stuff for Opposition Members to question whether the travelcard will survive. I suppose that if I were in their shoes, I would do the same. It is good irresponsible stuff. There is not the slightest foundation in fact for the Opposition's allegations and there never has been. None the less, this is politics and most of us are over 21—embarrassingly so in my case—and I for one do not object to what is, after all, the stuff of politics.
  Let me be serious, though, and say that there never was, and there is not, any threat whatever to the continuation, not just in name but in form and in substance—
  Mr. Raynsford: And price?
  Mr. Norris: And, indeed, as the hon. Gentleman says, in terms of price.
  Mr. Raynsford: In real terms?
  Mr. Norris: And in real terms. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me have a copy of the speech that he would like me to make. I said on one occasion in the Chamber that if it did not have such unfortunate antecedents I would ask the House to read my lips. I shall not proceed down that road.
  Mr. Raynsford: Dangerous.
  Mr. Norris: It is a fairly dangerous statement, as the hon. Gentleman says. None the less, this is a serious point.
  Frankly, I have rather resented the fact that many people in London have been genuinely troubled by the rather irresponsible nonsense that has emanated from far too many Opposition Members, who have sought to question every aspect just to unsettle all those elderly people who really care about such issues—who have got quite worried because they have heard a Member of Parliament, no less, say, "Perhaps there will not be concessionary fares or a travelcard." Those people may not have the intelligence to read through the pretty obvious political signals. Opposition Members bear a heavy responsibility for taking that sort of approach. Let me make it clear once and for all, beyond peradventure, that there is no threat whatever to the travelcard or concessionary fare arrangements.
  As to London Underground, I shall have to skirt over a great deal of what has been said today. The article in the Evening Standard is not so much a statement of policy as a statement of the fact that my dear old friend Dick Murray, transport correspondent of the Evening Standard, was faced with a blank page on a damp Friday morning and had to write something. It is all good stuff, but it is very wide of the mark.
  I take this opportunity to make it quite clear that we have no plans, in the short or medium term, for the privatisation of the underground. What we do have is the breadth of vision to recognise that there are three sources that could help to finance the underground—passenger fares, grants from the hard-pressed taxpayer and the involvement of the private sector.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham I welcome the leader in the Evening Standard which—aside from the hyperbole, which sometimes went over the top—said that we ought to ask ourselves questions of this sort. It said, in a characteristically fair way, that the last thing one should do is to deride that approach or attack it on ideological grounds. It is a sensible proposition, so let us look at it.
  The important thing that the leader in the Evening Standard said, and which I endorse, is that this is all about improving services to passengers. Passengers are all-important, and we must do nothing unless we are sure that it will deliver benefits to passengers-whether it is moving down the road to more private capital, or more taxpayers capital or doing something on fares.
  I have looked at all the industries that have benefited from the introduction of private capital over the past 14 years, and a pretty clear case is made that we should introduce as many of those opportunities as possible. The form of introduction is still very much to be determined. It is too early to speculate on the idea of privatising the underground.
  I am sure that all hon. Members are pleased that the Jubilee line extension has been given the go-ahead. As to the question about the North Greenwich station, I understand the point that the hon. Member for Greenwich has made. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the political background to this—and I use the word "political" with a small "p". British Gas, as the major property holder in the area, is thinking very hard about how to develop the facility there. The Jubilee line scheme will proceed on the basis that the station is constructed—that is to say, the box will be built—and an arrangement will be arrived at with the developer to provide the station facility in due course.

  1343
  It is in everyone's interest that that should be the case. I do not want the hon. Member for Greenwich further to denigrate the economic prospects of his own constituency and to cast further doubt on its economic viability. It is an extraordinary form of community politics to commit suicide on behalf of one's own constituents, as Opposition Members seem to do on many occasions. I will tell the constituents of Greenwich, if the hon. Member for Greenwich will not say it, that they will have a station that will serve them not for five years but for 150 years.
  I am glad that the extension of the docklands light railway to Lewisham has been welcomed. It is right that the Department of the Environment is in the lead on this. As any sensible person would expect, I have been kept closely involved with its impact in transport terms. I am not the Minister in charge of the financing arrangements—which is not difficult for me to come to terms with—but I will continue to exercise considerable interest in the transport implications of the project, which is a very exciting one. I am always sad if a good development such as that which brings Lewisham into the city is not welcomed. Thank goodness that at least the hon. Members for Lewisham, West and for Lewisham, East, who should perhaps be able to say a word on the subject, appreciate the scheme.
  I am delighted that the Chancellor was able to give the go-ahead to that project, which will be delivered in due course. The eventual mix of stations will be a matter for the private sector to decide in the sensible way expected of it. It is an obvious proposition to put stations where people are likely to board the trains. If one is in the business of selling a service, that seems to be a rather shrewd idea, which is good for passengers and revenue. We have had enough doom and gloom. Both the Jubilee line and the docklands light railway extensions are good news.
  I want to talk about the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford and the Kent link line. It is my hon. Friend's debate, and I apologise to him that so much of the debate has involved broader issues. London is receiving a large share of the rail investment—£800 million is being spent on the Kent link modernisation. We should like to spend even more, but we should not forget that in October British Rail announced its intention to operate 41 four-car units on operating leases from ABB, which will mean accelerated replacement of the Kent coast service trains.
  As my hon. Friend rightly said, there is currently a problem with the rail service quality in his district. In view of the amount of money being spent, that is genuinely disappointing. I am sorry about that, as I am a great admirer of both British Rail managers and London transport managers who do a hard job, often in difficult circumstances.
  I think that the issue raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich on the possibility of building trains with doors that open and shut as required is not a bad one. I am told that the fault has been identified and the staff are working 24 hours a day to correct it. I am sure that people are
  1344
  working seriously to do so, and that the hon. Gentleman would not want to be churlish, but would want to welcome those people's efforts. I am told that all the units should have been adjusted by Christmas. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford mentioned the closure of Charing Cross station during the summer. I think that he will understand that Network SouthEast tried hard to avoid any inconvenience, but it was difficult in the circumstances.
  I am glad that there has been a general recognition that the decision on the specific route of the east London river crossing was correct. In answer to a specific question, I wish to make it clear that I remain committed to the concept of improved east London river crossings, and my Department is currently engaged in an extensive study on that subject.
  It is exciting and interesting that travelling from Tower bridge towards the east a range of opportunities have arisen for various reasons including the augmentation of the Tower bridge capacity, the tunnel between Tower bridge and Rotherhide, the east London line extension crossing the river, the docklands light railway extension, the third Blackwall crossing, the Woolwich metro possibility and other ways of taking forward the Woolwich crossing. There is also a possibility of a full east London river crossing to the A2, and a truncated east London river crossing. I understand my hon. Friend's reservations about that. There is the possibility of a lower Thames crossing.
  The key factor is that all propositions should be put together and evaluated so that we have a clear idea—I am sure that it will be an all-party agreement—about which suggestion should have top priority, and those on which money should not be spent as a priority. I hope that I have shown the complexity of the subject. I took the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich about the prospect of a low bridge at Blackwall and the possibility of its opening for occasional river traffic. It was a good point and I will ensure that my staff are aware of it and that they explore the possibility. At the moment, as the hon. Gentlmean knows, the bridge is our preferred option on the basis of cost.
  I am sorry not to have a chance to say a great deal about issues such as the Thamesmead spine road in my hon. Friend's constituency—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I must explain to the Minister that the debate can go on until three o'clock so long as the Adjournment is moved at half-past two. The hon. Gentleman therefore has more time than he probably thinks that he has.
  Mr. Norris: It was when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whispered in my ear that you were keen to get up to the north that I thought that I might never be called again in a debate if I did not let you off at half-past Two, but I thank you very much for your kindness.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Transport (South-east London)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  Mr. Norris: What I will do is prevent you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from getting the train that you have no doubt planned to get for a long time: I have 20 pages here.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. There are some people who, by their office, are unable to speak, and we all take guidance from Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should like to speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), who has attended the debate with great interest. I suspect that he would like to get away also, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not go through all 20 pages.
  Mr. Norris: I am clearly torn, but when one is being torn by a Whip of Her Majesty's Government, one knows which way to tear, so I shall not intrude on his good will for much longer.
  As I have a few seconds, I shall tell my hon. Friend who has the Adjournment debate that during my visit I was pleased to see the progress made on the Thamesmead spine road and confirm that the main works can commence on phase 4 of the project with the announcment of the Secretary of State's decision on the orders public inquiry.
  I saw some of the traffic problems in Crayford town centre and was interested to learn of the long-term plans for the new industrial access road. I understand that transport supplemenary grant support is being sought for that scheme. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I do not therefore want to say a great deal more about it at
  1346
  this stage because of the Secretary of State's forthcoming announcement on the 1994–95 settlement. He did a good job in explaining the issue to me.
  We need to make the best use of existing road space. One way of doing that is to introduce red routes. By the end of next year, we expect the A2 Rochester way and the A20 Sidcup bypass to be red routes. The benefits that we have seen from the red route pilot schemes are impressive, one of the important factors being that they do not suck additional traffic on to the system, but merely regulate the flow of traffic that is there far better. That benefits business, local residents and public transport particularly. I hope that all those benefits can be brought to south-east London as the programme of implementation, in which the traffic director is engaged, unfolds.
  There are two ways of approaching the debate: one is to go through absolutely every issue that has been identified by my hon. Friends and others; the other is to accept that there may be some issues that I have not fully dealt with. I shall write to hon. Members about points that they have made for which I should give an answer.
  Finally, I shall say to my hon. Friend that these debates have been useful. The true function of an Adjournment debate is for a Member to raise a matter of genuine local interest. My hon. Friend is tremendously assiduous in these matters and has served his constituency well for the past 10 years. I hope that he will continue to do so for many more. I hope that what I have said will give reassurance on some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. I will, of course, extend the same civility to him. If there are any other issues, I will write to him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Three o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Appeals Office
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the establishment of the immigration appeals office in London and(a) in each of the past five years and (b) in the current year; what plans there are to increase the staff establishment and the number of adjudicators in (i) London and (ii) Leeds.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Staff establishment levels in past years at the immigration appellate authorities—IAA—are available only for the IAA as a whole and not for individual centres. The figures in each of the past five years were as follows:

  Numbers

  1989–90

  77

  1990–91

  94½

  1991–92

  97

  1992–93

  95½

  1993–94

  117

  The number of staff allocated to the centre at Thanet house in London for the year 1993–94 is 63.

  There are currently no plans to increase either the staff establishment or the number of adjudicators at either Thanet house in London or in Leeds, although these will be kept under review in light of the current and projected workloads.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the total number of appeals awaiting processing by the immigration appeals office in London; what is the average time taken between the receipt of papers from British overseas posts and the listing of appeals before adjudictors, in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Leeds: what action he is taking to expedite the hearing of appeals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As of 31 October 1993 there were 19,074 appeals outstanding before the adjudicators within the IAA as a whole. As of 26 November 1993, there were 324 appeals which had been received at Thanet house in London and had not yet been processed.

  Figures are not available for the average time taken between the receipt of papers from British overseas posts and the listing of appeals before adjudicators. However, upon receipt of the explanatory statement and notice of appeal from the post overseas, the IAA normally dispatches copies of the case papers to to the parties' representatives in the country within five days. The parties must then prepare the case for the hearing. The current average time between the IAA receiving a certificate of readiness from a party to the date of the hearing for (a) the United Kingdom and (b) Leeds is as follows:
  742

  Short appointment

  Long appointment

  (a) 12 Weeks

  13½ Weeks

  (b) 9 Weeks

  12 Weeks

  Where an earlier hearing date is available at a different IAA centre, appellants are offered a hearing at that centre.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are 45 files in the Lord Chancellor's Department—out of a total of 90,974 files —marked "not for NAO eyes". These refer to individual file parts. For each NAO study a number of divisions may be involved and each may possess a file with a number of parts.

  The marking "not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

EDUCATION

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much his Department spends annually on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising and (c) press advertising; and what were the corresponding figures for 1985 and 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest estimate of expenditure on advertising in the current financial year and the corresponding figures for 1985–86 and 1979–80 are as follows:

  £000s 1993–94 (estimated)

  £000s 1985–86

  £1979–80

  Television advertising

  0

  0

  0

  Radio advertising

  29·2

  0

  0

  Press advertising

  1,105·8

  14·8

  91·6

  Press and Publicity Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many press and publicity officers are currently employed in his Department; and how many were employed in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Mr. Forth
  The Department currently employs 27 permanent press and publicity officers. The comparable figures for 1985–86 and 1979–80 are 23 and 22.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he has incorporated the code of practice for information security management, published by the British Standards Institution, into relevant contracts with information technology suppliers.
  743
  Mr. Forth
  The code of practice for information security management was developed by and established for use by commercial organisations and does not specifically address the requirements for the protection of official information. The security requirements for IT systems and services used by central Government Departments are stated in the Government's IT security policy document. The IT security policy is supported by use of the CCTA risk analysis and management method·CRAMM·and baseline security for IT systems·BSITS·risk analysis methods and by supporting advice and guidance published by the Government IT security authorities. These are regularly reviewed to ensure best practice, have been developed specifically for use within government and have been in operation for some time.

  The Department for Education's IS security policy is in line with the Government's IT security policy and all major contracts with information technology suppliers follow the guidelines in Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency·CCTA·model agreements.

  Teachers (Dress)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines he plans to offer to teachers about their form of dress.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend expects teachers to set a good example to their pupils in everything they do. How best to achieve that is for local determination. He has no plans to issue national guidelines.

  School Meals Service
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the future of the school meals service.

  Mr. Forth
  Local education authorities and, where appropriate, governing bodies of self-governing·grantmaintained·schools have responsibility for providing school meals, and determine the appropriate level of service in the light of local priorities.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has 39 files·out of a total of over 500,000·marked "not for NAO eyes".

  This marking is used in accordance with the agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they remain current.

  Fitzherbert School, Brighton
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the total cost of providing security at the former Fitzherbert school site in Brighton during the period it was in the ownership of the City Technology Colleges Trust and the Michael Faraday Trust.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The cost of providing security at the former Fitzherbert school site in Brighton during the said period was some £233,000.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of acquiring the Student Loans Company from its previous owners.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government acquired the Student Loans Company in December 1989 at a cost of £10.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education for each city technology college, what is the amount of Government grant received each year since establishment, the pupil roll for each year and the amount of private sector sponsorship received each year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Grants approved for payment by the Department to each city technology college for recurrent funding purposes in the current academic year are shown in the table, together with the numbers of funded pupils.

  Amounts of grant include provision for diseconomies of scale during the build up of colleges to full capacity and for services provided by local education authorities to their schools.

  As for all other schools, any additional funding by private sector sponsors for recurrent expenditure purposes is a matter for the schools and sponsors concerned.

  1993–94

  College

  Recurrent grant £million

  Funded numbers

  1 Kingshurst

  3,604

  1,250

  2 Djanogly

  2,565

  844

  3 Macmillan

  2,826

  912

  4 Emmanuel

  1,929

  600

  5 Dixons

  2,456

  730

  6 Leigh

  3,361

  1,140

  7 Harris

  3,187

  1,000

  8 Britschool

  2,914

  686

  9 Bacons

  3,926

  1,050

  10 Haberdashers

  4,806

  1,150

  11 Thomas Telford

  2,485

  664

  12 Brooke Weston

  2,448

  735

  13 ADT

  2,770

  600

  14 Landau Forte

  1,958

  450

  15 John Cabot

  1,292

  150

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Incitement to Racial Hatred
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases of incitement to racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986 were referred to him by the Crown Prosecution Service in each year since 1987; how many were not proceeded with(a) through insufficient evidence, (b) because prosecution was judged not to be in the public interest and (c) for other reasons.

  The Solicitor-General
  I am causing inquiries to be made into the matters raised by the right hon. Member and I will reply as soon as possible.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has anything to add to his statement to the House on 30 June concerning the Serious Fraud Office.
  745
  The Attorney-General
  Shortly after my statement to the House about the Serious Fraud Office on 30 June 1993 at column 965, Mr. Asil Nadir's former solicitor, Mr. Peter Knight of Vizards, wrote in response to a general invitation from the director of the Serious Fraud Office that those concerned about the working of the office should bring specific anxieties to his attention. Mr. Knight wanted the Serious Fraud Office to give further consideration, among other things, to its handling of privileged papers during the preparation of its case against Mr. Nadir.

  The director has therefore looked into this matter again, in great detail, and has now written to Mr. Knight. I am placing the exchange of letters in the Library. The director's findings show that my statement, responding to the personal statement by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on 29 June at column 823, was incomplete on the issue of privileged papers and therefore misleading. I am taking the earliest opportunity to correct this.

  In April 1991 the Serious Fraud Office acknowledged to Mr. Nadir's solicitors that two sealed bags of documents subject to a claim for privilege had been opened in January and February in breach of an undertaking given to the solicitors on 5 December 1990. Documents, which the Serious Fraud Office understood and still believes were not privileged, had been copied to the administrators of Polly Peck International Plc—PPI. This breach of the Serious Fraud Office's undertaking, which it regretted, was acknowledged in my statement and in my predecessor's letter to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire dated 20 October 1991 which is already in the Library.

  However, it now appears that copies of privileged documents were circulated to the prosecution team on two occasions. The first occasion was on 26 November 1990, before the giving of the undertaking but after a general claim for privilege had been made by Mr. Nadir's solicitors. In error, copies of these privileged documents formed a small part of a very large distribution of documents routinely copied and circulated to the prosecution team after the search at PPI. The administrators of the company were entitled to access to the vast majority of these documents and were therefore given access to the circulated copy documents, including—apparently because the mistake was not then recognised —access to and copies of certain privileged material. The second occasion was on 10 January 1991 when copies of documents seized from Mr. Nadir on his arrest were circulated to the prosecution team in the apparent belief that the documents in question could not from their description be privileged, despite the fact that a claim had been made by Mr. Nadir's solicitors.

  I regret that the fact that copies of privileged documents had been circulated was not acknowledged by the then case controller to Mr. Nadir's solicitors, and that no decisive attempt was made to retrieve them until December 1991, despite Vizards' frequently expressed concern about the matter and the fact that the then case controller appears to have recognised at least by January 1991 that copies of potentially privileged documents had been circulated. The reason is being pursued further by the director of the Serious Fraud Office. It is, however, right to say that the director of the Serious Fraud Office is not aware of any attempt to use the documents in conscious breach of privilege when preparing the prosecution case, although on two occasions privileged documents were used, apparently inadvertently.
  746
  A thorough check has been made of files of the prosecution team to seek to ensure that all copies of the privileged documents have now been retrieved. Remaining copy documents found on two master files have been secured. However, by reason of the system agreed between the parties, only Mr. Nadir's former solicitors knew precisely which documents had been adjudged by independent counsel to be privileged. Mr. Nadir's former solicitors are therefore being invited, at the Crown's expense, to provide full details to an independent counsel of all privileged documents taken from PPI and Mr. Nadir. The counsel will then be given full access to papers under the Serious Fraud Office's control to ensure that no privileged documents have been overlooked. The administrators will also be asked to co-operate in giving access to their documents.

  Should Mr. Nadir believe that he has suffered prejudice as a result of what has occurred, he can raise this with the trial judge at the appropriate time. The prosecution would in any event bring the matter to the judge's attention.

  Since my statement no futher evidence has come to light to substantiate any of the other allegations which have been made about the Serious Fraud Office's handling of Mr. Nadir's prosecution. I do not believe that the facts disclosed today, although regrettable, justify the independent investigation called for by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire last June. Moreover, as I said in response to his personal statement there is no precedent for an independent inquiry in parallel to a trial. Mr. Nadir has already made the handling of his case by the authorities an issue in the case and the trial process itself is designed to deal with this. The right course remains for Mr. Nadir to return to this country to face trial; and, should he wish to make any complaints about the prosecution's handling of his case, to raise them with the trial judge.

TRANSPORT

  Ashford International Station
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the up-to-date funding position for Ashford international station.

  Mr. Freeman
  The position remains that we have made provision for expenditure by British Rail to cover the track, signalling, platform and other railway works which were inaugurated by the hon. Member on 20 October. The station buildings, car parking and other facilities will be provided by the private sector; British Rail has received bids and is now evaluating these. It hopes to make a statement shortly.

  Public Sector Projects
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the public sector transport projects where he is looking to private sector funding in whole or part and their estimated cost.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend has announced that the following projects are being considered for private sector funding in whole or in part. Private sector funding has already been secured for a number of major transport projects.
  747

  Project

  Estimated cost £ million

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  3,000

  Crossrail

  3,000

  Upgrading of west coast main line

  400-600

  Birmingham western orbital route

  500

  Croydon Tramlink

  135

  Midland Metro Line One

  130

  New Tamar crossing

  100

  Lower Thames crossing

  1—

  Mersey crossing

  100

  New Scottish air traffic control centre

  200

  1 No estimate available.

  Seat Belts (Buses)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received on fitting compulsory seat belts in buses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has received more than 200 letters from hon. Members and members of the public in the last three months calling for seat belts to be fitted in buses, coaches and minibuses. The Department is currently reviewing the full technical and cost implications of the compulsory fitment of seat belts in minibuses and coaches. It would not be right to take any decisions before we have considered the full reports of the recent tragic accidents and this work has been completed.

  Coaches
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the effects of the 17-tonne gross vehicle weight limit on passenger coach manufacturers and operators in the United Kingdom; and when he plans to raise coach limit to 18 tonnes to conform with that of other EU countries.

  Mr. Key
  I have received a number of representations requesting an increase to the maximum permitted weight for coaches to 18 tonnes. Unfortunately, it is not practical to increase the gross weight without allowing for a higher weight on the drive axle. The Department is at present engaged on an exercise to assess and upgrade all the bridges in the United Kingdom to accept a heavier axle load. When this assessment is complete I shall be in a position to consider such an increase.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals(a) he and (b) the EC has to introduce seat belts in all new coaches as a legal requirement; what is his estimate of when such a new law is likely to be applied; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Department is currently reviewing the full technical and cost implications of the compulsory fitment of seat belts in new coaches. Until this work has been completed and we have considered the full reports of the recent accidents we do not feel that it would be right to take any decisions on this question.

  To date, there has not been the support necessary from member states for the EC to make seat belt fitment on all seats a mandatory requirement.

  Spofforth Bypass
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether tenders have been submitted for the construction of the Spofforth bypass, near Harrogate; and when he expects the work to commence.

  Mr. Key
  These are matters for the highway authority concerned—North Yorkshire county council.

  Port of London Authority
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he has made for the financial reconstruction of the Port of London authority following the privatisation of the port of Tilbury.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have concluded with the Port of London authority—PLA—an agreement under which the PLA has paid my Department £1·851 million from its capital reserve. PLA will in addition make further payments to my Department, at the end of each financial year ending on 31 December, of sums representing both the profits of the PLA's property management company, Port of London Properties Ltd.—POLP—and the net proceeds from their disposal of specified properties owned by the PLA and its subsidiaries. These properties were valued at some £35 million at December 1992. A sum of £951,000 has been paid to my Department in respect of the year ending 31 December 1992.

  These payments will be taken in payment of the repayable grants totalling some £147 million made to the PLA under the Ports (Financial Assistance) Acts of 1980 and 1981. The PLA's outstanding liability in respect of these repayable grants will be progressively reduced as these payments are made to my Department. When all of the specified properties have been disposed of, POLP will be wound up and the Department will relinquish its rights to any remaining repayable grants.

  This agreement has advantages for both parties over the previous arrangements for the repayment of the repayable grants. For the Government, it has provided a more certain prospect of substantial receipts than under the time-limited conditions attached to those arrangements. For the PLA, it has removed a substantial contingent liability, which was a disincentive to sound financial management of the business.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Family Credit
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the extent of the delays currently affecting applications for family credit; and if he will take steps to ensure that all outstanding claims can be dealt with and completed before Christmas.

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. A. Wylie to Mr. Seamus Mallon, dated 30 November 1993:

  749
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about delays affecting Family Credit claims and if the outstanding claims can be cleared before Christmas.
  From April 1993 to October 1993 some 34,000 claims to Family Credit were received of which 89% were successful. The number of claims represents an increase of 21% over the same period last year. At the same time a new computer system for processing claims was introduced which brings a certain amount of disruption to the work and inevitably causes a slowdown in output during the first few months.
  A recovery programme has been introduced to deal with the outstanding claims and I am confident that by 31 January 1994 we will have brought the situation back to normal.
  I hope this explains the position for you and I am sorry for any inconvenience that has been caused to our customers.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to review the employment status of prison officers in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I have reviewed the employment status of prison officers in Northern Ireland in the light of the temporary injunction granted to the Home Secretary against the calling of industrial action in the Prison Service in England and Wales. I have concluded that the employment status of prison officers in Northern Ireland should match that in England and Wales.

  Legislation will therefore be introduced this Session confirming that it is unlawful for organisations representing prison officers in Northern Ireland to call for industrial action. This will also apply to organisations representing prison officers in the rest of the United Kingdom. At the same time the legislation will extend normal trade union status to organisations representing prison officers in Northern Ireland. It will also extend to prison officers the appropriate elements of employment protection legislation, including access to industrial tribunals, on a basis comparable to that for other workers. There will also be provision for regulations to be made to establish procedures for settling the remuneration of the staff concerned.

  My officials will be in discussion with representatives of prison officers in Northern Ireland about these provisions.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department, which was established in April 1992, has not yet reviewed the full range of files inherited from former parent Departments and it is not possible to give a figure for those bearing a marking "not for NAO eyes". Since April 1992 DNH has opened a very small number of new files with this marking.

  The marking "not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

WALES

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.

  Mr. Redwood
  The estimated cost of providing a car service for Ministers during the 1993–94 financial year is £161,000. There are four official cars, including two based in Cardiff.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1979 the number of operating deep-mine coal pits, the annual output of mined coal, and the amount of coal exported from and imported into Wales; and if he will estimate the total value to the Welsh economy of the coal mined from deep pits over the period since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of deep-mine coal pits and their annual output for each year since 1979 is shown in the following table.

  The remainder of the information is not readily available.

  Year (to 31 March)

  Number of deep mines in Wales

  Output (thousand tonnes)

  1979

  39

  8,415

  1980

  38

  8,304

  1981

  36

  8,356

  1982

  35

  8,240

  1983

  35

  7,625

  1984

  30

  7,237

  1985

  30

  628

  1986

  19

  7,310

  1987

  15

  7,062

  1988

  12

  5,460

  1989

  10

  5,530

  1990

  6

  4,040

  1991

  5

  3,740

  1992

  4

  2,300

  1993

  2

  n/a

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the persons currently serving on non-departmental public bodies in Wales as appointed by him had not been included in the register held by the Welsh Office for public appointments.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is not collected centrally and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Direct Service/Labour Organisations
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many contracts awarded to Welsh local authority direct service/labour organisations have not been subject to the issuing of a section 13 or 14 notice, alleging anti-competitive behaviour under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988; and on how many occasions such actions have been taken.
  751
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the total number of contracts awarded is not held centrally. Only one authority has received a section 13 notice and section 14 direction. One other authority has received a section 13 notice.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many local authority direct service/labour organisations operating contracts in Wales under the terms of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 have achieved the required rate of return since 1988;

  (2) if he will list, by authority, the surplus achieved since 1988 on trading accounts for (a) refuse collection, (b) street cleaning, (c) building cleaning, (d) schools and welfare catering, (e) other catering, (f) vehicle maintenance, (g) grounds maintenance and (h) sports and leisure management services delivered by direct service/labour organisations, under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988;

  (3) if he will list, by authority, the surplus achieved since 1988 on trading accounts for (a) general highways work, (b) construction and maintenance of sewers, (c) works of new construction and (d) maintenance work delivered by direct service/labour organisations in Wales under the terms of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980;

  (4) if he will list by authority and service area, as defined by the Local Government Act 1988, the surpluses achieved by local authority direct service/labour organisations in Wales;

  (5) if he will list by authoity and service area, as defined by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the surpluses achieved by local authority direct service/labour organisations in Wales since 1988;

  (6) how many local authority direct service/labour organisations, operating contracts in Wales under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988, have achieved the required rate of return since 1988.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many contracts awarded to Welsh local authority direct service/labour organisations have not been subject to the issuing of a section 19A or 19B notice, alleging anti-competitive behaviour under the terms of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; and on how many occasions such actions were taken.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the total number of contracts awarded is not held centrally. Only one authority has received a section 19A notice and section 19B direction.

  Local Government Administration
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the authorities that have been challenged by his Department, in relation to their internal arrangements for establishing client-contractor splits in order to meet the requirements of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Surcharged Councillors
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many councillors in Wales have been surcharged or prosecuted as a consequence of taking decisions in relation to the Local Government Act 1988;

  (2) how many councillors in Wales have been surcharged or prosecuted as a consequence of taking decisions in relation to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None to my knowledge.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are 97 files in my Department marked "not for NAO eyes". These figures refer to individual jackets—file parts. For each NAO study a number of divisions may be involved and each may possess a file with a number of parts.

  The marking "not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Department and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Press and Publicity Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many press and publicity officers are currently employed in his Department; and how many were employed in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Mr. David Davis
  The Office of Public Services and Science employs seven members of the Government information service in its information division. The Department did not exist in any comparable form before 1992. Figures for earlier years are not therefore available.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Mr. Davis
  The marking "not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office—NAO—under which documents relating to the handling of relations between departments, the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee —PAC—are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current; 122 Cabinet Office and Office of Public Service and Science files are so designated.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in the last three years in relation to housing problems in England(a) from local authorities, (b) from housing associations and (c) from other sources; and if he will make a statement.
  753
  Sir George Young
  My Department regularly discusses housing problems and successes with local authorities, housing associations and others. We value their contribution to policy development. Local housing authorities discuss their strategies and expenditure priorities each year with Ministers and with departmental officials as part of the annual housing investment programme resource allocation process; developing housing associations have similar discusions with the Housing Corporation. Twice a year I discuss local authority housing issues with representatives of the local authority associations in the Housing Consultative Council. In addition, we receive responses to consultation papers, and there is a wide range of formal and informal contact with local authorities and housing associations, and with Members of Parliament, members of the public, voluntary organisations and the private sector.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions since 1960 he has used his powers under section 5(1) of the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938 to refuse his consent to the disposal by a local authority or parish council of green belt land to which the section applies; and what are his criteria for refusing consent in the future.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not avilable, except at disproportionate cost. Consent has been refused on one occasion since January 1991. In that case the land was not designated as metropolitan green belt in a development plan. My right hon. Friend's primary concern in determining applications is to ensure that the land continues to fulfil the objectives of the 1938 Act and of green belt policy as set out in planning policy guidance note 2.

  Council Tax Arrears
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under what circumstances an attachment of earnings order for the recovery of council tax or community charge arrears can be served on an organisation which provides a training programme funded by the European social fund requiring the organisation to make deductions from(a) a training allowance paid to the trainee or (b) a wage paid to the trainee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  A billing authority may serve an attachment of earnings order in respect of arrears of community charge or council tax on an employer following the issue of a liability order by a magistrates court. Deductions may be made from the net earnings as defined in regulation 32 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and regulation 27 of the Community Charge (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989.

  Market Franchise Rights, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from Doncaster metropolitan district council in regard to proposals on market franchise rights; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.
  754
  Mr. Baldry
  We have received representations from the council objecting to our proposal. All representations, both for and against the proposal, will be fully considered before any decision is made.

  Bomb-proofing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost, by location, of bomb-proofing the Department's premises.

  Mr. Gummer
  On security grounds, this information is not available.

  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) of 19 November 1993,Official Report, column 1, what considerations led to his proposal to increase housing revenue account subsidy guideline rents by 7.5 per cent. and management and maintenance allowance by 4 per cent.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend took into account a number of considerations including the constraints on public expenditure; the need to move gradually towards income-related subsidies and a more market-related pattern of local authority rents which better reflects the value of accommodation provided in different parts of the country; the need to make further progress on the targeting of management and maintenance allowances by guaranteeing all authorities at least 95 per cent. of their target scores; and general movements in prices and earnings. The proposals are subject to consultation.

  Housing Investment
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the gross aid net level of investment in housing proposed by his Department for 1994–95.

  Sir George Young
  Information on the Government's public expenditure plans for housing is contained in the Financial Statement and Budget Report, copies of which are available in the Library. More detailed information will be contained in my Department's annual report, to be published in the new year.

  Peat Bogs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the locations of raised peat bogs in England; and if he will make a statement as to their protection.

  Mr. Baldry
  A list of raised peat bogs in England is being prepared by Scottish Natural Heritage as part of work on a national peatlands resource inventory. This inventory will also summarise information on those sites designated as sites of special scientific interest—SSSIs. It is expected to be published during 1994 and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the response to date of advertisements placed in British and overseas journals in
  755
  respect of bids to take over the financial management of the Government car service; what classified information on the location of classified bids was given in these advertisements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The market test relates to the routine book-keeping work provided for the Government car service—GCS—and the Interdespatch service—IDS. Financial management will remain the responsibility of the GCS and IDS management.

  Eight firms responded to the advertisement placed in the European Journal for the market-tested work. No classified information was given in this advertisement. Two tenders have been received and are now being evaluated. The decision should be announced shortly.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.

  Mr. Gummer
  The annual cost to the Department of Environment for their Ministers' car service was estimated at £265,00 in 1992–93. Six cars are provided by the Government car service with drivers and full back-up service.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the annual cost of the Government car service in each of the last three years; what was the comparable cost in 1979–80; how many vehicles form the Government car service; and what were the categories of cost in 1992–93.

  Mr. Gummer
  The current cost of the Government car service—GCS—for the last three financial years is:

  £ million

  1990–91

  6·95

  1991–92

  6·99

  1992–93

  7·19

  The 1990–91 figure includes an estimate for pension contributions that were paid centrally at that time. These contributions are included in the 1991–92 and 1992–93 figures.

  Information on the comparable cost in 1979–80 is not available.

  There are currently 190 vehicles in the Government car service fleet.

  In 1992–93 approximately 75 per cent. of costs were staff and 15 per cent. were vehicle costs.

  "London, Making the Best Better"
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenders for the publication of "London, Making the Best Better" were received from Asian businesses.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is neither possible nor desirable to group tenders according to the ethnic origin of their owners.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what day, date and times the two photographs that appear on page 10 of "London, Making the Best Better" were taken.
  756
  Mr. Gummer
  Both photographs were taken between 2 pm and 3 pm on Thursday afternoons. The precise dates are not known but the "before" photograph was taken in late November or early December 1990 and the "after" photograph in late October or early November 1991.

  London Boroughs
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the full range of activities for which London boroughs(a) are currently responsible and (b) were responsible in 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  The statutory activities of London Boroughs are described in the document entitled "The Functions of Local Authorities in England" published by my Department last year. As this was the first occasion on which a comprehensive review had been carried out, I regret that there is no equivalent for 1979.

  Press and Publicity Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many press and publicity officers are currently employed in his Department; and how many were employed in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Mr. Gummer
  There are currently 31 press and publicity officers employed by the Department of the Environment's information directorate.

  Before 1989, the information directorate of this Department was part of the common services of DOE and Department of Transport and separate figures for the resources for each Department are not available. Global information for this period is published each year within the management information system for Ministers—MINIS—dating back to 1979 and is available in the Library.

  Durham (Boundaries)
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost(a) overall, (b) to the Local Government Commission, (c) to Durham county council and (d) to the district councils of Durham to date of the inquiry into local government boundaries in the county of Durham.

  Mr. Baldry
  Expenditure by the Local Government Commission and by local authorities in the area is a matter for them.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he is issuing regarding a timetable for the reconsideration of the Boundary Commission's final proposal regarding local government boundaries in the county of Durham.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has directed the Local Government Commission to start its further review of County Durham on 13 December 1993 and to report to him by 30 December 1994. The review will be conducted in accordance with the revised procedure guidance issued to the commission on 22 November. We will agree a target date for the report with the commission.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1993 to the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight),Official

  757
  Report, column 380, whether he envisages that the same organisations and individuals will be consulted in the new review of County Durham as in the original review.

  Mr. Baldry
  On 22 November my right hon. Friend issued revised procedure guidance to the Local Government Commission for England. Annexe A to this revised guidance sets out the organisations which the commission is required to consult in conducting its review of an area. Except for the addition of the chief inspector, magistrates courts service, and the Lords Lieutenant for the area, this list is unchanged from that annexed to the procedure guidance issued to the commission in July 1992. The commission should also consult representative local organisations, including voluntary organisations. Others will be welcome to express their views, which will be taken fully into account by the commission.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1993 to the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight),Official Report, column 380, which local authorities in County Durham made representations about fresh proposals on the basis of the new guidance.

  Mr. Baldry
  Four district councils—Derwentside, Easington, Sedgefield and Wear Valley—have asked for the revised policy guidance issued to the Local Government Commission on 2 November to be applied to County Durham and have indicated their willingness to consider fresh options for change.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1993 to the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight),Official Report, column 380, what weight he will now give to local views in determining the future structure of local government in Darlington.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is for the Local Government Commission to conduct a further review of County Durham and make recommendations to my right hon. Friend. The Government have said that they attach great importance to local consensus and that the commission will wish to measure proposals from local authorities against expressed views from those outside local government. Once the final report has been published, there will be an opportunity for interested parties to make representations before we take decisions about the implementation of any recommendations for change.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1993 to the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight),Official Report, column 380, what has been the cost to date of the Local Government Commission's review of local government in County Durham.

  Mr. Baldry
  Expenditure on the review of County Durham is a matter for the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 29 November to the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight),Official Report, column 380, whether the same commissioners will be reviewing County Durham.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the Local Government Commission.
  758
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1993 to the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight), what are the expected costs of his decision further to review County Durham.

  Mr. Baldry
  The resources which we are making available to the commission, £5·124 million in 1993–94 and £8·300 million in 1994–95, should be adequate to enable it to complete all the reviews of local government structure in the shire counties of England by the end of 1994.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1993 to the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight), if he will make a statement on his reasons for not exempfing Darlington from further review.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has directed the Local Government Commission, under section 15(6) of the Local Government Act 1992, to conduct a further review of County Durham because he is not at present satisfied that the commission's recommendations for the area meet the criteria in section 13(5) of that Act. He did not want to limit the possible options available for consideration in the further review, and there would also have been difficulties in implementing changes for part of the county in advance of the remainder. He therefore concluded that it would not be right to exclude Darlington from the area to be covered by the further review.

  Surcharged Councillors
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many councillors in England have been surcharged or prosecuted as a consequence of taking decisions in relation to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980;

  (2) how many councillors in England have been surcharged or prosecuted as a consequence of taking decisions in relation to the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Gummer
  None, to my knowledge. The Department does not keep records of such actions.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the total number of contracts awarded to English local authority direct service or labour organisations which have not been subject to the issuing of a section 19A or 19B notice, alleging anti-competitive behaviour under the terms of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; and on how many occasions such actions were taken;

  (2) what was the total number of contracts awarded to English local authority direct service or labour organisations which have not been subject to the issuing of a section 13 or 14 notice, alleging anti-competitive behaviour under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988; and on how many occasions such actions have been taken.

  Mr. Gummer
  To date, 55 notices and 28 directions relating to anti-competitive behaviour have been issued under sections 19A and 19B of the 1980 Act or sections 13 and 14 of the 1988 Act. Information on the total number of contracts is not held centrally.
  759
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many local authority direct service or labour organisations, operating contracts in England under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988, have achieved the required rate of return since 1988;

  (2) how many local authority direct service or labour organisations, operating contracts in England under the terms of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, have achieved the required rate of return since 1988.

  Mr. Gummer
  For the financial year 1990–91, my Department recorded just over 2,000 accounts for direct service or labour organisations under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and Local Government Act 1988, 1,670 of these accounts—83·5 per cent.—recorded that the DLO or DSO had met the statutory financial objective.

  For 1991–92, 2,260 accounts were recorded of which 1925—85·2 per cent.—recorded that the financial objectives had been met.

  Information on accounts for 1992–93 is not yet complete. Information on accounts for 1988–89 and 1989–90 is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the authorities that have been challenged by his Department in relation to their internal arrangements for establishing client-contractor splits in order to meet the requirements of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Gummer
  To date, none of the statutory notices or directions given to local authorities under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 or the Local Government Act 1988 has concerned internal arrangements for establishing client-contractor splits.

  Mineral Planning
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to conclude his consultations on changes to mineral planning guidance note 3; when he expects to announce any changes to MPG 3; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 25 March Official Report, columns 714-15, that we intended to proceed to consultation on revised planning guidelines as soon as possible. This is still our intention.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Mr. Gummer
  The only category of files not available for NAO view are those which relate to relations between the Department and the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee. This is fully in accordance with the standing agreement between the Treasury and the NAO. This applies to 214 files out of 1·4 million.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what Government contribution will be made towards the joint venture proposals for the extension to the 760
  docklands light railway to Lewisham, announced in his Budget speech; and what help Ministers will give in assembling the private finance needed for the project.

  Mr. Baldry
  No Government grant or subsidy will be made towards the costs of the extension to Lewisham of the docklands light railway. The joint venture will be taken forward by the London Docklands development corporation—owners of the railway—and Docklands Light Railway Ltd. My Department's private finance unit will provide advise and expertise where necessary to support their work.

  Climate Change Convention
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about ratification by the United Kingdom of the climate change convention.

  Mr. Yeo
  The United Kingdom's instrument of ratification will be deposited with the United Nations very shortly. This will fulfil our commitment to ratify the framework convention of climate change by the end of this year.

  Following the Budget statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in particular the commitment to future real terms increases in transport fuel duties, we now have in place all the elements to complete the United Kingdom's national programme under the convention. The programme, which includes measures aimed at returning United Kingdom emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000, will be published early in the new year. Publication of this programme will put the United Kingdom at the forefront of global efforts to implement the convention, which was signed by the Prime Minister at the Earth summit in Rio last year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  English Industrial Estates Corporation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total budget allocated by his Department to the English Industrial Estates Corporation for expenditure in 1992–93 in(a) the northern region and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Total capital expenditure by English Estates in the northern region in 1992–93 was £17·5 million out of a total capital expenditure in England of £54·3 million.

  Press and Publicity Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many press and publicity officers are currently employed in his Department; and how many were employed in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department's information division employs 19 press officers and 24 publicity officers. The figures do not include administrative support staff. Comparable details for 1985 and 1979 are not available.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department spends annually on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising and (c) press advertising; and what were the corresponding figures for 1985 and 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  The details are as follows:

  £000's

  1979–80

  1985–86

  1992–93

  Television advertising

  20

  2,212

  —

  Radio advertising

  5

  —

  1

  Press advertising

  1,529

  2,805

  1,138

  The figures relate to centrally managed budgets and include expenditure by the former Department of Energy.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount spent by his Department on(a) regional enterprise grants (b) enterprise initiative schemes, (c) regional development grants and (d) regional selective assistance in 1992–93 in (i) the northern region and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The total amount spent by my Department on these schemes in 1992–93 is set out below together with the amount spent in the northern region.

  DTI expenditure in 1992–93

  £ million

  Northern region

  Total expenditure

  Regional enterprise grants

  1·5

  5·8

  Enterprise initiative (including the SMART and SPUR schemes)

  2·4

  58·6

  Regional development grants

  8·3

  11·0

  Regional selective assistance

  28·1

  71·1

  Expenditure on the enterprise initiative covers the whole of the United Kingdom whereas DTI expenditure on the other three schemes was paid in support of projects in England only.

  Angling Products
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of the manufacture of angling products in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years, the number of persons employed in such manufacture, the number of persons engaged in the sale of angling products in the United Kingdom, and the value of the retail sales of such products in those years; and if he will divide his figures into income for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The value of sales of fishing reels, rods and tackle—including hooks—by manufacturers in the United Kingdom was £13·5 million in 1990, £17·8 million in 1991 and £14 million in 1992. The other information requested is not available.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the nuclear reactors designated for inspection, and the period of inspection in each case, under 762
  the terms of the United Kingdom/Euratom/International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement—Cmnd. 6730—since it came into force.

  Mr. Eggar
  The prototype fast reactor at Dounreay was designated and subject to joint International Atomic Energy Agency/Euratom inspections from 1980 until 1982 under the terms of the United Kingdom/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which United Kingdom nuclear facility was the latest to be designated by the International Atomic Energy Agency for safeguards inspection under the terms of the United Kingdom/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement—Cmnd. 6730.

  Mr. Eggar
  The most recent United Kingdom nuclear facility to be designated by the IAEA for inspection, under the United Kingdom/Euratom/IAEA tripartite safeguards agreement, was the thermal oxide reprocessing plant receipt and storage pond at Sellafield; the facility was designated on 1 January 1993.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  No central record is kept by my Department of files marked "not for NAO eyes". For each NAO study, a number of divisions in different locations may be involved and each may possess in its registries a file with a number of parts—that is, individual jackets. The information requested is therefore not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The marking "not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what figures he has on the costs per gigajoule of coal imports into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: The average prices of coal imported into the United Kingdom from January to September 1993—based on prices at the port of entry—are estimated from data available for Customs and Excise. This data provide information in £ per tonne and this has been converted to £ per gigajoule using a conversion factor of 26 gigajoules per tonne. The resulting prices of all coal imports and steam coal imports are as follows:

  Coal type

  Cost per gigajoule (£)

  Steam coal imports

  1·31

  All coal imports

  1·44

  These prices are averages for coal of different grades and different calorific values with a variety of industrial and domestic uses. They include cost of transhipment from

  763
  other EC ports. The data cannot be used to distinguish the price of imports to power stations. But in the European Community as a whole the overall price of imports to power stations from extra-EC countries was £1·08/gigajoule for the first quarter of 1993.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Petrol
  Sir Malcolm Thornton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the net gain to the Exchequer of increasing the excise duty on unleaded petrol so as to eliminate the differential between leaded and unleaded petrol.

  Sir John Cope
  Had my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the excise duty on unleaded petrol in the Budget to eliminate the differential with leaded petrol this would have raised a further £1,050 million in 1994–95 beyond the figures shown in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has incorporated the code of practice for information security management, published by the British Standards Institution, into relevant contracts with information technology suppliers.

  Sir John Cope
  The security requirements for IT systems and services used by central Government Departments are stated in the Government IT security policy document. This document is supported by use of the CCTA risk analysis and management method—CRAMM —and baseline security for IT systems—BSITS—risk analysis methods and by supporting advice and guidance published by the Government security authorities. These are regularly reviewed to ensure best practice, have been developed specifically for use within government and have been in operation for some time. The code of practice for information security management was developed by and established for use by commercial organisations and does not specifically address the requirements for the protection of official information.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  Sir John Cope
  The Treasury does not have a sensitive documents unit. Sensitivity checks are carried out on records being considered for release to the Public Record Office. In the period from October 1992 to October 1993, 97 linear feet of records were checked for sensitivity by 3·5 staff.

  Customs Searches
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were stopped and searched by customs officers at each port of entry during 1992, broken down by ethnic origin.
  764
  Sir John Cope
  The information requested is not available. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has recorded the ethnic grouping of persons selected for search of their person only since 1 January 1993.

  Customs Local Offices
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, column 338-40, if he will list the counties covered by each customs local office.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs group local offices to form collections. The counties covered by each collection are as follows:

  Collection and Counties

  Belfast

  Northern Ireland

  Birmingham

  Staffordshire

  West Midlands

  Warwickshire

  Dover

  Kent

  East Sussex

  East Anglia

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  Essex

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  Lincolnshire

  Nottinghamshire

  South Humberside

  Edinburgh

  Grampian

  Tayside

  Borders

  Central

  Shetland

  Fife

  Lothian

  Glasgow

  Highland

  Orkney

  Western Isles

  Stratchclyde

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Leeds

  West Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  North Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  Liverpool

  Merseyside

  Cheshire

  Lancashire

  Clwyd

  Gwynedd

  London Central

  Greater London

  London North and West

  Bedfordshire

  Hertfordshire

  London Port

  Greater London

  Essex

  London South

  Greater London

  Surrey

  Kent

  Manchester

  Greater Manchester

  Lancashire

  Cheshire

  Northampton

  Bedfordshire

  Northamptonshire

  765

  Hertfordshire

  Cambridge

  Leicester

  Northern England

  Northumberland

  Tyne and Wear

  North Yorkshire

  Durham

  Cumbria

  Cleveland

  Southampton

  Dorset

  Hampshire

  West Sussex

  Isle of Wight

  South Wales and Borders

  Dyfed

  Mid Glamorgan

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Gloucestershire

  Hereford and Worcester

  Gwent

  Powys

  Registrations

  Collections

  October 1987 to September 1988

  October 1988 to September 1989

  October 1989 to September 1990

  October 1990 to September 1991

  October 1991 to September 1992

  October 1992 to September 1993

  Belfast

  3,935

  3,935

  4,412

  3,765

  3,578

  4,090

  Birmingham

  16,519

  17,850

  16,818

  14,305

  13,503

  14,766

  Dover

  7,774

  7,582

  7,171

  6,725

  5,930

  6,535

  East Anglia

  9,273

  9,408

  9,073

  8,468

  8,120

  8,691

  East Midlands

  12,567

  14,091

  12,994

  10,614

  9,808

  10,403

  Edinburgh

  7,898

  7,975

  8,193

  7,023

  6,452

  7,007

  Glasgow

  6,662

  7,775

  7,747

  6,939

  6,293

  6,536

  Leeds

  12,910

  13,578

  13,107

  11,418

  10,324

  10,194

  Liverpool

  11,929

  12,753

  13,041

  10,997

  10,050

  10,084

  London Central

  5,762

  5,212

  5,448

  4,783

  4,612

  5,672

  London North and West

  13,537

  15,633

  14,534

  12,329

  10,731

  11,547

  London Port

  9,011

  10,012

  8,897

  7,032

  6,667

  7,065

  London South

  14,566

  15,674

  16,124

  12,973

  11,680

  13,687

  Manchester

  12,351

  14,004

  13,929

  12,214

  11,398

  11,615

  Northampton

  18,312

  18,243

  18,595

  13,931

  12,365

  12,847

  Northern England

  7,869

  8,127

  7,694

  6,339

  5,697

  5,818

  Southampton

  13,640

  15,955

  13,992

  10,827

  9,987

  10,691

  South Wales and Borders

  13,362

  14,283

  13,720

  10,889

  9,732

  10,080

  South West England

  16,478

  16,645

  14,733

  12,257

  11,027

  11,984

  Thames Valley

  19,097

  20,206

  21,254

  18,764

  16,687

  17,064

  Deregistrations

  Collections

  October 1987 to September 1988

  October 1988 to September 1989

  October 1989 to September 1990

  October 1990 to September 1991

  October 1991 to September 1992

  October 1992 to September 1993

  Belfast

  9,845

  3,210

  3,265

  3,766

  3,479

  3,268

  Birmingham

  24,694

  12,848

  12,291

  16,524

  16,293

  15,667

  Dover

  9,814

  4,827

  5,767

  9,334

  8,636

  7,728

  East Anglia

  15,760

  6,231

  7,226

  11,217

  10,707

  10,329

  East midlands

  20,177

  9,758

  9,848

  12,947

  11,804

  11,484

  Edinburgh

  14,587

  6,004

  6,266

  7,363

  6,449

  7,053

  Glasgow

  11,126

  5,995

  6,153

  7,561

  7,327

  6,609

  Leeds

  18,228

  10,321

  10,189

  13,154

  12,305

  11,744

  Liverpool

  18,676

  9,969

  10,076

  12,890

  12,229

  11,882

  London Central

  9,685

  4,239

  4,457

  4,494

  4,914

  5,334

  london North and West

  18,140

  9,730

  10,578

  13,174

  15,118

  13,549

  London Port

  13,058

  6,759

  5,794

  9,692

  9,733

  9,288

  London South

  19,247

  10,017

  11,440

  14,200

  14,376

  13,583

  Manchester

  18,958

  10,469

  9,781

  12,656

  13,399

  12,487

  Northampton

  25,340

  12,078

  12,454

  16,170

  15,164

  13,155

  Northern England

  12,399

  6,040

  6,212

  7,707

  6,899

  6,978

  Southampton

  20,436

  10,473

  9,996

  13,667

  13,376

  13,039

  South Wales and Borders

  23,443

  10,346

  10,230

  13,901

  11,174

  12,705

  South West England

  26,001

  11,566

  11,554

  15,951

  14,808

  14,140

  Thames Valley

  25,151

  12,736

  13,918

  19,270

  19,804

  18,401

  766

  Shropshire

  South West England

  Avon

  Somerset

  Wiltshire

  Cornwall

  Devon

  Thames Valley

  Berkshire

  Surrey

  Oxford

  Buckinghamshire

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, columns 338-40, if he will adjust the figures on VAT registrations and deregistrations to run from September each year.

  Sir John Cope
  As Customs only holds such information for calendar quarters, revised registration and deregistration figures, by year, from October 1987 to September 1993 are:

SCOTLAND

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.

  Mr. Lang
  The cost to the Scottish Office of the car service for Ministers in 1992–93 was £224,163. The number of vehicles involved is three in London and four—part-time—in Scotland.

  Bomb-proofing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost, by location, of bomb-proofing the Department's premises.

  Mr. Lang
  On security grounds, I do not propose to give this information.

  Training Schemes
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were participating in(a) training for work—employment training/employment action—(b) community action, (c) learning for work, (d) the business start-up allowance and (e) youth training in each month since March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information relating to the community action programme is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The learning for work programme started in August and consequently it is too early for reliable management information to be available. Information on the numbers of people participating in training for work, the business start-up scheme and youth training in Scotland in each month since March, based on the latest returns available for publication, is set out in the table:

  Training for Work1

  Business Start-up scheme

  Youth training2

  1993

  March

  18,267

  4,782

  35,198

  April

  15,585

  4,311

  34,045

  May

  15,202

  4,298

  32,897

  June

  14,482

  4,202

  33,651

  July

  13,908

  4,167

  32,724

  August

  13,058

  3,812

  31,232

  1 Training for work replaced employment training and employment action on 1 April 1993; the March 1993 training for work figure comprises figures for employment action (3,407) and employment training (14,860).

  2 Youth training figures include participants on youth credits schemes.

  Wrongful Arrest
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the wrongful arrest of Lorraine Alison Brown of Marske-by-the-Sea, Cleveland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Miss Brown was arrested upon a warrant issued by the sheriff at Kirkcaldy 768
  in relation to certain road traffic offences, and escorted by the police from Redcar to Kirkcaldy to answer the charges against her. It was then discovered, however, that her case had already been dealt with. Miss Brown had earlier been fined. The warrant should have been withdrawn on that previous occasion. Miss Brown was accordingly released without any further appearance in court.

  The procurator fiscal at Kirkcaldy has written to Miss Brown's solicitors, apologising for the error. He paid all the expenses of her unnecessary appearance, and the Crown Office has accepted that compensation should be paid.

  Enterprise Companies
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many parliamentary questions he has referred for answer to the chief executives of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise; how many of these questions have then been passed on to individual local enterprise companies; how many questions in each category have subsequently received replies; how long those replies have taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  It is not my right hon. Friend's practice to refer parliamentary questions to the chief executives of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. It is the intention that all questions are answered by the chairmen, although in one instance a question was passed on by Scottish Enterprise to an individual local enterprise company. Since the responsibility for ensuring that questions are answered rests with the enterprise bodies I have asked the chairmen to respond to the hon. Member on the relevant aspects of her question.

  Scottish Agricultural Wages Board
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the responses to the consultation on the future of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Yes.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many submissions he has received to the consultation on the future of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board; and how many of those were in favour of the abolition of the board.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Fifty-two. Four favoured abolition.

  Farmed Salmon
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of his most recent recommendation to the European Commission on the reference price for farmed salmon.

  Sir Hector Monro
  It is the responsibility of the European commission to set a reference price for salmon, based on criteria set out in article 23 of regulation 3759/92. The Scottish Office has submitted background information to the Commission on production costs and prices over the last three years.

  Sheep
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications there have been for sheep quotas from the national reserve; if he will give the number
  769
  of successful applications as a proportion of all applications; and if he will provide a breakdown of the statistics for each region in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  An announcement will be made shortly giving details of the category of producer eligible to apply for an allocation of sheep annual premium quota from the national reserve. The announcement will also explain how and when producers should apply. Until applications have been received and processed it will not be possible to say how many have been successful.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the administration and operation of the national sheep reserve of sheep quotas; what discussions have taken place regarding altering or estending the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  We carried out an extensive public consultation exercise earlier this year concerning the operation of the sheep quota system and received representations from a broad cross section of the industry. Discussions have continued since then and we shall make an announcement shortly explaining how producers eligible for an allocation of quota from the national reserve can submit their application.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to alter the status of prison officers in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The precise legal position of Scottish prison officers and governors is different from that of similar staff in England and Wales. I consider it appropriate that as they carry out similar duties to those in England and Wales they should have the same status.

  I therefore intend to legislate this Session to place Scottish prison officers and governors on the same footing as those in the rest of the United Kingdom: they should have in substance the same powers, within the Scottish legal framework, and the position of the trade unions which represent them should be the same. As it will in consequence be unlawful for those trade unions to call industrial action, appropriate procedures will be established for settling the remuneration of the staff concerned.

  My officials will be in discussion with the Scottish Prison Officers Association and others affected.

  Health Service Salaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total salary costs for(a) administrative and clerical staff, (b) managerial staff and (c) nursing and midwifery staff employed in the NHS in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 November 1993]: The information is set out in the table. Details have been taken from health boards' annual accounts. General and senior managers costs are not separately identified but are included within the administration and clerical staff category. Costs are at outturn level and therefore increases are explained in part by annual pay awards. The figures for 1992–93 are provisional.
  770

  Year

  Administration and clerical (£000's)1

  Nursing and midwifery (£000's)

  1989–90

  130,055

  778,921

  1990–91

  152,546

  834,093

  1991–92

  175,718

  910,326

  1992–93

  191,979

  925,130

  1This figure includes those senior nurses and clinicians who have transferred to general/senior manager pay scales, particular in latter years.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list for the West Yorkshire police area for the past 12 months(a) the number of prison movements to and from courts and (b) the number of prisoner escapes from (i) the police, (ii) the Prison Service, (iii) Group 4 custody in transit to and from courts and from custody at court, (c) the number of deaths, including suicides, by prisoners at court or in transit from court, (d) the number of assaults on (iv) the police, (v) the Prison Service and (vi) Group 4 officers while escorting prisoners to and from courts and (e) the number of prisoners arriving at court more than one hour late while in the care of (vii) the police, (viii) the Prison Service and (ix) Group 4 officers;

  (2) if he will list for the North Yorkshire police area for the past 12 months (a) the number of prison movements to and from courts, (b) the number of prisoner escapes from (i) the police, (ii) the Prison Service and (iii) Group 4 custody in transit to and from courts and from custody at court, (c) the number of deaths, including suicides, by prisoners at court or in transit from court, (d) the number of assaults on (iv) the police, (v) the Prison Service and (vi) Group 4 officers while escorting prisoners to and from courts and (e) the number of prisoners arriving at court more than one hour late while in the care of (vii) the police, (viii) the Prison Service and (ix) Group 4 officers;

  (3) if he will list for the Humberside police area for the past 12 months (a) the number of prison movements to and from courts and (b) the number of prisoner escapes from (i) the police, (ii) the Prison Service and (iii) Group 4 custody in transit to and from courts and from custody at court, (c) the number of deaths, including suicides, by prisoners at court or in transit from court, (d) the number of assaults on (iv) the police, (v) the Prison Service and (vi) Group 4 officers while escorting prisoners to and from courts and (e) the number of prisoners arriving at court more than one hour late while in the care of (vii) the police, (viii) the Prison Service and (ix) Group 4 officers;

  (4) if he will list for the South Yorkshire police area for the past 12 months (a) the number of prison movements to and from courts and (b) the number of prisoner escapes from (i) the police, (ii) the Prison Service and (iii) Group 4 custody in transit to and from courts and from custody at court, (c) the number of deaths, including suicides, by prisoners at court or in transit from court, (d) the number of assaults on (iv) the police, (v) the Prison Service and (vi) Group 4 officers while escorting prisoners to and from courts and (e) the number of prisoners arriving at court more than one hour late while in the care of (vii) the police, (viii) the Prison Service and (ix) Group 4 officers.
  771
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. Martin Redwood, dated 3 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about court escort work in the South Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and Humberside force areas.
  Little of the information requested is routinely collected. Of that which is collected much is not in the format you requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The information which is readily available relates mainly to the East Midlands and Humberside area, where responsibility for prisoner escort and court custody work has largely been contracted out to Group 4. The area covered by the contract with Group 4, known as Area 7, covers the police force areas of Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Humberside, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, South Yorkshire and part of North Yorkshire. Group 4 have been operating the contract since 5 April 1993.
  Between that date and 31 October 1993 Group 4 were responsible for a total of 61,459 prisoner movements. This includes taking prisoners to court, guarding them at court and taking them to prison from court. 2,152 prisoners delivered by Group 4 arrived at court after the start of court business, including those delivered to courts outside the contract area where the length of the journey precludes timely delivery.
  Between 1 November 1992 and 31 October 1993 in the Prison Service areas which are equivalent to the police force areas covered by your Questions and in Area 7 there were a total of 38 escapes from Prison Service or Group 4 custody and a total of 8 assaults on Prison Service or Group 4 staff by prisoners in transit to or from court. Specifically within Area 7 there were 26 escapes from Group 4 custody and 7 assaults on their staff between the start of the contract and 31 October. These figures are not comparable, since the majority of the work taken on by Group 4 was previously performed by the police. The great majority of the escapes from Group 4 custody have been from escorts which would previously have been carried out by the police. Police forces in the area have been unable to provide any data on escapes from escort and assaults during escort.
  772
  Between 1 November 1992 and 31 October 1993 there were no deaths of prisoners whilst at court or in transit to or from court whilst in the custody of the Prison Service or the police forces in the areas covered by your Questions. There has been one such death within Area 7 since the start of the contract with Group 4.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current year's budget for the Prison Service; what proportion(a) was earmarked for and (b) will have been spent on projects in each London prison; 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, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 3 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the Prison Service budget and projects in London prisons.
  The Prison Service budget for the financial year 1993–94 is £1,524·5 million.
  Expenditure on major capital works and building repair projects at London prisons in 1993–94 is as follows:

  Prison

  Planned expenditure £'000

  Current forecast of actual expenditure £'000

  Belmarsh

  300

  334

  Brixton

  5,096

  3,002

  Holloway

  712

  249

  Pentonville

  2,608

  2,563

  Wandsworth

  2,561

  2,358

  Wormwood Scrubs

  20,124

  18,375

  Crime (Clear-up Rates) Per cent.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary Home Department if he will list in rank clear-up rates for each police authority in 10 years, and the current year to date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The requested contained in the table.

  Clear up rates by police force area 1983–1992

  England and Wales 1983

  Per cent.

  Dyfed-Powys

  57

  Gwent

  55

  Cheshire

  51

  North Wales

  51

  Derbyshire

  49

  Hertfordshire

  49

  Lincolnshire

  49

  South Yorkshire

  49

  Northumbria

  48

  West Mercia

  48

  Lancashire

  47

  Leicestershire

  47

  South Wales

  47

  Staffordshire

  47

  West Yorkshire

  47

  Cleveland

  45

  Devon and Cornwall

  45

  Northamptonshire

  45

  Cumbria

  44

  Suffolk

  44

  Wiltshire

  43

  Durham

  42

  Kent

  42

  Merseyside

  42

  Essex

  41

  Gloucestershire

  41

  Humberside

  41

  Norfolk

  41

  North Yorkshire

  41

  Thames Valley

  41

  Cambridgeshire

  40

  Sussex

  40

  Avon and Somerset

  39

  Bedfordshire

  39

  Dorset

  38

  Nottinghamshire

  38

  Warwickshire

  38

  Greater Manchester

  36

  West Midlands

  36

  Surrey

  34

  Hampshire

  33

  London, City of

  18

  MFD

  17

  1984

  Per cent.

  Dyfed-Powys

  58

  Derbyshire

  54

  Gwent

  53

  Hertfordshire

  51

  Cheshire

  49

  Cumbria

  49

  Staffordshire

  48

  Lancashire

  47

  Suffolk

  47

  North Wales

  46

  Northumbria

  45

  West Mercia

  45

  Devon and Cornwall

  44

  Leicestershire

  44

  South Wales

  43

  774

  Per cent.

  West Yorkshire

  42

  Wiltshire

  42

  Merseyside

  41

  Norfolk

  41

  Northamptonshire

  41

  South Yorkshire

  41

  Thames Valley

  41

  Dorset

  40

  Essex

  40

  Kent

  40

  Cambridgeshire

  39

  Durham

  39

  Humberside

  39

  Avon and Somerset

  38

  Befordshire

  38

  North Yorkshire

  38

  Sussex

  38

  Cleveland

  37

  Gloucestershire

  37

  Warwickshire

  36

  Hampshire

  35

  Lincolnshire

  35

  Surrey

  33

  Nottinghamshire

  30

  West Midlands

  30

  Greater Manchester

  27

  London, City of

  18

  MPD

  17

  1985

  Per cent.

  Derbyshire

  55

  Dyfed-Powys

  55

  Gwent

  55

  Hertfordshire

  52

  Staffordshire

  52

  Cumbria

  49

  South Yorkshire

  48

  Lancashire

  47

  Cheshire

  46

  Devon and Cornwall

  46

  Northumbria

  46

  Durham

  45

  Leicestershire

  45

  North Wales

  45

  Suffolk

  45

  West Mercia

  45

  South Wales

  44

  Essex

  43

  Lincolnshire

  42

  West Yorkshire

  42

  Norfolk

  41

  Cambridgeshire

  40

  Dorset

  40

  Humberside

  40

  Thames Valley

  40

  Kent

  39

  Northamptonshire

  39

  Wiltshire

  39

  Warwickshire

  38

  Bedfordshire

  37

  Cleveland

  37

  Hampshire

  37

  Avon and Somerset

  36

  Sussex

  36

  Gloucestershire

  35

  Merseyside

  35

  Nottinghamshire

  35

  Surrey

  34

  Greater Manchester

  32

  North Yorkshire

  31

  West Midlands

  30

  MPD

  18

  London, City of

  17

  775

  1986

  Per cent.

  Dyfed-Powys

  51

  Gwent

  50

  Derbyshire

  48

  Hertfordshire

  46

  Lancashire

  45

  Leicestershire

  44

  Staffordshire

  44

  Cheshire

  43

  South Yorkshire

  43

  Cumbria

  42

  Suffolk

  41

  West Mercia

  41

  Devon and Cornwall

  40

  Northumbria

  40

  Durham

  39

  South Wales

  39

  Merseyside

  38

  West Yorkshire

  38

  Cambridgeshire

  37

  Essex

  37

  Lincolnshire

  36

  Norfolk

  36

  Warwickshire

  36

  Wiltshire

  36

  Thames Valley

  35

  Cleveland

  34

  Dorset

  34

  Kent

  34

  Surrey

  34

  Hampshire

  33

  Nottinghamshire

  33

  North Wales

  32

  North Yorkshire

  32

  Northamptonshire

  31

  Sussex

  31

  Gloucestershire

  30

  Humberside

  30

  Avon and Somerset

  29

  Bedfordshire

  29

  West Midlands

  29

  Greater Manchester

  27

  MPD

  16

  London, City of

  13

  1987

  Per cent.

  Gwent

  53

  Dyfed-Powys

  51

  Cumbria

  46

  Lancashire

  46

  Derbyshire

  45

  Leicestershire

  45

  Suffolk

  45

  Hertfordshire

  44

  Northumbria

  44

  Merseyside

  43

  North Wales

  43

  South Yorkshire

  43

  Durham

  42

  Staffordshire

  42

  West Mercia

  42

  Northamptonshire

  41

  Cheshire

  40

  Devon and Cornwall

  39

  South Wales

  39

  West Yorkshire

  39

  Gloucestershire

  38

  incolnshire

  37

  Dorset

  36

  Norfolk

  36

  West Midlands

  36

  Wiltshire

  36

  Cambridgeshire

  35

  776

  Per cent.

  Essex

  35

  Cleveland

  34

  Hampshire

  34

  North Yorkshire

  34

  Nottinghamshire

  34

  Surrey

  34

  Warwickshire

  34

  Kent

  33

  Humberside

  32

  Sussex

  32

  Thames Valley

  31

  Avon and Somerset

  30

  Bedfordshire

  29

  Greater Manchester

  27

  London, City of

  19

  MPD

  16

  1988

  Per cent.

  Gwent

  54

  Dyfed-Powys

  53

  Cumbria

  51

  Cheshire

  50

  Lancashire

  50

  South Yorkshire

  47

  Northamptonshire

  46

  Merseyside

  45

  Staffordshire

  45

  West Mercia

  45

  Durham

  44

  Northumbria

  44

  Suffolk

  44

  Hertfordshire

  43

  Leicestershire

  43

  West Yorkshire

  43

  Lincolnshire

  42

  North Wales

  42

  West Midlands

  42

  Norfolk

  40

  Bedfordshire

  39

  Dorset

  39

  Gloucestershire

  39

  North Yorkshire

  39

  Warwickshire

  39

  Derbyshire

  38

  Devon and Cornwall

  38

  Nottinghamshire

  38

  Cleveland

  37

  South Wales

  37

  Wiltshire

  37

  Avon and Somerset

  36

  Humberside

  36

  Kent

  36

  Cambridgeshire

  34

  Hampshire

  34

  Surrey

  34

  Thames Valley

  34

  Essex

  32

  Sussex

  30

  Greater manchester

  29

  London, City of

  25

  MPD

  17

  1989

  Per cent.

  Gwent

  54

  Cheshire

  52

  Dyfed-powys

  52

  Cumbria

  49

  Wiltshire

  46

  Merseyside

  45

  Hertfordshire

  44

  North Wales

  44

  777

  Per cent.

  Northamptonshire

  43

  South Yorkshire

  43

  Staffordshire

  43

  Suffolk

  43

  Dorset

  43

  Durham

  42

  Lincolnshire

  42

  Lancashire

  40

  Leicestershire

  40

  Norfolk

  40

  Northumbria

  40

  South Wales

  39

  West Mercia

  39

  West Midlands

  39

  Cambridgeshire

  38

  West Yorkshire

  38

  Derbyshire

  37

  Cleveland

  36

  Devon and Cornwall

  36

  Gloucestershire

  36

  Humberside

  35

  North Yorkshire

  35

  Nottinghamshire

  35

  Warwickshire

  35

  Bedfordshire

  34

  Avon and Somerset

  33

  Surrey

  33

  Thames Valley

  33

  Essex

  32

  Hampshire

  32

  Kent

  32

  Sussex

  31

  Greater Manchester

  30

  London, City of

  20

  MPD

  17

  1990

  Per cent.

  Gwent

  51

  Cheshire

  50

  Dyfed Powys

  50

  West Mercia

  46

  Lancashire

  44

  Merseyside

  44

  South Yorkshire

  44

  Wiltshire

  44

  Cumbria

  43

  Lincolnshire

  43

  Suffolk

  41

  Northumbria

  40

  North Wales

  40

  North Yorkshire

  40

  Staffordshire

  39

  Cambridgeshire

  38

  Humberside

  37

  Norfolk

  37

  Leicestershire

  36

  South Wales

  36

  West Midlands

  36

  Dorset

  35

  Northamptonshire

  35

  Nottinghamshire

  35

  Durham

  34

  West Yorkshire

  34

  Gloucestershire

  33

  Derbyshire

  32

  Devon and Cornwall

  32

  Greater Manchester

  32

  Hampshire

  32

  Hertfordshire

  30

  Avon and Somerset

  29

  Essex

  29

  Warwickshire

  29

  Surrey

  27

  Sussex

  26

  778

  per cent.

  Thames Valley

  26

  Cleveland

  25

  Kent

  25

  London, City of

  21

  Bedfordshire

  19

  MPD

  17

  1991

  Per cent.

  Dyfed-Powys

  50

  Gwent

  47

  Lincolnshire

  46

  Merseyside

  45

  Cheshire

  41

  Dorset

  41

  Cumbria

  40

  Lancashire

  40

  wiltshire

  40

  Norfolk

  37

  Staffordshire

  37

  Suffolk

  37

  Cambridgeshire

  36

  Greater Manchester

  36

  North Wales

  36

  North Yorkshire

  36

  Gloucestershire

  35

  Northumbria

  35

  West Mercia

  35

  Cleveland

  33

  Hertfordshire

  33

  Essex

  32

  Humberside

  32

  Northamptonshire

  31

  West Midlands

  31

  Durham

  30

  Devon and Cornwall

  29

  Leicestershire

  29

  South Wales

  29

  Derbyshire

  28

  Hampshire

  28

  West Yorkshire

  28

  Nottinghamshire

  27

  Avon and Somerset

  24

  Warwickshire

  24

  Kent

  23

  Surrey

  23

  Sussex

  23

  Thames Valley

  22

  London, City of

  20

  Bedfordshire

  19

  MPD

  17

  1992

  Per cent.

  Dyfed-Powys

  53

  Gwent

  44

  Merseyside

  42

  Lincolnshire

  39

  Suffolk

  39

  Cumbria

  37

  Lancashire

  37

  Wiltshire

  37

  Greater Manchester

  35

  Norfolk

  34

  West Mercia

  34

  North Wales

  33

  North Yorkshire

  33

  Cleveland

  32

  Dorset

  32

  Durham

  30

  Leicestershire

  30

  Northamptonshire

  30

  South Walwes

  30

  779

  Per cent.

  Staffordshire

  30

  Cheshire

  29

  Essex

  29

  Cambridgeshire

  27

  Kent

  27

  West Midlands

  27

  Hampshire

  26

  Hertfordshire

  26

  Nottinghamshire

  26

  South Yorkshire

  26

  West Yorkshire

  25

  Gloucestershire

  24

  Humberside

  23

  Sussex

  23

  Warwickshire

  23

  Derbyshire

  22

  Surrey

  22

  Bedfordshire

  20

  London, City of

  20

  Thames Valley

  19

  Devon and Cornwall

  18

  Avon and Somerset

  17

  Northumbria

  17

  MPD

  16

  MPD = Metropolitan Police District

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.

  Mr. Michael Howard
  The Home Secretary has three cars supplied by the Home Office. The average annual cost, inclusive of maintenance, is £98,000. Other Home Office Ministers use four cars supplied by the Government car service. In addition, the GCS supplies cars for the transport of ministerial dispatch boxes. The estimated cost of these cars for 1993–94 is £247,000.

  Prisons
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the Government's prison building programme.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 25 November at column 574.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the status of the current discussions on the data protection directive, and in particular the current state of agreement or disagreement between member states on articles 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 as published in COM(92)4.22.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Council working group has completed its first reading of the revised text of the draft directive. A second reading has started. It would not be right for me to disclose the extent of agreement or disagreement on any particular article. In general, the range of views expressed is very wide.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has incorporated the code of practice for information security management, published by the British Standards Institution, into relevant contracts with information technology suppliers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The security requirements for IT systems and services used by central Government Departments are stated in the Government IT security policy document. This document is supported by use of the CCTA risk analysis and management method—CRAMM—and Baseline Security for IT systems—BSITS—risk analysis methods, by the Communications Electronic Security Group—CESG—memorandum No. 10 where appropriate and by supporting advice and guidance published by the Government IT security authorities. These are regularly reviewed to ensure best practice, have been developed specifically for use within government and have been in operation for some time. The code of practice for information security management was developed by and established for use by commercial organisations. It is currently not a British standard, and does not specifically address the requirements for the protection of official information.

  Mr. Amanullah Khan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 26 November,Official Report, column 230, what consideration was given to complying with the request from the Indian national central bureau of Interpol that Mr. Amanullah Khan be arrested on the occasion of his arrival at Manchester airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None. Mr. Khan was not seeking admission to the United Kingdom at Manchester airport on 15 October 1993. He was in transit to another country. The police officers who spoke to him were not aware of the request from the Indian national central bureau of Interpol that he be arrested with a view to extradition.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will notify Billingham Bombers Ltd. that Igor Slavinsky, Ref. S80 79 56, can now have a work permit to play ice hockey;

  (2) if he will approve a work permit for Igor Slavinsky, Ref. 9320830/FHY, to play ice hockey for Billingham Bombers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 30 November informing him that I had decided to grant Mr. Slavinsky's application to remain and work exceptionally outside the immigration rules.

  Prison Accommodation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to use any floating facility on Humberside to accommodate prisoners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  781
  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 3 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the use of a floating facility on Humberside to accommodate prisoners.
  The use of floating vessels to accommodate prisoners is one option being considered as part of our contingency plans to deal with increases in the prison population. No final decisions have been taken to use this option or on possible locations.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Mr. Howard
  No central record of files marked "not for NAO eyes" is maintained. The information could be obtained only by examining individually each of the 1·5 million extant files in my Department, and could therefore only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The marking "not for NAO eyes" is used rarely and in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are detained in police cells(a) nationally and (b) in the north-west; at what locations; and for how long they have been there.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 3 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prisoners detained in police cells (a) nationally and (b) in the North West; and what locations; and for how long they have been there.
  On Tuesday 30 November, the latest date for which complete information is available, a national total of ten prisoners were detained in police cells, all in Manchester. They arrived there on that day and were received into prison custody on the following day.

  Criminal Justice Act 1993
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he expects to implement the remaining provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1993.

  Mr. Howard
  The following miscellaneous provisions brought into force on 1 December by means of commencement order No. 3: sections 20 to 23, 34 and 35, 44 to 46, and 73.

  A further announcement about the implementation of the remainder of the Act will be made in due course.

  Police (Performance Indicators)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will select and make known a first set of objectives and performance indicators for policing, as proposed in the White Paper on police reform.

  Mr. Howard
  The following is the text of a letter which I am sending today to all police authority chairmen and chief constables. I am writing in similar terms to the commissioners of the Metropolitan and City of London police forces, and to the chairman of the City of London police committee.

  Key objectives for policing 1994–95
  The White Paper on Police Reform contains a commitment that the Home Secretary will publish each year a brief statement of key objectives for the police service. This will explain the tasks which the Government consider that the police should be tackling as matters of priority across the country. The key objectives, which are centred on the principles of the citizens charter, will provide a framework for the assessment of police performance.
  I am writing now to set out the Government's key objectives for policing in 1994–95. These are based on the objectives provisionally set out in the White Paper, refined in discussion with the police, with local authority associations and with Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The objectives will be further refined in the light of experience gained during the coming year.
  I intend to treat 1994–95 as a trial run. This should provide useful experience which will help to ensure that the system of setting objectives and measuring progress is soundly based. Once the necessary legislation is in place, police authorities and chief constables will be required by statute to have regard to the key objectives for policing.
  In setting particular objectives the Government is well aware of the wide nature of the police role. This is encapsulated in the guidelines laid down by the first joint Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police:
  "The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime; the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends, all the efforts of the police should be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquility, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether these efforts have been successful, and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained."
  While proposing that particular effort should be directed towards improving the performance of certain tasks, the Government reaffirms the importance which it attaches to other essential policing duties such as the maintenance of public order, the fight against drugs and terrorism and the prevention of crimes against children. In certain areas theft of and from vehicles is a major probem requiring action by the police as well as others. You are, I know, already contributing towards wider Government objectives such as the reduction of the number of road traffic accident casualties by one-third by the year 2000. All these tasks, together with others which I have not mentioned, remain important.
  It is precisely because the role of the police is so varied that the Government believes that performance can best be improved by focusing more sharply each year on a small number of areas of concern to the public. The aim of the key objectives is to encourage progress in these areas in addition to maintaining the good levels of service which the police are providing in response to other demands.
  The key objectives for 1994–95 will be:

  1. to maintain and if possible increase the number of detections for violent crimes;

  2. to increase the number of detections for burglaries of people's homes;

  3. to target and prevent crimes which are a particular local problem in partnership with the public and other local agencies;

  4. to provide high visibility policing so as to reassure the public;

  5. to respond promptly to emergency calls from the public. Progress towards each of these objectives will be measured by

  783
  the key performance indicators set out in the Appendix to this letter. In all cases this information is already being gathered by the police for other purposes, such as the Audit Commissioner's performance indicators. They should therefore not add to the paperwork burden on the police. I expect Chief Constables to publish the information collected for the full range of performance indicators in their Annual Reports.

  In future years police authorities and Chief Constables will be required to set targets for making progress towards the key objectives. You may, in 1994–95, wish to experiment with setting local targets related to the various key objectives.
  I would encourage the publication of the key objectives locally in the context of the Citizen's Charter initiative and in tandem with any existing local policing charters or statements of service standards.
  The Association of Chief Police Officers has already undertaken considerable work in defining national standards for the police. The Government welcomes this work which complements the proposals for setting key objectives and targets set out in the White Paper on Police Reform.

  APPENDIX

  Key performance indicators are:

  1. The number of violent crimes detected per 100 officers.

  2. The number of burglaries of dwellings detected per 100 officers.

  3. No high level indicator is currently available. Work on developing such an indicator for 1995–96 will be taken forward over the next year, aimed at measuring the effectiveness of crime prevention initiatives.

  4. Public satisfaction with levels of foot and mobile patrols.

  5. (i) The percentage of 999 calls answered within the local target time.
  (ii) The percentage of responses within the local target time to incidents requiring immediate response.

  Prison Officers (Industrial Action)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he now intends to take following the injunction he obtained against the calling of industrial action by the Prison Officers Association.

  Mr. Howard
  On 18 November the High Court issued an interim injunction requiring the general secretary of the Prison Officers Association to call off its planned industrial action which would have resulted in some 1,700 prisoners being held in police cells. The court made it clear that the calling of industrial action by the POA was unlawful.

  I recognise that matters cannot be left there. I intend to introduce legislation this Session which, while maintaining the position that it is unlawful for the POA to call industrial action, also extends normal trade union status to organisations representing staff who currently have the powers of a constable.

  The legislation will also extend to prison officers the appropriate elements of employment protection legislation, including access to industrial tribunals, and enable regulations to be made to establish procedures for setting the remuneration of the staff concerned. There will need to be discussions with the POA and others about those provisions.

  These measures will provide a much needed and firm foundation for the development of constructive industrial relations in the special context of the Prison Service.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has incorporated the code of practice for information security management, published by the British Standards Institution, into relevant contracts with information technology suppliers.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The security requirements for IT services and systems used by central Government Departments are stated in the Government IT security policy document. This document is supported by use of the CCTA risk analysis and management method—CRAMM—and baseline security for IT systems—BSITS—risk analysis methods and by supporting advice and guidance published by the Government IT security authorities. These are regularly reviewed to ensure best practice, have been developed specifically for use within government and have been in operation for some time. The code of practice for information security management was developed by and established for use by commercial organisations and does not specifically address the requirements for the protection of official information.

  Publicity
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department spends annually on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising and (c) press advertising; and what were the corresponding figures for 1985 and 1979.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Total expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on advertising in 1992–93, the last financial year for which information is available, was:

  FCO Diplomatic Wing £

  FCO ODA Wing £

  TV advertising

  nil

  nil

  Radio advertising

  nil

  nil

  Press advertising

  72,000

  283,033

  The 1979 and 1985 figures cannot be disaggregated between television, radio and press advertising and other promotional material without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many press and publicity officers are currently employed in his Department; and how many were employed in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Mr. Goodlad
  The number of press officers employed in the FCO news department for the years in question is:

  Year

  Number

  1979

  11

  1985

  11

  1993

  9

  The Overseas Development Administration operates a separate information service. The number of information officers employed by the ODA is as follows:

  785

  Year

  Number

  1979

  9

  1985

  12

  1993

  7

  Secondments
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each of the last five years the number of secondments(a) into and (b) out of his Department; and if he will give details of which Departments were involved.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Tables I to V contain details of inward and outward secondments between other Government Departments and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office over the last five years. Secondments between the Overseas Development Administration and the diplomatic wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are shown separately in these tables, as are secondments to the Cabinet Office. Overseas Development Administration exchanges to and from other Government Departments are listed separately at table VI.

  In addition to exchanges with other Whitehall departments, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has an interchange programme with the private sector and other foreign ministries. The Overseas Development Administration also has officers on secondment to the World bank and regional development banks.

  Table I Part (a)

  Number of Ds officers on loan to the home civil service at 31 December 1992

  Receiving department

  Numbers

  DTI

  9

  MOD

  2

  Law Officers Department

  1

  Cabinet Office

  6

  ODA

  2

  Home Office

  1

  No. 10

  1

  Civil Service Selection Board

  1

  23

  Table I Part (b)

  Number of home civil service officers on loan to the FCO at 31 December 1992

  Parent department

  Numbers

  DTI

  26

  MAFF

  10

  Employment

  13

  Home Office

  88

  Treasury

  5

  DOE

  2

  NIO

  4

  Scottish Office

  4

  CAA

  1

  Customs and Excise

  3

  ODA

  21

  Transport

  7

  Cabinet Office

  1

  Department of Health

  1

  Department of Social Security

  1

  189

  786

  Table II Part (a)

  Number of DS officers on loan to the home civil service at 31 December 1991

  Receiving department

  Number

  DTI

  8

  NIO

  1

  MOD

  4

  Law Officers Department

  1

  Cabinet Office

  9

  ODA

  5

  Home Office

  1

  Civil Service Selection Board

  1

  Civil Service College

  1

  Others

  2

  33

  Table 11 Part (b)

  Number of home civil service officers on loan to the FCO at 31 December 1991

  Parent Department

  Number

  DTI

  23

  MAFF

  11

  MOD

  14

  Employment

  2

  Home Office

  84

  Treasury

  4

  DOE

  2

  NIO

  4

  Scottish Office

  2

  CAA

  1

  Energy

  1

  Customs and Excise

  3

  ODA

  20

  Transport

  5

  Cabinet Office

  1

  Department of Social Security

  1

  178

  Table III Part (a)

  Number of DS officers on loan to the home civil service at 31 December 1990

  Receiving department

  Numbers

  Treasury

  1

  MAFF

  1

  DTI

  9

  NIO

  1

  MOD

  8

  Office of Fair Trading

  1

  Law Officers Department

  1

  Cabinet Office

  12

  ODA

  1

  Home Office

  1

  Privy Council Office

  1

  Other

  4

  41

  Table III Part (b)

  Number of home civil service officers on loan to the FCO at 31 December 1990

  Parent department

  Numbers

  DTI

  28

  MAFF

  11

  MOD

  23

  Employment

  5

  Home Office

  93

  Treasury

  7

  Northern Ireland CS

  2

  787

  Parent department

  Numbers

  NIO

  4

  Scottish Office

  1

  CAA

  1

  Energy

  1

  Customs and Excise

  11

  ODA

  23

  Transport

  3

  Cabinet Office

  1

  Department of Health

  2

  216

  Table IV Part (a)

  Number of DS officers on loan to the home civil service at 31 December 1989

  Receiving department

  Numbers

  Treasury

  1

  MAFF

  1

  ECGD

  1

  DTI

  7

  NIO

  2

  MOD

  8

  Office of Fair Trading

  1

  Law Officers Department

  1

  Cabinet Office

  11

  ODA

  5

  Other

  1

  39

  Table IV Part (b)

  Number of home civil service officers on loan to the FCO at 31 December 1989

  Parent department

  Numbers

  DTI

  26

  MAFF

  10

  MOD

  22

  Employment

  6

  Home Office

  70

  Treasury

  8

  DOE

  1

  Northern Ireland CS

  2

  NIO

  4

  Scottish Office

  1

  CAA

  1

  Energy

  1

  Customs and Excise

  9

  ODA

  26

  Transport

  3

  Cabinet Office

  1

  Department of Health

  2

  193

  Table V part (a)

  Number of DS officers on loan to the Home Civil Service at 31 December 1988

  Receiving department

  Numbers

  ECGD

  1

  DTI

  10

  NIO

  2

  MOD

  4

  MPO

  3

  Office of Fair Trading

  1

  Law Officers Department

  1

  Cabinet Office

  10

  ODA

  4

  Home Office

  1

  Treasury

  1

  788

  Receiving department

  Numbers

  —

  38

  Table V Part (b)

  Number of Home Civil Service Officers on loan to the DS at 31 December 1988

  Parent Department

  Numbers

  DTI

  23

  MAFF

  11

  MOD

  22

  Employment

  8

  Home Office

  73

  Treasury

  6

  DOE

  1

  N Ireland CS

  3

  NIO

  4

  Scottish Office

  1

  CAA

  2

  Energy

  2

  Customs and Excise

  10

  ODA

  23

  Transport

  3

  Cabinet Office

  1

  193

  Table VI

  ODA secondments to and from other Government Departments (excluding FCO)

  Year

  Outward

  Inward

  1988

  Treasury (1)

  Treasury (2)

  1989

  Treasury (1)

  Treasury (1)

  1990

  Treasury (1)

  Treasury (1)

  Civil Service

  College (1)

  1991

  Treasury (1)

  Nil

  Civil Service

  College (1)

  1992

  Nil

  Nil

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information requested is not readily available. To provide it would require consultation with all overseas posts. This could be done only at disproportionate cost. The marking "not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to te NAO while tey are current. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's internal audit unit regularly checks to ensre that the marking is not abused.

  There is no marking "not for PAC eyes".

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement on the forthcoming business in the European Community's Council of Ministers.
  789
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information is as follows:

  Council of Ministers' business for December 1993
  1. The following meetings are planned.
  2 December: Special Foreign Affairs Council.
  2 December: Development Council.
  2-3 December: Environment Council.
  5 December: Special ECOFIN Council.
  6 December: Research Council.
  6-7 December: Foreign Affairs Council.
  7 December: Telecommunications Council.
  10 December: Energy Council.
  10-11 December: European Council.
  13-16 December: Agriculture Council.
  13-14 December: ECOFIN Council.
  13 December: Health Council.
  16 December: Internal Market Council.
  17 December: Industry Council.
  20-21 December: Foreign Affairs Council.
  20-21 December: Fisheries Council.
  22 December: Social Affairs Council.

  2. The following subjects are likely to be discussed.

  (a) 2 December. Foreign Affairs Council
  Uruguay Round
  GATT
  Commercial Defence Instruments

  (b) 2-3 December: Development Council
  Development Co-operation policy in the run-up to 2000
  Rehabilitation Aid
  Mid-term review of Lomé IV
  Democracy, human rights and development
  Follow-up to UNCED
  Relations with South Africa
  Projects concerning tropical forests

  (c) 2-3 December: Environment Council
  Car emissions
  Packaging
  Ozone Layer Regulation
  Copenhagen Amendment Ratification Decision
  Amendment to Hazardous Waste Directive
  Amendment to Birds Directive
  Climate change (including Convention Ratification Decision) Landfill
  PCBS/PCTS
  Civil liability Green Paper
  UNCED follow-up
  Implementation and enforcement of EC law

  (d) 5 December: Special ECOFIN Council
  Preparation for European Council 10-11 December
  Broad economic guidelines (article 103(2) of Treaty on European Union)

  (e) 6 December: Research Council
  Fourth Framework Programme—adoption of common position (Poss)
  Council Resolution on Material Test Reactors—adoption (Poss) Negotiate Mandate for ITER Protocol 2—adoption (Poss) Sprint—extension—adoption.

  (f)6-7 December: Foreign Affairs Council
  Preparation of 10-11 December European Council
  Publication of votes (Poss)
  Access to information
  Revision of Council Rules of Procedure
  Right to vote and stand in EP elections (Poss)
  Accession negotiations
  Institutional aspects of enlargement
  Relations with Morocco (Poss)
  Negotiating mandate for new agreement
  Relations with Tunisia (Poss)
  Negotiating mandate for new agreement
  Relations with Israel (Poss)
  Negotiating mandate for new agreement
  Relations with Russia (Poss)
  PCA
  Uruguay round
  Member State participation in MTO
  Dual-use Goods (Poss)
  790
  Ex-Yugoslavia
  South Africa: joint action (Poss)
  Middle East: joint action (Poss)
  Appointment of European Observer for Cyprus problem
  European Energy Charter
  Anti-dumping (Poss)
  Dead-burned magnesite from China

  (g) 7 December: Telecommunications Council
  Agenda available.

  (h) 10 December: Energy Council
  Hydrocarbons Licensing Directive
  Coal State Aids Decision
  Internal Energy Market
  Commission Communications on
  Thermie
  Energy Objectives to the year 2005
  Trans-European Energy Networks
  Energy Charter Treaty
  Energy Safety in Eastern Europe/FSU

  (i) 10-11 December: European Council
  White Book on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment Article 103 broad economic policy guidelines
  GATT
  Enlargement, including institutional issues
  Subsidiarity
  Ballardur Stability Pact
  Former Yugoslavia
  Justice/Home Affairs Co-operation

  (j) 13-16 December: Agriculture Council
  Set-aside
  Oilseeds
  Agrimoney
  Sugar
  New Zealand butter
  New Zealand sheepmeat
  Pesticides
  Plant breeders rights
  Animal feeding stuffs (enzymes)
  Inspection fees
  Welfare at slaughter
  Welfare in transport
  Poultry/poultry meat
  Beef market (poss)
  Sheep market (poss)

  (k) 13-14 December: ECOFIN Council
  Follow-up to European Council 10-11 December 1993 (adoption of Council recommendation on broad economic policy guidelines).
  Report on progress with economic and monetary convergence and with the implementation of Community law concerning the Single Market.
  Interest rate subsidies for EIB loans to small and medium-sized enterprises.
  Progress with ratification of the European Investment Fund.
  Preparation of the second stage of EMU.
  Listing particulars directive (document 4199/93, COM (92)566).
  (Poss) Amending directive on the co-ordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) (document 4901/93. COM(93)226)
  (Poss) Withholding tax on savings.
  Carbon/Energy Tax (document 7018/92, COM(92)226) 7th VAT directive.
  (Poss) Excise duties on mineral oils.
  (Poss) Interest and Royalties Directive.
  Portuguese Convergence Programme
  Taxation of Savings
  (Poss) Interest and Royalties Directive

  (l) 13 December: Health Council
  Draft Resolution on Europe Against Cancer Programme (4832/93)
  Draft Resolution on the Extension of Europe against AIDS Programme into 1994 (9397/93)
  Draft Conclusions on Blood and Blood Products (4593/93)
  Draft Conclusions on a European Epidemiological Network (9400/93)

  791
  Draft Council Directive on Tobacco Advertising (COM(92)196 final).
  Any other business.

  (m) 16 December: Internal Market Council
  (Poss) Data Protection
  (Poss) Recreational Craft
  (poss) Motor Cycle Power
  (poss) Economie Sociale
  (poss) Trademarks
  (poss) European Pharmacopoeia
  (poss) Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions
  (poss) Pension Funds
  (poss) 14th amendment to Marketing and Use of Dangerous Substances Directive
  (poss) Food Labelling
  (poss) Additives other than sweeteners and colours

  (n) 17 December: Industry Council
  agenda unavailable

  (o) 20/21 December: Foreign Affairs Council
  Enlargement negotiations in the margins.

  (p) 20/21 December: Fisheries Council
  TACS and Quotas (all elements)
  Structures
  Spain and Portugal
  Third country landings licensing
  Restructuring of fishing fleets

  (q) 22 December: Social Affairs Council
  agenda unavailable

  Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom will contribute to the enhanced structural adjustment facility operated by the International Monetary Fund.

  Mr. Hurd
  The United Kingdom will contribute £50 million to the next phase of the enhanced structural adjustment facility of the International Monetary Fund. ESAF supports economic reform programmes in low-income countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. This brings the United Kingdom contribution to about 11 per cent. of the total fund.

  Our new contribution will be made in 1994–95 from resources released by an underspending of EC aid. It will not add to planned levels of public expenditure. ESAF adds to the effectiveness of our bilateral aid programme and complements our Trinidad terms initiative to relieve the debt burdens of the poorest countries pursuing economic reform. Our new contribution underlines Britain's position at the heart of the international effort to promote sustainable recovery and growth in the developing world.

  China
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government are doing to enforce the law forbidding the import of products of forced prison labour from China.

  Sir John Cope
  I have been asked to reply.

  The prohibition on the importation of foreign prison made goods is enforced by HM Customs and Excise. Under the provisions of the Foreign Prison-Made Goods Act 1897 the prohibition can only be enforced when evidence is supplied to customs proving the foreign prison-made origin of the goods. Customs has received no evidence to date which would prove import into the United Kingdom of specific goods made in Chinese prisons, but it is willing to act upon any adequate evidence supplied to it.

DEFENCE

  Vitez Garage, Bosnia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by which units the site known as Vitez garage, Bosnia, is currently being used for accommodation purposes; how many personnel are involved; whether improvements planned to be made to facilities, including the provision of ablution and sanitation units, have been effected; whether the 35 four-man accommodation units on an adjacent site have yet been commissioned and occupied; what plans he has for expanding or improving accommodation on these sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The site is currently being used for accommodation purposes by part of the logistic support element of 1 Coldstream Guards, a light aid detachment of REME, a forward recovery group of REME and a forward ordnance team of Royal Logistic Corps, a total of 131 personnel. Occupied and in use are 39 four-man accommodation units, two rest rooms, three shower blocks, three toilet blocks and one laundry block. In addition, there are three toilets in the existing garage. One fire-damaged portacabin is to be replaced and there are plans to provide portacabin kitchen facilities to enable the present kitchen area to revert to its original use.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his oral answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 314, if he will place in the Library details of the intensity of low flying in each affected area.

  Mr. Hanley
  For administrative purposes, the United Kingdom is divided into a number of low-flying areas. Records are maintained of the amount of low flying conducted in each LFA but it is not my Department's practice to release this detailed information. Information is not available on the amount of low flying conducted within LFAs over particular locations, such as national parks. Low flying is conducted in areas of low population but, consistent with our policy of dispersing the activity as widely as possible, national parks are not specifically targeted for low flying.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will supply the hon. Member for Don Valley with a current copy of the map showing the structure of the(a) day and (b) night low-flying system.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have arranged for a copy of the map showing the structure of the day low-flying system to be placed in the Library. A copy of the map showing the structure of the night low-flying system is already in the Library.

  Radar Surveillance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations and dates where radar surveillance of transit areas has been carried out during the last five years; and what are the current requirements before his Ministry carries out such operations.

  Mr. Hanley
  Locations for Skyguard low-flying monitoring are decided having regard to a number of
  793
  factors, including exercise activity and reports of disturbance. Priority is given to locations where flying down to 250 ft may take place. There have been no deployments to monitor low flying in transit areas during the last five years.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many operational incidents the RAF's search and rescue helicopters have been called out to deal with from each search and rescue base during 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total number of callouts from RAF stations was:

  1992

  11993

  Boulmer

  134

  135

  Brawdy

  158

  115

  Chivenor

  174

  123

  Coltishall

  106

  76

  Leconfield

  160

  119

  Leuchars2

  131

  43

  Lossiemouth

  241

  201

  Manston

  162

  128

  Valley

  187

  168

  Aldergrove

  22

  14

  Total

  1,475

  1,122

  1Up to and including 31 October 1993.

  2Flight disbanded 1 April 1993.

  Pilot Training
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the prospects of increasing the pilot flying training undertaken by the RAF in the United Kingdom for air forces of other countries.

  Mr. Hanley
  In line with normal policy, the provision of pilot flying training in the United Kingdom for air forces of overseas countries is dictated by the availability of surplus training capacity within the RAF. Opportunities presently exist for such training and potential customers have been informed accordingly.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to initiate a nuclear weapons convention along the lines of the chemical weapons convention with the aim of a verifiable global plan on the design, manufacture and deployment of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom's nuclear policy was set out in my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's speech to the centre for defence studies on 16 November, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he possesses on the role of the Ibn Al Haytham centre in Iraq.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ibn Al Haytham missile research and development centre was established by the Iraqis in March 794
  1992 and is located 15 km north-east of Baghdad. Its primary purpose is to conduct research and development on missiles with ranges of up to 150 km. This work is permitted under UN SCR 687 (1991). The establishment has been visited by six UNSCOM inspections.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many experts his Department has contributed to the United Nations special commission missions to Iraq since May 1991.

  Mr. Hanley
  Some 50 personnel from my Department have participated in support of United Nations special commission missions to Iraq since May 1991.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has that British military equipment transported in 1990–91 for use in the Gulf war was subsequently directly or indirectly purveyed to the warring parties in Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Hanley
  I am not aware that any British military equipment transported in 1990–91 for use in the Gulf conflict was subsequently transferred to the warring parties in Sri Lanka.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  The precise number of files held by my Department marked "not for NAO eyes" could be established only at disproportionate cost.

  The marking "not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the political advisers employed in his Department during 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  During 1993 Mr. Perry Miller was employed as special adviser to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence from 1 January to 14 February and Mr. Crispin Blunt has been employed since then.

HEALTH

  Prescription Budgets
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library tables showing (a) indicative prescription budgets and(b) the prescription element of general practitioner fund-holder budgets for 1991–92 and 1992–93 in each family health services authority area and for each NHS region showing (i) planned expenditure, outturn expenditure in cash terms and standard price terms, (ii) the percentage expenditure, (iii)

  795
  actual expenditure per head of population served each year both in cash and standard price terms and (iv) the percentage increase between years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information will be placed in the Library. Information for actual expenditure per head of population and the percentage increase between the years is not available centrally.

  Administration Expenditure
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the total amount spent on administration by(a) regional health authorities, (b)

  Expenditure on Adminstration

  1989–90 £000s

  1990–91 £000s

  1991–92 £000s

  1992–93 £000s

  1993–94 £000s current allocation

  Regional Health Authorities12

  144,135

  177,626

  312,037

  327,349

  4—

  District Health Authorities12

  469,603

  573,028

  327,036

  387,387

  4—

  Family Health Services Authorities

  66,508

  103,880

  136,332

  161,881

  4—

  Department of Health3

  174,681

  216,785

  240,267

  276,280

  264,608

  1These figures cover the total revenue expenditure on the pay and accommodation costs of staff of all disciplines and their support staff employed at health authority headquarters level together with the costs of the purchaser function. They exclude administrative support in the hospital departments and at other local levels which is regarded as operational.

  2 The figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are not comparable with the figures for 1991–92. This is because of the introduction of capital charges and changes to accounting policies following the introduction of the internal market.

  3Costs for the national health service management executive are included in the Department of Health figures.

  4Not available.

  Source: Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities, family health services authorities and the Department of Health.

  Hospital Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list, for 1992–93, by regional health authority(a) the average daily number of beds available and (b) new accident and emergency cases during the year;

  NHS hospitals and trusts, England 1992–93

  Average number of daily available beds

  Average number of daily available beds per 1,000 population

  New accident and emergency cases

  New accident and emergency cases per 1,000 population

  England total1

  231,363

  4·8

  10,993,202

  227·2

  Northern

  18,704

  6·0

  712,704

  230·0

  Yorkshire

  18,583

  5·0

  851,205

  230·2

  Trent

  20,869

  4·4

  926,631

  195·3

  East Anglian

  9,944

  4·8

  338,875

  162·2

  North West Thames

  16,307

  4·5

  771,198

  214·6

  North East Thames

  18,348

  4·8

  964,819

  254·0

  South East Thames

  15,273

  4·1

  918,914

  247·5

  South West Thames

  15,287

  5·0

  617,496

  202·9

  Wessex

  13,232

  4·4

  564,475

  188·6

  Oxford

  9,313

  3·6

  453,362

  175·6

  South Western

  15,851

  4·8

  663,641

  200·1

  West Midlands

  23,445

  4·4

  1,333,724

  252·7

  Mersey

  11,552

  4·8

  702,597

  291·2

  North Western

  22,150

  5·5

  1,086,088

  270·3

  1Figure includes special health authorities.

  Influenza Vaccine
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement as to the reasons given by the National Institute of Biological Standards and control for rejecting supplies of the influenza vaccine from the company Duphar; and what alternative arrangements have been made for this coming winter.
  796
  district health authorities, (c) family health service authorities and (d) the Department of Health/NHS management executive, in (i) 1989–90, (ii) 1990–91, (iii) 1991–92 and (iv) 1992–93 and her expectation of expenditure in those categories for 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Administration expenditure is shown in the table.

  The information requested for 1993–94 is not available for regional and district health authorities and family health services authorities.

  (2) if she will list, for 1992–93, by regional health authority per 1,000 population (a) the average daily number of beds available and (b) new accident and emergency cases during the year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Mr. Sackville
  The decision which prevented the marketing of the Duphar vaccine was made by the Medicines Control Agency—MCA—of the Department of Health after receiving advice from specialist advisers and the National Institute of Biological Standards and Control.

  Duphar was originally granted a product licence for influenza vaccine in early August 1993. During late September the company applied to the MCA to make a major change to its manufacturing process.
  797
  Information provided by Duphar, however, gave inadequate reassurance of the safety and efficacy of the product proposed for marketing since clinical studies being carried out by the company were far from complete.

  Other manufacturers have stepped in to fill the gap caused by the loss of Duphar influenza vaccine this year, and already more vaccine has beeń distributed than in previous years.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of medium and long-stay beds available in NHS psychiatric hospitals and trusts in England and by region in each year from 1984–85 to 1991–92.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) short-stay, (b) medium-stay and (c) long-stay psychiatric beds were available in each region in each year from 1982.

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information will be placed in the Library. Beds are classified as either short stay or long stay, and are shown in total prior to 1987–88. Information for 1992–93 is provisional.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many short and long-stay beds are provided for patients in private and NHS other hospitals illustrated in figure 2 of the Yates report.

  Mr. Bowis
  The breakdown between long and short-stay beds is not available for the private sector. In 1991–92 there were 12,600 mental illness beds in privately registered nursing homes or hospitals and 22,000 short-stay and 27,000 long-stay beds in mental illness wards in national health service hospitals in England.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has given to the Royal College of Psychiatrists recommendation that the closure of mental hospitals should not go ahead until alternative services are in place.

  Mr. Bowis
  This is in line with Government policy.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines exist on levels of community provision for people with mental health problems required in an area before a mental hospital can be closed.

  Mr. Bowis
  The mental illness key area handbook gives guidance on the range of service provision needed for adult psychiatric services in the community, copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she issues to NHS trusts about the salaries of chief executives; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 5 November at column 535.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the NHS status of trust hospitals and where their ownership lies.
  798
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Trusts remain fully part of the national health service. They are accountable through the NHS management executive to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. They are also accountable to NHS purchasers through contracts for service delivery. Each NHS trust is a body corporate and has ownership of its land, buildings and other property.

  Pacemakers
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the interval between her Department's receipt of a warning from Siemens in respect of certain pacemakers and the issue of pacemaker technical note No. 48; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Twenty-five working days elapsed between the Department of Health first being advised of the Siemens pacemaker lead problem and the issue of pacemaker technical note No. 48.

  The pacemaker technical note was a follow-up to the medical advisory notice issued by Siemens on 4 February 1993 to all relevant clinicians notifying them of the problem. The action was dependent on Siemens advising the Department of the publication of its advisory notice. Eleven working days elapsed between receipt of this information and the publication of the pacemaker technical note. Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

  Community Health Councils
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to change the role of management of community health councils.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Community health councils have an important role in representing the views of users and we support a strong role for them now and in the future. The future arrangements for establishing and funding CHCs will need to be considered in the context of the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the House on 21 October at columns 398-412.

  Orthodontics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what limits there are to providing orthodontic care for children under the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service provides all the treatment necessary to secure and maintain oral health.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department has currently set up a review committee reviewing maternity services; when her Department last set up a committee reviewing maternity services; what was its conclusions; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  A review of national health service maternity care during childbirth has recently been completed by the expert maternity group. The group was established as part of the Government's response to the House of Commons Health Select Committee report on maternity services, published in 1992.

  The expert group's report, "Changing Childbirth," was published on 5 August. A consultation period, to enable

  799
  interested parties to comment on the report, ended on 29 October. Ministers are currently considering the comments received before deciding on future action. Guidelines will be issued to the NHS in due course.

  Earlier reviews of particular aspects of NHS maternity care have been conducted on behalf of the Department by the maternity services advisory committee. Three reports were published between 1982 and 1985, covering antenatal care, care during childbirth, and care of the mother and baby.

  Copies of these documents and reports are available in the Library.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital, London.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The St. Bartholomew's/Royal London/London Chest Trust application is currently out to consultation. A decision on this will be made in the new year.

  Winter Deaths
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement relating to the excess winter deaths in the west midlands region.

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of excess deaths in the west midlands region during the winter of 1991–92—the latest available figures—was 3,373.

  Doncaster Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement setting out the current conditions of service and remuneration of(a) executive and (b) non-executive directors of Doncaster health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The current conditions of service for executive members of Doncaster health authority are those of all other national health service general and senior managers. The chief executive is paid within the range set for district general manager grade 2—£45,710 to £66,030. Executive members of health authorities are paid on the senior manager pay spine, which ranges from £14,940 to £46,600 per year.

  Non-executive members of health authorities hold a statutory office under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, and their appointment and tenure of office is governed by the National Health Service Regional and District Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1990. Non-executive members of health authorities receive an annual remuneration of £5,000.

  Low Birthweights
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has funded in response to the proposals of the Audit Commission report "Children First" on data about the outcome of health care in childhood and the prevalence of disability among very low birthweight babies who survive into childhood; and if she will make a statement.
  800
  Mr. Sackville
  The publication, earlier this year, of the report of the Audit Commission's study into hospital services for children was welcomed by the Government, particularly the emphasis which it placed on monitoring health outcomes. The vital importance placed by the Government on evaluating both the short-term and long-term impact of neonatal intensive care interventions had been acknowledged at paragraph 2.7.10 of their response to the second report from the Health Committee, 1991–92—Cm 2018—in July 1992. This also referred to a number of population-based studies which had been commissioned to look into the long-term effects on survivors of care.

  Since then, the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has helped to fund a study of the outcomes for babies weighing less than 1,500 gm at a number of different hospitals and examining a range of different risk factors, including birthweight, which make up the clinical risk index for babies. This study is being extended on a national basis and the results are expected later next year.

  The national perinatal epidemiology unit, a centrally funded Department of Health research unit based in Oxford, has done some preliminary pilot work with Action Research into the detection of trends in morbidity and disability in seven-year-old children of different birth-weights. The Department has been closely involved in this exercise which may lead to the development of a national monitoring system.

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hackney
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of Queen Elizabeth hospital, Hackney.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  East London and City health authority is currently reviewing the future provision of children's services in east London. Its findings will be considered alongside the outcome of consultation by North East Thames regional health authority on the "Making London Better" proposal that the management of the Queen Elizabeth and the Homerton hospitals should merge.

  Death Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the total number of deaths for each year since 1990, and the current year to date from(a) tuberculosis, (b) malignant neoplasm of the cervix, (c) Hodgkin's disease, (d) chronic rheumatic heart disease, (e) all respiratory diseases, (f) asthma, (g) appendicitis, (h) abdominal hernia, (i) cholelithiases and cholecistitis and also (j) maternal deaths, for each regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  Health Charges
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will announce changes in prescription, sight test or dental examination charges for the coming financial year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Judgments are made each year about how finite health resources can be best targeted for
  801
  maximum health gain. Prescription and dental charges are one aspect of these considerations. Any announcements will be made at the appropriate time. Patients are not charged for national health service sight tests.

  NHS Trusts (Salaries)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table setting out the total estimated salary bill for each trust within the Greater London area, identifying separately the totals for(a) management and administrative staff, (b) medical staff, (c) nursing staff and (d) ancillary staff, in the current financial year, and indicating the percentage change over the previous 12 months.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available until national health service trusts submit their accounts after the end of the financial year.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why the non-statutory code of practice concerning the confidentiality of medical records, promised after the draft National Health Service Functions (Preservation of Confidentiality) Regulations were withdrawn in 1987, has yet to be published.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is firmly committed to producing guidance on the confidentiality, use and disclosure of personal health information and intends to do so as soon as possible. We are seeking clarification of the law in relation to confidentiality, and as soon as this has been resolved, draft guidance will be issued for consultation.

  Waltham Forest District Health Authority
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the proposed new larger regional health authority will restore the funding cut to Waltham Forest district health authority made by the current regional health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under the weighted capitation funding system, health authorities are funded for their resident population. Departmental guidance gives regional health authorities discretion to use their judgment about the precise distribution of funds which suits their districts' needs, based on the analysis of local information. The present allocation for Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority is a matter for North East Thames regional health authority and the hon. Member may wish to contact Sir William Stavely, the chairman, for details.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each local authority the maximum payments made towards the cost of(a) residential care and (b) nursing care.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to amend current legislation to give a statutory right to community health councils to visit nursing and residential homes and to provide additional resources to community health councils to carry out this role; and if she will make a statement.
  802
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Community health councils already have a statutory right under the law to visit premises controlled by district health authorities. We have no plans to introduce legislation to give CHCs the statutory right to visit residential homes.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the current guidelines to local authorities for the provision of residential care when an elderly relative lives in a different local authority to his or her family and wishes to be located in accommodation within that family's local authority area.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have issued a statutory direction requiring local authorities to place people in the home of their choice in England and Wales subject to certain practical limitations such as costs, suitability and availability. The original direction was contained in circular LAC (92) 27 which was issued on 23 December 1992. Circular LAC (93) 18, was issued in August 1993. Copies of the two circulars are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from the Audit Commission concerning payments made by health authorities and trusts to private nursing and residential care homes relating to the provision of nursing and care to former hospital in-patients.

  Mr. Sackville
  Earlier this year the Audit Commission brought to the attention of the national health service management executive concerns raised by a number of appointed auditors that payments made by some health bodies may not be in accordance with their legal powers. Those cases are being investigated, and where appropriate the executive will ensure that the position is regularised.

  Industrial Relations
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines exist governing the conduct of industrial relations in NHS trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service trusts are expected to follow good industrial relations practice, for example as outlined by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service and in guidance issued by the NHS management executive. Additionally, Whitley council agreements should be observed for those staff employed on centrally agreed conditions.

  Regional Funding
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the difference in funding health services in each region as a result of the change from RAWP to weighted capitation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The use of resource allocation working party (RAWP) targets was discontinued in 1990, when weighted capitation was introduced. Consequently, no RAWP targets are currently available for comparison with weighted capitation shares. Comparisons would not be meaningful. Under the old system, health authorities were funded for their "catchment population", whereas now they are purchasers of services for their resident population, with cross-boundary flows of patients being covered by payments under national health service contracts.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide the latest available figures on NHS staff numbers by region in the form of her answer of 4 November,Official Report, column 457.

  All NHS Staff gróups by Region in England at 30 September 1992 in Whole Time Equivalents

  Medical & Dental

  Nursing & Midwifery

  Professional & Technical

  PAMs

  Scientific/Professional

  Gen/Senior Managers

  Admin & Clerical

  Northern

  3,140

  25,120

  2,080

  2,260

  740

  710

  7,590

  Yorkshire

  3,630

  27,560

  2,670

  2,890

  870

  1,350

  9,000

  Trent

  4,170

  35,790

  3,540

  3,830

  1,220

  1,040

  10,910

  East Anglian

  1,860

  15,390

  1,400

  1,810

  500

  650

  4,290

  North West Thames

  3,390

  24,770

  2,010

  2,380

  930

  940

  9,520

  North East Thames

  4,230

  31,250

  3,110

  3,120

  1,390

  1,560

  10,370

  South East Thames

  3,710

  28,570

  2,700

  2,810

  1,560

  1,090

  9,880

  South West Thames

  2,620

  22,380

  1,870

  2,390

  750

  520

  7,470

  Wessex

  2,570

  22,170

  1,790

  2,350

  670

  970

  6,540

  Oxford

  2,160

  16,370

  1,470

  1,880

  640

  770

  5,910

  South Western

  2,750

  26,160

  2,200

  2,680

  930

  850

  8,360

  West Midlands

  4,740

  41,320

  4,140

  4,410

  1,350

  1,730

  13,010

  Mersey

  2,530

  19,390

  1,980

  2,000

  560

  860

  6,240

  North Western

  4,360

  35,290

  3,060

  3,590

  1,120

  1,250

  11,200

  SHAs

  1,320

  7,210

  780

  780

  410

  460

  2,600

  Others

  50

  50

  2,140

  10

  420

  1,940

  12,120

  England

  47,220

  378,790

  36,940

  39,200

  14,080

  16,690

  135,010

  Ancillary

  Ambulance Inc Officers

  Works

  Maintenance

  Others

  Total

  Northern

  6,860

  1,330

  290

  1,220

  440

  51,800

  Yorkshire

  6,610

  1,510

  260

  1,120

  320

  57,800

  Trent

  9,730

  1,820

  390

  1,320

  160

  73,910

  East Anglian

  3,650

  790

  150

  600

  40

  31,120

  North West Thames

  2,980

  630

  150

  780

  850

  49,330

  North East Thames

  3,300

  530

  190

  1,230

  3,160

  63,420

  South East Thames

  5,720

  920

  220

  960

  390

  58,520

  South West Thames

  4,510

  690

  160

  950

  490

  44,800

  Wessex

  4,190

  950

  170

  760

  90

  43,230

  Oxford

  1,990

  830

  170

  640

  30

  32,860

  South Western

  5,460

  1,470

  210

  800

  540

  52,410

  West Midlands

  10,120

  1,900

  460

  1,750

  220

  85,160

  Mersey

  3,850

  790

  150

  730

  270

  39,370

  North Western

  7,310

  1,470

  330

  1,360

  70

  70,400

  SHAs

  1,360

  0

  40

  230

  0

  15,200

  Others

  1,360

  2,220

  10

  120

  220

  20,670

  ENGLAND

  79,000

  17,840

  3,340

  14,570

  7,310

  789,990

  Sources: Department of Health form KM49

  Department of Health non-medical work force census

  Department of Health medical and dental work force census

  Notes:

  1. All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  2. The decrease in nursing and midwifery numbers is almost entirely due to Project 2000 learners who are not included in the work force.

  3. Nursery and midwifery figures exclude agency nurses and medical and dental figures exclude locum doctors.

  4. The increase in general and senior managers is mainly due to the extension of those terms and conditions to other staff groups.

  5. The increase in administrative and clerical staff is largely due to the strengthening of administrative functions, and increased support for clinical services.

  6. The figures for all regions include both directly managed units and NHS trusts.

  7. The figures for others include the London ambulance service, family health service authorities and other statutory authorities.

  8. Some totals differ from those given in my reply to the hon. Member on 4 November at column 457 where figures for the South Yorkshire paramedical services have been transferred from the Yorkshire to Trent region and NW Thames and RHA figures have been adjusted to include the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire ambulance service.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  The marking "not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the
  804
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  The usual practice in the Department is to assign the marking to individual documents rather than to files. Information on the number of documents so marked could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nicotine Patches
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the numbers of prescriptions, the expenditure and the expenditure per head on nicotine patches in each family health service authority area and NHS region in 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: This information will be placed in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Claimants, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Doncaster area are currently receiving(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) housing benefit; what percentage of the Doncaster population this represents; and what were the figures (i) 12, (ii) 24, (iii) 36 and (iv) 48 months ago.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 December 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many people in the Doncaster area are currently receiving (a) Income Support (b) Family Credit and (c) Housing Benefit; what percentage of the Doncaster population this represents; and what were the figures (i) 12 (ii) 24 (iii) 36 and (iv) 48 months ago.
  Regrettably, all of this information is not readily available. This is because some Income Support (IS) records for 1989 and 1990 have been destroyed in accordance with routine procedures. Also Agency District boundaries do not correspond with those of local authorities. In fact a small part of the Doncaster area is covered by the Mexborough Benefit Office within the Agency's Rother and Dearne District. Family Credit (FC) is administered centrally from Blackpool and Housing Benefit (HB) by Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council.
  I am therefore able to provide some information on IS customers of the Agency's Doncaster District—to obtain details of those covered at Mexborough would incur disproportionate cost. FC and HB details, however, relate to the Doncaster area as a whole. The details provided are covered in the attached appendixes and have been obtained from The Office of Population and Censuses, Family Credit Unit, the Analytical Services Division and the IS Management Information Statistics.
  For the purpose of calculating relevant percentages, Doncaster has been defined as the Metropolitan District of Doncaster. The Office of Population and Census advise that the latest figure available for the population was 288, 854 at April 1991. For the reasons given above, it is not possible to provide a percentage figure related to IS.
  I hope this information is helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Income Support

  May 1989

  22,513

  May 1990

  22,332

  November 1991

  26,216

  November 1992

  28,771

  August 1993

  29,241

  806

  Housing benefit

  Percentage

  1988–89

  24,500

  8·4

  1989–90

  24,000

  8·3

  1990–91

  23,000

  7·9

  1991–92

  22,500

  7·7

  1992–93

  24,000

  8·3

  It should be noted that these figures are averages of the quarterly counts for each year quoted and have been rounded to the nearest 500. Some of the recipients of Housing Benefit may also be in receipt of Family Credit or Income Support.

  Family Credit

  Percentage

  24 November 1989

  1,491

  0·5

  2 November 1990

  1,657

  0·5

  31 October 1991

  1,769

  0·6

  30 October 1992

  2,415

  0·8

  29 October 1993

  2,888

  0·9

  It should be noted that the above percentages show claimants as a percentage of the Doncaster population in receipt of each benefit. Dependants are not included in the calculation.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those meteorological stations which have registered an average of 0 deg C for(a) three nights, (b) four nights, (c) five nights, (d) six nights and (e) seven nights during 1993; and if he will list the total amounts of severe weather payments triggered by area as a result of recorded temperatures during 1993.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the cold weather payments scheme is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mrs. Margaret Ewing, dated 2 December 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking about Cold Weather Payments.
  Data provided by the Meteorological Office does not include information on those meteorological stations which have registered an average of 0 degrees Centigrade for three, four, five and six nights. The regulations relating to Cold Weather Payments define a period of cold weather as a consecutive period of seven days during which the average mean daily temperature is 0 degrees Centigrade or less.
  Information relating to Cold Weather Payments made up to the end of March 1993 is held in the Library. Payments made since that date are shown by Benefits Agency District, arid are attached as Annex A.
  A list of those weather stations which have averaged 0 degrees Centigrade for seven consecutive days during the period from the end of March 1993 to 27 November 1993 is also attached as Annex B.
  I hope you find this helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Annex A

  Cold weather payment statistics 1 April 1993 to 27 November 1993

  Office

  Number of payments

  Total amount (£)

  Barnsley

  376

  2,256·000

  Birmingham North West

  18,209

  109,254·00

  Bristol Brunel

  53

  318·00

  807

  Office

  Number of payments

  Total amount (£)

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  13,902

  83,412·00

  Cambridgeshire

  205

  1,230·00

  Channel

  65

  390·00

  East Yorkshire

  693

  4,158·00

  East Sussex

  161

  966·00

  Glasgow West

  9,848

  59,088·00

  Hereford and Worcester

  21,545

  129,270·00

  Leeds Riding

  204

  1,224·00

  Lomond and Argyll

  8,245

  49,470·00

  Mid Wales and Maelor

  11,237

  67,422·00

  North Tyneside

  5,024

  30,144·00

  Oldham

  353

  2,118·00

  Renfrew

  11,692

  70,15200

  Sale/East Cheshire

  289

  1,734·00

  Shropshire

  18,888

  113,328·00

  South Downs

  25

  150·00

  South East Hampshire and Wight

  169

  1,014·00

  West Kent

  6,410

  38,460·00

  Wiltshire

  15,011

  90,066·00

  Annex B

  Weather stations which averaged 0 degrees centigrade or less for seven consecutive days between 1 April 1993 and 27 November 1993

  Aviemore

  Bedford Royal Aircraft Establishment

  Birmingham Airport

  Carlisle

  Dumfries (Drungans)

  Easthampstead Airport

  Edinburgh Airport

  Eskdalemuir

  Gatwick Airport

  Glasgow Airport

  Kinloss

  Leeming

  Leuchars

  Lyneham

  Shawbury

  Tulloch Bridge

  Wilsden

  Child Support Agency
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in how many cases of the total number of cases where the Child Support Agency have assessed maintenance as payable maintenance has been collected; and how many of those cases where maintenance has been collected were transferred to the CSA from the liable relatives section of his Department;

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the number of parents with care who have requested that the Child Support Agency collect maintenance on their behalf; and what percentage of these have had maintenance successfully collected;

  Retirement pension/widows benefit

  November 1978

  March 1983

  March 1989

  March 1993

  Retirement pension

  basic

  8,602,000

  9,232.000

  9,791,000

  10,055,000

  net additional pension

  not available

  792,000

  2,533,000

  3,801,000

  Widows benefit

  458,000

  409,000

  373,000

  337,000

  Statistics are from: the Retirement Pension/Widows Benefit Bi-Annual Inquiry, and are grossed up from a 10 per cent. sample.

  The net additional pension reflects the pension after contracted-out deductions.

  808
  (3) what percentage of the total number of maintenance assessments made by the Child Support Agency in the first six months of its operation, excluding those cases inherited from the liable relatives section of his Department, have resulted in maintenance payable by the absent parent;

  (4) how many maintenance assessments were made by the Child Support Agency in the first six months of its operation, excluding those cases inherited from the liable relatives section of his Department; and how many of these are for parents with care who are working and not in receipt of income support, family credit or disability working allowance.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ms R. Hepplewhite to Mrs. Jane Kennedy, dated 2 December 1993:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking various questions about the Agency's operations.
  The Agency does not collect information that identifies maintenance assessments according to the status of the parent with care, nor whether an assessment relates to an existing case which was previously dealt with under the liable relatives provisions before taken on by the Agency. In relation to the total number of cases assessed in the first six months of operations, the absent parent was assessed as liable to pay more than the statutory minimum in over 26,000 cases. By the end of October 1993, a total of 57,000 assessments had been completed, and 40,000 were for more than the statutory minimum.
  You also asked about the collection of maintenance. Information on maintenance being collected is not currently available, but will be later in the financial year.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Benefit Statistics
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table similar to table 9a in "The Growth of Social Security", but showing claimant numbers instead of expenditure in 1978–79, 1982–83, 1988–89 and 1992–93, for each of retirement pension basic, retirement pension earnings related, widow's benefit, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, statutory sick pay, invalidity benefit age 65 years plus, invalidity benefit age 60 to 64 years, invalidity benefit age under 60 years, supplementary benefit/income support age 65 years plus, supplementary benefit/income support age 60 to 64 years, supplementary benefit/income support age under 60 years, child benefit, one-parent benefit, family income supplement/family credit, rate rebate, rent allowance, rent rebate and community charge benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the tables.
  809

  November 1978

  November 1982

  November 1988

  November 1992

  Unemployment benefit

  492,000

  975,000

  500,000

  654,000

  Statistics are from the Quarterly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants, and are based on a 100 per cent. sample.

  2 June 1979

  2 April 1983

  1 April 1989

  11992–93

  Sickness benefit

  430,000

  338,000

  109,000

  135,000

  1Statistics are based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants apart from 1992–93 which is taken direct from the Departmental Report (Cm 2213).

  1978–79

  1982–83

  11988–89

  11992–93

  Statutory sick pay

  not available

  not available

  365,000

  330,000

  1This information is taken from the Departmental Report (Cm 2213).

  Statutory Sick Pay was introduced from 1April 1983.

  Invalidity bebefit

  2 June 1979

  2 April 1983

  1 April 1989

  4 April 1992

  Age 65 and over

  38,000

  55,000

  151,000

  219,000

  Age 60 to 64

  173,000

  217,000

  286,000

  330,000

  Age under 60

  399,000

  465,000

  689,000

  890,000

  Statistics are based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants.

  Supplementary benefit/income support

  November 1978

  December 1982

  May 1988

  May 1992

  65 and over

  1,610,000

  1,662,000

  1,433,000

  1,368,000

  60 to 64

  202,000

  249,000

  280,000

  263,000

  Age under 60

  1,121,000

  2,355,000

  2,638,000

  3,456,000

  Statistics are from the Suplementary Benefit/Income Support Annual Inquiries, and are grossed up from a 1 per cent. sample.

  31 December 1978

  31 December 1982

  31 December 1988

  31 December 1992

  Child benefit

  7,178,000

  7,045,000

  6,706,000

  6,857,000

  Statistics are from the Annual Child Benefit statistics, and are grossed up from a 4 per cent. sample.

  31 December 1978

  31 December 1982

  31 December 1988

  31 December 1992

  One parent benefit

  311,000

  508,000

  708,000

  855,000

  Statistics are from the Annual One Parent Benefit statistics and are grossed up from a 4 per cent. sample.

  Family income supplement/family credit

  1978–79

  1982–83

  1988–89

  1992–93

  Family income supplement

  85,000

  165,000

  —

  —

  Family credit

  —

  —

  280,000

  442,000

  The Family credit statistics are based on a 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Housing benefit/community charge benefit

  11978–79

  11982–83

  11988–89

  11992–93

  Rent rebate

  1,210,000

  3,050,000

  3,125,000

  3,105,000

  Rent allowance

  225,000

  260,000

  965,000

  1,210,000

  Rent rebate

  3,055,000

  5,320,000

  5,150,000

  —

  Community charge benefit

  —

  —

  —

  6,655,000

  1These figures are underlying the expenditure information given in table 9a of the Growth of Social Security Expenditure. They reflect average numbers of beneficiaries in receipt of Housing Benefit/Community Charge Benefit: Domestic rates were abolished and Community Charge introduced in Scotland in 1989 and the rest of Great Britain in 1990.

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the figures for child benefit expenditure and expenditure on families in tables 9a, 9b, 10, 11a, llb and 12 of "The Growth of Social Security," so that the cost of residual child tax allowances in 1978–79 is included; and if in table 12 he will also distinguish between the growth in expenditure on two-parent families and one-parent families.
  810
  Mr. Burt
  The amended figures are as follows:

  £ million

  Table 9a:

  Child Benefit expenditure 1978–79 (cash)

  2,226

  Table 9b:

  Child Benefit expenditure 1978–79 (92-93) prices

  6,213

  811

  £ million

  Table 10:

  Average annual real increase in Child Benefit expenditure

  1978–79 to 1992–93

  -0·53 per cent.

  1978–79 to 1983–84

  1·09 per cent.

  Table 12:

  Average annual real increase in benefit expenditure

  Percentages

  1978–79 to 1992–93

  1978–79 to 1983–84

  1983–84 to 1986–87

  1986–87 to 1989–90

  1989–90 to 1992–93

  All Families

  3·07

  3·06

  5·06

  -1·38

  5·69

  Two parent families

  0·39

  2·89

  3·65

  -7·54

  1·32

  Lone parent families

  7·20

  3·46

  8·21

  9·21

  10·63

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table tabulating the costs of administering the social security benefit system in 1978–79, 1982–83, 1986–87, 1990–91 and the latest year for which figures are available, at current and constant prices, and as percentages of benefit expenditure; and what were the costs of administering(a) basic retirement pension, (b)

  Cost of administering social security benefits

  1978–79

  1982–83

  1986–87

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Cost of administering Social Security Benefits

  Outturn prices

  764

  1,514

  2,074

  3,201

  3,564

  Constant 1991–92 prices

  2,004

  2,520

  2,876

  3,373

  3,564

  Administration cost as a percentage of benefit expenditure

  4·9

  4·8

  4·6

  5·7

  5·5

  Cost of administering Retirement Pension

  Outturn prices

  108

  205

  235

  354

  329

  Constant 1991–92 prices

  283

  341

  326

  373

  329

  Administration cost as a percentage of RP benefit expenditure (see notes)

  1·4

  1·5

  1·3

  1·6

  1·3

  Cost of administering Child Benefit

  Outturn prices

  56

  97

  102

  107

  118

  Constant 1991–92 prices

  147

  161

  141

  113

  118

  Administration cost as a percentage of Child Benefit expenditure

  3·1

  2·6

  2·2

  2·2

  2·2

  Cost of administering Unemployment Benefit/IS

  Outturn prices

  67

  132

  179

  182

  322

  Constant 1991–92 prices

  176

  220

  248

  192

  322

  Administration cost as a percentage of UB expenditure

  10·6

  8·8

  10·4

  20·9

  20·1

  Cost of administering Supplementary Benefit/1S

  Outturn prices

  208

  593

  929

  1,348

  1,378

  Constant 1991–92 prices

  735

  987

  1,288

  1,420

  1,373

  Administration cost as a percentage of Supplementary Benefit/IS expenditure

  12·4

  9·3

  11·6

  15·2

  11·8

  Notes:

  1Prices are in millions.

  2GDP deflator used to calculate prices.

  3Figures cover all components of Retirement Pension (RP).

  Bomb-Proofing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the cost, by location, of bomb-proofing the Department's premises.

  Mr. Scott
  On security grounds, I do not propose to provide this information.
  812

  £ millon

  Table 11a:

  Benefit expenditure—Family 1978–79 (cash)

  3,033

  Table 11b:

  Benefit expenditure—Family 1978–79 (92-93) prices

  8,466

  earnings-related retirement pension, (c) child benefit, (d) unemployment benefit and (e) supplementary benefit/ income support in the same years at current and constant prices and as percentages of relevant benefit expenditure.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is in the table. Information on earnings-related and basic retirement pension is not held in the form requested.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.

  Mr. Hague
  There are five cars and the projected annual cost for the current financial year is £209,196.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he is yet in a position to publish the discussion papers on occupational pensions issues to which he referred in his statement to the House on 3 November,Official Report, columns 354-65.

  Mr. Hague
  The first five papers in a series of discussion papers on non-state pensions have been published today as a basis for detailed discussions with interested parties. The results of this exercise will help to formulate our detailed policy proposals. Copies of the papers have been placed in the Library.

  Benefits
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the most recently available figures to show the cost of benefits paid to unemployed persons(a) male and over 60 years, (b) male aged 55 to 60 years and (c) female aged 55 to 60 years.

  Mr. Hague
  Unemployed people may receive any or all of the following major benefits: unemployment benefit, income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit and family' credit. They may also receive help with NHS charges. The amount of all benefits paid to unemployed people is not kept according to age grouping and cannot be obtained.

  The latest statistics relating to the numbers of claimants for the two most common of the major benefits—UB and IS—for the age and sex groups specified in the question, are given in the tables.

  Claimants receiving benefit as at 13 May 1993

  Number receiving benefit

  Unemployed males aged 60 and over

  Number receiving

  UB and IS

  4,060

  Number receiving

  UB only

  26,140

  Number receiving

  IS only

  8,732

  Unemployed males aged 55-59

  Number receiving

  UB and IS

  3,786

  DLA mobility components in payment at 31 August 1993 (rounded)

  Higher rate

  Lower rate

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Female

  Male

  Total

  5-09

  6,000

  8,000

  14,000

  5,000

  9,000

  13,000

  10-14

  5,000

  7,000

  12,000

  4,000

  7,000

  12,000

  15-19

  5,000

  6,000

  11,000

  4,000

  6,000

  10,000

  20-24

  8,000

  10,000

  19,000

  6,000

  8,000

  14,000

  25·29

  11,000

  13,000

  24,000

  7,000

  9,000

  15,000

  30-34

  14,000

  15,000

  30,000

  7,000

  8,000

  15,000

  35-39

  19,000

  18,000

  37,000

  6,000

  8,000

  14,000

  40-44

  26,000

  24,000

  50,000

  6,000

  7,000

  13,000

  45-49

  38,000

  34,000

  72,000

  6,000

  7,000

  13,000

  50-54

  47,000

  45,000

  91,000

  6,000

  7,000

  12,000

  55-59

  69,000

  68,000

  137,000

  6,000

  6,000

  12,000

  60-64

  86,000

  94,000

  180,000

  7,000

  7,000

  13,000

  65-69

  73,000

  81,000

  154,000

  2,000

  2,000

  5,000

  70-74

  32,000

  33,000

  66,000

  0

  0

  0

  75-79

  6,000

  6,000

  13,000

  0

  0

  0

  80+

  1,000

  1,000

  2,000

  0

  0

  0

  TOTAL

  448,000

  462,000

  911,000

  73,000

  90,000

  163,000

  1. Source is 5 per cent. sample.

  2. All figures provisional and may be subject to amendment.

  814

  Number receiving bebefit

  Number receiving

  UB only

  28,871

  Number receiving

  IS only

  70,339

  Unemployed females aged 55-59

  Number receiving

  UB and IS

  404

  Number receiving

  UB only

  12,032

  Number receiving

  IS only

  16,377

  Occupational pension Schemes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the proportion of women in employment who are within occupational pension schemes.

  Mr. Hague
  In 1991, the latest year for which figures are available, 37 per cent. of all women in employment—including those in part-time employment—were members of occupational pension schemes.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people currently receive mobility allowance;

  (2) how many people receive the mobility component of the living allowance at (a) the higher rate and (b) the lower rate; and if he will break the figures down by (i) age, (ii) sex, (iii) whether the recipient holds a driving licence and (iv) whether payment is made to an appointee.

  Mr. Scott
  Mobility allowance was replaced from April 1992 by the mobility component of disability living allowance.

  Information is not available about recipients of the mobility component who hold a driving licence. Information about payments to appointees could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Data about the two rates of mobility component broken down by age and sex are shown in the table.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Mr. Scott
  The marking "not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  To provide information on the number of files marked "not for NAO eyes" which are held by this Department would involve a large trawl exercise which could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new training initiatives will be announced in the near future.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In his Budget speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government's plans to introduce modern apprenticeships.

  By offering young people high-quality work-based training leading to technician, supervisor and similar level qualifications, modern apprenticeships will have the potential to make a significant contribution to our economic competitiveness. We aim to increase to over 40,000 the number of young people achieving national vocational qualifications at level 3 through training in England—roughly tripling the current number.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed persons on the training for work programme achieved recognised qualifications in the latest period for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training for work replaced employment training in April 1993 and it is still too early to say how many leavers have gained a qualification. The latest period for which figures are available is April 1992 to December 1992. In that period 36 per cent. of all employment training leavers in Great Britain gained a qualification or credit towards one.

  Stonemasons and Woodcarvers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to fund the training of apprentices to ensure sufficient stonemasons and woodcarvers are available to maintain buildings of the National Heritage.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The prime responsibility for ensuring sufficient availability of vocational skills rests with employers in a particular sector, and training and enterprise councils enable employers to manage Government training initiatives in a way which supports local priorities. Funding from youth training and youth credits already supports some apprenticeships which might not otherwise exist, and the modern apprenticeships 816
  announced in the Budget will be an opportunity for a major increase in the number of apprenticeships available across the economy as a whole.

  Employers of stonemasons are in scope to the Construction Industry Training Board—CITB—a statutory body which is empowered to levy employers to enable collective funding of training. From its income, the CITB disburses training grants to employers to ensure that high-quality training takes place.

  Career Development Loans
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people(a) are currently on a course which has been supported by a career development loan, (b) are repaying a career development loan, (c) have had recovery action taken against them because they have defaulted on the loan and (d) have had to defer repayments on their career development loan because of hardship for each region and for Great Britain as a whole; what is the average amount of loan taken out; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information by region on the number of people currently in training supported by a career development loan—CDL—and the number of people currently repaying a loan is shown in the table.

  Details of the number of people who have had recovery action taken against them because they defaulted on the loan are not available.

  No information is held on the number of trainees who have had to defer repayment on loans due to hardship.

  At the end of October 1993, the average loan amount for loans taken out in the current financial year was £2,812.

  Region

  Number Currently in Training

  Number Currently Repaying Loans

  Northern

  173

  769

  Greater Manchester

  113

  635

  North West

  321

  884

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  427

  1,484

  West Midlands

  365

  1,057

  East Midlands

  481

  1,765

  Eastern

  772

  2,291

  South East

  1,378

  3,988

  London

  475

  1,861

  South West

  213

  647

  Wales

  594

  1,681

  Scotland

  594

  1,681

  Great Britain

  5,702

  18,139

  Social Fund
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the contribution from the European social fund and the proportion of programme expenditure that represented to(a) youth training/youth training scheme, (b) training for work/employment training/ employment action and the previous programmes they replaced, (c) business start-up allowance/enterprise allowance scheme, (d) non-advanced further education, (e) high technology national training, (f) employment rehabilitation centres and (g) jobstart allowances and other employment subsidy schemes in each year since 1987; what amount of support the ESF will be providing to each programme in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.
  817
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available about European social fund—ESF—support for Government training programmes between 1990 and 1993 is provided in the table. European Commission regulations do not require information about individual programmes to be retained after three years from the date of the final claim. Information is no longer available pribr to 1990 for specific programmes. The total amount claimed for the three-year

  TFW/ET/HTNT

  YT

  EAS/BSU

  Jobplan interviews

  Restart

  ESF support £ million

  Per cent.

  ESF support £ million

  Per cent.

  ESF support £ million

  Per cent

  ESF support £ million

  Per cent.

  ESF support £ million

  Per cent.

  19905

  126·36

  111·63

  8·85

  11·00

  29·91

  120·99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19915

  156·62

  218·72

  15·81

  22·06

  20·85

  218·59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19926

  141·17

  318·47

  14·78

  32·28

  12·98

  315·80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19936

  152·07

  419·55

  31·26

  44·54

  8·96

  48·93

  10·23

  433·80

  2·98

  439·60

  1Outturn derived from 1989–90 and 1990–91 financial years.

  2Outtum derived from 1990–91 and 1991–92 financial years.

  3Outturn derived from 1991–92 and 1992–93 financial years.

  4Outturn estimated from 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  5Amounts provided are final ESF claim totals.

  6Amounts provided are ESF application totals.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the outturn expenditure given to each training and enterprise council in England in 1992–93 at 1993–94 prices; and what is the budget for each TEC in 1993–94 in total and broken down in the same way as given in his answer of 18 February to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter),Official Report, column 341.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Total 1993–94 budgets for each training and enterprise council—TEC—broken down by programme and management fee are shown in the table.

  I will write to the hon. Member about the outturn expenditure given to each TEC in England.

  Youth training

  £

  Hampshire

  16,047,985

  Heart of England

  5,242,274

  Isle of Wight

  1,742,460

  Kent

  18,062,061

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  5,140,633

  Surrey

  4,405,432

  Sussex

  10,287,749

  Thames Valley Ent

  12,602,202

  South East Total

  73,530,796

  AZTEC

  3,692,164

  CENTEC

  7,430,302

  CILNTEC

  8,037,943

  LETEC

  14,169,207

  North London

  3,888,513

  North West London

  2,896,199

  SOLOTEC

  8,513,285

  South Thames

  11,757,361

  West London

  7,406,653

  London Total

  67,791,627

  Bedfordshire

  5,604,888

  Cambridgeshire

  3,196,782

  Essex

  16,534,219

  Greater Peterborough

  4,691,786

  Hertfordshire

  13,125,126

  Norfolk/Waveney

  10,297,504

  818
  period is £558·62 million. The information in the period 1987 to 1991 inclusive relates to ESF support for programmes operating in Great Britain, for 1992 in England and Wales and for 1993 in England.

  Government programmes designed to give the young and long-term unemployed the skills they need to compete for jobs have received a valuable contribution from the ESF.

  £

  Suffolk

  9,450,401

  Eastern Total

  62,900,706

  Avon

  11,986,489

  Devon/Cornwall

  23,830,082

  Dorset

  6,664,970

  Gloucestershire

  6,411,555

  Somerset

  5,788,739

  Wiltshire

  5,926,164

  South West Total

  60,607,999

  Birmingham

  18,558,199

  Central England

  4,158,285

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  11,845,007

  Dudley

  4,955,104

  HAWTEC

  5,568,011

  Sandwell

  5,006,485

  Shropshire

  6,299,786

  Staffordshire

  20,619,930

  Walsall

  3,7'78,373

  Wolverhampton

  5,059,768

  West Midlands Total

  85,848,948

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  9,261,085

  Leicester

  12,979,065

  Lincolnshire

  10,730,363

  North Derby

  4,962,627

  North Nottinghamshire

  7,423,985

  Northamptonshire

  7,481,478

  South Derby

  8,417,026

  East Midlands Total

  61,255,629

  Humberside

  16,226,497

  North Yorkshire

  7,258,191

  Wakefield

  4,891,686

  Sheffield

  9,562,261

  Rotherham

  5,709,086

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  12,833,878

  Leeds

  7,646,213

  Bradford

  10,693,263

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  12,535,694

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  87,356,769

  Bolton/Bury

  6,863,992

  Manchester

  16,208,606

  819

  £

  METROTEC

  5,352,625

  Oldham

  4,713,622

  Rochdale

  4,038,291

  South and East Cheshire

  7,279,469

  Stockport

  5,299,155

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  49,755,760

  CEWTEC

  9,249,995

  Cumbria

  9,735,130

  ELTEC

  9,616,309

  LAWTEC

  13,247,988

  Merseyside

  27,637,344

  NORMID

  7,719,985

  QUALITEC

  5,616,592

  North West (W) Total

  82,823,343

  Durham

  12,861,366

  Northumberland

  7,519,133

  Teeside

  13,745,206

  Tyneside

  18,334,040

  Wearside

  7,782,659

  Northern Total

  60,242,404

  Work-related further education

  £

  Hampshire

  3,545,140

  Heart of England

  890,673

  Isle of Wight

  302,807

  Kent

  2,876,925

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  395,229

  Surrey

  1,865,131

  Sussex

  2,296,433

  Thames Valley Ent

  2,743,048

  South East Total

  14,915,386

  AZTEC

  1,383,791

  LAWTEC

  2,431,361

  CENTEC

  1,371,847

  CILNTEC

  1,388,733

  LETEC

  3,111,983

  North London

  1,914,141

  North West London

  1,686,598

  South Thames

  2,863,643

  West London

  2,200,576

  London Total

  17,784,383

  Bedfordshire

  1,060,803

  Cambridgeshire

  635,860

  Essex

  2,916,051

  Greater Peterborough

  811,130

  Hertfordshire

  1,901,768

  Norfolk/Waveney

  1,672,635

  Suffolk

  765,679

  Eastern Total

  9,763,926

  Avon

  1,673,934

  Devon/Cornwall

  3,451,753

  Dorset

  1,208,862

  Gloucestershire

  1,015,500

  Somerset

  1,203,301

  Wiltshire

  1,304,511

  South West Total

  9,857,861

  Birmingham

  2,411,852

  Central England

  862,187

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  1,787,808

  Dudley

  766,542

  HAWTEC

  906,058

  820

  £

  Sandwell

  647,417

  Shropshire

  867,855

  Staffordshire

  2,008,829

  Walsal

  523,864

  Wolverhampton

  662,175

  West Midlands Total

  11,444,587

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  1,435,361

  Leicester

  1,596,264

  Lincolnshire

  1,234,413

  North Derby

  741,942

  North Nottinghamshire

  761,200

  Northamptonshire

  1,186,321

  South Derby

  1,174,671

  East Midlands Total

  8,130,163

  Humberside

  1,673,110

  North Yorkshire

  1,538,541

  Wakefield

  618,484

  Sheffield

  1,371,436

  Rotherham

  480,208

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  982,861

  Leeds

  1,335,090

  Bradford

  786,207

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  1,299,055

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  10,084,992

  Bolton/Bury

  1,046,800

  Manchester

  2,623,333

  METROTEC

  740,802

  Oldham

  413,181

  Rochdale

  542,808

  South and East Cheshire

  687,027

  Stockport

  676,753

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  6,730,704

  CEWTEC

  1,008,843

  Cumbria

  780,029

  ELTEC

  1,625,906

  LAWTEC

  1,625,906

  Merseyside

  2,240,840

  NORMID

  977,192

  QUALITEC

  426,359

  North West (w) Total

  9,490,530

  Durham

  1,061,832

  Northumberland

  419,980

  Teeside

  1,031,871

  Tyneside

  1,500,033

  Wearside

  744,199

  Northern Total

  4,757,915

  Education business links

  £

  Hampshire

  129,177

  Heart of England

  89,416

  Isle of Wight

  32,755

  Kent

  134,686

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  71,205

  Surrey

  113,132

  Sussex

  126,113

  Thames Valley Ent

  157,735

  South East Total

  854,219

  AZTEC

  71,000

  CENTEC

  140,000

  CILNTEC

  128,022

  LETEC

  234,334

  821

  £

  North London

  157,000

  North West London

  145,904

  SOLOTEC

  100,580

  South Thames

  234,000

  West London

  96,842

  London Total

  1,407,682

  Bedfordshire

  88,602

  Cambridgeshire

  77,432

  Essex

  115,011

  Greater Peterborough

  69,348

  Hertfordshire

  98,916

  Norfolk/Waveney

  55,345

  Suffolk

  88,043

  Eastern Total

  592,697

  Avon

  135,684

  Devon/Cornwall

  239,404

  Dorset

  82,690

  Gloucestershire

  82,557

  Somerset

  44,831

  Wiltshire

  79,533

  South West Total

  664,699

  Birmingham

  130,727

  Central England

  94,931

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  120,174

  Dudley

  99,341

  HAWTEC

  92,691

  Sandwell

  80,551

  Shropshire

  105,299

  Walsall

  102,776

  Wolverhampton

  101,942

  West Midlands Total

  1,000,686

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  149,910

  Leicester

  115,854

  Lincolnshire

  40,477

  North Derby

  75,871

  North Nottinghamshire

  93,924

  Northants

  77,310

  South Derby

  149,649

  East Midlands Total

  702,995

  Humberside

  128,038

  North Yorkshire

  84,906

  Wakefield

  58,397

  Sheffield

  96,119

  Rotherham

  126,162

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  207,352

  Leeds

  50,952

  Bradford

  142,800

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  108,075

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  1,002,801

  Bolton/Bury

  108,100

  Manchester

  235,300

  METROTEC

  133,000

  Oldham

  128,300

  Rochdale

  71,300

  South and East Cheshire

  50,000

  Stockport

  49,800

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  775,800

  CEWTEC

  147,000

  Cumbria

  77,000

  ELTEC

  195,000

  LAWTEC

  169,000

  Merseyside

  338,000

  NORMID

  140,000

  822

  £

  QUALITEC

  120,000

  North West (W) Total

  1,186,000

  Durham

  120,711

  Northumberland

  80,162

  Teeside

  119,674

  Tyneside

  491,730

  Wearside

  130,151

  Northern Total

  942,428

  Careers partnerships

  £

  Hampshire

  15,000

  Heart of England

  15,000

  Isle of Wight

  25,000

  Kent

  10,000

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  25,000

  Surrey

  15,000

  Sussex

  10,000

  Thames Valley Ent

  30,000

  South Eest Total

  145,000

  AZTEC

  40,000

  CENTEC

  24,000

  CILNTEC

  26,681

  LETEC

  40,000

  North London

  40,000

  North West London

  40,000

  SOLOTEC

  25,000

  South Thames

  30,000

  West London

  21,683

  London Total

  287,364

  Bedfordshire

  15,000

  Cambridgeshire

  30,000

  Essex

  15,000

  Greater Peterborough

  0

  Hertfordshire

  30,000

  Norfolk/Waveney

  15,000

  Suffolk

  15,000

  Eastern Total

  120,000

  Avon

  17,000

  Devon/Cornwall

  28,000

  Dorset

  1,7,000

  Gloucestershire

  24,000

  Somerset

  17,000

  Wiltshire

  17,000

  South West Total

  120,000

  Birmingham

  10,000

  Central England

  10,000

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  10,000

  Dudley

  19,000

  HAWTEC

  10,000

  Sandwell

  24,000

  Shropshire

  10,000

  Staffordshire

  10,000

  Walsall

  24,000

  Wolverhampton

  24,000

  West Midlands Total

  151,000

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  0

  Leicester

  15,000

  Lincolnshire

  15,000

  North Derby

  8,000

  North Nottinghamshire

  20,000

  Northamptonshire

  30,000

  823

  £

  South Derby

  12,000

  East Midlands Total

  100,000

  Humberside

  30,000

  North Yorkshire

  15,000

  Wakefield

  30,000

  Sheffield

  15,000

  Rotherham

  30,000

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  15,000

  Leeds

  0

  Bradford

  0

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  15,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  150,000

  Bolton/Bury

  38,000

  Manchester

  47.000

  METROTEC

  13,000

  Oldham

  15,000

  Rochdale

  15,000

  South and East Cheshire

  15,000

  Stockport

  15,000

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  158,000

  CEWTEC

  35,000

  Cumbria

  15,000

  ELTEC

  13,000

  LAWTEC

  13,000

  Merseyside

  45,000

  NORMID

  13,000

  QUALITEC

  13,000

  North West (W) Total

  147,000

  Durham

  15,000

  Northumberland

  13,000

  Teeside

  33,000

  Tyneside

  31,000

  Wearside

  13,000

  Northern Total

  105,000

  Careers libraries

  £

  Hampshire

  186,224

  Heart of England

  79,552

  Isle of Wight

  25,312

  Kent

  204,304

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  21,696

  Surrey

  136,504

  Sussex

  232,328

  Thames Valley Ent

  143,736

  South East Total

  1,029,656

  AZTEC

  73,500

  CENTEC

  79,750

  CILNTEC

  44,250

  LETEC

  129,550

  North London

  80,250

  North West London

  47,650

  SOLOTEC

  113,700

  South Thames

  112,000

  West London

  91,300

  London Total

  771,950

  Bedfordshire

  25,000

  Cambridgeshire

  52,000

  Essex

  227,597

  Greater Peterborough

  37,000

  Hertfordshire

  194,584

  Norfolk/Waveney

  88,000

  824

  £

  Suffolk

  37,400

  Eastern Total

  661,581

  Avon

  132,016

  Devon/Cornwall

  181,958

  Dorset

  84,178

  Gloucestershire

  85,590

  Somerset

  70,374

  Wiltshire

  79,884

  South West Total

  634,000

  Birmingham

  109,625

  Central England

  45,673

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  99,576

  Dudley

  31,973

  HAWTEC

  65,778

  Sandwell

  36,544

  Shropshire

  68,516

  Staffordshire

  119,673

  Walsall

  29,234

  Wolverhampton

  27,408

  West Midlands Total

  634,000

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  78,257

  Leicester

  121,668

  Lincolnshire

  70,011

  North Derby

  46,124

  North Nottinghamshire

  59,000

  Northamptonshire

  84,535

  South Derby

  72,405

  East Midlands Total

  532,000

  Humberside

  81,510

  North Yorkshire

  99,420

  Wakefield

  51,054

  Sheffield

  50,160

  Rotherham

  24,185

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  58,220

  Leeds

  115,542

  Bradford

  95,837

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  68,072

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  644,000

  Bolton/Bury

  47,800

  Manchester

  127,800

  METROTEC

  31,900

  Oldham

  23,800

  Rochdale

  20,900

  South and East Cheshire

  33,800

  Stockport

  39,000

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  325,000

  CEWTEC

  61,997

  Cumbria

  72,992

  ELTEC

  64,991

  LAWTEC

  96,995

  Merseyside

  110,900

  NORMID

  53,000

  QUALITEC

  19,000

  North West (W) Total

  479,875

  Durham

  88,980

  Northumberland

  44,440

  Teeside

  88,980

  Tyneside

  105,160

  Wearside

  44,000

  Northern Total

  371,560

  825

  Training for work

  £

  Hampshire

  11,665,618

  Heart of England

  3,858,212

  Isle of Wight

  1,379,369

  Kent

  14,232,343

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  2,829,713

  Surrey

  5,057,271

  Sussex

  11,042,127

  Thames Valley Ent

  8,482,205

  South East Total

  58,546,858

  AZTEC

  6,825,503

  CENTEC

  15,613,383

  CILNTEC

  14,456,709

  LETEC

  24,000,588

  North London

  13,156,694

  North West London

  7,135,522

  SOLOTEC

  8,240,523

  South Thames

  25,166,155

  West London

  7,399,737

  London Total

  121,994,814

  Bedfordshire

  5,285,187

  Cambridgeshire

  2,302,357

  Essex

  12,668,893

  Greater Peterborough

  4,588,012

  Hertfordshire

  7,156,808

  Norfolk/Waveney

  11,288,618

  Suffolk

  4,651,158

  Eastern Total

  47,941,033

  Avon

  14,971,534

  Devon/Cornwall

  25,533,963

  Dorset

  6,703,318

  Gloucestershire

  5,068,345

  Somerset

  5,255,668

  Wiltshire

  5,622,688

  South West Total

  63,155,516

  Birmingham

  22,328,234

  Central England

  5,078,153

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  13,158,154

  Dudley

  5,788,085

  HAWTEC

  4,867481

  Sandwell

  6,423,583

  Shropshire

  5,523,999

  Walsall

  4,830,477

  Wolverhampton

  5,442,464

  West Midlands Total

  85,352,355

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  10,314,638

  Leicester

  8,877,929

  Lincolnshire

  11,783,913

  North Derby

  5,013,978

  North Nottinghamshire

  7,464,456

  Northamptonshire

  3,840,188

  South Derby

  7,739,104

  East Midlands Total

  55,034,206

  Humberside

  17,748,578

  North Yorkshire

  6,763,131

  Wakefield

  6,879,885

  Rotherham

  6,106,957

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  13,740,141

  Leeds

  13,379,984

  Bradford

  8,345,142

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  10,800,160

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  98,032,276

  Bolton/Bury

  5,473,743

  826

  £

  Manchester

  18,170,265

  METROTEC

  4,722,238

  Oldham

  3,698,127

  Rochdale

  4,688,477

  South and East Cheshire

  4,358,567

  Stockport

  3,812,332

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  44,923,749

  CEWTEC

  11,025,720

  Cumbria

  6,376,747

  ELTEC

  7,421,013

  LAWTEC

  12,373,434

  Merseyside

  30,041,270

  NORMID

  5,512,679

  QUALITEC

  4,719,713

  North West (W) Total

  77,470,576

  Durham

  16,791,889

  Northumberland

  6,670,090

  Teeside

  18,308,303

  Tyneside

  25,145,755

  Wearside

  12,558,651

  Northern Total

  79,474,688

  Local initiative fund

  £

  Hampshire

  435,751

  Heart of England

  435,229

  Isle of Wight

  174,033

  Kent

  455,281

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  481,000

  Surrey

  638,000

  Sussex

  900,000

  Thames Valley Ent

  1,097,409

  South East Total

  4,616,703

  AZTEC

  451,729

  CENTEC

  713,129

  CILNTEC

  634,670

  LETEC

  696,380

  North London

  456,335

  North West London

  403,793

  SOLOTEC

  490,000

  South Thames

  680,000

  West London

  935,056

  London Total

  5,461,092

  Bedfordshire

  270,000

  Cambridgeshire

  398,000

  Essex

  799,423

  Greater Peterborough

  188,274

  Hertfordshire

  514,000

  Norfolk/Waveney

  375,000

  Suffolk

  300,000

  Eastern Total

  2,844,697

  Avon

  535,000

  Devon/Cornwall

  1,014,662

  Dorset

  1,742,602

  Gloucestershire

  451,000

  Somerset

  448,180

  Wiltshire

  407,000

  South West Total

  4,598,444

  Birmingham

  661,306

  Central England

  181,600

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  571,220

  Dudley

  313,093

  827

  £

  HAWTEC

  626,157

  Sandwell

  176,202

  Shropshire

  543,192

  Staffordshire

  171,581

  Walsall

  192,952

  Wolverhampton

  258,701

  West Midlands Total

  3,696,400

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  557,000

  Leicester

  660,000

  Lincolnshire

  1,105,000

  North Derby

  140,000

  North Nottinghamshire

  163,000

  Northants

  209,000

  South Derby

  311,000

  East Midlands Total

  3,145,000

  Humberside

  481,711

  North Yorkshire

  1,056,126

  Wakefield

  453,253

  Sheffield

  1,075,471

  Rotherham

  365,507

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  1,885,689

  Leeds

  458,028

  Bradford

  542,878

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  2,239,937

  Yorkshire and d Humberside Total

  8,558,600

  Bolton/Bury

  956,095

  Manchester

  659,750

  METROTEC

  89,341

  Oldham

  104,334

  Rochdale

  204,644

  South and East Cheshire

  706,660

  Stockport

  674,300

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  3,395,124

  CEWTEC

  285,000

  Cumbria

  290,000

  ELTEC

  910,000

  LAWTEC

  345,000

  Merseyside

  345,000

  NORMID

  285,000

  QUALITEC

  280,000

  North West (W) Total

  2,740,000

  Durham

  305,964

  Northumberland

  201,000

  Teesside

  2,427,791

  Tyneside

  426,373

  Wearside

  206,120

  Northern Total

  3,567,248

  Business start-up scheme

  £

  Hampshire

  2,040,800

  Heart of England

  364,250

  Isle of Wight

  310,000

  Kent

  2,342,290

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  356,550

  Surrey

  858,630

  Sussex

  1,177,000

  Thames Valley Ent

  1,130,290

  South East Total

  8,579,810

  AZTEC

  762,629

  CENTEC

  1,235,739

  CILNTEC

  1,799,591

  828

  £

  LETEC

  1,064,189

  North London

  1,384,045

  North West London

  662,336

  SOLOTEC

  1,889,159

  South Thames

  1,806,800

  West London

  947,800

  London Total

  11,552,288

  Bedfordshire

  449,530

  Cambridgeshire

  344,400

  Essex

  1,052,600

  Greater Peterborough

  300,530

  Hertfordshire

  1,401,917

  Norfolk/Waveney

  1,300,452

  Suffolk

  869,925

  Eastern Total

  5,719,354

  Avon

  1,548,379

  Devon/Cornwall

  3,274,300

  Dorset

  743,250

  Gloucestershire

  1,591,850

  Somerset

  581,300

  Wiltshire

  1,603,523

  South West Total

  9,342,602

  Birmingham l

  2,278, 900

  Central England

  972,836

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  1,518,320

  Dudley

  555,710

  HAWTEC

  921,759

  Sandwell

  538,208

  shropsire

  836,648

  Staffordshire

  1,367,918

  Walsall

  381,350

  Wolverhampton

  559,240

  West Midlands Total

  9,930,889

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  1,372,890

  Leicester

  1,929,850

  Lincolnshire

  1,229,450

  North Derby

  573,699

  North Nottinghamshire

  897,277

  Northamptonshire

  900,716

  South Derby

  514,170

  East Midlands Total

  7,418,052

  Humberside

  1,768,900

  North Yorkshire

  1,630,200

  Wakefield

  748,011

  Sheffield

  1,035,005

  Rotherham

  682,000

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  1,161,350

  Leeds

  1,444,850

  Bradford

  1,201,860

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  1,527,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  11,199,176

  Bolton/Bury

  974,287

  Manchester

  2,813,367

  METROTEC

  762,750

  Oldham

  457,090

  Rochdale

  265,346

  South and East Cheshire

  568,875

  Stockport

  840,570

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  6,682,285

  CEWTEC

  1,210,317

  Cumbria

  1,120,991

  ELTEC

  1,086,860

  LAWTEC

  1,124,456

  Merseyside

  2,348,590

  829

  £

  NORMID

  784,550

  QUALITEC

  437,580

  North West (W) Total

  8,113,344

  Durham

  1,476,115

  Northumberland

  661,824

  Teeside

  1,389,360

  Tyneside

  1,266,866

  Wearside

  496,344

  Northern Total

  5,290,509

  Employer investment in people

  £

  Hampshire

  819,134

  Heart of England

  550,065

  Isle of Wight

  334,985

  Kent

  662,135

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  478,208

  Surrey

  868,968

  Sussex

  871,988

  Thames Valley Ent

  910,705

  South East Total

  5,496,188

  AZTEC

  515,164

  CENTEC

  1,675,794

  CILNTEC

  309,773

  LETEC

  891,861

  North London

  671,820

  North West London

  405,849

  SOLOTEC

  410,504

  South Thames

  1,008,529

  West London

  363,139

  London Total

  6,252,433

  Bedfordshire

  323,499

  Cambridgeshire

  370,470

  Essex

  461,799

  Greater Peterborough

  305,525

  Hertfordshire

  464,767

  Norfolk/Waveney

  576,462

  Suffolk

  470,500

  Eastern Total

  2,973,022

  Avon

  988,340

  Devon/Cornwall

  1,320,661

  Dorset

  1,526,840

  Gloucestershire

  308,000

  Somerset

  615,000

  Wiltshire

  333,657

  South West Total

  5,102,498

  Birmingham

  1,046,645

  Central England

  283,981

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  757,776

  Dudley

  286,915

  HAWTEC

  433,665

  Sandwell

  333,991

  Shropshire

  419,195

  Staffordshire

  1,298,090

  Walsall

  454,033

  Wolverhampton

  183,772

  West Midlands Total

  5,498,063

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  478,125

  Leicester

  698,649

  Lincolnshire

  399,363

  North Derby

  350,595

  North Nottinghamshire

  401,568

  830

  £

  Northamptonshire

  519,131

  South Derby

  738,232

  East Midlands Total

  3,585,663

  Humberside

  1,044,174

  North Yorkshire

  304,980

  Wakefield

  319,630

  Sheffield

  855,136

  Rotherham

  262,758

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  324,230

  Leeds

  598,023

  Bradford

  400,524

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  260,204

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  4,369,659

  Bolton/Bury

  383,656

  Manchester

  1,183,250

  METROTEC

  248,554

  Oldham

  183,375

  Rochdale

  343,862

  South and East Cheshire

  687,850

  Stockport

  313,485

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  3,359,032

  CEWTEC

  880,183

  Cumbria

  301,264

  ELTEC

  590,337

  LAWTEC

  1,389,970

  Merseyside

  1,314,784

  NORMID

  482,250

  QUALITEC

  123,820

  North West (W) Total

  5,082,608

  Durham

  554,900

  Northumberland

  323,450

  Teeside

  752,241

  Tyneside

  946,714

  Wearside

  421,976

  Northern Total

  3,004,281

  National Development Projects

  £

  Hampshire

  80,000

  Heart of England

  285,282

  Isle of Wight

  8,000

  Kent

  244,227

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  284,250

  Surrey

  116,001

  Sussex

  3,500

  Thames Valley Ent

  50,109

  South East Total

  1,071,369

  AZTEC

  18,741

  CENTEC

  97,372

  CILNTEC

  235,163

  LETEC

  0

  North London

  164,199

  North West London

  57,001

  SOLOTEC

  2911,002

  South Thames

  349,569

  West London

  325,290

  London Total

  1,545,337

  Bedfordshire

  191,460

  Cambridgeshire

  57,000

  Essex

  308,346

  Greater Peterborough

  67,669

  Hertfordshire

  186,500

  831

  £

  Norfolk/Waveney

  109,000

  Suffolk

  278,356

  Eastern Total

  1,198,331

  Avon

  144,909

  Devon/Cornwall

  120,455

  Dorset

  57,117

  Gloucestershire

  150,972

  Somerset

  54,000

  Wiltshire

  92,000

  South West Total

  619,453

  Birmingham

  304,000

  Central England

  70,000

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  85,000

  Dudley

  104,000

  HAWTEC

  101,900

  Sandwell

  171,550

  Shropshire

  198,966

  Staffordshire

  75,450

  Walsall

  150,000

  Wolverhampton

  199,750

  West Midlands Total

  1,460,616

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  115,400

  Leicester

  0

  Lincolnshire

  263,800

  North Derby

  49,900

  North Nottinghamshire

  45,000

  Northamptonshire

  121,912

  South Derby

  74,985

  East Midlands Total

  670,997

  Humberside

  226,154

  North Yorkshire

  0

  Wakefield

  0

  Sheffield

  387,169

  Rotherham

  119,702

  Barnley/Doncaster

  0

  Leeds

  333,805

  Bradford

  0

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  241,035

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  1,307,865

  Bolton/Bury

  0

  Manchester

  310,475

  METROTEC

  0

  Oldham

  60,001

  Rochdale

  79,999

  South and East Cheshire

  176,754

  Stockport

  135,375

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  762,604

  CEWTEC

  245,505

  Cumbria

  0

  ELTEC

  272,435

  LAWTEC

  318,125

  Merseyside

  376,102

  NORMID

  150,901

  QUALITEC

  138,101

  North West (W) Total

  1,501,169

  Durham

  226,372

  Northumberland

  196,529

  Teeside

  251,038

  Tyneside

  522,507

  Wearside

  110,890

  Northern Total

  1,307,336

  832

  Skill choice

  £

  Hampshire

  465,300

  Heart of England

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Kent

  0

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  0

  Surrey

  0

  Sussex

  0

  Thames Valley Ent

  0

  South East Total

  465,300

  AZTEC

  442,875

  CENTEC

  0

  CILNTEC

  0

  LETEC

  0

  North London

  0

  North West London

  0

  SOLOTEC

  0

  South Thames

  0

  West London

  0

  London Total

  442,875

  Bedfordshire

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  400,684

  Essex

  0

  Greater Peterborough

  0

  Hertfordshire

  801,500

  Norfolk/Waveney

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  Eastern Total

  1,202,184

  Avon

  0

  Devon/Cornwall

  0

  Dorset

  449,460

  Gloucestershire

  0

  Somerset

  0

  Wiltshire

  434,000

  South West Total

  883,460

  Birmingham

  1,149,250

  Central England

  0

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  696,000

  Dudley

  0

  HAWTEC

  0

  Sandwell

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  Walsall

  0

  Wolverhampton

  0

  West Midlands Total

  1,845,250

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  546,000

  Leicester

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  North Derby

  0

  North Nottinghamshire

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  South Derby

  0

  East Midlands Total

  546,000

  Humberside

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  Wakefield

  0

  Sheffield

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  0

  Leeds

  0

  Bradford

  0

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  0

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  0

  833

  £

  Bolton/Bury

  0

  Manchester

  0

  METROTEC

  0

  Oldham

  0

  Rochdale

  0

  South and East Cheshire

  661,250

  Stockport

  0

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  661,250

  CEWTEC

  544,200

  Cumbria

  0

  ELTEC

  0

  LAWTEC

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  NORMID

  0

  QUALITEC

  0

  North West (W) Total

  544,200

  Durham

  0

  Northumberland

  560,000

  Teeside

  0

  Tyneside

  542,500

  Wearside

  0

  Northern Total

  1,102,500

  Open Learning Credits

  £

  Hampshire

  200,000

  Heart of England

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Kent

  0

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  0

  Surrey

  0

  Sussex

  0

  Thames Valley Ent

  0

  South East Total

  200,000

  AZTEC

  0

  CENTEC

  200,000

  CILNTEC

  0

  LETEC

  0

  North London

  0

  North West London

  0

  SOLOTEC

  0

  South Thames

  0

  West London

  0

  London Total

  200,000

  Bedfordshire

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  Essex

  0

  Greater Peterborough

  0

  Hertfordshire

  200,001

  Norfolk/Waveney

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  Eastern Total

  200,001

  Avon

  0

  Devon/Cornwall

  200,000

  Dorset

  0

  Gloucestershire

  14,130

  Somerset

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  South West Total

  214,130

  Birmingham

  0

  Central England

  0

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  200,000

  834

  £

  Dudley

  0

  HAWTEC

  0

  Sandwell

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  Walsall

  0

  Wolverhampton

  0

  West Midlands Total

  200,000

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  0

  Leicester

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  North Derby

  0

  North Nottinghamshire

  200,000

  Northamptonshire

  0

  South Derby

  0

  East Midlands Total

  200,000

  Humberside

  200,000

  North Yorkshire

  0

  Wakefield

  0

  Sheffield

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  0

  Leeds

  50,000

  Bradford

  0

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  0

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  250,000

  Bolton/Bury

  0

  Manchester

  200,000

  METROTEC

  0

  Oldham

  0

  Rochdale

  0

  South and East Cheshire

  0

  Stockport

  0

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  200,000

  CEWTEC

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  ELTEC

  0

  LAWTEC

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  NORMID

  200,000

  QUALITEC

  0

  North West (W) Total

  200,000

  Durham

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  Teeside

  0

  Tyneside

  100,000

  Wearside

  100,000

  Northern Total

  200,000

  Out of school childcare

  £

  Hampshire

  0

  Heart of England

  75,220

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Kent

  134,186

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  40,601

  Surrey

  0

  Sussex

  0

  Thames Valley Ent

  100,000

  South East Total

  350,007

  AZTEC

  69,956

  CENTEC

  0

  835

  £

  CILNTEC

  0

  LETEC

  80,140

  North London

  71,015

  North West London

  0

  SOLOTEC

  0

  South Thames

  53,364

  West London

  0

  London Total

  274,475

  Bedfordshire

  82,319

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  Essex

  0

  Greater Peterborough

  0

  Hertfordshire

  79,481

  Norfolk/Waveney

  65,000

  Suffolk

  0

  Eastern Total

  226,800

  Avon

  68,895

  Devon/Cornwall

  126,000

  Dorset

  0

  Gloucestershire

  10,000

  Somerset

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  South West Total

  204,895

  Birmingham

  0

  Central England

  50,000

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  60,000

  Dudley

  0

  HAWTEC

  46,000

  Sandwell

  0

  Shropshire

  40,000

  Staffordshire

  0

  Walsall

  50,000

  Wolverhampton

  0

  West Midlands Total

  246,000

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  53,000

  Leicester

  53,200

  Lincolnshire

  15,000

  North Derby

  0

  North Nottinghamshire

  53,000

  Northamptonshire

  0

  South Derby

  0

  East Midlands Total

  174,200

  Humberside

  74,150

  North Yorkshire

  0

  Wakefield

  0

  Sheffield

  50,000

  Rotherham

  48,050

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  0

  Leeds

  0

  Bradford

  0

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  58,800

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  231,000

  Bolton/Bury

  0

  Manchester

  0

  METROTEC

  33,000

  Oldham

  0

  Rochdale

  47,250

  South and East Cheshire

  47,750

  Stockport

  0

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  128,000

  CEWTEC

  57,000

  Cumbria

  53,913

  ELTEC

  57,000

  LAWTEC

  0

  836

  £

  Merseyside

  0

  NORMID

  0

  QUALITEC

  0

  North West (W) Total

  167,913

  Durham

  20,000

  Northumberland

  25,001

  Teeside

  40,002

  Tyneside

  61,000

  Wearside

  0

  Northern Total

  146,003

  Management Fee £

  Hampshire

  1,552,979

  Heart of England

  1,004,362

  Isle of Wight

  459,306

  Kent

  1,813,678

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  613,356

  Surrey

  1,103,275

  Sussex

  1,571,399

  Thames Valley Ent

  1,769,501

  South East Total

  9,887,856

  AZTEC

  1,310,523

  CENTEC

  2,729,136

  CILNTEC

  2,182,386

  LETEC

  3,312,440

  North London

  1,970,663

  North West London

  1,335,653

  SOLOTEC

  2,176,115

  South Thames

  3,198,219

  West London

  1,920,322

  London Total

  20,126,457

  Bedfordshire

  977,672

  Cambridgeshire

  794,959

  Essex

  2,551,120

  Greater Peterborough

  950,206

  Hertfordshire

  1,819,754

  Norfolk/Waveney

  1,637,008

  Suffolk

  1,227,324

  Eastern Total

  9,958,043

  Avon

  2,049,246

  Devon/Comwall

  3,821,053

  Dorset

  1,434,413

  Gloucestershire

  1,277,621

  Somerset

  1,276,647

  Wiltshire

  1,316,089

  South West Total

  11,175,069

  Birmingham

  2,904,048

  Central England

  1,092,988

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  1,966,031

  Dudley

  1,045,807

  HAWTEC

  1,016,420

  Sandwell

  1,082,684

  Shropshire

  1,124,207

  Staffordshire

  2,381,460

  Walsall

  970,775

  Wolverhampton

  1,073,675

  West Midlands Total

  14,658,095

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  1,278,065

  Leicester

  1,789,460

  Lincolnshire

  1,571,308

  837

  Management Fee £

  North Derby

  960,167

  North Nottinghamshire

  1,156,983

  Northamptonshire

  1,084,507

  South Derby

  1,293,524

  East Midlands Total

  9,134,014

  Humberside

  2,713,015

  North Yorkshire

  1,460,995

  Wakefield

  1,342,539

  Sheffield

  2,131,804

  Rotherham

  1,157,943

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  1,800,073

  Leeds

  2,063,229

  Bradford

  1,558,130

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  1,592,970

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  15,820,698

  Bolton/Bury

  1,002,700

  Manchester

  3,416,666

  METROTEC

  883,457

  Oldham

  793,998

  Rochdale

  765,003

  South and East Cheshire

  844,999

  Stockport

  961,710

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  8,668,533

  CEWTEC

  1,701,649

  Cumbria

  1,509,880

  ELTEC

  1,329,777

  LAWTEC

  2,183,805

  Merseyside

  3,690,016

  NORMID

  1,308,900

  QUALITEC

  820,254

  North West (W) Total

  12,544,281

  Durham

  2,509,460

  Northumberland

  1,364,519

  Teeside

  2,809,819

  Tyneside

  2,985,225

  Wearside

  1,617,715

  Northern Total

  11,286,738

  Total £

  Hampshire

  37,183,108

  Heart of England

  12,889,535

  Isle of Wight

  4,794,027

  Kent

  41,172,116

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  10,737,441

  Surrey

  15,177,344

  Sussex

  28,518,637

  Thames Valley Ent

  29,216,940

  South East Total

  179,689,148

  AZTEC

  15,757,575

  CENTEC

  31,301,452

  CILNTEC

  29,243,921

  LETEC

  47,730,672

  North London

  23,954,675

  North West London

  14,816,505

  SOLOTEC

  24,119,939

  South Thames

  47,259,640

  West London

  21,708,398

  London Total

  255,892,777

  Bedfordshire

  14,373,960

  Cambridgeshire

  8,659,944

  838

  Total £

  Essex

  37,650,059

  Greater Peterborough

  12,009,480

  Hertfordshire

  27,975,122

  Norfolk/Waveney

  27,480,024

  Suffolk

  18,153,786

  Eastern Total

  146,302,375

  Avon

  34,261,426

  Devon/Cornwall

  63,142,291

  Dorset

  20,714,700

  Gloucestershire

  16,491,120

  Somerset

  15,355,040

  Wiltshire

  17,216,049

  South West Total

  167,180,626

  Birmingham

  51,892,786

  Central England

  12,900,634

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  32,875,066

  Dudley

  13,965,570

  HAWTEC

  14,656,120

  Sandwell

  14,521,215

  Shropshire

  16,037,663

  Staffordshire

  40,036,710

  Walsall

  11,487,834

  Wolverhampton

  13,592,895

  West Midlands Total

  221,966,493

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  25,639,731

  Leicester

  28,836,939

  Lincolnshire

  28,458,098

  North Derby

  12,922,903

  North Nottinghamshire

  18,739,393

  Northamptonshire

  15,535,089

  South Derby

  20,496,766

  East Midlands Total

  150,628,919

  Humberside

  42,395,837

  North Yorkshire

  20,211,490

  Wakefield

  15,392,939

  Sheffield

  30,897,859

  Rotherham

  15,112,558

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  33,008,794

  Leeds

  27,475,716

  Bradford

  23,766,641

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  30,746,002

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  239,007,836

  Bolton/Bury

  16,895,173

  Manchester

  45,995,812

  METROTEC

  13,010,667

  Oldham

  10,595,828

  Rochdale

  11,087,880

  South and East Cheshire

  16,118,001

  Stockport

  12,822,480

  North West (Greater Manchester) Total

  126,525,841

  CEWTEC

  26,452,409

  Cumbria

  20,332,946

  ELTEC

  23,182,693

  LAWTEC

  33,693,134

  Merseyside

  68,487,846

  NORMID

  17,627,457

  QUALITEC

  12,714,419

  North West (W) Total

  202,490,839

  Durham

  36,032,589

  Northumberland

  18,084,128

  Teeside

  40,997,285

  Tyneside

  52,458,903

  Wearside

  24,225,705

  839

  Total £

  Northern Total

  171,798,610

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total budget allocated by his Department during 1992–93 to(a) Cumbria TEC, (b) Durham TEC, (c) Northumberland TEC, (d) Teesside TEC, (e) Tyneside TEC and (f) Wearside TEC; and what was the total amount spent by his Department on training and enterprise councils in the United Kingdom as a whole for the same period.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 6 November 1992,Official Report, column 434. This provides details of the total budget allocated to each training and enterprise council—TEC—including Cumbria, Durham, Northumberland, Teesside, Tyneside and Wearside.

  The total amount spent on TECs in England during 1992–93 was £1·291 billion.

  Expenditure relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the respective Secretaries of State.

  Bomb-proofing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the cost, by location, of bomb-proofing the Department's premises.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On security grounds, I do not propose to give this information.

  Departmental Papers
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for the last 12 months the titles of papers published by his Department and by the Employment Service.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As the reply consists of a long list of information, I will write to the hon. Member.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department spends annually on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising and (c) press advertising; and what were the corresponding figures for 1985 and 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department's overall advertising and publicity budget for 1993–94 is £10·8 million. Breakdown by media category will not be available until the end of the financial year. In 1992–93 expenditure by media category was as follows:

  £ million

  Television

  Nil

  Press/Radio

  4·3

  Other Promotional

  3·9

  Expenditure on advertising and promotional material by the Department in 1985–86 was £1·2 million and in
  840
  1979–80 £70,000. Figures for television, radio and newspaper advertising and other promotional material are not available separately for those years. The figures for 1985–86 and 1979–80 refer only to Employment Department expenditure. They do not cover expenditure by the former Manpower Services Commission.

  Press and Publicity Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many press and publicity officers are currently employed in his Department; and how many were employed in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Miss Widdecombe
  A total of 90·5 press and publicity staff are currently in post in the Employment Department's information branch. Available figures do not go back further than 1989 when the information branch was formed by the merger of the Employment Department's information division and the Training Agency's information services branch.

  Figures for information branch staff in post since 1989 are as follows:

  Number

  1989–90

  118

  1990–91

  120

  1991–92

  119

  1992–93

  104·5

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many industrial tribunal members are allocated to(a) Nottingham and (b) Leicester.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Nottingham region has 128 lay members. Of these, 76 mainly sit at Nottingham and 52 at Leicester. There are also four full-time chairmen, of whom three normally sit at Nottingham and one at Leicester. In addition, there are eight part-time chairmen who may sit in more than one location.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the additional travelling costs of applicants to industrial tribunals following the transfer of the industrial tribunal to Nottingham from Leicester.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The location of the industrial tribunals is a matter for the president and I understand that estimates of the savings and costs, including travelling cost, of the various accommodation options are not yet available.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received in relation to the proposals to move the industrial tribunal from Leicester to Nottingham.

  Miss Widdecombe
  None. This is a matter for the President of the Industrial Tribunals (England and Wales).

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whom he has consulted about the proposed relocation of the industrial tribunal from Leicester to Nottingham.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The location of the industrial tribunals is a matter for the President of the Industrial Tribunals to determine.
  841
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the estimated costs for the relocation of the industrial tribunal from Leicester to Nottingham.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand that no decision has yet been taken to relocate the Leicester office and that an estimate of possible costs is not yet available.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to move the industrial tribunal office in Leicester to Nottingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Under the regulations governing the industrial tribunals, it is for the President of the Industrial Tribunals to determine where tribunals shall sit. However, I understand that the existing accommodation in both Nottingham and Leicester is unsatisfactory and that the president is considering a number of options for the future provision of tribunal facilities in the Nottingham region.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases the industrial tribunals in(a) Nottingham and (b) Leicester have heard in each of the last 10 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I regret that figures are only available for 1985 onwards. The details are as follows:

  Nottingham

  Leicester

  1985–86

  357

  304

  1986–87

  358

  324

  1987–88

  412

  290

  1988–89

  362

  314

  1989–90

  346

  298

  1990–91

  412

  475

  1991–92

  624

  520

  1992–93

  1,006

  684

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons were registered as unemployed, on the last available date, who were(a) male and over 60 years, (b) male aged 55 to 60 years and (c) female aged 55 to 60 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In October 1993 unadjusted unemployment among men aged over 60 years was 43,794. For men and women aged 55 to 59 years, the figures were 153,248 and 47,166 respectively.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of men aged 60 years and over were in(a) full-time employment, (b) part-time employment and(c) unemployed on 1 November in each year from 1983 and at the latest available date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Available information for Great Britain based on estimates from the labour force survey—LFS—is given in the table:

  Proportions of men aged 60 years and over in

  Spring each year

  Full-time employment Per cent.

  Part-time employment Per cent.

  ILO unemployment Per cent.

  1984

  17·0

  4·8

  2·4

  1985

  16·1

  4·7

  2·3

  1986

  15·1

  4·4

  2·1

  1987

  14·7

  4·7

  2·3

  842

  Spring each year

  Full-time employment Per cent.

  Part-time employment Per cent.

  ILO unemployment Per cent.

  1988

  14·5

  5·1

  2·0

  1989

  14·6

  5·5

  1·9

  1990

  14·0

  5·8

  1·7

  1991

  14·1

  5·3

  1·8

  1992

  13·5

  5·7

  1·8

  1993

  12·0

  5·3

  2·3

  Source: LFS. Not seasonally adjusted.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has of the proportion of women of working age who are currently in employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Estimates from the labour force survey—not seasonally adjusted—show that, in Great Britain at spring 1993, 65 per cent. of women of working age were in employment. A detailed analysis of the characteristics of women in employment is provided in an article in the November 1993 Employment Gazette—pages 483-502—entitled "Women in the Labour Market", a copy of which is held in the Library.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how an employer's contribution of 50 per cent. for access for work services is expected to affect employers' willingness to recruit disabled persons.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Access to work will increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities through helping more people with disabilities to obtain and retain jobs and making a much wider range of help available. We are currently finalising details of the changes with these aims in mind.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on committing United Kingdom Government funds to the UN voluntary fund for the Organisation of African Unity's peacekeeping mission to Burundi.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have no plans to contribute to the UN voluntary fund for an Organisation of African Unity peacekeeping mission to Burundi. We have already committed $1 million to the UN trust fund for Liberia and we anticipate that other European partners, which did not contribute to that fund, will take the lead on Burundi.

  British assistance in Burundi is focused on the appalling problem of refugees and displaced persons. We have already contributed £350,000 to a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees appeal and £100,000 to the International Red Cross. In addition, we are considering urgently other non-governmental organisations requests for humanitarian assistance to refugees within Burundi. We support discussions between the OAU and the European Union on ways in which more systematic help can be given to African conflict resolution mechanisms.

  Somali Refugees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Kenyan Government on the subject of assistance for the refugees from Somalia who are now in Kenya.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have advised the Government of Kenya that we are prepared to continue to help them to cope with the refugees in the north, more than 85 per cent. of whom are Somalis. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development hopes to discuss this issue with President Moi during her forthcoming visit to Kenya in early January.

  Aid Projects
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with other aid donors in agreeing economic and social indicators against which the progress of aid projects can be judged.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—OECD—provides a forum for co-ordination between aid donors. Following discussions in the Development Assistance Committee, the OECD published in 1992 a manual, "DAC Principles for Effective Aid", copies of which are in the House of Commons Library. These principles cover, among other things, economic and social issues relating to the appraisal of aid projects. They are being incorporated into the Overseas Development Administration's procedures for managing aid projects.

  Nepal
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the expected environmental impact of the proposed World bank-funded Arun II dam project in Nepal.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) on 29 November, at columns 313-14.

  The World bank's ongoing discussions with non-governmental organisations and other interested parties include consideration of the environmental impact of the proposed project. We shall consider the environmental aspects of the project when the World bank has completed its appraisal.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all bilateral aid projects located in the Arun valley of Nepal.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The following United Kingdom bilateral aid projects are located in the Arun Valley of Nepal:

  1. Pakhribas agricultural centre;

  2. Koshi hills seeds and vegetable project;

  3. Community forestry project;

  4. Eastern region road maintenance project; and

  5. Eastern region primary health care project.

  In addition, some work is carried out in the Arun valley under the forestry research project and the Gurkha Welfare Trust scheme.

  Uganda
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the involvement of the United Kingdom Government in the Uganda forestry rehabilitation programme, initiated by the World bank in 1987.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The forestry rehabilitation programme in Uganda is being co-financed by the World bank and the European Community. We are not providing any support for the project through our bilateral assistance programme to Uganda.

  Privatisation Advice
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of his officials are currently advising east European countries on privatisation policies.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None.

  Know-how Funds
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total amount of money allocated to the Government know-how fund since its introduction.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Expenditure under the fund from 1989 to March 1993 was £112,262,000. The expenditure for this financial year is expected to be approximately £53 million.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current advisory board members of each of the United Kingdom know-how funds.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A list has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy towards aids projects to Kenya; and if he will list the projects and the amount of financial help given as of 22 November.

  Mr. Goodlad
  At the consultative group meeting on 22 and 23 November Britain pledged programme aid grants up to a possible £15 million in support of Kenya's economic recovery. This new assistance acknowledges the economic and political reforms undertaken since November 1991 and will help support the further economic reform programme to be agreed with the World bank and the International Monetary Fund.

  The first £5 million will be made available when spending arrangements have been agreed: the further £10 million will be dependent on a satisfactory review by the IMF in mid-1994 of the new economic reform agenda, and the further development of an overall acceptable political environment. We will be looking particularly for effective action to improve open and accountable government including action to deal with corruption, to reduce tribal tensions and strengthen law and order in the affected areas, and to enhance press freedom.

  Our longer-term development assistance programme continues; provisional bilateral expenditure for 1992–93

  845
  was over £32 million. I have placed a list of current projects, involving financial assistance and know-how in the Libraries of the House.

  World Bank
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the World bank will engage in official celebrations for its 50th anniversary.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A conference to mark the 50th anniversary of the Bretton Woods institutions to be held jointly by the World bank and the IMF, is planned to be held in Madrid on 29 and 30 September 1994, immediately before the annual meetings of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund.

  Base Area (ha)

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Three-Year average

  Cereals

  3,280,95

  3,109,432

  2,967,283

  3,122,222

  Sweetcorn

  1,303

  1,322

  1,530

  1,378

  Oilseeds

  283,479

  343,052

  388,308

  388,280

  Proteins

  209,063

  210,730

  198,437

  206,077

  Set-aside

  38,577

  80,537

  104,280

  74,465

  The figure for oilseeds is mostly oilseed rape but includes small areas planted to sunflowers and other minor crops. The figure for protein crops has been revised to exclude the area planted to vining peas following its withdrawal from the list of eligible crops. For the purposes of determining the base area for the arable area payments scheme, the set-aside areas submitted to the EC Commission were based on actual set-aside agreements for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list each privately owned wood in Yorkshire that has received special management grants to provide for public access under the woodland grant scheme; and what is the area of each of these woods and the size of the grant.

  Mr. Jack
  Special management grants are paid for work in those woodlands which are of special value for nature conservation, landscape, public recreation or a combination of these. The provision of public access, by itself, does not qualify for payment of a grant.

  Special management grants have been paid in respect of 20 woodlands or estates in Yorkshire the owners of which have indicated that facilities for public recreation or public access would be provided. These are as follows:

  Woodland

  Area (hectares)

  Grant £

  Amenity Trust Woodland

  37·2

  1,435

  Bella Wood

  23·2

  812

  Bilton Beck and Rudding Bottoms

  10·7

  375

  Broad Lane Wood

  1·9

  67

  Cliff Wood

  38·6

  1,351

  Cod Beck Reservoir

  87·3

  3,056

  Escrick Estate

  9·3

  382

  Haw Park Wood

  57·2

  2,002

  Newmillerdam Country Park

  89·7

  3,140

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Essex Coast Environmentally Sensitive Area
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she expects to implement the Essex Coast ESA; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We plan to launch this ESA in March of next year.

  Land Statistics
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will publish in the Official Report the figures in hectares for (a) set-aside, (b) pulses, (c) oil seed rape and (d) cereals for 1989, 1990 and 1991 which were used to calculate the base area in England.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]: The figures used to calculate the base area in England are as follows:

  Woodland

  Area (hectares)

  Grant

  Notton Wood

  38·8

  1,356

  Shibden Park

  69

  311

  Skipton Wood

  15·4

  539

  Skipwith Common

  168·0

  5,873

  Spoilbank Wood

  4·2

  191

  Stanley Marsh

  3·2

  146

  Studley Royal (North)

  62·5

  2,300

  Sutton Park

  10·7

  385

  Tong Garden Centre

  1·3

  59

  Washburn Valley

  298·0

  11,083

  Wentworth Estate Woodlands

  32·7

  1,150

  Diseased Cattle
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the safeguards instituted under the EC single market against the import of diseased cattle, with particular reference to warble fly, brucellosis and foot and mouth disease; and what representations she has had saying that cattle imported into the United Kingdom should now be cleared by her Department's veterinary officers before any movement is permitted on to farms or to dealers.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on 1 December at column 590.

  Warble Fly
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has had about the safety of the use of organo-phosphorus based products to treat warble fly infections; and if she will make a statement.
  847
  Mr. Soames
  I have received a small number of representations about the safety of use of organo-phosphorus—OP—products to treat warble fly infections, and I understand that some farmers are reluctant to treat their animals using these products. Provided the label instructions are carefully followed, the use of such warblecides poses no hazard to human health. If, however, anyone is in doubt as to how the product should be used, they should seek expert advice from their veterinary surgeon or the manufacturer. OP products should not be used for this purpose between 30 November and 15 March.

  Farmers who have cattle which may have been exposed to warble fly infestation, including those within the 3 km treatment zones of known affected premises, may choose to have blood samples from their cattle tested for signs of infestation. Anyone wishing to pursue this possibility should contact his local divisional veterinary officer for details of the arrangements. Where results are negative, treatment of cattle will not be required.

  Wildlife Units
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the locations of her wildlife units that are currently based at Ministry of Defence establishments; what is the nature of the work being conducted by each unit; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The work of the only wildlife unit based at a Ministry of Defence establishment was outlined in the answer given to the hon. Member on 26 October at column 564.

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of beef and butter were supplied to pensioners and those on benefits throughout the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  In the United Kingdom, the following amounts of produce were distributed to eligible groups, including those pensioners that meet the qualifying criteria, under the EC surplus food scheme:

  Butter (tonnes)

  Beef (tonnes)

  1989–90

  3,000

  3,000

  1990–91

  3,800

  3,000

  1991–92

  3,800

  3,000

  1992–93

  3,700

  3,000

  For 1993–94, 12,200 tonnes of beef is being made available.

  Wages
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the minimum agricultural wages applied to those working for agricultural gangmasters in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  Yes, provided that the work undertaken is within the statutory definition of agriculture.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she expects the Council of Agriculture Ministers to discuss the proposed European Community potato regime; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Commission's draft proposal was last before the Agriculture Council in May. It has not been on the agenda since then, nor is it on the agenda for December.

  Badgers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what results have been achieved to date by her wildlife unit at royal air station, Aston Down in its investigations of badgers spreading bovine tuberculosis to cattle; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The wildlife unit has an operational, not a research, role.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations her Department has had with interested parties about the inclusion of riverside buffer zones in the set-aside scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The management conditions for set-aside under the arable area payments scheme were the subject of a consultation document issued in March 1993. The 1993–94 arable area payments guide advises that set-aside placed next to sites such as rivers and streams can act as a buffer to protect those areas and help reduce run-off of fertilisers and pesticides.

  Another consultation document issued in March 1993 contained proposals to create or improve a range of wildlife habitats by taking them out of production for 20 years. Water fringes are one of the targeted habitats, with the objective of protecting the water and its flora and fauna, as well as creating a wildlife habitat on the waterside banks. Our decision to go ahead with this new habitat scheme was announced on 10 August 1993 and the scheme will open for applications in 1994.

  Sheep Quota
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications there have been for sheep quotas from the national reserve; if she will give the number of successful applications as a proportion of all applications; and if she will provide a breakdown of the statistics for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  Before applications to the national reserves can be invited, the necessary legislation must be laid before Parliament. This will be done shortly. At the same time, I shall give details about the arrangements for making applications.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by her Department.

  Mr. Jack
  The marking "not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and
  849
  the National Audit Office, under which current documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO are not automatically available to the NAO.

  There are unlikely to be a great number of such files but no central file record is kept in MAFF, and to obtain this information by a departmental inquiry to all the various registries would be very time consuming and costly.

  Wages Board
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many submissions she has received to the consultation on the future of the Agricultural Wages Board; and how many of those were in favour of the abolition of the board.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  When the consultation period closed on 1 November 1993, some 3,566 responses had been received and 14 petitions. A further 32 responses have been received since the end of the consultation period. The vast majority were in favour of retention of the board.