Sitting of 12 February 1993

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

  Galina and Angelina Brew
  9.34 am
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: I wish to present a petition that has been signed by almost 1,000 residents in the area of Thamesmead and beyond. It has been supported by several right hon. and hon. Members of this place and of the other place, including a former Law Lord, a former Solicitor-General, several former Cabinet Ministers and a former Minister who had responsibility for immigration.
  The petition stems from the fact that the Secretary of State for the Home Department has refused permission to Mrs. Galina Brew and her daughter, Angelina, to remain in the United Kingdom. Their application to remain was submitted out of time due to the professional negligence of Mrs. Brew's solicitor, who has since been struck off the roll of solicitors.
  Angelina is approaching the age of 11 years and has been educated in this country since the age of seven. She
  1208
  has special education needs. She is happily settled in the Bishop John Robinson Church of England primary school in Thamesmead.
  Galina's Ghanaian husband, Angelina's father, has abandoned them. They have no home or other relatives either in Ghana or in Galina's native Ukraine, which she left 24 years ago. The petition states:
  "Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do urge the Right Honourable Kenneth Clarke QC MP, Secretary of State for the Home Department, to intervene in the proposal to remove Angelina and Galina Brew and allow them leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  I present the petition in the hope of averting a tragedy in the life of a young girl who is in the Public Gallery.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Disabled People
  9.36 am
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I wish to present a petition from residents of the communities of Wick, Keiss, Halkirk, Spittal, Watten, Lyth, Dunnet, Castletown, Reay and Thurso in Caithness. Their concern is that disabled people must have the right to the same equality of opportunity in all aspects of their daily life as non-disabled people. The petition states:
  "people who are disabled or perceived to be disabled (for whatever reason) are continually having to face widespread unjustifiable discrimination … legislation is necessary to outlaw this discrimination.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House introduce legislation to outlaw unjustifiable discrimination against people with actual or perceived disabilities as soon as possible.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day

  Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.37 am
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
  The Bill has two main parts; the first deals with electoral registration and the second relates to physical access to polling stations. There is a third part and two schedules, but they are consequential to the material contained in the first two parts.
  I shall deal with the provisions in respect of electoral registers, but I wish to talk, first, about the problem that the Bill seeks to address. I shall then analyse the consequences of the problem and look towards a remedy. The Bill is part of the remedy, but other measures may also need to be taken in conjunction with this proposed legislation.
  The problem with electoral registration is that there is a considerable shortfall in the number of people who are on registers, compared with the numbers who are entitled to be on them. It is clear from official figures that have been published that there is a shortfall of more than 1.9 million. That is the gap between the eligible population and the numbers who are on registers.
  In 1987, and in preceding years, there was a rough and ready balance between the numbers entitled to be on registers and the numbers on them. The problem has grown considerably since 1987. At present, there is a rough and ready balance in Northern Ireland, where there is no great problem. One difference between Northern Ireland and Britain is that Northern Ireland did not have the poll tax. It is reasonable to assume that the poll tax had some impact on electoral registration.
  Certainly the shortfall in Britain coincided with the introduction of poll tax. It developed first in Scotland and then moved to England and Wales, and is particularly noticeable among those known as attainers, who appear on a register for the first time because they could not be checked with any previous register. I believe that the Home Office now acknowledges that the poll tax had an impact on electoral registration.
  I do not rest my case on the poll tax alone. There are many other reasons for the shortfall. There is increasing rootlessness in society, with people moving around—getting on their bikes to look for work, and others living in bedsit land who move from place to place. Homelessness is increasing, and it is difficult to get on an electoral register if one is homeless or moving around the country. There is considerable alienation and deprivation in society, which does not add to registration.
  There is also a new complexity in life, in that masses of material arrives through people's letter boxes, and many forms have to be filled in. Some are completed, but others are ignored because they are included with a host of material that is of no great significance. It may be that some people filled in a poll tax form thinking that they would automatically be included on the electoral register and failed to complete the separate registration form.
  1210
  Inadequacies in standard spending assessments also have an impact on local government and on the services that it can provide. Many electoral returning officers try valiantly to do a good job, but find that they do not have sufficient funds.
  Mr. Roy Thomason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a principal cause of the problem to which he refers is inefficiency in certain local authorities?
  Mr. Barnes: There was certainly inefficiency in Brent, where legal action was threatened against the electoral returning officer to ensure the level of canvassing required under existing legislation. The result was that an extra 15,000 people or more were added to registers. There are excellent examples of electoral returning officers using imaginative techniques in the run-up to the last election, especially in Leeds and Plymouth. I encourage other returning officers to follow those examples, to which I shall refer again later.
  Mr. Graham Allen: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want the moment to pass without pointing out to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) that Brent is a Conservative-controlled authority and that the action that he mentioned was initiated by Labour councillors, to allow people the right to exercise their vote.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: I remind my hon. Friend that the councillor mainly involved was Mrs. Peggy Quirke.
  Mr. Allen: She deserves commendation from all parts of the House and I am sure that many hon. Members will sign an early-day motion that would do that.
  Mr. Barnes: Best practice by electoral returning officers should be encouraged and the Bill makes provision for a code of practice that would enable that. Many returning officers are keen to be efficient, but discover that they do not have the resources to ensure the efficiency of the past.
  The problem is not limited to the 1.9 million people missing from electoral registers in Britain. Another factor is hidden from view—masked by the fact that the names of many people are no longer entitled to be on a particular register. I refer to those who have died or moved to other areas. It is reasonable to assume that the latter will not exercise a postal vote or return to their previous area to vote. If they have registered in their new areas, that means that their names will appear on two registers, when one is allowed to vote only once. Redundant names must be removed.
  That situation hides from view also the other 1.9 million people who are missing from registers. I am sure that many hon. and right hon. Members are aware of that situation from their own canvassing activities.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is not the practice of including non-eligible names on registers encouraged by local authorities whose grants depend on the size of their population, in respect of the distribution of business rates grant?
  Mr. Barnes: That could certainly be true. Also, in some areas the shortfall of the 1.9 million people that I mentioned can have a serious impact on the funding available in some areas, because it is linked, for example, to calculations for standard spending assessments.

  1211
  There is also an imbalance in the number of missing voters. The problem is serious in some areas, but is of less significance in others. Nevertheless, the impact of funding can be dramatic.
  The masking problem was illustrated by a survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in 1981. It showed that at the end of a register's life it was, on average, 16 per cent. out of date. There is no way of knowing how many people are missing from electoral registers beyond the figure of 1.9 million that I mentioned, but it is reasonable to assume that if 5 per cent. are missing as a result of developments in recent years—including the poll tax—at least as many were traditionally missing and are still missing now. Electoral registers, therefore, are short by as much as 10 per cent. That seems a reasonable assumption, but if any hon. Members want to make alternative assumptions or arguments, I shall be interested to have them added to the debate.
  One consequence of that serious shortfall is a democratic deficit, which should worry us all. Even if the missing voters are a replica of those having the franchise and would vote in exactly the same way, the fact that they are missing is still of significance. They should have the right to vote—and often they want that right and are disturbed to discover that their names do not appear on the register.
  Mr. Michael Stern: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that it may be a matter of democratic choice not to register? In a free society, people are entitled to decide that they do not want to take part in any of its democratic processes. We must surely retain for those people the right to express their opinions in that way.
  Mr. Barnes: That is not the position in current law, which expects people to register. Action can be taken if an individual fails to complete a form or refuses to give the appropriate information to a canvasser who comes to the door. The hon. Gentleman's notion is very dangerous. It would lead to voluntary registration and to the type of situation that exists in the United States and which we had way in the past. We could end up with registration of only 60 per cent. of the franchise. We know where the biggest missing groups would be found—among the deprived and those living in depressed areas.
  Mr. Boateng: I thank my Friend for giving way and for initiating today's important debate. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) made a novel—and sinister and dangerous—proposition when he suggested that a democratic contribution could be made by breaking the law. That is especially true coming from a Conservative Government and a Conservative Member, when there are signs that Conservative council members are happy for registration to become a voluntary activity. That happened in the London borough of Brent and, as a result, 15,000 people dropped off the register. Had it not been for Councillor Peggy Quirke and her heroic action, 15,000 people would never have been recovered and there would have been a truly democratic deficit—however convenient that might have been for Conservative Members.
  Mr. Barnes: A voluntary register would be detrimental to the democratic process. I am not in favour of compulsory voting; I favour people having a choice of whether they vote. Someone may decide not to register and
  1212
  later, during the election, may change his mind about what he wants to do. He may want to vote or may decide to abstain.
  Registration should be a duty on people and electoral returning officers should work hard to ensure that they obtain all the necessary details. At elections, people can choose how and whether they vote. The alternative is dangerous.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) argued powerfully against voluntary registration. However, is not the problem with the Bill that, by setting up a rolling register, it makes part of the registration process voluntary? It will, to some extent, be a voluntary register, as those people who want to get on the register in the intervening period will be able to do so. That will have the disadvantages that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has just outlined.
  Mr. Barnes: I shall later explain what the Bill contains. I think that it will be seen that it contains a duty and reqirement to register, and that all sorts of action can be taken against those who do not.
  Lady Olga Maitland rose—
  Mr. Barnes: I shall take one more intervention and then I must make some progress.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Am I not right in thinking that it is an offence, carrying a fine of up to £1,000, if a man or woman fails to register on the electoral roll?
  Mr. Barnes: The fine is up to £400, but it is not an offence not to register—it is an offence not to respond to the inquiries made by the electoral returning officer. I am not keen that such action should frequently be taken against people, but it should provide a backdrop to encourage people to register.
  Under-registration has various consequences. People who do not appear on the register do not constitute a random sample of society, but come from specific groups. That means that opinion poll surveys—which matter a great deal at elections in this country—are way out. Opinion pollsters investigate the population generally; they knock on doors and ask whether people are on the register, but they do not check the register. Therefore, opinion polls in this country are persistently out by a few per cent. Under-registration also causes boundary review problems. The maldistribution of the numbers of people missing causes a serious problem in some districts and means that the constituencies that are drawn up are much larger than they would otherwise be.
  Under-registration is also likely to produce an electoral bias. I hope that I would make the same argument for full enfranchisement if the electoral bias were in another direction. I do not know whether I would, but it is fortunate for me that both the principle of the extension of democracy and the interests of those who do not support the Government begin to fall in line with each other.
  A Warwick university survey done by Jeremy Smith and Professor Maclean found that Labour lost eight to 11 seats at the last general election because of the poll tax factor and the numbers missing from the register. The Conservatives took 22 seats at the last election with a majority of 1,000 or less in districts where the Conservatives would have been in danger had there been

  1213
  a full franchise. That could have made a dramatic difference to the make-up of the House. Therefore, I hope that Conservative Members will also be interested in that subject.
  Mr. Stern rose—
  Mr. Barnes: I shall not give way now.
  If hon. Members look at the list of sponsors of my Bill they will see that it has cross-party support. The list includes a Conservative, a Liberal Democrat, a Scottish Nationalist and a Plaid Cymru Member. One Conservative Member is sufficiently altruistic to support my Bill.
  What remedies are there for the electoral shortfall? We should encourage electoral returning officers to engage in best practice, and my Bill contains a code of practice. What happens in Leeds and Plymouth should provide the example, not Brent. The electoral officers in Plymouth found that the Home Office material advertising the register was woefully inadequate, so they printed their own material and undertook imaginative campaigns to gain publicity, using local figures on the radio. In that way they greatly increased the numbers on the register. I hope that such an example will be followed by all electoral returning officers.
  Political parties should also canvass; they should be alive. The Labour party should be active, carry out door knocking at all times, and check to see whether its supporters have registered. The same should be done by other political parties. After the Reform Act 1832, Sir Robert Peel said that the Tories must "register, register, register." When the fledgling Labour party was established, Keir Hardie said that the party should look to the electoral register to bring Labour to victory. We must take positive action, but legal improvements can assist the process.
  The Home Office is conducting five surveys that follow the last election. One covers electoral registration and the political parties are involved in discussions with the Home Office. My Bill will assist the process and the results of the Home Office surveys could be used in Committee.
  The Bill does not deal with referendums, the ending of expatriate votes and the banning of sales of electoral registers—all of which I favour and should like to have included in the measure—because they would make it much easier to defeat the Bill and would direct us away from the issues that I want to consider.
  The Bill is not about fancy franchises and proportional representation. Those who believe in proportional representation base their belief on the principle of one person, one vote, one value. We cannot have one value for everyone unless we have one vote for everyone, so my Bill provides a logical first step towards any provision to reform the electoral system. I hope that that will be recognised by Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has said. He talked about one-for-one value and the fact that there should be equity. How about the equity or inequity of constituencies such as the Isle of Wight, with 110,000 electors and Glasgow, Central, with about 40,000 electors? Is that not inequitable and should not that issue form part of the hon. Gentleman's brief?
  Mr. Barnes: It follows on from the principle of one person, one vote that electoral districts should be as equal as possible. However, we have to remember that Scotland is a separate nation under the Act of Union and that different considerations might apply to Scotland. If hon. Members wish to tackle those problems, they must try to introduce a Bill to overcome them.
  These provisions are not set in concrete. They ought to be considered seriously in Committee and developed within the framework of the Bill and the long title. Drafting inadequacies could be dealt with in Committee. It is impossible for me to introduce a Bill that is of constitutional significance and get it right in one fell swoop.
  Under the provisions of the Bill, on 15 February 1995 or before, by order of the Home Office, the existing registers will be turned into rolling registers. Those registers will become the registers for the future. From then onwards, additions and deletions to the register can take place continuously. That is the rolling nature of the registers. In order to obtain additions and deletions, a duty will be placed on citizens to register and, when they move home, to tell the electoral registration officer that they are leaving the area and to inform the electoral registration officer into whose area they are moving. No great penalties are involved, apart from the serious penalty that if they refuse to provide full information to the electoral registration officer, he will enter the details in any case.
  The electoral registration officers will still have certain duties to perform. Annual registration will continue, but that will be used to check the rolling register. Other information will be fed to the electoral registration officers. The registrar of births, deaths and marriages will supply information about deaths in the area. At the last election the Labour party in my constituency looked through the newspapers in advance for notices of deaths so that the names of those people were removed from the register. No leaflets canvassing for votes were therefore sent to the addresses of people who had died.
  In addition, those with details of people's movements would be expected to send that information to the electoral registration officers. By that, I mean councils, housing associations and solicitors involved in conveyancing. Furthermore, if electoral registration officers believed that they needed to do so, they could seek information from public utilities that hold information about people.
  Some would argue that worrying civil liberties considerations are involved. Therefore, the Bill provides for the protection of confidentiality. Any information that is sought by electoral registration officers will not be able to be used for any purpose other than the electoral register. Furthermore, they will only be able to pass that information to any other electoral registration officer to enable him to obtain fully up-to-date information. The Committee will have to consider carefully the protection of civil liberties and make sure that it has got it right.
  The register will then roll on until an election is announced. After an election has been announced, the rolling register will be published within two days. There will also be annual publication of the register. However, it will be no more than a snapshot of the register at that time, because it will continue to roll. After the announcement of an election, those people in the area who are missing from the register can be added to it up to a week before the election. A supplementary list will be published of those names. However, no one will be able to be drafted on to

  1215
  the register by having come into the area from outside during an election period. We do not intend to have masses of people coming from outside into bedsit territory so that their names can be added to the register. That was one of the concerns of the Liberal Democrats. They put that concern to me. I was more than pleased to make sure that their concern was met by the provisions of the Bill.
  Once an election is over, the register will continue to roll. The names on the supplementary list will be incorporated on the register. No name will be deleted during an election period, in case the wrong name is deleted.
  How will people know that their names are missing from the electoral register? Polling cards will be issued two days after the announcement of the election. There will be publicity, urging people to check their polling cards. They will not need to take their polling card with them when they go to vote. However, they will be urged to check their polling card to make sure that their names are on the register. If they are not, those people will have the opportunity, up to seven days before the election, to get their names on the register. No one, however, will be able to get on to the register, unless they qualify to be on it when the election is announced.
  Money will be needed for these purposes. There will not be just local newspaper publicity. There will be Home Office publicity and television publicity. If we are to get hold of the people who are missing from the registers, the best time to do it is when an election takes place. Everything should be done in advance, of course, to get the electoral register right. The more we get it right, the smaller will be the number of people who will need to be on the supplementary list.
  Mr. Stern: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's proposals. Has he considered what will happen in those areas, often just outside towns, where there are few local papers and where the circulation is very restricted? How does he propose to deal with the need for individual notification, particularly of absence from the register? If only one local paper comes out on a Friday and that has a restricted circulation, most of the people in that area rely solely on national media for their news.
  Mr. Barnes: Reliance on the national media is something which the Home Office is expected to pick up under the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, there would be national publicity. Local publicity is not limited, however, to advertisements in local newspapers. Electoral registration officers will be encouraged to look at other means of publicity. They should consider using local radio and other means. The code of practice should include these means. However, we shall have to work out our ideas. I hope that the Home Office review will be valuable.
  None of my proposals is problem-free. We must be careful to protect civil liberties. We must also remember by-elections. Although the Bill prevents people from being drafted into an area for a general election, it is often known well in advance that there is to be a by-election and we must try to ensure that we can handle the bedsit problem, to which I referred earlier. Furthermore, the Bill does not include provision for women's refuges. They were put on a second register for poll tax purposes and information about them was not available generally. We
  1216
  shall have to consider the need to protect those people and perhaps others. I shall be more than happy if those issues are dealt with in Committee.
  Mr. Thomason: I seek some clarification. I do not understand how clause 2(3) and clause 8(1) will work together. I understood the hon. Member to say that the register would include people who had registered more than seven days before a general election. From my reading of those clauses, it seems that people cannot be registered for seven days after they have applied and it therefore follows that, to be able to vote, they would have to register more than 14 days before an election. Can the hon. Gentleman explain?
  Mr. Barnes: I hope that the Bill is technically correct. If I have not got it right, it will have to be changed in Committee.
  I intend that people who are entitled to be on the register should be able to register during an election campaign. However, their registration will not become operational for seven days. Therefore, people who registered during the final seven days before an election would not be able to vote, although their names would be placed on the register. One must register before the last week.
  The details need to be hammered out in Committee. The system is not perfect, but it is as rigorous as I have been able to achieve in the time available. Other hon. Members who have promoted private Member's Bills have claimed tht it has taken too long to reach this stage, but I would have found another few months helpful, as the issue is so complex.
  On physical access to polling stations, it is not enough for a person with disabilities to be on the register, as they also want to be able to exercise their franchise rights. Many registered disabled or infirm people want to go to the polling station, rather than use proxy or postal votes. Many elderly people say that they have always voted in that way and should continue to do so. However, many of those people find it difficult to exercise their rights. Part II of the Bill deals with that problem. Returning officers must consult disabled organisations in their areas, designate accessible polling stations and publicise them.
  An accessible polling station must have at least one polling booth that is accessible for people in wheelchairs and the ballot box must be placed at the correct level for them. Those are minimum requirements. Schedule 2 contains a host of provisions that should be taken into account by returning officers, together with disabled organisations, so that adequate facilities may be provided.
  The Bill states that there must be at least one designated accessible polling station in a constituency, which sounds rather meagre. However, the Bill contains that provision for logical reasons. If I had not included it, there might be no accessible stations in an area. I hope that, because of the Bill, pressure will increase to ensure that many accessible polling stations are designated.
  If registered disabled people live in areas where there are no designated accessible polling stations, they can make arrangements with returning officers before the election to use the nearest accessible polling station to their homes, so that they may exercise their rights.
  Many disabled organisations wanted access to be included in the Bill. The Spastics Society produced an

  1217
  excellent report during the last election which demonstrated the seriousness of the problem. I think that part II of the Bill is easier for Members to pursue. It is short and schedule 2 is associated with it.
  Mr. Milligan: It is true that part II of the Bill is easier to pursue and it is a worthy cause. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that it would be good if disabled people found it easier to vote. However, has the hon. Gentleman studied the cost of adapting polling stations? Might it not be better to spend the same money to provide postal votes more easily, as many people do not know about them or do not find out until too late? If more money were spent on advertising postal votes, perhaps using television commercials, it might be a better use of the money. Many disabled people might prefer to vote postally rather than face the difficulties and inconvenience of getting into a polling station that was not built to accommodate them.
  Mr. Barnes: Many disabled people wish to operate in society in the same way that able-bodied people do and they want the same avenues of access. Efforts should be made to put that right. We are not talking about serious expense. I believe that the Government already provide 50 per cent. of the cost of temporary ramps and other provisions. The measure extends such provisions and, with the agreement of the owners of polling stations, would provide for permanent access, which is sometimes less expensive than the temporary provisions.
  I have been struggling for five years in the House over electoral registration. I first noticed the problem as a member of the Standing Committee, during the introduction of the poll tax. I envisaged that a problem would arise and have noticed evidence of it in many bits of legislation, Home Office circulars to electoral returning officers and finally in the statistics. When I was lucky in the draw for private Members' Bills, I was keen for the House to consider the matter seriously. It is a failing of many hon. Members that we forget the importance of the issue.
  John Stuart Mill used to distinguish between what he called "living truths" and "dead dogmas". Some aspects of democracy have become dead dogmas. We all say that we are democrats and that the Government have a mandate, but the arguments over why we should have democracy and how it should operate died with the chartists and the suffragettes. The discussion has moved on to referendums, proportional representation and other fancy measures and we are not thinking about the basics and about who is entitled to be enfranchised. That is what the Reform Acts of 1832, 1867 and 1884 and later measures were about. There must not be any further degeneration of electoral registration and the Bill is an attempt to move in another direction.
  I must thank a great many people who helped me with the Bill, such as electoral registration officers and the Association of London Authorities which organised a conference involving many academics. I am like the author of a book—I have received a great deal of information and many ideas from other people, but I have been responsible for drawing up the Bill.
  People worry about different aspects of the Bill, but my general intention has widespread support and increasing
  1218
  support within political parties. I hope that the Government will accept the intention and that I shall be allowed to make progress with the measure today.
  10.19 am
  Mr. David Evans: It gives me great pleasure to debate an issue of such fundamental importance to our democracy. Unfortunately, all too often, as Members of Parliament, we are caught up in examining the fine detail of policy and are not usually given the opportunity to stand back to view the larger picture. The Bill offers us the opportunity to do just that and, at least in that respect, it should be welcomed. However, that is the last good thing that I have to say about the Bill.
  As is often the case, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has grabbed the wrong end of the stick. In fact, he must have more splinters in his hands than a transatlantic oarsman. I am a charitable man and could forgive him the Bill were it not motivated by what I can describe only as sinister intentions.
  The Bill seeks to undermine some of the values at the very heart of our democracy and should therefore be opposed in the strongest terms. It is divided into two parts. The first deals with improving electoral registration and the second with improving access to polling stations for voters with a physical disability.
  Things do not change. For the previous century and a half it has been left to Conservatives to resist damage to electoral reform and to promote far-sighted but practical alternatives. The year 1867 is rightly regarded as the watershed of the 19th century. After 1867 the liberty achieved through the great Reform Act was slowly but increasingly used to bring about a new social order, a process which continued into the 20th century. The period also saw—thank God—the decline of the Liberal party.
  The Reform Act 1867 was a triumph for Disraeli, one of the great Conservative leaders. It was the crucial step in the adaptation of British institutions to rise to democracy. In short, it was Disraeli who turned the Conservative party and the country in the direction of universal adult suffrage which gave all men and women the opportunity to be represented by a democratically elected Member of Parliament.
  The practice of representation in the United Kingdom is as old as the English Parliament itself. The great Tory Edmund Burke made the well-known distinction between representation and delegation: a delegate merely mirrors and records the views of his constituent, whereas a representative is elected to judge according to his own conscience. However, I am sure that everyone here will agree that if our conscience told us to disobey all petitions from constituents, we would not last long.
  As representatives, we have a duty to listen to our constituents as well as a wider duty to obey the principles of this place and the constitution. In the same way, our constituents also have duties, and it is that aspect of our democracy which the Bill undermines.
  Let us consider the background to the current policy. We have never left it solely to the individual to register his or her interest in voting, unlike the United States of America where the turnout in presidential elections is substantially lower than the turnout here for general elections. The Government impose a duty on citizens to provide the information requested by electoral registration

  1219
  officers. In effect, registration is compulsory. Those who receive the annual canvassing document, form A, have a duty to return it with accurate information and can be fined £1,000 for not complying.
  There is a statutory duty on electoral registration officers to maximise registration and to publish an annual register of all those who appear to be eligible to vote. There are facilities for the public to check and correct the register.
  Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. A few moments ago he referreed to the United States. Does he agree that many commentators on this side of the Atlantic often fall into the habit of assuming that a low turnout in an Amercian presidential election is a reflection of low registration? Fifty-six per cent. of people voted in the presidential election, but they were 56 per cent. of those entitled to register, which is a comment on the culture of voting in the United States compared with the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend makes his point very well.
  The Government estimate levels of registration at about 95 per cent. of the potential electorate and they also estimate that, every year, £40 million is spent in England and Wales on the process of electoral registration. The Government also launch each year a nationwide advertising campaign to encourage people to complete and return their electoral registration forms. In 1992 we spent £617,000 on that campaign.
  I deal now with the community charge. We all know where the sympathies of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East lie in that respect—not with the millions of law-abiding people who have paid in full, but with those who stuck two fingers up to the rest of us and did not contribute a penny to their local services. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was a sponsor of the National Action Conference Against the Poll Tax, which co-ordinated civil disobedience and mass non-payment of the community charge. They are hardly the best credentials of a so-called saviour of democracy.
  Mr. Barnes: When I argued against the poll tax, I took the line that I would not pay it, but I never advocated that others should not do so. I argued that as an elected representative of the people I had a particular duty, because the poll tax was undermining electoral registration. Acts should never he introduced that undermine electoral registration because such registration is part of our unwritten constitution. It is part of statute and has a higher legal priority according to people such as Blackstone, a past authority on the constitution. The line that I took was associated with my current argument that the register must be accurate. If we have a complete register, the argument that we should not disobey the law as a way of changing things begins to have much more relevance.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman may say that or he may say something else. All that I can say is that he welcomed the statement by Labour councillors backing illegal mass non-payment of poll tax, in addition to expressing his admiration and respect for the principled stand of someone who was imprisoned for refusing to pay the community charge. Not content to egg on such degenerate tax dodgers, he is now trying to introduce a system that would not penalise those who refused to pay
  1220
  their community charge or council tax. Why should people who avoid paying taxes such as the community charge be allowed the opportunity to remain on the electoral register until they die? That is what the rolling register would do.
  It should be remembered that there was no conspiracy by the Government to have poll tax dodgers removed. The dodgers chose to withdraw their names so that, like outlaws, they could not be traced. They are down-and-outs in terms of civic responsibility. They are the democratically unwashed and I say good riddance to them. If they are not willing to pay, they should not have a say.
  Everyone has heard of the old adage "No taxation without representation". What about "No representation without taxation"? As there can be no rule of law without the Government to sustain it, taxation becomes a crucial element in sustaining our society and way of life. Those who have the means to contribute but will not should be gagged.
  What has the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East offered us? He offers a magna carta for delinquents. It is not surprising that a Labour Member of Parliament should seek to introduce such legislation because, having lost in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, Labour needs the support of everyone possible, criminals or not.
  Labour believes that it has been cheated. The hon. Gentleman says that the Conservatives won seats because some people were not on the electoral register or did not vote. I shall tell them why they lost. They had an awful leader. Down in Nottingham they were singing, "We are the champions", and fireworks were going off like a load of damp squibs—but they were all Roman candles. There was not a banger among them. Now they have this fool of a leader. What is he up to? He wrote a shadow budget for the nation. No wonder the people never gave him the chance to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman's reference to the present leader of the Labour party and draft budgets is was beyond the realm of the Bill.
  Mr. Evans: I withdraw my remarks about the current leader of the Labour party, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that he is called the wriggler from Monklands, East.
  What I have described is the motive behind the Labour party's move towards proportional representation—the bolthole of minority parties throughout the world. It is typical of the Labour party to pick up an idea just when everyone else is discarding it. Even the Italians, who are fond of loony ideas, are thinking again about the issue.
  The result of PR—and the Labour party knows it—would be to deliver to this country the sort of Government that we get locally in Derbyshire, Lambeth and Sheffield, in which extreme minorities run roughshod over people's lives. Furthermore, a representative is more likely to respond to the interests of those who appoint him if they are identified with a specific place—yet PR undermines the very idea of a constituency. If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East really wants to enhance representation he should tell his comrades to drop PR as quickly as they dropped CND. If they want to win an election they will have to convince the electorate that beer and sandwiches at No. 10 is no substitute for sound policies.
  When we look at this ridiculous Bill we see that the lesson still has not been learnt. The Labour party believes

  1221
  that some of its voters are being stopped from voting. It is right—but why has that happened? They have been stopped because they are cheats and have been caught out not paying their taxes.
  If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East really wanted to improve our representative system he should have dealt with the sums paid as deposits by candidates. Candidates in all public elections automatically acquire certain rights, privileges and advantages—the right to free post for their election addresses and the free use of publicly maintained buildings for meetings and the right to veto broadcast transmission of material related to the constituency election. In addition, they receive considerable publicity. Is it right that such benefits should be conferred on a candidate whose views are held by only a tiny minority of the electorate?
  We need a deterrent to ward off the proliferation of fringe candidates who are now undermining the effectiveness with which the campaigns of candidates with significant support can be conducted. A deposit of £5,000 would certainly make fringe candidates think twice. The Bill would be even better if it required a non-refundable deposit of £15,000 from each representative of the Labour party. The money could be passed over to the Exchequer to pay it back for some of the damage done to this country when the Labour party was in power.
  Part II of the Bill deals with physical access to polling stations. Let us examine Government policy on that subject before we go haring off into making expensive changes. In 1985 we made it a statutory duty for local authorities to choose polling stations that offer facilities for the disabled in preference to those that do not, where there is a choice. Admittedly, choice can be limited. Where the only building available does not provide good access for disabled voters, we provide a grant of 50 per cent. towards the cost of temporary ramps. Nevertheless, our long-term aim is for all polling stations to be accessible to disabled people. That is why we remind returning officers of their duty to choose accessible polling stations where possible.
  The suggestion that disabled people should be allowed to vote at a more suitable polling station if their local station does not provide good access is being considered in the context of our post-election review. That suggestion has received a mixed reception from local authority representatives and in practice it might not be helpful to many disabled people, for whom travel to a more distant polling station would also be difficult.
  There have been consultations with groups representing disabled people. Shortly before the general election the Royal National Institute for the Blind wrote to the Government with suggestions for making it easier for blind and partially sighted people to take part in the electoral process. The Government circulated to acting returning officers guidance provided by the RNIB on the layout of polling stations, the lighting, and the typeface to use on notices and ballot papers. Following more recent consultations with the RNIB, we have invited its representatives to attend a meeting of one of the post-election working groups to explain their concerns.
  After the general election, the Spastics Society produced a report entitled, "Polls Apart", about disabled people and the election. It was critical of the standards of
  1222
  access to polling stations, claiming that 88 per cent. of those surveyed had one or more problems which would prevent disabled people from voting there independently. We wrote to the Spastics Society suggesting that if it provided material on mobility issues similar to that provided by the RNIB, we should be happy to circulate it to returning officers. There has been no response to that offer.
  The Bill is unnecessary and it addresses no obvious problem. Most people understand their civic responsibilities and freely exercise their rights. Indeed, at the general election voter turnout increased. If there is a problem, it is a problem of individuals' own choosing. Democracy is not ideal. There will always be people who refuse to participate—on the grounds of conscience or because they want to dodge their responsibilities to the state. Why spend valuable time and money altering a system that works perfectly fairly? If we want to change things for the better we should outlaw those such as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, who encourage law breaking and civil disobedience. It is they who undermine our representative democracy and, as outlaws, they should be barred from office.
  10.37 am
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The House has been entertained to hear the hon. Member—the Rab C. Nesbitt of Welwyn Hatfield—voicing his prejudices again. There were a number of rather remarkable contradictions in his speech—not least of which was his extolling of the virtues of Disraeli, while seeking to reintroduce a property qualification for the vote. His speech will not have convinced many people who are interested in democracy as opposed to the more atavistic impulses from the wilder shores of Conservatism.
  The Bill is a useful, important and timely measure. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is to be congratulated on having introduced it with the support of hon. Members from so many parties. For several years he has carried on a personal crusade to rectify the deficiencies of our system of registration. As he rightly says, that system is fundamental to the effectiveness of our democratic system of parliamentary government. If we do not have a proper register, we cannot have a proper outcome and whatever the consequences of registration may be, it will be flawed if there are, as is the case today, such apparent discrepancies between the number of people who are entitled to vote and the number who have the opportunity to do so.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has not made a partisan point. He has made a point that must appeal to all who are concerned about the efficacy of our deomocratic system. From the example of other countries where registration is worse than it is here, it is clear that a good registration system is the key to producing representative government.
  We must ask why there has been a deterioration in registration in this country over the past decade. It is a subject on which the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government, a non-partisan body, focused in its publication of September 1991 entitled "Agenda for Change". The society took evidence from many sources and produced an authoritative report. Some of its recommendations are embodied in the Bill. We look

  1223
  forward with interest to hearing the Government's response to the Hansard Society's proposals for improving the system.
  It is right to get the matter into proportion. The defects of registration are neither uniform nor universal. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East referred to two local authorities, Plymouth and Leeds, and there are other areas where there is high accuracy because local authorities have made great efforts to ensure that the register is a true reflection of those who are entitled to vote.
  However, there has been a deterioration throughout the country as a whole. The Hansard Society report showed that whereas between 1951 and 1966 electoral registers were thought to be between 96 and 97 per cent. accurate, by 1981 the error rate had almost doubled. That was before the introduction of the poll tax. Whatever view one takes of the poll tax on the ground of equity, no one can seriously argue that it has not seriously exacerbated the problem of registration. The electoral registration lists were undoubtedly used by local authorities in the compilation of community charge registers. That fact was widely known and was widely seen by those who were opposed to the poll tax or who felt unable to pay it as a reason for not registering for elections.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point which involves a number of complex arguments. He took up the reference to Leeds made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and said that it had a commendably high registration rate. I believe that one of the reasons why it achieved that rate was that it used the community charge list, which it had taken great trouble to get full and up to date, to check who had been left off the electoral register. The argument about the community charge cuts at least two ways. If electoral registration is efficiently carried out in a district, the community charge list can be positively helpful.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has linked the two lists together, although at all times during the passage of the community charge legislation the Government said that the lists would be kept separate.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: I shall just finish the point and I shall then happily give way.
  I do not dispute the fact—indeed I made the point—that it was certainly the case that those who compiled the community charge lists referred to the electoral registers. The Minister has informed the House—I am sure that he did so on good authority—that in Leeds the system operated the other way round and I am sure that he is right. That shoots out entirely the argument deployed by Ministers during the passage of the community charge legislation that the community charge would have no effect on voting. That argument was always suspect and the Minister has finally nailed it in his intervention.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I do not want to labour the point. The Government have recommended many times that electoral registration officers should use the community charge list to check that the electoral registers are up to date. The Government have given that advice. It is good advice and some electoral registration officers have used it very well.
  Mr. Maclennan: I pointed out that I did not wish to dwell on the impact of the community charge on registration. Any fair-minded person who looks at what has happened will share the view of the Hansard Society that the community charge had an adverse effect on the level of registration across the country as a whole. However, that is an historical issue to some extent, as, not before time, we are seeing the demise of that tax.
  We must concern ourselves more with the underlying reasons that pre-date the poll tax. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East made it plain that he was not resting his case solely on the poll tax. It is clear that there are variations throughout the country and we must ask the reason for that.
  The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) wanted to place the blame entirely on ne?er-do-wells who had not taken the trouble to get themselves registered. The matter is not as straightforward as that. The window of opportunity for registration is narrow and it may require a considerable effort by someone who has been left off the register to discover how to go about getting himself on to the register again. People with language difficulties in some communities may find it even more difficult, which may account for some of the discrepancies in registration.
  It is clear that local authorities that have made great efforts to improve the register have had success. They have achieved that success not only by campaigning and advertising widely, but by carrying out follow-up surveys in the community after the returns have been made. There is no doubt that that course must be followed.
  We should look with favour at the core proposal of the Bill, which is that there should be a rolling electoral register. I understand that such a system has been introduced with success in Australia. No argument of principle can be deployed against it. The haphazard circumstances of the dates chosen for elections—
  Mr. Stern: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a bit dangerous to make comparisons between this country and Australia because the fact that there is compulsory voting in Australia must devalue the importance of the timing of the register? Whether there is a rolling register or a fixed register in Australia, people still have to vote. We are talking about giving people the right to vote so we must consider the idea of a rolling register, which, like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) I largely welcome, with rather more caution.
  Mr. Maclennan: I view with caution any matters involving a change in our electoral law, but the example of Australia is certainly worth considering, because the new system appears to have worked well there. As the hon. Gentleman says, the circumstances of its introduction may have been different from those pertaining here, but that does not necessarily mean that it is not transferable. I hope that the Government will express their willingness to look favourably on that principle, because, whatever difficulties there may be in its operation, it certainly has a great deal to recommend it.
  The funding of registration is also important. There is a great discrepancy in the extent to which local authorities fund registration and I am not altogether sure that that is desirable. We have a national interest in ensuring a high level of registration and that should not really turn on local choice. I believe in the principle of subsidiarity, and that effectiveness and efficiency should be the test of the

  1225
  level of government at which decisions are taken. But given that there are extraordinary discrepancies—several percentage points between the best and least good—we must ask ourselves whether the intervention of central Government is required to achieve better results. We cannot be satisfied that our national interests are being adequately protected at present.
  Following advice from the electoral registration officers about the differences to which I have alluded, the Hansard Society report said that there was a case for increasing the resources devoted to canvassing and advertising for registration, preferably through a system of central funding of electoral registration. At present, only the cost of administering elections is paid centrally. I should be interested to hear the Government's view of that recommendation.
  The Bill highlights the widespread concern that there is a deterioration in registration, which it would not be wise of the Government to shrug off. The position varies across the country. I have not had access to the most recent figures, but I note that, over a decade ago, in 1981, Wales had a non-registration rate of 9.2 per cent; England, of 6.5 per cent; and Scotland, of 5.4 per cent. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys annual reports suggest that there has been an increase in the number of registration officers reporting lower response rates to their surveys.
  The Bill will do a great deal of good. Although details remain to be worked out and there are certain problems—the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East fairly drew attention to them as Committee points—I support the thrust of the Bill and I am delighted to have the opportunity to support the hon. Gentleman today.
  Part II of the Bill deals with the problems of disabled voters—a matter which is not insignificant. It was not only severely disabled electors in the royal borough of Wick in my constituency who felt angry when, at the last general election, they discovered that they were required to vote in polling booths on the second floor of a Victorian town hall with no lift access. Elderly, as well as disabled people, were inadequately cared for as a result of that serious oversight.
  Such matters are important and cannot be dealt with exclusively by postal vote arrangments, because, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East said, many people want to participate fully in the electoral process. They are entitled to have their needs taken care of. I hope, therefore, that the measures in part II of the Bill, which covers physical access to polling stations, will be given a fair wind by the House so that we may tackle the problem at root.
  10.55 am
  Mr. Michael Stern: I am grateful to you for calling me at this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, for constituency reasons, I may be unable to stay until the end of the debate. I apologise in advance to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and my hon. Friend the Minister.
  In following the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and in welcoming the Bill, let me start with a note of caution. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to a number of
  1226
  difficulties in the Bill as Committee points. I think that he underestimates some of the difficulties to which the Bill gives rise.
  I welcome the Bill because, if it receives its Second Reading today, it will enable us to consider, in Committee and on Report, a number of detailed questions. I must say, however, that I have little faith that, in the context of the private Member's Bill procedure, it will be possible to resolve those points so as to allow effective legislation to be passed. I welcome the Bill as part of the discussion process that will inform the studies currently taking place in the Home Office, which will, in due course, lead us to the necessary revision of electoral law. I am sure that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East is realistic enough to know that that is the likely outcome and that he, like me, has no great expectation that the Bill in its present form or in a similar form will eventually become law.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has rightly introduced a Bill which would make it easier for people to register and so minimise involuntary non-registration. That is wholly to be applauded. In a democracy, there is no excuse for people who wish to vote, and who comply with the law in their wish to vote, having barriers put in their way. I entirely accept that. In drafting the Bill in its present form, however, the hon. Gentleman has accepted the principle that there should be some form of legal compulsion, if not in respect of registration itself, certainly in respect of an aspect of registration—the provision of information to enable someone to be registered.
  I am a little worried about that principle. If we accept in a democracy that someone is entitled to be registered but not to vote—a point that the hon. Gentleman made in his opening remarks—I can see no justification for not going a stage further. If someone who lives in a democracy is sufficiently unenamoured of the democratic process that he wishes to declare publicly that he will take no part in it, I see no reason why there should be a legal barrier to prevent that person from making such a declaration.
  Mr. Dunn: It is not simply a matter of those who may be disaffected by the democratic process or the choice of available parties. Some people do not wish to register on religious grounds. We are all aware of people in our constituencies who would not vote because their strong beliefs tell them not to. They should have an opportunity to say that they wish to have no part in the process because they want their futures to remain in hands higher than the Government or democracy.
  Mr. Stern: I entirely accept that point and I was about to consider that issue.
  Mr. Maclennan: The duties of citizenship and the relationship of the electoral register to those duties do not simply relate to voting. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) should bear in mind the fact that jury service depends on registration. Whatever may be one's religious beliefs, one may not opt out of all the civic duties associated with the electoral register.
  Mr. Stern: The hon. Gentleman is right, although his example of jury service depends on several factors other than entry on the electoral register. Indeed, I am always somewhat embarrassed when I argue about the duty of jury service in the House, which has exempted itself from that duty.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: My hon. Friend has made an interesting observation. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has made a proper point. Citizens have duties which, to some extent, flow from electoral registration. A number of people in my constituency belong to the Exclusive Brethren or are Jehovah's Witnesses. They choose not to vote. However, they come to see me as their Member of Parliament when they want me to lobby Ministers on their behalf, and naturally, I do that. However, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is right. There is a duty to register. If individuals choose not to exercise their vote having registered, that is a matter for them.
  Mr. Stern: I have a similar constituency background, but I am forced to disagree with my hon. Friend. Like him, I consider that I represent members of the Jehovah's Witnesses or Exclusive sects although they do not vote. They come to see me from time to time when they feel that their beliefs are affected by legislation, proposed legislation or by administrative actions of the Government. Quite rightly, they expect me to take up their concerns on their behalf.
  The people to whom I have just referred accept that although they are in an anomalous position in that they take on many of the duties of citizens, in so far as being registered is considered a duty, they do not like that duty. They would be considerably more at ease in our society if they could declare that they were not part of the process in which people expect them to take part. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) would find that a religious exemption from the duty to register would make such sects more at ease in our society.
  There is a philosophical difficulty about the thrust of the Bill in respect of whether we should be reinforcing a legal duty, under pain of monetary penalty, to register in the first place. The main point of the Bill is to encourage by all means the registration to vote. Although I accept the principle and am interested in some of the proposals, I foresee some difficulties. Those points must be considered in Committee and on Report and will, in due course, form part of the Home Office deliberations.
  I want first to consider the Bill's resource implications. Although it is often parroted from the Opposition Benches that the first thing that Government supporters consider in respect of any measure is the cost, the fact is that the cost is important. It is even more important when central Government impose additional costs on local government.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has, like me, on many occasions been told by his local representatives, "Look, you expect us to do these things, but you don't provide us with the resources. How on earth do you expect to continue to increase the responsibilities of local government without providing the resources?"
  With respect to any new measure, we have a duty to consider what we would like local government to do and also exectly what it will cost local government to do it. There is then the separate argument of whether we give that area of expenditure a sufficiently high priority that we would wish to provide the extra funds to enable local authorities at least to have a chance to act properly.
  The resource implications of the Bill are considerable. At the moment, the electoral registration system, for which I have a very high regard, works on the basis of an annual
  1228
  register. There is a clear calendar and clear staffing implications during the year in respect of the duties of the electoral registration officer and his assistants.
  A rolling register would destroy that timetable. The basic timetable might still exist, but the duties that can now be slotted into different times in the year by the electoral registration officer would be continuous. Clearly, the resource implications are bound to be considerable.
  In addition, the Bill requires electoral registration officers to look much wider for sources of information for the register and, in particular, for the rolling register. That must also have resource implications. I do not necessarily say that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East is wrong to extend the work of the electoral registration officer in that way. However, I do not believe that it would be proper for the House to approve measures of this potentially expensive nature without having greater regard to the additional costs that we would place on local authorities.
  Mr. Barnes: There are resource implications in clauses 10, 17 and 20 which, essentially, fall on the Home Office. Those resource implications would have to be taken into account. Therefore, if the Bill receives a Second Reading, it would require a money resolution at a later stage. There are not necessarily resource implications for local authorities in addition to the moneys that would begin to become available from elsewhere. In so far as there are resource implications, some of the computer hardware and software already exists with regard to the community charge register. As that register will no longer exist, the computer hardware and software could be used for electoral registration purposes.
  Mr. Stern: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is unusual to hear praise from Opposition Benches for the community charge collection machinery. However, I must offer the hon. Gentleman a word of caution. I represent the city of Bristol, which is notorious for not collecting the community charge. It has one of the best records of not collecting the community charge of any local authority in the country. The horrific thought that that creaking, outdated, antiquated and unused machinery was to be transferred to electoral registration would be the greatest reversal of democracy that this country has seen for a hundred years. As the hon. Gentleman has admitted, there are resource implications. He said that they might be overcome, but I have some doubt about that.
  I am also a little troubled by the frequency of alteration to the register that the hon. Gentleman's proposals would require. Again, I am a little troubled by some implications. There are, of course, resource implications in more frequent amendments to the register, which the hon. Gentleman and I have just discussed. In addition, the fact that we currently have an annual register, albeit one with an annual programme for correction, builds into the system certain checks and balances which would be rather more difficult under the rolling register.
  I have always represented an urban seat. Before I represented that seat, I stood as a candidate in another urban seat, Derby, South—very close to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. One problem that is observed in any urban election—it is extremely difficult to pin down, but it is at least suspected in almost every election in which I have ever been involved—is that of impersonation.

  1229
  Electoral registration officers have suggested to me that, to check the possibility of false registration, they need time to make adequate checks within the electoral registration system to enable them to decide for themselves whether a registration at a house in a particularly mobile neighbourhood is justified.
  I am worried that if we move towards forcing the electoral registration officer to take much speedier decisions on a person's entitlement to registration, we might be reducing that officer's ability to ensure to his own satisfaction that the entry or the removal of an entry is correct.
  Mr. Dunn: Surely there is another point to consider in the context of the rolling register, not just the valid point that my hon. Friend is making. If it were known that a Member of Parliament was ill or was liable to give up to go to the European Commission on some appointment or other, what is to stop any party gradually moving in some of its more determined zealots to form part of that rolling register for the by-election that might take place?
  Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend is slightly unfair to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East; he referred to that point as a problem. Like my hon. Friend, I am not sure whether the problem can easily be resolved. It is certainly one for which no resolution appears in the Bill, although I accept that the hon. Gentleman said that that point would need to be considered in Committee. I am not sure whether the problem can be resolved so easily when there is often a three-month delay between the need for a by-election and the date of the by-election and when the actual need for a by-election is often predated by a period of increasing certainty that a by-election will take place. That is a problem, particularly in towns with mobile populations and in which the addition of a few extra voters to the electoral rolls could easily go unnoticed until the names are published in the up-to-date rolling register.
  Another problem in connection with the frequency of updating, which is inherent in the Bill, is in the clause relating to publication of the final list of amendments seven days before an election. In terms of postal votes, canvassing, the organisation of transport, particularly for the disabled, and all the other processes in a normal general election in particular, and even more so in a by-election, a seven-day notification of a list of new names is an impossible target for an adequate electoral process as we know it.
  If our tradition in this country were like the German tradition in which there is very little mass canvassing and great general publicity, that process might be accommodated. The hon. Gentleman is saying that our traditional methods of contacting voters during a general election will no longer apply to a significant number of the electorate. I am not sure whether the House should lightly change that.
  Mr. Barnes: We are talking about a significant number only if other measures in the Bill are not working very well. It is a final check. Some areas would undoubtedly have large supplementary lists and others would have small supplementary lists. A large supplementary list would be a sign that extra action might be needed by the returning officers to correct the shortfall. We are talking not about extensive lists but about short additions as a backstop.
  Mr. Stern: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Only time will tell. We are dealing with probably more of an urban problem than a rural problem. Nevertheless, I can foresee areas of my constituency—I shall refer to this point later—which would be seriously affected by a rolling register. I am talking about areas in which, in any normal year, there could be a turnover of about 20 per cent. of the register. Therefore, any political organisation needs considerable time and effort to be able to contact that continually changing electorate.
  Another matter in respect of which I have some concerns is the criteria for registration. Again, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East was right to highlight the fact that our existing criteria might be looking somewhat dated in the light of the mobility of modern life. For example, where people consider their homes to be, where they consider they would normally be, and where they actually lay their heads on the night of 15 October are concepts which, in a settled and less mobile society—
  Mr. Dunn: Or September when the forms come out.
  Mr. Stern: Or September when the forms come out, as my hon. Friend says.
  Those aspects might be appropriate to a settled society in which people move infrequently, but they are increasingly difficult for electoral registration officers to enforce, when, again particularly in urban areas, people move more frequently. What is the position, for example, in relation to people who are moving house at about the time of electoral registration and are genuinely between two houses? They could be living in a hotel or temporarily in a third house. Those problems can be resolved, but they cause difficulty for an electoral registration officer. The Bill, by providing for a rolling list, would increase the difficulty of that officer's work.
  My final concern about the Bill relates to the almost draconian provisions for the obtaining of information by the returning officer and the sources of that information. It seems that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East is giving greatly increased powers under penalty to the returning officer. Such powers are given to almost no other department of local government and the Labour party was critical when similar powers were given to community charge registration officers.
  The hon. Gentleman is relying on confidentiality within local authorities. With the best will in the world, and having the highest regard for electoral registration officers, ordinary citizens would be concerned if the information for which returning officers were entitled to ask was readily available to those returning officers. We have all had recent examples of how easy it is for information that we all consider to be private to be leaked into the public domain and made much of by the media. The House has not yet found an answer to increasing the privacy of such information. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's measures would contribute greatly to the privacy of individuals. I think that they would detract from such privacy for purposes that the individual might resent.
  In addition, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has appreciated the extent to which it would be necessary for the electoral registration officer fully to enforce the powers given under the Bill to the officer. I shall give an example from my constituency. I represent two thirds of a new town called Bradley Stoke, which was being built in the years up to and including the last general election, and is

  1231
  still being built. With a fixed date for the register, the electoral registration officer still had the greatest difficulty in establishing who was entitled to be on the register at a specific date. Streets were appearing where they had never appeared before and people were moving into empty houses in a steady stream around the night specified for electoral registration.
  Many streets were discovered only a few months after 15 October. The electoral registration officer had to decide whether the streets existed on 15 October and whether people were living there. To get that information, he had to go not simply to the people who wished to go on the register and to those who had taken no action to go on the register because it did not concern them that much, but to the individual developers—about 20 different ones were involved—and to individual estate agents to find out when houses had been sold. In many cases, he approached local solicitors to find out when completions had taken place. At a time of rapid development in a constituency, one can imagine the additional work if it had to be done not simply once a year but continually and then have to be challenged continually. It would mean that, in the case of a developing new town such as Bradley Stoke, the electoral registration officer would need a line to almost every solicitor in the country to find out whether a completion had taken place on or around the day of entitlement so that he could check any incomplete information that was given to him.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Stern: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Frankly, the proposals of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East would be incapable of producing a reliable register in any major development.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am sorry that I did not hear the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I think that the electoral registration officer in his constituency is a remarkably assiduous person and tribute should be paid to him for doing that sort of work. I cannot imagine many other electoral registration officers who would go to that degree of detailed investigation without a lot of pressure being put on them to do it.
  Parts of the constituency that I represent have an annual turnover of population of up to 25 per cent., so a register compiled in October is out of date by the time it comes into force in February. If there is an October election, the register is often as much as 20 per cent. inaccurate in some places. A rolling register would certainly help us.
  Clearly, electoral registration officers would need much more resources than they have at present to do the work. I recognise that there is a cost involved, but it is a cost well worth paying to enable people to have the right to cast their votes.
  Mr. Stern: The hon. Gentleman is right. He underlined a number of points that I made earlier. There is a cost involved. Like him, I represent some areas of high mobility where the electoral registration officer has some difficulty. The hon. Gentleman underlined my point that the task is difficult enough when it has to be done on the basis of an annual register. It would be much more difficult on the basis of a rolling register.
  Since the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East referred to the report from Warwick university, I must make one final comment. He said that the justification for
  1232
  his Bill—or at least part of it—was that increasing the accuracy of the register might be favoured more by the Labour party than the Conservative party. He called in evidence the report by Warwick university, "The UK Poll Tax and the Declining Electoral Roll", which refers to my constituency, among others. It is an example of academic research, through a lack of knowledge of the terrain, coming to a totally incorrect conclusion. Studies in my constituency during the last election campaign showed that the inaccuracies in the register were largely in the faster-developing areas such as Bradley Stoke, where a local town council election at the start of the election campaign proved that the vote was almost entirely divided between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats with the Labour party coming nowhere. If that area of my constituency had a more accurate register at the time, it certainly would not have benefited the Labour party and would undoubtedly have increased by majority.
  Mr. Barnes: In the end, the question of who benefits should not matter. I have a transcript of a television interview with the Minister. When this matter was raised, the Minister said:
  "I don't think Labour had any disadvantage over the registers in the last general election. Quite the reverse. It was the sort of Conservative voter areas that were underrepresented, because the constituency boundaries there were based on electoral registers many years ago, and in those times the inner-cities were much more highly populated,".
  The Minister has an argument about why the Conservatives suffered from under-registration. Whether it is the Conservatives or Labour, we should get the registration right.
  Mr. Stern: On that point of agreement, I am happy to conclude my remarks.
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I wish to support the Bill. Fortunately, the week in which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) introduces his Bill is the time of the year when the new register is published. We all know that in a few days the electoral registers published in our constituencies will already be four months out of date, because the qualifying date was in October 1992.
  The register that is now being published will have to run for 12 months. We all know that there are already a number of errors in the register, for a number of reasons. A number of people will have died or moved, which will make the register out of date on the first day on which it can possibly be used. That will eliminate the ability of certain people to exercise their right to vote.
  As the year passes, the margin of error increases. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East referred to an average error of 16 per cent., but we all know that the error in some constituencies is much greater than that. My hon. Friend was referring to the error at the end of a register's life. In many constituencies—for example, those in inner London, and inner city constituencies generally—the error increases to 30 or 35 per cent. when the life of the registers comes to an end. That will be the position in 1993–94. It is an extremely wide margin of error.
  I was a full-time agent and a voluntary agent for over 20 years before I became a Member. I know that the register that we use now is nowhere near as accurate as the

  1233
  registers that were used in the 1950s and the early 1960s. Financial pressures on local government have become greater and, regrettably, local authorities have sought to save money in undertaking their responsibility to ensure that registers are as full and accurate as possible.
  We have all seen changes in the method of registration. When I was a local government candidate in the early 1960s—I was an agent at the time—there could be only one change to the register each year. The Y voters, as they used to be, were able to exercise their vote on a date halfway through the life of the register. Dates of birth are now shown on registers, which means that when a person becomes 18 years of age—it used to be the 21st birthday, of course—he or she immediately becomes qualified to vote. People can claim that their names should be added to a register if there has been an official error or because they fail to register. That facility is not much used and it relates to the place where they would have been qualified to vote in October of the previous year. People are not allowed to put their names on the registers that are being used in the places to which they have moved. They can claim only that their names should be added to the register at the place where they were in residence, in the previous October.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East proposes that we should have a moving and changing register. He has said that the provisions that are set out in the Bill need to be debated fully in Committee, and he is right. Conservative Members have highlighted some flaws. However, the Bill focuses our attention on faults with the present system. If we have a democracy, we have a duty to ensure that the maximum number of people are able to exercise their right to vote at local elections, county council elections, borough elections, regional elections—I hope—in the years to come, parliamentary elections and elections to the European Parliament. The key, of course, to the exercise of that right is registration. If the register is inaccurate, the present system prevents people from expressing their voice in a democracy.
  I often criticise the percentage of the poll in local elections. I am sure that we should all like to see much higher percentages. Sadly, there has been a slight downward drift of the percentage poll in general elections over the past 40 years or so. It must be said, however, that the percentage of polls here is higher than that which caused the Americans to express delight after the presidential campaign, which was one of the highest polls that they have seen.
  We are in an age of computers and we should recognise that it is now more feasible to update registers regularly. I recognise, of course, that there are problems and that there could be abuse. Those are the issues which should be debated in Committee. We have a responsibility, however, to examine the system and ask ourselves whether we should change it and ensure that we have registers that enable the maximum number of people possible living in a constituency to have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote for the party of the candidate of their choice in an election. The Bill gives us the opportunity to discuss some of these opportunities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East has said that there are other issues that he believes should be debated. He rightly said that the arrangements for overseas voters need to be examined.
  1234
  There is also the issue of postal votes. He told us that he deliberately excluded such matters from the Bill, although he believes that they should be examined in the long run. He has deliberately confined the Bill to two fairly simple issues—registers and disabled voters—because he wants to see progress made on those fronts.
  I hope that the Minister will respond positively and say that the Government, especially the Home Office, are prepared to examine changes that will meet the objectives of my hon. Friend. I believe that the time has come to move in that direction. The present system is wrong. I am sure that during the general election campaign there were people in every constituency who complained to every candidate that they had not received voting papers or that their names had not been included on the register. For whatever reason, they were unable to exercise their vote on 9 April. In a democracy, that must be wrong. The Bill highlights the defects in the system that is now operated. I accept that details need to be considered in Committee, but we must move a long way in the direction that has been signposted by my hon. Friend to ensure that people have a voice in our democracy, which is an essential part of the democratic process.
  I have always believed in democracy. At local government level and in Parliament, the role of the opposition—all those who are against the party in power—is important. If there is no opposition, we shall move rapidly towards dictatorship. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have a responsibility to ensure that the key to democracy is preserved, and I believe that that is the register.
  I think that it is generally accepted that the postal vote system needs to be analysed. Further development of it is needed. I support the idea that more publicity should be given to the availability of postal votes. My hon. Friend was right, however, when he said that there are many disabled people and many elderly people who, by choice, do not have a postal vote. They regard it as important that they are able to get to the polling station to express their voice in a democratic way for the candidate of the party of their choice, and to be seen to be doing that. That is vital. the disabled often find it offensive to have to go to the back doors of buildings to gain access—to use a second-class entrance—and to be considered as not having the same rights as non-disabled voters.
  Those of us fortunate enough not to be disabled tend to overlook the stigma and difficulties that often attach to someone who is disabled. My hon. Friend, in a modest way, is trying to make the point that we should look positively at polling stations and question whether they are accessible to the disabled and the elderly and, if not, to consider more suitable premises.
  That is not to say that I oppose the extension of the postal vote and encouraging people to make use of that facility, because it offers considerable advantages. However, many elderly and disabled people regard going to vote at a polling station as an important part of their democratic rights.
  My hon. Friend admits that his Bill has some defects, but it focuses attention on two issues of great importance in a democracy. We have a duty to ensure that people have the right to use their vote, which means ensuring that the register is correct. We are also obliged to ensure that everyone can use polling stations.
  If the Bill receives a Second Reading today, I hope that it will be positively improved in Committee. If the Home

  1235
  Office accepts the spirit and the concept of my hon. Friend's Bill, and takes a positive attitude to the aspects I mention, it could improve the Bill in a way that is acceptable to my hon. Friend and meets his objectives, and meets the provisions of our democratic society in ensuring that all have the right to vote—whichever way they choose.
  11.42 am
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I congratulate the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on his good fortune in the ballot and on providing the House with an opportunity to debate a matter of considerable interest to all right hon. and hon. Members and their constituents. I am pleased to participate because, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) pointed out, there cannot he any right hon. and hon. Member who, during the last election, was not approached by a constituent asking, ?Why am I not on the register? Why didn't you put me on the register?? They all think that Members of Parliament are responsible, when we all know that is the duty of registration officers.
  I represent the 61,744 constituents of the Uxbridge parliamentary constituency. That number has been broadly constant since 1979, but it dropped by about 1,400 in the last general election. It is important to consider the reduction in electorates that prompted the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
  There are several reasons why electorates throughout the country have fallen by various amounts during the past few years. One is that, because of the current recession and difficulties in the housing market, those who inherit empty property after the death of its previous occupant have encountered considerable difficulty selling it. When I canvassed in the last general election, I frequently came across properties on the register identified as having no elector. I began to investigate and canvassed such houses. In almost every case, the properties were shut up, empty, and gave the appearance that the occupants had left for one reason or another.
  Another small but significant factor is that many people in this country have homes elsewhere in Europe. With the tendency to take early retirement, there is an increasing propensity to buy homes abroad and for people to spend part of their retirement living in France, Spain or another country. That means that on 10 October each year, many are not at home to fill up form A, so their names do not appear on the register. Another factor is the deliberate avoidance of registration, to evade liability for the community charge. There may be other reasons, and no doubt other right hon. and hon. Members will refer to them.
  Waiting to be called to speak, I took the opportunity to research the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who represents only 30,905 electors, compared with my 61,000. That hon. Gentleman represents a large and beautiful constituency, which I have had the pleasure of visiting—but even there, 1 per cent. of the electorate was lost between the last two general elections.
  We all know that it is never left solely to the individual to register his or her interest in voting—unlike in the United States, where the turnout for presidential elections is substantially lower than for general elections in our country. Our Government and Parliament impose a duty on citizens to provide information requested by electoral
  1236
  registration officers. In effect, registration is compulsory. Those who receive a copy of the annual canvassing document that we know as form A have a duty to return it with accurate information, and they can be fined for not complying with that request. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I shall be interested to know how many prosecutions there have been in recent years for failing to comply with the form A request.
  Mr. Corbyn: I bet that there has been none.
  Mr. Shersby: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) gives the impression that the number of prosecutions is zero. I am interested to know whether that is the case. If it is, what is Home Office policy in that regard?
  There is a statutory duty on electoral registration officers to maximise registration and to publish an annual register of all those who appear to them to be eligible to vote. I shall concentrate for a few moments on that statutory duty. Having exercised that duty, the officer must take account of the facilities available to the general public to check that the register is accurate each year and that their names are included. It is possible, for example, for electors to check that information at their local public library, and many political parties—certainly the Conservative party and the principal Opposition party—have offices in or near constituencies where their supporters can also check that their names are on the register. That has always been a valuable part of the work done by the political parties locally, as it complements the statutory duties of the electoral registration officers.
  I have made inquiries about the level of registration, and understand from Government estimates that it is about 95 per cent. of the potential electorate. Every year, about £40 million is spent in England and Wales on the process of electoral registration. As we all know, there is an annual nationwide advertising campaign that encourages people to register, and complete and return their electoral registration forms. In 1992, a total of £617,000 was spent on that advertising campaign.
  Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, electoral registration officers are required to
  "have a house to house or other sufficient inquiry made as to the persons entitled to be registered"
  as electors. The 1983 Act has one deficiency to which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East may care to turn his attention if his Bill is given a Second Reading.
  Unfortunately, the 1983 Act does not define "sufficient inquiry". Therefore, electoral registration officers are free to the method of conducting the canvass return according to local circumstances and the finances available to them. That is different from what used to happen in the 1950s and 1960s when, to my certain knowledge, electoral registration officers—certainly in London—made sure that households were canvassed by local government staff if an individual or household failed to return form A. I understand that that does not always happen today. If a return has not been made to the electoral registration officer, the most likely step is to send the household more forms. I believe that it is not uncommon for some electoral registration officers to make two or three attempts to attain the names of people living in a household by sending more forms.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East made an important point when he said that the forms were in addition to the already large amounts of mail that come

  1237
  through our letter boxes every week, and that people probably do not pay sufficient regard to them and throw them away with much of the other unsolicited mail. The definition of "sufficient inquiry" is loose and should be tightened up. We should return to the former position, whereby the electoral registration officers made sure that households were called on and did not simply rely on written methods of canvassing and sending other forms.
  We have talked today about the way in which the rolling register would work. The present registration procedure relies on the system whereby, in August or September each year, the electoral registration officers send or deliver an electoral registration form to each household in the district. We know that it is an offence not to complete the form or to give false information. I think that most of us would agree that people who commit an offence by not sending in the form are unlikely to be penalised. However, people who submit false information should perhaps be chased up more vigorously than they have been.
  Under the present procedure, a draft register is compiled from the electoral forms returned by householders and is published on 28 November each year. It contains the names of all those resident in the district on the qualifying date of 10 October who appear to the electoral registration officer to be eligible for inclusion. What sort of inquiry is made by electoral registration officers when the draft register is published about the absence of people who have previously been on the register for a considerable period?
  During last year's general election, I was approached by people who said, "Mr. Shersby, I have lived here for about 20 years and have always been on the electoral register. Why has my name disappeared?" The probably explanation is that the individual did not fill the form A and was away when the subsequent forms arrived. Should not electoral registration officers make inquiries when they find that an established name has disappeared from the register for no good reason? I think that they should, and I hope that we shall act to deal with that problem.
  There is a claims procedure—both the draft register and the final register, published on 15 February, are open to inspection by the public. The claims procedure enables people who are eligible, but not included on the register, to apply to have their names added. However, there is no procedure for adding to the register the names of people who move into the district after the qualifying date. The Bill gives careful consideration to that matter.
  I think that the claims procedure is lengthy. For example, it includes a procedure for objecting to proposed entries in the register. Should that facility to object be removed? I do not think so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said, there are occasionally circumstances in which people should not be registered—for example, when a deliberate attempt has been made to move people into a specific district to register them for a forthcoming election. Therefore, it is important for the objection procedure to remain, so that political parties, which make a point of studying such matters, can object if they believe that registrations are false. However, there may be other ways in which the claims procedure can be speeded up. The Bill contains one such method.
  1238
  One of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention is that it is impossible for names to be added to the register after nominations have closed. He suggested a sensible arrangement whereby people can register up to a date shortly before an election. It would be unwise for the date to be too close to the election, for the obvious reason that electoral registration officers would be busy at that time and would find it difficult to handle that extra responsibility.
  Some people only become aware for the first time during an election that their names are missing from the register. They usually become aware of that because they have not received any election material from the candidates; all of a sudden, it dawns on them that something is wrong and that they are likely to lose their right to vote.
  What are the reasons for the loss of electors? If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, study "The Times Guide to the House of Commons"—as I am sure you do in your leisure hours, so that you know the faces of all hon. Members, whom you call with tremendous accuracy—you will be aware of the changing levels of electoral registration between the past two general elections.
  I believe that the reasons for those changing levels—in addition to those that I have already given—are as follows. The first involves the change in the administrative practice of electoral registration officers over the past decade and the lack of canvassing. Secondly, there tends to be a blip in the electoral registration figures when a general election is known to be on the horizon; people have a greater incentive to register at that time. Thirdly, there are changes in people's propensity to register when they move to another district.
  Some people say that the introduction of the community charge had an effect on electoral registration, but that is difficult to prove or quantify. All that Members of Parliament can do is to go by their gut feelings. They use their judgment when dealing with constituency cases and may arrive at the conclusion that some people have failed to register because they wish to avoid the charge.
  One of the points that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-West made which particularly interests me concerns the sale of registers. There is evidence, I believe, that the sale of registers is objectionable to many people. Some people have asked me why they cannot be registered anonymously, as they can be for community charge purposes, if there is good reason.
  The problem is that copies of the electoral register are provided free of charge not only to Members of Parliament, local councillors, election candidates and local political parties, all of whom have an absolute right to that information, but to others who wish to have access to a comprehensive list of local residents. Among those who make use of electoral registers are mail order companies, credit reference agencies, market research organisations and charities. The electoral register can be purchased on a computer tape or disc from electoral registration officers who are data users. The current fee for non-electoral users is £2.50 per 1,000 names on the register for printed copies and £18 per 1,000 names on the register in data form. Since the sale of electoral registers is unpopular with the public, that matter should be looked into again.
  Mr. Barnes: The sale of electoral registers is also very unpopular with electoral registration officers. I had a meeting with the London electoral registration officers, at

  1239
  which I outlined my ideas for the Bill. They wanted the Bill to include a provision regarding the non-commercial sale of registers, for the reasons that have just been outlined by the hon. Gentleman. I did not include such a provision in the Bill, because there is considerable support on the Conservative Benches for the sale of registers. That would more readily and easily have led to the defeat of the Bill. The measure would, however, make more sense if it included a provision regarding the sale of electoral registers. The powers that electoral registration officers have to collect information would then be less of a blight on civil liberties. I hope that the Minister is listening carefully to the points that are being made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).
  Mr. Shersby: I am glad to be in agreement with the hon. Gentleman on those points. It is valuable for the House to know that he has taken the trouble, as is so evident from everything else that he has said about the Bill, to consult electoral registration officers. If it is Government policy to encourage the sale of electoral registers to mail order companies and market research organisations, I have to tell the Minister that I disagree with the Government. All hon. Members receive many complaints from constituents about junk mail and about canvassing. There is a general worry about security.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: It is important to point out that the electoral register is a public document. It would be difficult to conduct elections if political parties and various other organisations did not have access to it. It is impossible, therefore, to keep it out of the hands of anybody who wants to see it. It would be wrong to try to do so. Therefore, it makes very much more sense for electoral registration officers to charge for the document, except political parties and one or two other organisations that have a particular need for it, as that helps to defray some of the cost. It is not just commercial firms that find electoral registers useful. Charities do as well.
  Mr. Shersby: Friday is a marvellous day in the House of Commons for Back Benchers. They have the great pleasure and privilege of being able to disagree with the Treasury Bench on matters such as this without there being undue recrimination afterwards. This is a somewhat questionable matter. The principal purpose of the electoral register is to register people's entitlement to vote at elections. As far as I am aware, it was never introduced to enable mail order companies, credit reference agencies and market research organisations to pester people with their attentions. There may be a case for making electoral registers available to charities. They are in a different category.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that if electoral registers are to be made available, there should be a charge for that service and that that charge should be realistic, for it would help to defray the cost of compiling and publishing the registers. However, it is rather like the curate?s egg—good in parts.
  The electoral register can also be used either to trace or identify elderly people, particularly women living alone. Among those who consider themselves to be at risk are elderly people. There are others at risk, including some Members of Parliament in a sensitive situation; members of the judiciary; police officers; prison officers; scientists engaged in research using animals; even battered wives. I mention those categories of people because they are
  1240
  sensitive to the fact that the name that they have registered on the electoral register for the purpose of exercising their democratic rights is being sold to people who want to use it for quite different purposes.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point about the harassment of individuals by the use of the electoral register. He must surely accept that it is not possible and proper for the register to be kept private, but he might care to consider the point that local authorities are being increasingly encouraged by the Department of the Environment and others to maximise their income and to sell electoral registers to all sorts of companies. Although they are quite expensive to buy, their value to mail order companies is very considerable.
  Does the hon. Gentleman not think there is a case for making electoral registers freely available to be checked in libraries, post offices and so on and also for making them freely available to political parties, councillors, Members of Parliament and so on, but not selling them to mail order companies?
  Mr. Shersby: The hon. Gentleman has made a valuable suggestion which ought to be considered. I am grateful to him for making it.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East proposes that Parliament should approve a code of practice for electoral registration officers to follow when compiling their registers. I do not believe that that code should be unduly rigid. Some discretion should be given to electoral registration officers so to arrange matters as to be able to deliver the best possible service to the people of this country in a way that fits local circumstances.
  Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the fact that canvassing does not always take place and that something less than that is accepted as a sufficient search. A minimum level of search could be provided by the code.
  Mr. Shersby: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I accept that that is a valid point.
  As for the post-electoral review on electoral law and procedure that was established after the last election, I have looked into the matter and I understand that that review is under way and that it is considering various questions, including the availability of absent votes for those who cannot go to the polling station, methods of counting, including automated counting, and the design of the electoral forms. On that question, I hope that the commission will get it right this time. All of us have had reason to complain about the electoral forms and certainly about other matters—for example, the complicated nature of the forms used to apply for an absent vote, which many people find difficult to understand.
  One working group—which should report, I understand, in the summer—is examining electoral registration and, in particular, the question of a rolling register. It seems, therefore, that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has considerable support for his proposals not only on both sides of the House but from the commission.
  I have no doubt that the commission will attend to other matters, such as the resource implications of rolling registration, the frequency with which alterations should be made, the criteria for registration and sources of information from which to make amendments. It would be

  1241
  unwise to pre-empt the commission's work, but I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East for raising the matter today.
  I completely support the provisions in part II of the Bill. Disabled people should be able to go to polling stations and should not be confined to voting by post from their homes. They should be able to exercise their democratic voting rights in the same way as able-bodied people.
  I cannot help wondering whether, if the House is debating how we vote in one hundred years' time, Members of Parliament will worry about electoral registers, canvassing and all the other aspects of compiling the list that is so familiar to us today. Perhaps we shall then vote by pressing a button. With interactive television, I imagine that one will give a pin number which will enable one to vote in an election and the results could be determined in about an hour. None of us will be here to see that.
  Reform and improvement continue from year to year and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East for stimulating this discussion, which I hope will result in further improvements to our system.
  12.11 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I shall try to make my comments brief because I wish the Bill well and I want it to receive a Second Reading today and not to be talked out. Some Conservative Members seem intent on talking it out and the measure is too serious and sensible to receive that fate.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) commented on the sale of registers and objected to the publicity given to them. I disagree with his approach, as there is a too great a passion for secrecy in some matters. Next week a Bill on the right to know will be introduced. I believe that that right extends to registers. There can be no serious objections to the publication of electoral registers. If one does not like junk mail, one can use a bin. All hon. Members are familiar with tremendous volumes of junk mail and use our bins regularly, so I do not understand why anyone else should have valid grounds for complaint on the subject.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge also referred to the post-electoral review that is under way. I hope that the review and the study groups to which he referred will be completed quickly and that we shall get the results. I know that the register and the forms are being considered—expecially the multiplicity of forms for absent voting, which is one area where reform is very necessary.
  I support the general principle of the Bill because registration is important and it is desirable that everyone who is entitled to vote is given the opportunity to cast their vote. That principle is important and the Bill should be welcomed for that reason, even if it contains some flaws.
  Hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that, for some years, the percentage of persons included on the register has steadily declined and is now down to between 95 and 97 per cent. in Great Britain. Until the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) receives his written answer, we shall not have equivalent figures for Northern Ireland.
  A post-election review regularly takes place in Great Britain, to which representatives of political parties are
  1242
  invited. That is a sensible procedure, but it has not hitherto been followed in Northern Ireland, although this year the Minister, who is apparently responsible for elections there, decided to invite political parties to give him their views for the first time. During that meeting, which took place a few months ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland claimed that the equivalent registration figure for Northern Ireland was 98 per cent. He was not in a position to give the basis for that figure and although he promised to communicate with us in writing he has regrettably failed to do so.
  Mr. Barnes: I received the following answer on 5 February, which compares the figure for the percentage of population eligible to vote on 30 June 1991 with the figure on the subsequent register, which shows that 99.6 per cent. of those eligible to vote in Upper Bann are registered. Nearly all the figures for Northern Ireland are in the 98 to 100 per cent. range, which emphasises my argument that Northern Ireland does not have the same problem because it did not have the poll tax, although it still has the problem of people who are on the register, but should not be, masking others who are not on the register.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am not entirely satisfied that the registers are as accurate as they could be. Until that written answer, there were no published studies for Northern Ireland. Consequently I must express some concern about the accuracy of the register because we do not know the basis of any claims made for its accuracy.
  The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said that the new register, which will be published during the next few days, will be four months out of date as soon as it is published. The Northern Ireland register will be five months out of date because the relevant date is 15 September. The hon. Member for Uxbridge commented on people having second homes on the continent who might well be out of the country on 10 October. I think that it is more likely that they will be out of the country on 15 September, and I wonder why there is such a variation.
  Clause 2 of the Bill states:
  "The rolling registers of parliamentary and local government electors or, in Northern Ireland, of parliamentary electors, shall be published".
  That reflects the confusion which exists in the legislation, as European and local government elections are handled differently in Northern Ireland and are subject to different legislation.
  I have a general observation which I hope that the Minister will consider. Legislation on elections and the right to vote is complex and spread over many Acts of Parliament, but in Northern Ireland the confusion is even greater and the legislation is spread over even more Acts. Consolidation of the legislation is necessary, especially in Northern Ireland. That would greatly assist anyone working in the area. We need an enormous bundle of legislation to find out about electoral law. Some time ago the general secretary of our party decided to get up to date on the subject and asked the Government bookshop in Belfast for all the legislation on elections. The person on the other side of the counter said, ?You?re mad.? There are scores of Acts that deal with elections in Northern Ireland and we need consolidation. Then people might read the legislation.
  An election petition is under way and it has been made clear that one of the election agents did not even bother to

  1243
  read the legislation. I have some sympathy for him in view of the state of the statute book, but that matter gives rise to genuine concern although it is slightly off the subject of the Bill.
  As I have said, I welcome the principle behind the Bill, but there are several problems. One problem that several hon. Members have mentioned is the cut-off date and how close it should be to the election. I believe that the Bill brings the cut-off date too close to the election. We should perhaps have a procedure under which the register is frozen on the announcement of an election so that there would be no change from then until polling day.
  It is important for political parties to know exactly who is on the register. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East might say that only a handful of people will be added in the last few days up to the seven days before the election, but I believe that the register should be frozen.
  In addition to the general arguments for freezing the register on the announcement of an election, I draw attention to the problem of personation, which was mentioned by one Conservative Member. To have a register and to know that it is accurate is very important from the point of view of checking personation. I do not want to discuss the issue at length, but there are some general observations to be made.
  Many people assume that personation is a problem only in Northern Ireland, but that is not true. There is probably a greater problem with personation on this side of the Irish sea than people generally recognise. Tammany hall type politics exist in parts of Great Britain, and personation is very much a feature of such politics.
  Many people assume—the telling of funny stories perpetuates the belief—that personation is widespread in Northern Ireland and that everyone is at it. That is not so. Whatever may have happened before my time, during 20 years of electioneering in Northern Ireland I can say with my hand on my heart that I have not been aware of any significant level of personation being committed by any of the Unionist parties or by the major nationalist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party. However, I am aware of extensive personation committed by some of the smaller parties. There was a time when the Workers party was very much into personation, but that party has changed its shape and is a new party, although I am not sure that I can accurately give the name that it is using now.
  The main problem with personation in Northern Ireland comes from Sinn Fein, which organises personation on a substantial scale. Special measures have been adopted to try to restrain personation with the use of identity requirements, but it does not work because there are half a dozen different identity documents that might be used, one of which is a medical card which is extremely easy to forge.
  Electoral officers know that during a recent election in West Belfast—the main scene of personation by Sinn Fein because it is a seat which it has won in the past—Sinn Fein forged medical cards. The officers discovered a fault in the forgeries and were able to check the personation. Sinn Fein realised the mistake and printed a new set of forged cards during the election itself. Therefore, Sinn Fein printed two sets of forged medical cards—it changed its print run twice. We do not know how many votes were stolen in that way, whether it was hundreds or thousands, but it seems that it was in the thousands.
  1244
  After the recent general election, the defeated Sinn Fein candidate, Mr. Adams, accused the SDLP of stealing the seat from him. In fact, Mr. Adams had stolen the seat every time he had been elected with personated votes. To enable people to combat the serious problem of personation we must freeze the register earlier.
  Personation is not only a matter of masquerading as a real person on the register. It also takes the form of putting persons on the register who do not exist—in other words, persuading registration officers to include persons who do not live in a specific place. There have been stories in Northern Ireland of little country lanes where there are many people on the register although in fact no one lives there. I do not know how widespread the problem is, but it needs to be checked. However, I do not think that the Bill offers an effective measure to do so.
  We need a requirement for registration officers to serve notice or publish their intention to include persons on the register some weeks before the person is actually included on it. That would enable interested parties to have a look. When draft registers are published, political parties in Northern Ireland are fairly active in checking to ensure that no phantom voters have been included, as well as ensuring that people have not been left off. We need an equivalent procedure under rolling registration when the registration officer is putting someone on the register. If the Bill goes into Committee, that idea could be considered there.
  Another aspect of the Bill with which I am not very happy is clause 13, which proposes to amend section 7 of the principal Act. It affects voluntary mental patients. Voluntary mental patients are required to make a declaration so that their capacity to vote can be checked. As I understand the proposed amendments, the requirement to make a declaration will be operative only if a patient has been a voluntary mental patient
  "for two years or less".
  Is two years the right length of time? Is it not too long? I can understand the thinking behind the provision, but a shorter period of months rather than years might be appropriate.
  Another problem with which the Bill does not deal is the analogous situation of nursing and residential homes. There may be problems involving the capacity of persons in them to vote, and the Minister may be familiar with them. Before the previous general election in Northern Ireland, the chief electoral officer took it on himself to exclude from the register persons in nursing and residential homes who did not have some requisite mental capacity. There is no legislative basis for doing that. Even if a person is senile, he or she is entitled to be on the register. Such a person may or may not be entitled to vote, but as the law stands that is a decision to be taken by the presiding officer at the polling station.
  Not only was the chief electoral officer of Northern Ireland operating without a legislative basis, but the form that he sent out asked persons in residential nursing homes—including, possibly, secretaries and other people without medical knowledge—to state whether someone in the home had the requisite mental capacity. That was an improper practice. We had the difficulty that before the election the chief electoral officer decided to introduce a practice which excluded a substantial number of persons from the register.
  We complained, of course, both at the time and subsequently. During the post-electoral review we were

  1245
  told that the Home Office, in association with the Northern Ireland Office, was drawing up guidelines and would issue a circular or some other form of guidance. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge that guidance has not yet been issued. Apparently it is still in preparation. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an idea of when it will be published, because it needs to be hurried on.
  I see that the Bill provides for a code of practice to be drawn up. That is good. To a certain extent the Home Office does that at the moment, in that it has issued circulars, guidance practice notes or whatever they are called. Those are useful and I wish that there was an equivalent in Northern Ireland, but there is none. The chief electoral officer does not publish material. Technically, under the legislation, he is the only registration officer. He issues letters to his deputies in the constituencies, as he did with regard to nursing and residential homes. Some of the deputies observed his instructions and others, because they were aware that the instructions were unlawful, did not. I should like to see that matter settled as soon as possible.
  I have been critical of the chief electoral officer, but I admit that he had a reason for adopting that practice. He was concerned about the potential for abuse involving absent voting, in which the votes of infirm elderly people in nursing and residential homes could have been stolen through postal voting. Such potential for abuse is a problem. I believe that the chief electoral officer adopted the wrong means of dealing with the problem, but the problem exists and it needs to be checked by the introduction of some safeguard covering absent voting.
  Because of our experience of the behaviour of the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland in that respect, I am glad that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has not adopted the Hansard Society report's recommendation that an electoral commission independent of local or central government should be created. That is the curse of the chief electoral officer's post in Northern Ireland: it was established as independent of government, so there is no accountability and no way of getting the chief electoral officer to change when he has adopted the wrong approach.
  My hon. Friends and I have often said that in Northern Ireland we have electoral law and Bradley law—that is, the practice of the chief electoral officer, which sometimes varies from electoral law. People are not always willing or able to go to court to deal with the examples of what we call Bradley law.
  I welcome clause 11, which deals with the notification of boundary changes. I mention that because, purely by coincidence, I received a telephone call this morning from one of our councillors who was involved in a nice situation over boundary change. He has found that a small rural estate of 11 houses which he believes should be in his area has suddenly appeared in somebody else's area—although the roads that serve the estate are still in his area. There appears to have been confusion between two Tullymurrays, one of which is a townland and the other of which is the postal address of the estate. As a result, the 11 houses have gone into the wrong area. Such things happen as a result of the registration process being overcentralised. The persons who recently carried out the
  1246
  boundary revision did not have the requisite local knowledge. We shall pursue that matter in a different context.
  I welcome the principle behind the Bill, subject to the reservations that I have mentioned. A number of its provisions simply legislate for existing best practice. I am thinking especially of the provision for registrars of births, marriages and deaths to inform registration officers about persons who have died. Several other provisions also put the present practice of the better registration officers on a statutory basis. That is good.
  I also welcome the provisions for access to polling stations for physically disabled persons. Those are very desirable. I may add that we should like there to be easy access to polling stations for all persons. In Northern Ireland, we suffer from not having enough polling stations. The excuse given is security considerations. I was rather amused when listening to discussions at the Home Office post-electoral review to hear someone suggest having guidelines, such as not having to walk more than 10 minutes to get to a polling station—would that we had such a situation in Northern Ireland.
  The villagers of one small village in my constituency have to go two miles to another village to vote, and no bus runs between them. That is ridiculous. The ward is too large and has only one polling station. The authorities will not locate a second polling station in the village in question, allegedly for security reasons, although there is no serious security problem in that village. By all means, let us have easy access to polling stations for the disabled, but let us also have easy access for everyone else.
  Some provisions in the Bill involve expenditure. I very much hope that the Minister will not use money as an argument for sidelining the Bill. I am sure that other hon. Members will comment on the noticeable difference between the level of expenditure involved in maintaining the poll tax registers and the level of expenditure involved in maintaining the electoral registers. If the amount that the Government laid out for the poll tax generally—and for the poll tax registers in particular, were made available for electoral registration, we could carry out all the provisions in the Bill and still have a lot of money to spare, so I hope that we shall not hear that money is the problem. Money should be made available, because voting is a basic right. Everyone who is entitled to vote should be enabled to do so by being placed on the register. A system that will improve the register is welcome in principle, whatever minor criticisms one may have.
  12.36 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on winning a high place in the ballot and on using it to further his long-standing interest in electoral registration. The hon. Gentleman has tabled many parliamentary questions on the matter, many of which have been for me. He has tabled early-day motions on the subject and has raised it in other ways as well. I understand that the question for oral answer that he tabled yesterday was his 25th in recent times. It is an issue which he and the Government take equally seriously.
  The Bill in its final form was published only yesterday and I have not had the opportunity to study every detail in it. However, I had an informative meeting with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East when he visited me at

  1247
  the Home Office recently. I say again to him here what I said to him then. The Government do not disagree with his basic objectives, although I am afraid that I cannot give Government support to the Bill at this time. My position is not a result of the passionate oratory of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) who has, no doubt, gone to recover in the Tea Room with a cup of tea. I shall explain again to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East some of the reasons for my position.
  In case I forget later, it is sensible to answer now a specific question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). He made some good points and one point with which I disagreed. He asked how many prosecutions there had been for not returning form A. No figures are available generally. However, I agree with the tenor of the intervention by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who said that there were very few or none. I think that the answer is none or very few. The working group on electoral registration is trying to obtain figures that will show the position more clearly.
  I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and misled him, the House and myself on one point. I said that political parties were entitled to free registers. They are not; it is their candidates. That makes a difference, because it means that independent candidates with no party are entitled to free registers. That opens the loophole—and could give rise to the problems—referred to by my hon. Friend, who expressed concern that a lot of independent candidates employed by various organisations would stand in order to get the register. That is why I explained that, whatever the merits or otherwise of the case, the proposals for keeping this public document in limited circulation are quite impracticable.
  I understand my hon. Friend's worry—and I note from the sympathetic response that his remarks received that it is shared by other hon. Members—about the amount of unwanted mail that people receive through their doors. I suspect, however, that even if no electoral register ever fell into the hands of any mail order company, such companies would find a way to get mail through people's front doors. There is no doubt about that.
  I should add, however, that reputable mailing services will refrain from sending mail to people who specifically ask not to receive it. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said that his constituents complain to him. I hope that he will mention to them the Mailing Preference Service, which can be written to at Freepost 22, London W1. Because I have said that clearly, I have no doubt that the address will appear in Hansard. A letter to the mailing preference service from an individual asking not to receive through the post circulars addressed to him will have a beneficial effect—although my own experience is that most of what comes through my door is not specifically addressed to me but is clearly put round on spec by the Post Office or other companies.
  The Bill falls into two parts. The first deals with electoral registration and the second with improving access to polling stations for voters suffering from a physical disability. Those are worthy and meritorious aims, and they are aims which the Government share.
  The overall objectives of our electoral registration procedures are to have as accurate a list of electors as possible; to ensure that those who wish to vote can do so with minimum inconvenience; and to ensure that the votes cast are accurately counted as quickly as possible. It has,
  1248
  therefore, been the practice in recent times to conduct a review of electoral law and procedures after every general election, in order to see what, if any, changes might be required. We established such a review after the 1992 general election and it is under way at present.
  Let me pause for a moment to describe to the House the wide-ranging nature of that review. After the last general election, Home Office officials canvassed all the political parties and the representative groups of the local authorities, asking them for proposals to improve any aspects of the electoral system that they felt were capable of improvement. We received more than 250 separate suggestions. We then met the political parties and the local authorities and established how to handle the work that arose from these suggestions. We set up five working groups to examine the broad subjects into which most of the suggestions could be grouped. The working groups consist of Home Office officials and a small number of experienced electoral registration officers. Their remit is to make recommendations, if possible by the summer of this year, for changes in the system, which will be considered by the original organsiations we consulted—the political parties and local authorities. At that point, we shall be ready to consider which changes we can make by administrative actions and which will need legislation.
  One working group is examining the question of absent voting, which has been mentioned several times this morning, including the criteria for qualification for an absent vote, either for an indefinite period or for a particular election—the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) mentioned that very point—and the closing date for applications and how near to an election it can reasonably fall. All of us who have fought elections know only too well how aggrieved people feel when they are unable to vote in an election in which they thought they would be able to vote because they missed the application deadline for an absent vote.
  Mr. Pike: When those aspects are considered, will the Minister ensure that any changes will remove the anomaly whereby there are different qualifiations for local and parliamentary elections? Would it not be better to have a standard qualification so that everyone is aware of the position?
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course it would be better to have a standard qualification. So long as there are no other reasons in particular cases why there should be a difference, that is what I would expect to emerge from the consultations. There are difficult technical points to be overcome. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that the more we can simplify the rules and make them the same, the better.
  Another working group is examining all aspects of the forms that are used in electoral registration for absent voting and for other electoral matters. We are considering whether there is anything more that we can do to simplify the procedures and make the rules much clearer and less forbidding for the people who wish to use an absent vote on a particular occasion or permanently. That is precisely the point that the hon. Member for Burnley just made.
  A third working group is considering whether the current level of fees and allowances for returning officers is adequate and whether any changes are required in current categories of expenditure. The remaining two working

  1249
  groups are particularly relevant to the Bill and form one of the principal reasons why, alas, I cannot support the Bill today.
  One working group is dedicated to questions relating to electoral registration. It is covering matters such as the definition of residence used in determining eligibility, the role of the residence qualifying date and the procedures for claims and objections—that is, claims to be added to the register or objections to names included in it. Most of those questions lead into examining the desirability of a rolling register. I should like to return to that subject, which is central to the Bill, a little later.
  The Government want people to be registered to vote. That is the objective of the system and the expenditure. As several hon. Members have said, it is fundamental for the health of our democracy that all eligible voters should be permitted and, indeed, encouraged to exercise their right. That requires two things to happen: first, they need to be recognised as eligible voters by being included in the official lists drawn up by electoral registration officers. Secondly, they need to be able to cast their votes with the minimum of physical and bureaucratic difficulty. The Bill addresses both those problems.
  Successive Governments have taken very seriously the need to maximise participation. We have never left it solely to the individual to register his or her interest in voting. In that, we share the assumption of most other western democracies. I hesitate to criticise the practices of the United States of America, but, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East rightly noted, the United States leaves the question of registering for a vote solely to the individual. That may give some kind of subliminal message to the citizens. Perhaps it means that they need officialdom to make it easier and provide encouragement. However, registration in the United States is low and the turnout in elections matches that correspondingly.
  I believe that it is unhealthy for a democracy not to bring home to all voters the vital importance of registering for a vote. I do not doubt that all hon. Members would deplore a less rigorous approach being allowed to develop here.
  Mr. Allen: Given the Minister's remarks about what is called positive registration in the United States, whereby people must go out to register instead of having the assistance of local or national government, will he take this opportunity to condemn the Conservative-controlled London borough of Brent which introduced precisely that system in Brent which led to a shortfall of 15,000 people on its register?
  Mr. Lloyd: The register in Brent has dropped for some years. Whether that is due to a reduction in population or a diminishing enthusiasm to register, I do not know. Certainly, the electoral registration officer and the authorities in Brent have sought to provide the encouragement to vote that they are required to provide under the law and under guidance from the Home Office. There are plenty of other areas—the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East will be able to quote them—in which there have been sharp reductions in the number of people on the register. The reasons for that are not clear.
  One of the major points of the exercise that is being undertaken, using the skills and knowledge of electoral
  1250
  registration officers, is to try to draw together the most helpful programme that can be adapted to suit the particular needs of certain areas. I am sure that we shall have some surprises when the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report is published. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East said, the census in 1981 revealed disparities between registers and actual populations. We shall again hear the charge that electoral registration has been inefficient or has been misplaced in some districts, and that in other districts there has been a disparity where nobody suspected it. Over 10 years, with vast moves in population, it is difficult to tell where the mismatches are. I accept the suggestion that there are considerable mismatches.
  Mr. Dunn: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has twice intervened to make a rather petty party political point about the borough of Brent. If 15,000 persons in the London borough of Brent failed to register or to supply the information that has led them not to be registered, and if there is a penalty under the law that can be applied to those persons who failed to supply information that would have enabled them to register, would the Labour party care to invite the Government to prosecute those 15,000 people for not supplying information that would have been registered had it been supplied in the first place?
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes a good point. At law, it is an offence not to register. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East said, that is an offence for which prosecution should be used sparingly. There will be appropriate cases. One of the study groups is considering that point. I regret that Brent is held up as a particular party political example. There are plenty of places where there is a suggestion that registration is not high. There has been a decline in the register in Brent. The party political control in Brent changed recently, but, as I said, the decline straddles that change. To make an issue out of that does not help the debate to move forward and it certainly does not indicate the realities of the situation in that borough, either.
  Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend concede that, according to a report in October 1991, there has been a reduction of 7,500 people from the electoral registers of the constituencies of Vauxhall, Streatham and Norwood, which together make up the London borough of Lambeth?
  Mr. Lloyd: Most of the debate has been non-partisan. Electoral registration is a real issue. It is a matter of real concern that we get the highest possible registration. Registration differs from place to place. How much it differs is not known on the information that we have. Electoral registration officers use a variety of techniques, and some will undoubtedly be more effective than others. The important thing is that we have working groups examining the issue thoroughly to deduce where the problems are and the best ways of tackling them.
  Mr. Maclennan: Is it within the remit of the working groups to consider the recommendations of the Hansard Society about central funding of the process?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that that falls directly to the working groups. The funding of the process is as it exists now. Elections are funded through the rate support grant in the normal way.

  1251
  If there is a specific problem with the way in which the arrangements are funded, I am sure that the working groups will not be slow to point it out. I expect the working groups to show the cost of any changes that they recommend. Some of the recommendations will be a small matter of a different approach; others will be substantial. The value of the work to be done will diminished if we do not know what the changes involve administratively and in terms of financial resources.
  Opposition Members asked about the fine for not sending in the form. The fine is £1,000. It increased when the whole system was changed in the Criminal Justice Act at the end of 1992. The duty is on electoral registration officers to maximise registration. We require them to publish an annual register of all those who appear to them to be eligible to vote. We establish elaborate facilities for the public to check and correct the register.
  Another feature of the seriousness with which the question is regarded is that electoral registration officers are answerable not to the local authorities who appoint them or to the Home Office. Judging by what the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, that sort of independence causes him some unease. Electoral registration officers are answerable directly to the courts.
  In accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983, electoral registration officers are required to conduct house-to-house or other sufficient inquiries to satisfy themselves that their lists are accurate and as up to date as possible. There has been some suggestion in the debate that that is not done at all, or not done often. The OPCS research that we have suggests that a third of electoral registration officers use personal canvassing on the first reminder. By the third reminder stage, three quarters of them use personal canvassing. The hon. Member for Upper Bann may be concerned that 25 per cent. of electoral registration officers appear not to use personal canvassing, but the majority certainly do. Personal canvassing is especially high in areas that have been of considerable concern during this debate and which are of concern to the Home Office and electoral registration officers—in metropolitan districts and in London where it seems, though it is not yet entirely demonstrated, that registration is well below the average. It would not be surprising if registration were well below average, given the transitory population who tend to live in central city areas.
  Mr. Barnes: I should like to find out about the role of the Home Office. Earlier, the Minister said that electoral registration officers and returning officers were acting generally under the supervision of the courts. Nevertheless, the Home Office plays a considerable role because it publishes whole lists of circulars and of advice on occasions.
  One disastrous circular linked electoral registration with poll tax registration. No forms had been returned over a period, no record of a registration was kept on the poll tax register and people's names were to be removed. That interlink was not justified. That example shows the significance and importance of the role that the Home Office plays in such matters.
  Mr. Lloyd: The Home Office accepts that it has a central and crucial role in supplying advice, undertaking monitoring and ensuring with the working groups that
  1252
  best practice is distilled, recommended and followed. Everything depends, of course, on what is done at local level.
  My remarks are designed to confirm how seriously the Government take the issue of electoral registration. I do not want to sound complacent, because, as I have said, there are some real problems that we need to tackle, but it is worth remembering that we have an estimated level of registration of about 95 per cent. of the potential electorate. About £40 million is spent each year in England and Wales on the process of electoral registration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), in a thoughtful speech, was right to express concern about the resource implications for local authorities. I was not wholly comforted when the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East rose to reassure him and explained that he had designed the Bill so that any extra expense would fall on the Home Office. I do not take that with the sort of equanimity that was suggested in the hon. Gentleman's intervention and recommended to me by the hon. Member for Upper Bann.
  I have no doubt that improvements to the system will be forthcoming, which will cost money. I hope that we shall be able to find ways other than those suggested of making the system more efficient and more effective by saving some resources to balance things out.
  As well as continuing a high level of expenditure in maintaining the registration system, we launch each year a nationwide advertising campaign. It is designed to encourage people to complete and return the electoral registration form. In 1992, we spent £617,000 on the campaign. We are now considering the format of a campaign—we shall launch it in August or September— when form A will start to be distributed.
  Mr. Barnes: Expenditure on publicising the need to return forms is extremely limited given the range of Government expenditure. Abbey National held a ballot to determine whether it should become a plc. It spent £7.5 million on advertising the campaign, which was directed only towards the members of the society. Expenditure of £617,000 is a minor provision. It falls short of the sums that were spent to encourage expatriate votes—purely voluntary votes. There is a strange mixture when that is set alongside the compulsory provision that exists in the United Kingdom. Money needs to be spent and there also needs to be more imaginative advertising so that people in Plymouth, for example, and other areas do not have to engage in their own activities. Perhaps the Home Office can learn from Plymouth.
  Mr. Lloyd: The campaign for overseas voters was a one-off. It was launched immediately after Parliament had decided to extend the right to vote to British citizens overseas. The campaign has not been repeated and we have no plans to repeat it. Annually, however, we have advertising expenditure to encourage people to complete and return the electoral registration form. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman's assumptions. I sympathised with Lord Lever when he said that he knew that half of the money that he was spending on advertising was an absolute waste, but that he did not know which half. I am not certain that the money that is spent on advertising the form each year could not be better spent by providing local authorities with that much more resources for canvassing. I suspect that people are not unaware that

  1253
  there is a registration process, but that they need an active reminder. Perhaps increasing the resources of local authorities in that way would be a more effective way of doing that. I would expect observations to come from the professionals on the working parties. I do not think that the problems can be dealt with simply by advertising expenditure.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Minister's point about local authorities touches a central issue—whether the right to register should depend on the efficiency and effectiveness of local government. Even if one tops up the resources available to local authorities, they do not have an obligation in law to undertake such activities—and I do not suggest that they should. Is it not for national Government to ensure that the register is up to date and complete?
  Mr. Lloyd: The onus must be on the individual—that is quite sufficient. However, machinery must be available to enable the elector to register easily, and that provides a reminder. I do not see how that could be done nationally—it must be undertaken at local level. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's point. If he is suggesting that the Home Office, as the central Department having an overseeing responsibility, has a duty to remind, cajole, promote best practice and provide information, I agree. We are in train of doing that.
  Mr. Trimble: Am I right in thinking that the number of persons on the register is expressed simply as a percentage of those estimated to live in an area? Am I also correct in thinking that that percentage does not link the total number of residents with the number on the register? Have any studies been made, or are any likely to be made, of the accuracy of the register—rather than relying on a purely statistical exercise that may or may not show anything?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right—it is a statistical exercise, based on out-of-date figures from the last census. The more time that elapses since the previous census, the more the percentage is a calculation based on an assumption about a figure which, however accurate it may have been initially, has come to be an approximation. That is because assumptions must be made about population growth and movement.
  As to whether studies have been made to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of registration, as I said earlier, various assumptions are made about particular boroughs and constituencies—but they can only be assumptions. I shall return to that aspect later.
  The Bill seeks to establish the rolling register and, as I commented earlier, there is nothing in the principles of the proposals that the Government would rule out. I am sorry to be so lukewarm, but, as we have not received the results of the study, it would be wrong to say that we favour a change in the direction that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East suggests, because we do not. I should be quite glad if it turns out to be an efficient and practicable way of ensuring that registers are fuller and more up to date.
  At present, the electoral register is compiled on an annual basis. That causes a number of difficulties, particularly in relation to people who move from one electoral district to another and who may take months to
  1254
  find their way on to the register for the area to which they moved. A number of electoral registration officers are in favour of moving to a system of rolling registration, and I believe that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has spoken to number of them. Those officers say that system would enable them to publish updated registers more frequently.
  The system of having just one annual register dates from 1949 and is itself part of a traditional system of electoral administration dating back to the 19th century. Clearly, there have been significant technological changes since then.
  Most EROs now have access to computerised databases, but I accept that the impact of new technology has not so far been as great in the electoral process as it has in other spheres. I readily concede that we need to look carefully at what changes might be introduced in the compilation and publication of the register by means of new technology. Such technology appears to make a rolling register simple as well as desirable, but there has not so far been any rigorous examination of exactly what it would entail. We have very little hard data on the costs and benefits involved. The Government must maintain an open mind on the issue, and there are likely to be a number of problems that must be addressed.
  One working group of our post-election review is dedicated to examining the issue of electoral registration, and a rolling register is one of the detailed subjects that it is considering. I hope that that working group will report in the summer. We do not have clear evidence of what a rolling register would require in terms of resources, what its implications would be for registration criteria—for example, how we would handle a qualifying date—and whether it would result in more people registering. Therefore, I shall be interested to see the working group's conclusions. That is one reason why I cannot today offer Government support for the Bill. It is too early to say whether a rolling register is as enticing a proposition as it is sometimes described—as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East did so well this morning.
  Another aspect of timing difficulties stems from the fact that the Government are still digesting much of the information gleaned from the 1991 census. Returning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, I can state that 10 years ago we obtained valuable data on the accuracy of the electoral register and many other electoral matters by means of follow-up studies conducted for us by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. We are currently receiving the same sort of information from the 1991 census, which will give us an excellent set of comparative data. We hope and expect that they will yield valuable information on under-registration and the effectiveness of the various canvass methods to inform our future work.
  The hon. Members for Derbyshire, North-East and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) rightly said that there seemed to be different levels of registration in different constituencies and districts. We need to discover how far, where and why that is true before we start to prescribe a legislative cure. The hon. Member for Burnley suggested that registration levels were becoming steadily worse. The position seems to have improved last year, but that is only an estimate. I hope that it will continue to do so. We cannot be sure about those matters until we have the results of the OPCS study.

  1255
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West spoke of the risks of impersonation and deceit, which should not be ignored in any new attempt to devise a register that it is more up to date. We must keep alive to such problems. The hon. Member for Upper Bann asked about the guidelines due to be issued on the registration of the mentally ill. We are still working on them and are waiting to hear from the Law Society and the National Association for Mental Health. We sought the opinions of both those organisations and should like to receive them before we produce our circular.
  Supporting the electoral registration part of the Bill today could, unfortunately, mean prejudicing much of the strategy can evolve effectively only later in the year when more of the basic information is to hand.
  Mr. Barnes: If the Bill is given a Second Reading, it will go to Committee and there will be a time delay. If reports relating to a rolling register start to be produced, they could easily be dealt with in Committee and would provide a ready-made vehicle to advance the proposals; that would avoid having to wait for the Queen's Speech and other procedures.
  Mr. Lloyd: I understand the hon. Gentleman's determination, but I do not think that we shall have these reports before the summer. When we receive them we shall have to examine and consider them. We may want to ask the working groups other questions. We have undertaken to go back to the political parties and to the local authority organisations. I do not expect that they will be able to reply without thinking again and consulting. I should be very surprised if the Government were able to reach even provisional conclusions before the autumn after that wholly proper consultation.
  The provision for consideration of private Member's Bills is insufficent to enable consideration of this Bill to be completed and for it to reach the statute book before the summer recess. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill a year too early. If he does well in the ballot next year, he may find that the position is very different. I understand how frustrating it is for him, but we must go through the due processes if we are to get the matter right. As the hon. Gentleman said, many complex question must be sorted out. We cannot do that before we receive the working groups' responses.
  The second part of the Bill deals with a different matter —improving the physical access to polling stations for disabled persons.
  Mr. Barnes: Am I right in thinking that not one of the five reviews that the Home Office has engaged upon since the last election deals with this matter? Although it may be under consideration by the Home Office, it does not appear to fall foul of the problem posed by the need for full consideration of all these reviews, which will take time. If there are difficulties over the first part of the Bill, might it not be possible to go forward with the second part?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is both determined and ingenious. In a way, I shall have to disappoint him. One of the groups does cover this question. I have no quarrel in principle with the general objective. I am not convinced that the legislative route is the right one to follow, but the hon. Gentleman's objective—that every polling station should provide easy access for the disabled—is one with which I entirely agree.
  1256
  In 1985, we made it a statutory duty for local authorities to choose polling stations that offer facilities for the disabled over those which do not, where there is a choice. However, we have to recognise that in some areas choice will—for the present, anyway—be limited. Where the only building available does not provide good access for disabled voters, we provide a grant of about 50 per cent. towards the cost of a temporary ramp. Grants from election funds towards permanent adaptations to buildings could not be justified, because elections are held only infrequently.
  The buildings that are used for polling stations are, however, usually ones to which the public have access on other occasions. I should have thought that it would be a priority for local authorities to make access for the disabled to those buildings at least fairly convenient. In some of the reports, difficult access is described as almost no access at all. There are two problems—first, where there is no access and, secondly, where access is possible but needs, by the use of more imagination, to be made much easier.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I apologise for having missed the earlier part of the debate, through no fault of my own.
  The all-party disablement group has been campaigning hard on the deficiencies of the existing legislation. The 1985 changes have not borne the fruit that we expected. In my constituency, rooms have been used to which people in wheelchairs cannot gain access, even though other parts of the same building would have been accessible. The existing legislation is not good enough. If the rest of the Bill is not acceptable, for the reasons that the Minister has given, it must surely be possible to use or to amend this part of the Bill so that progress on this narrow point can be made.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. If I have heard him aright he said that the part of the building used as a polling station did not have access for the disabled, but other parts of the building did. That seems extraordinarily remiss of those in charge, and I should have thought that local pressure would be the most effective way to deal with it. No doubt, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's noticing the problem, such pressure has been effective.
  Polling stations are a national requirement, but also a local service provided by the local authority for a local event—the election in that constituency—and the problem needs a little more foresight, imagination and pressure from local people if it is to be solved. I shall return to the subject in my concluding remarks.
  I know that ramps are necessary, as long as the slope is reasonable for people in wheelchairs. For people who are disabled and find walking difficult, but who are determined not to use a wheelchair, even a ramp with a low incline is difficult and steps are often easier to use. That is why I said that thought and imagination are required because the problems are not easily solved and different people have different requirements. The problem can only be solved with common sense and determination at a local level, although grants are available from the Home Office. An 80 per cent. grant is available for special polling booths, which are designed for use by disabled people within the polling station.
  The engine of any change must come from sensible local decisions, based on imagination and foresight. Our aim is

  1257
  that all polling stations should be accessible to disabled people. For that reason, our working group, which is considering counting and other aspects of the voting process, has invited the Royal National Institute for the Blind to talk about its concerns. It is important to take into account the views of those who are able to offer practical advice about disabled people's problems. The RNIB last year drew up valuable guidance on polling station lay-out and equipment, which we circulated to returning officers before the election.
  After the Spastics Society drew up its report, we invited it to provide similar guidance. We have had talks with Mencap about helping people with learning difficulties to register to vote; that answers a question from the hon. Member for Upper Bann. When we receive guidance we bring it to the attention of the people who need it, but considerably more needs to be done, through continued dialogue with specialist groups that serve the interests of the disabled. I assure the House that we shall continue that dialogue and will take careful note of the working group's recommendations.
  The Government have much sympathy with the aims of the Bill. As I said, timing is its unfortunate aspect. I welcome this informed and concerned debate on Second Reading and can undertake to the House that issues raised in the debate will be studied carefully by the Home Office working groups—and no doubt by the political parties —with which we are committed to discuss the findings before taking further legislative or administrative action that seems right and practical in the light of what they say.
  I cannot give Government support for the Bill at this time. I regret that I must say that, because I share the objectives of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, and know that he has taken an enormous amount of trouble with the Bill. Even if it does not get on to the statute book this year, he will have brought his goals much closer than they were before he embarked on the endeavour, and I congratulate him on that.
  1.24 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: It used to be a little easier to be heroic in creating democracy in this country, as I know from my local history, because the best part of 200 years ago three of my fellow citizens in Nottingham were executed on the steps of Shire hall for having had the temerity to demonstrate to secure the vote for ordinary people. No doubt the hangman was a guffawing ancient relative of he hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). These days, however, it is much tougher.
  I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) for tackling the unglamorous and difficult thicket of legislation surrounding electoral registration. He has done his job remarkably well and I am sure that his hard work will be rewarded, certainly in the future, if not today. I link his name to that of Councillor Peggy Quirke whom we mentioned earlier. Almost single-handedly she managed to get about 15,000 additional people on the register in the London borough of Brent. The Conservative-controlled council opted for so-called "positive registration", which means letting people register themselves without any assistance.
  1258
  I am a little saddened that the Minister did not take the opportunity to condemn the actions of the Conservative-controlled council in Brent, which initially denied about 26,000 people the opportunity to vote in just that one borough. It means that the fight to secure the vote is by no means over; it continues to this day, although perhaps less glamorously than in the past.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my hon. Friend comment on the lackadaisical way in which the Government threw away more than 20,000 votes in Brent but assiduously pursued votes in South Africa before the previous election?
  Mr. Allen: As usual, my hon. Friend anticipates some of my remarks; I shall return to that topic shortly.
  Perhaps part of the reason for the Government's inactivity and complacency is that there has been a one-party state for about 17 years. The Home Office response to under-registration may be described as at best complacent and at worst cynical. The Government have allowed a system to continue which delivered the goods to the Conservative party. From their point of view, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" Electoral registration is too important to be left in a party political context.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who has now left the Chamber. He said that there was no place, at least in Northern Ireland, for an independent electoral commission. I believe that we need to consider seriously not just an independent electoral commission but an independent commission for democracy to make steady, carefully considered proposals about the nuts and bolts of our democracy. Such issues should not be dealt with through the lengthy, protracted procedure of a private Member's Bill, having to depend on the good fortune of one hon. Member and the acquiesence of a Government who feel that they will not benefit from such proposals. There must be a better way.
  My view and that of my party is that we need to establish, or to consider establishing, an independent commission to make proposals when they are required, rather than having to wait for the good fortune of a private Member's ballot.
  Mr. Maclennan: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of establishing an electoral commission. He will no doubt have read and had his argument strengthened by the 1991 report of the Hansard Society, an all-party—or no-party—commission of great authority and weight.
  Mr. Allen: Indeed, I support that proposal from the Hansard Society and many of its other proposals. We constantly come up against the great difficulty that we cannot put matters before the House for a decision. If there were an independent commission of some sort it could do the valuable background work, produce considered proposals—which would, of course, have to command the agreement of all parties—and put them before the House in the form of a report would could be legislated upon. No doubt those matters will come before us at some time in the future.
  The debate has been helpful, too, because it has allowed us to think afresh about some of the measures that we should consider in order to make the detail of our democracy work. Hon. Members may wish to consider whether we need registration at all. Of course, that

  1259
  question cannot be answered today. There are difficulties about how people are to make themselves known on polling day if they are not registered, but one state in the United States, for example, has already done away with electoral registration: provided that someone can prove who he is on the day, he is entitled to vote. I do not suggest that we deal with that idea today at any great length, but we need to think afresh about the ways in which we can make our system work.
  Our current electoral system is decrepit and ancient. It survives only because of the good will and hard work of electoral registration officers and political activists, who fill in the gaps in lieu of the job being done properly by means of a modern technologically efficient system.
  Every elector should have the right to vote and the Government have a responsibility to assist that process. Their failure to do so effectively meant that in April 1992 nearly 2 million Britons, having failed to register, could not vote in the general election. Many of those people were from already marginalised areas of society; many were young people and residents of inner cities. Two million people have no stake in our democratic system. Let us think on that when we talk about the young people on Meadowell or people who turn to crime and are alienated from our society. Somehow, we must give those people back their stake in our society and in the government at local and national level for which they are now avoiding responsibility.
  No doubt some people deliberately left the register, thinking to avoid poll tax bills which they could ill afford. Others registered for the tax and assumed that they were also registered to vote. I am sure that my local party was not alone in having to deal with scores of potential voters who had not realised that they were not on the electoral register until election day, when they wondered why their ballot cards had not arrived. I expect that the Minister's local party had the same experience.
  Many others will have failed to register because of problems of literacy or because their disability meant that they were unable to fill in the forms. Some will have failed to register due to apathy and alienation—feelings which can only be reinforced by inability to participate in the democratic process. Such under-representation of sections of the community seriously weakens our democratic system.
  The boundary commission is due to report in the near future and its recommendations will be based partly on the size of local electorates, as recorded in the electoral registers. Large-scale under-registration will significantly affect the results of its deliberations. Some areas will be over-represented and others under-represented. The registers for Greater London, with only 90.3 per cent. registration, miss out more than 500,000 voters—the equivalent of almost seven constituencies of 80,000 people each.
  The under-representation is worse in some areas, such as here in the City of Westminster, where one person in three is missed off the register. In one borough that has received a lot of attention this morning—the Conservative-controlled borough of Brent—only the threat of High Court action drove the council to undertake a canvass of households of the kind that the rest of us take for granted. As a result, at least 15,000 people were put back on to the register out of the 26,000 whom the borough had failed to put on in the first place.
  Mr. Wigley: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument and I agree sustantially with it. Does he agree—I suspect that he will with enthusiasm—that, apart from individuals having lost out, the outcome of the election could have been determined by the numbers missing from the register? There were 11 constituencies in which the Conservative winner had a majority smaller than the reduction in the electoral register. If the results had been different, we would not have the present Government.
  Mr. Allen: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels much the same as I do. All Members of Parliament, no matter what their party, should represent every person in their constituencies. I know that the hon. Gentleman also agrees that the voting intentions of those who are not registered are not a matter for us here. Voting intentions are entirely a matter for the individual, who can vote as he or she wishes in the secrecy of the polling booth. Every individual, regardless of political leaning, is entitled to that vote. Part of our duty and, above all, the duty of the Home Office is to ensure that everyone votes. The hon. Gentleman has no better information than I have on how those missing from the register would have voted. Who can say?
  How can Parliament be said to represent the British public if so many people do not have the chance to vote? Whether they have withdrawn deliberately from the democratic process or not, they no longer possess even the ability to vote. The Government have dodged their responsibilities. I am appalled that they spend only 1.2p per elector on promoting registration. If that is the extent to which the Government value our electoral system, it is no surprise that so many people do not bother to take part. Any party truly committed to the ideals of democracy—I am sure that Conservative Members claim to have that commitment—should be willing to pay for the responsibilities that that belief entails.
  Lady Olga Maitland: What budget does the hon. Gentleman reckon to be appropriate for advertising?
  Mr. Allen: Initially, an appropriate sum might be the amount that the Government spent on recruiting overseas voters from South Africa and Spain. I understand that 30,000 individuals were recruited in that campaign. A spokesperson for Conservative central office said that the Conservatives expected that 70 per cent. of those registered would be their supporters. For the hon. Lady's information, that budget was £750,000. I should go for that figure for a start. No doubt the hon. Lady will outbid me because she is keen to register even more people.
  Mr. Barnes: A parliamentary answer I received a couple of years ago showed that out of the total Government expenditure on publicity, including publicity for selling off industries and encouraging people to go on to fancy employment schemes, the expenditure on encouraging electoral registration was 0.132 per cent. In a democracy, we must be willing to spend considerably more than that.
  Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. If we are serious about registering electors rather than registering people likely to vote for a particular party, money should be made available. Money has been made available for the latter and it should be made available for the former.
  If the Government are not prepared to do the job themselves, they and their working parties should try to

  1261
  facilitate the task of others. They should assist political parties in registering electors, perhaps by means of free postcards which could be returned to the local electoral registration officers. I would not normally wish to associate too closely with a company as free with its writs as McDonald's is, but I pay tribute to McDonald's in the United States—a very rare tribute indeed—for its keenness on promoting electoral registration. Those of us from the United Kingdom who were around for the presidential election campaign were surprised to see that, for example, post offices and McDonald's hamburger joints were keen to promote electoral registration and were making registration cards freely available. That may be worth considering in the United Kingdom.
  Ultimately, we may be able to develop a system where registration technology is such that we can allow electors to register on election day itself, as happens elsewhere in the world. I hope that such ideas will not be ruled out in the Home Office working parties' review.
  The absence of a person's name on the electoral register affects not only his or her right to vote; it debars him or her from jury service, which should be a matter of particular concern to us. Juries are meant to represent local populations; if large numbers of people, particularly from the inner city, are unable to serve on them, the social spread that our system is meant to contain and represent will be seriously distorted. It is debatable whether electoral registers represent the best way of selecting jurors for service, but while the present system remains in place it is important for that reason alone that registration is as full as possible.
  We should consider not only the problem of low voter registration but that of turnout. In the last general election only 77.7 per cent. of the electorate voted; 9 million people who were eligible to vote failed to do so. In the 1992 metropolitan borough elections, only 32.5 per cent. of the electorate voted. In 1990—not a year characterised by election fatigue—the figure was only 46.3 per cent. Such figures are symptomatic of the electorate's disillusionment with the democratic process and represent an indictment of our present system of government. If we cannot persuade those registered to vote to do so, how can we expect to convince those not registered of the wisdom of registering?
  The Bill addresses many of the concerns about our electoral process and I applaud the sentiments behind it. But until the British public regard their elected representatives as their voice in government, be it local or national, and not merely as emasculated administrators or simply lobby fodder, it will be hard to ensure popular participation in our democracy. Such participation requires not just changes in the powers and responsibilities of electoral registration officers, but a sea change in the way in which government at all levels views itself in relation to the public and their representatives.
  The Labour party's Plant committee has been considering the British electoral system. Nationwide, local Labour parties are participating in the largest consultation exercise on constitutional reform ever been embarked upon. The Labour party is the only party genuinely willing to debate issues of democracy with an open mind rather than a fixed agenda. The next Labour Government will examine the possibility of instituting a commission on
  1262
  democracy, which I know has the support of other Opposition parties, along the lines of the Commission for Racial Equality. The commission would be charged with reporting both to Parliament and to the country. Its task would be to ensure freedom and fairness in all aspects of our electoral system and constantly to review and tune the nuts and bolts of our democracy and electoral process.
  Similarly, the Labour party is now examining a Bill of Rights. It is inconceivable that the worst excesses and abuses of the electoral system—such as that in the Conservative-controlled London borough of Brent to which I referred—would survive a challenge under Bill of Rights provisions fairly adjudicated on by a modernised judiciary.
  Other aspects of the current electoral process certainly need examination. The first is postal voting.
  Mr. Ray Powell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Allen: Of course.
  Mr. Powell: Before my hon. Friend develops that point, I should like to draw his attention to the fact that I recently changed my address. My constituency was reorganised in 1983 as a result of the reorganisation of parliamentary boundaries. I tried to find accommodation in my new constituency for 10 years. I received a letter dated 2 February from the returning officer in which he informs me that I cannot possibly be registered on the electoral register in my constituency until next October. I cannot get on to the rolling programme suggested in the Bill. As the Member of Parliament for Ogmore, I am not allowed to register until next October. I shall not be allowed to vote for myself and, with the small majority that I have, I shall have great difficulty being returned to the House. That is a very important point.
  Mr. Allen: When hon. Members are in the very tenuous electoral position of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), every vote counts. No doubt he will try to push his Bill more speedily through Standing Committee so that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East can get his Bill into Committee and therefore allow my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore the electoral registration that he so richly deserves.
  With regard to absentee voting, the entire system of postal and proxy voting is in dire need of reassessment. In general, ignorance of procedure and of the availability of such facilities must be remedied. In the United States of America, which undoubtedly has its own electoral problems, no notes from doctors or employers are necessary for absentee ballots. Such a reform would be widely welcomed in this country. In California recently, one in five of the votes cast in presidential and other elections was cast as an absentee ballot. We shall examine the possibility of postal voting in this country for every individual who needs one, requires one and requests one. Certainly, everyone over retirement age should have an automatic right to apply for a postal or proxy vote on the ground of ill health.
  The timing of elections is also an issue. Hon. Members will know that the Labour party remains committed to fixed-term Parliaments. Many people in the electorate

  1263
  believe that it is an outrage that an incumbent Prime Minister can choose to go to the country to suit his or her—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that his contribution has nothing to do with the Bill. It would help the debate if the hon. Gentleman could return to the Bill.
  Mr. Allen: Access to polling stations is referred to in the Bill and is another vital issue. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East has drawn attention to that matter. We have always been committed to ensuring equality of access to the democratic process. That will not occur while there is still inequality of access to the voting booth. I therefore welcome the proposals in the Bill about accessibility audits.
  In July 1992, the Spastics Society reported that only one in eight polling stations surveyed was considered adequately accessible. Although each constituency has an average of 6,000 housebound people, the Government spent just £14,500 in 1991 publicising the rights of the elderly and disabled to obtain long-term postal and proxy votes.
  Accessibility audits suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East will not be enough on their own. Unless central Government take full financial responsibility for ensuring access for the disabled, there will be no way of effectively ensuring adequate standards of access countrywide. In the face of increased financial pressure from the Government, the current requirement for local authorities to find 50 per cent. of the cost of improving polling station access means that a disabled person's right to vote depends effectively on the spending priorities of the local authority.
  I welcome the Bill's attempt to widen and standardise provisions for disabled persons' access to democracy. I urge the House to support the Bill. It contains many positive proposals. It is vital for the health of our democracy that we do not allow our electoral process to stagnate. We must not sit back and watch our inner cities become Americanised, populated by a class of people who are outside our conventional democratic structures. If that is not to happen, we need to act fast. The cycle of disillusionment and disfranchisement is vicious and it needs to be stopped early. The Labour party is fully committed to working towards reversing the growth of that invisible electoral population.
  Opposition Members will not stop there. When the Labour party comes to power, it will create a culture of citizenship in which every Briton will take part. We shall have responsive and open government, an end to the dictatorship of the Executive, an elected second Chamber, a Bill of Rights, a reformed and accountable judiciary, Scottish and Welsh Assemblies and independent local government. All will be part of a new democracy for the United Kingdom—a democracy in which people will have pride, one in which they will participate and one which they will feel that they own.
  The Bill is a worthy and valiant attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East. It is a good start on the road that beckons us on to more fundamental reform which can come only with a change of Government.
  1.50 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: Having been present throughout the debate, I expected that it would be an important debate, bearing in mind the topic of the Bill, but I am surprised at how lively and how wide ranging it became. The Bill begins with the laudable objective of improving the democratic process, and I welcome that, but from then on it goes into a rather severe decline. At times, even the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) appeared somewhat confused about the details in his Bill. He certainly proposed measures which are impractical and in some cases are based on an exaggerated analysis of the problem.
  I do not deny the hon. Gentleman's sincerity in pursuing that objective, but I regret the late availability of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not to blame for that, but on a matter of such importance to everyone in this country it is most important that all elements are most carefully scrutinised and debated at length.
  Mr. Barnes: One problem with a private Member's Bill is that, in going to the wire, it is produced as well as it can be. If it is produced earlier, there might be more defects in it. There is the problem of that trade-off. Many other Bills have strong pressure groups behind them, and they do much of the legal and other work. Although I had great support and people were offering ideas, I had to do much of the work myself. Unfortunately, that pushed us to the wire. I agree that the issue is of such importance that we could have done with two months in which to look at the Bill before we debated it.
  Mr. Merchant: I appreciate that, but I am bound to say that if there are not many pressure groups trying to exert influence on the topic, the problem is perhaps not perceived by the population to be so great as the hon. Gentleman has portrayed it.
  The hon. Gentleman concedes that matters need to be thoroughly discussed and investigated before a Bill is presented and the law is changed. That is why the main fault in the Bill is that it is premature. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that his Department is looking in detail at all aspects covered by the Bill and, indeed, others as well. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has said that, given another few months, he would have been able to present a better Bill. Surely the answer is to wait until the Home Office review is complete, when all such matters have been investigated and all the ramifications, practicalities and so on are examined before such a Bill is laid before the House.
  Apart from the issues incorporated in the Bill, there are two other matters that should rightly be examined at the same time and, if necessary, included in legislation.
  There are wider issues such as the question whether double registration should continue to be allowed and whether it is a good thing, the extension of the absent vote, which my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, the various implications of European agreements on EC nationals and their voting rights at some stage in the future, and electoral counting methods and the possible use of electronics or machine methods to count votes. All those issues need to be examined at length.
  The United Kingdom has a precious democratic system. It is important to examine the implication of suggestions about a rolling register or access for the

  1265
  disabled to ensure that any changes that take place will be for the better and benefit the population in terms of ease of voting.
  While some of the suggestions in the Bill at first appear attractive—they are ones with which I generally agree—the practicalities need to be taken fully into account. For example, with regard to the clauses dealing with voting for the disabled, one needs to ask whether, by imposing a requirement to have one polling station in a constituency fully equipped and designated for the disabled, one is not making the situation worse by discouraging electoral returning officers from providing adequate facilities at other polling stations, especially in a constituency that may cover a large geographical area. Such matters need to be fully weighed up before any final decision is taken.
  The idea of a rolling register is quite attractive. It has many merits and has become much more feasible with the availability of new technology to speed up the process of adding or subtracting names then publishing them, certainly in an electronic form. The difficulties relate to standardisation and finding systems that work and are reliable.
  We have all seen numerous examples of the hiccups —often they are more than hiccups—that occur when electronic methods are introduced. A criticism in the early days of the community charge was the difficulty that borough and district treasurers had in getting their machinery to work properly. If we introduce a system that is heavily based on a new electronic process, all the ramifications of it will need to be examined. We need to come to a conclusion on a system that will work and which can be standardised across the country.
  The sale of the electoral register was mentioned at various times in the debate. I shall refer to that matter briefly, as I have some previous experience, not directly in the direct mail business but in dealing with some of the problems thrown up by the direct mail industry and the public on direct mail matters. I should add that I no longer have a connection with the industry.
  I am convinced that, on balance, the sale of the electoral register is a good thing. Apart from the arguments against it being limited by practical factors, I am not sure whether we can prevent the electoral register from becoming available one way or another. Given that availability, we may as well charge for it.
  In no case that I can think of is the electoral register used by direct mail houses to blanket an area and deliver junk mail—it would indeed be junk mail as it would be entirely untargeted—which they would not otherwise be able to do. That would be bad direct mailing and of no interest to direct mail houses. Direct mail houses use the electoral register for an entirely benign process—to clean up and check their existing records. People benefit from the system, because it ensures that the names and addresses used are much more accurate than they would be if they were not cleaned up by that process. Preventing direct mail houses from using the electoral register might lead to a deterioration in the targeting quality of direct mail and create many more public complaints than exist at present.
  Non-registration is the ill which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East is trying to correct by means of the Bill. There are non-registration problems, of course,
  1266
  but some of the figures that he quoted exaggerate the problem. Everyone accepts that no one can know accurately, without carrying out an extremely detailed exercise, how many people are unregistered. Many of the figures produced tend to suggest that it is nearer 5 or 6 per cent., not 10 per cent. as the hon. Gentleman suggested. A document produced by the Library tells us that the estimated percentage of people registered when set against the population has increased during the past year over the previous year in Scotland, England and Wales.
  The decline measured in previous years was not that great. There were only marginal changes. Most interesting of all, the percentage of the younger age groups—the attainers—estimated to be registered is higher now than a decade ago and has been slowly increasing over that period. There is no suggestion that the community charge or anything else has produced a declining registration among attainers.
  Opposition Members have claimed that the Labour party would be helped by greater registration or, at least that the results of elections and opinion polls would be different, but there is no evidence on which to base that claim. Anyone who assumes that all those who are not registered would vote for a particular political party and thus make a dramatic difference to the results of elections in marginal seats is greatly mistaken. The majority of opinion polls are not carried out with reference to the electoral register; they are conducted by interviewers who stop others in the street to ask them for their views. That may account for opinion polls being inaccurate, but I doubt whether electoral registration has any impact on such polls.
  A valid question is whether registration should be compulsory. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), who unfortunately can no longer be in his place, suggested that registration should not be compulsory. I have some sympathy with that view because it strikes me as strange that in a democracy people should be forced to register. On balance, I think that the present system is for the best, even if at times I have some doubts about its ethical validity. In practical terms, however, I am prepared to accept it. To the extent that it is compulsory, I find it peculiar that it appears not to be enforced, given that there are penalties. It may interest my hon. Friend the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury that if all those who are estimated to be unregistered were prosecuted and fined, the Treasury would be able to raise about £2 billion, which would no doubt be of great help now. A degree of enforcement would help to increase registration by acting as an incentive. If that were complemented by more advertising and more thorough door-to-door canvassing, I believe that many of the problems stemming from lack of registration would be overcome.
  What are the reasons for non-registration? It has been suggested that it is linked with deprived areas. I find that difficult to envisage, because deprivation existed in past years, and often at much worse levels. Yet the percentage of those reckoned to be registered was higher during those years. The community charge has been used as an excuse, but there is no clear evidence to suggest that it has had a significant effect on registration. There will, of course, always be marginal examples. If we are talking of a severe problem, I believe that deprivation and the community charge are not the causes. Some say that anonymity is a

  1267
  factor. Some people will always want to guard their privacy to a high degree, and I do not think that anything can overcome that wish.
  A difference in administrative practice is probably a main reason, because there is a good deal of variety between electoral registration officers. That problem must be addressed.
  There is also the question of dissenters. There are always those who decline to take part in any of the society's activities, including registering and voting. The effort required to overcome the resistance of that last 1 or 2 per cent. would be enormous and not worth it—particularly when one bears in mind that some dissension would be on valid ethical or religious grounds.
  It worries me sometimes that once Opposition Members seize on an idea, they are tempted to go almost to totalitarian lengths to enforce it. I find objectionable the Bill's requirement that if one moves to a new address, one must inform the registration officer within three weeks. That is rather draconian, but at least it does not go so far as some Labour Members, such as the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who have long campaigned for compulsory voting. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West gets very excited at that prospect. I sometimes wonder whether he will follow it up by requiring compulsory voting for the Labour party. That hon. Gentleman told the House:
  "Already we consider certain activities in our society too important for the common good to be left as options."—[Official Report, 5 May 1987; Vol. 115, c. 589.]
  He includes voting among them. The hon. Member for Rother Valley went further. He said:
  "I would not be prepared to make any detailed provision for the right to abstain of religious groups or of anyone else."—[Official Report, 14 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 615.]
  That takes the argument to absurd lengths.
  The House must allow the Home Office review to be completed, consider and debate its implications, and then carefully and thoroughly reach its conclusions and right the problems that exist—without altering practices that operate perfectly effectively.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Ray Powell.
  2.6 pm
  Mr. Ray Powell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to be called by you, having risen in my place on this spot since last May. On odd occasions, I have been tempted—being so short—to jump on my seat, in the hope that I would catch your eye. I feel very privileged this afternoon to have caught your eye and I am grateful to be called.
  I am grateful also to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) for presenting a Bill of great importance—in particular, to this country's democracy. Earlier, he told me that if there were to be compulsory voting, that should operate today. Perhaps all hon. Members will take due note. I hope that most are in the House today.
  I regret that I was unable to be in the Chamber earlier, to hear the Minister and his suggestion for a Home Office review. I have grave doubts of its value, if it applies any previous Conservative legislation affecting the electoral register. I refer, for example, to the Representation of the People Act 1990 to permit British residents overseas to
  1268
  apply for registration, which became law prior to the last general election. I know for a fact that Labour lost one seat as a result of that legislation. Labour lost Vale of Glamorgan by 19 votes in an election in which 58 registered overseas electors cast their votes by proxy—undoubtedly for the Conservative candidate. Most of the votes were cast by overseas residents who could qualify for the electoral roll if they had at one time been resident in this country, even if they had not been resident here or on the electoral roll for as long as 20 years. Not only could they register, but they could identify the constituency in which they wanted to register, even if they had never lived in that constituency. Therefore, I would not rely on the Home Office review to resolve the problem.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: It is interesting to know that the hon. Gentleman is sure that any British resident overseas is bound to vote Conservative. That was not the view of the Labour Front-Bench team when it assented to the inclusion of the paragraph in the legislation. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong to say that overseas British residents can register in the constituency of their choice. No overseas British resident can do that. They can register only in the constituency where it can be demonstrated that they were resident and on the register immediately before they left this country.
  Mr. Powell: On the first part of the Minister's answer, I cannot be responsible for actions taken by other Labour Members, whether Front Benchers or Back Benchers. If they had 15 years experience as a parliamentary constituency agent. as I have, and had studied the Representation of the People Act 1990 to ensure who was entitled to vote in an election, their opinions would probably be different.
  On the amending legislation, although the Minister suggested that not all overseas residents voted Conservative, when a television programme was shown in this country involving an organisation for those with properties abroad, its president asked the audience of 500 people at a dinner to take note of their rights to register. He said that he hoped that they would all vote for the Conservative party. Those people might have been misguided, as they had been out of this country for so long—some of them for as long as 14 or 15 years. They might have been unaware of what had happened in that period under the Conservative Government, but that progranne was shown in this country only a matter of weeks before the general election, and it undoubtedly had some impact.
  Mr. Thomason: The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that most overseas voters vote Conservative. Is he arguing that, therefore, they should not be allowed to vote? If so, what does that have to do with the Bill?
  Mr. PowellIt has a lot to do with the Bill. It is unfair to extend rights to people who have not resided in this country for 20 years when those rights go beyond those held by residents and Members of Parliament in this country. Even as an elected Member of Parliament, when I moved I was denied the right to register on the electoral roll at my new address as my name was not on the roll before October. The register of electors is open to people who have not been residents in this country for periods of up to 20 years. That was the subject of the Home Office review when the amending legislation was introduced.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the political opinions of the people, Conservative Members who went abroad made a concerted attempt to contact those people and get their names on the register? I do not think that those Conservative Members would have been making that effort if they did not believe that most of those people were Conservative voters.
  Mr. Powell: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend suggests. That undoubtedly happened. It had a direct effect on a number of marginal seats. It should not have been allowed, but it was allowed, by agreement on both sides—
  Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Powell: Let me deal with the point that has been made; then I shall gladly give way to the hon. Lady.
  That should not have been allowed, because the amendment extended rights to citizens outside this country that are not afforded to citizens in this country.
  Lady Olga Maitland: This strikes me as a case of sour grapes. What steps did the Labour party take to find their voters? I suspect they did not take any steps because there were no Labour voters.
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Lady is making the very point that I made. The primary objective of both the Home Office and the Government was to extend this right to their own supporters.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?
  Mr. Powell: Yes, I will. If I do not do so, the hon. Lady will, I know, be up and down all day.
  Lady Olga Maitland: The same opportunities can be given to Labour voters overseas. If they do not choose to vote, or if there are no Labour voters overseas, we cannot help the hon. Gentleman, can we?
  Mr. Powell: No, but most of the people who live abroad and who have properties abroad are obviously those who benefited from opening shops on Sunday that they should not have opened.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now beginning to stray away from the Bill. I should be grateful if he would return to its contents.
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Lady got me so excited that I was bound to go astray.
  Reference was made earlier to opinion polls. Some years ago I introduced a ten-minute Bill that would have prevented opinion polls from being carried out five weeks before a general election or a by-election. One day, Members of Parliament in all parts of the House will come to their senses and realise that that is the right approach. It would save all political parties millions of pounds in carrying out opinion polls. In all probability, we should then have a true reflection of how the electorate intended to vote. I am surprised that the Conservatives are concentrating on opinion polls and the influence that they have, instead of wanting electors to vote in accordance with their political views.
  Many changes occurred during the 15-year period that I was a political agent. At one time the register was
  1270
  collated in October, with a supplementary register being published by 16 February of the following year. If electors registered during that period they were allowed to vote. Therefore, the agents of all the political parties had the opportunity between October and February to ensure that their supporters were registered. That opportunity has been taken away from us. It is high time that the Government considered introducing a system under which there would be a rolling register and also the possibility, after the register had been compiled in October, of a cut-off date three months later so that people who were not on the register in October could be registered within that three-month period.
  At the last election I was disturbed by the fact that between 400 and 500 of my constituents were not on the register. Since then, a survey has been conducted to find out the total.
  On the day of the election, two residents of the Caerau area of Maesteg in my constituency went to vote. Apparently, one of them—I could not understand where he came from or his family background—went to vote Conservative, and we are conducting an investigation into that. Misguided though he was, he went to the polling station with his next-door neighbour, who had been a neighbour and a friend for years. They used to go to the Conservative club together—although the neighbour voted Labour he was an officer of the Conservative club in Caerau, which is typical of the valley people.
  When that man went to the polling station he found that he was denied the right to vote because he was not on the electoral register, although he had lived at the same address and voted at the same polling station for the past 50 years—and he paid his poll tax. His neighbour aggravated the situation because he was voting for two non-residents of the Ogmore constituency, who had been recruited on to the register because of the iniquitous decision to allow voting rights to residents abroad. That highlights the problems created at the last election—the postal date of registration and the fact that people from abroad are allowed to register and to vote.
  I hope that there will be a Division on whether the Bill should have a Second Reading. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East will succeed in that Division. I also hope that the Minister will concede that there is time for the Bill to be debated and will find time for early completion of the preceding Shops (Amendment) Bill, which I am promoting. I hope that the House will encourage the Minister to arrange an early Report stage for that Bill so that my hon. Friend can get his Bill into Committee.
  Mr. Thomason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill would not have helped the voter from his constituency who turned up on the day of the election to find that he was not on the register? The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East says that the Bill requires more than seven days' prior notice—in my opinion, as drafted, it requires 14 days—for a name to be put on the register. It is not a rolling register, but is fixed to two points in time—an election and the annual update. Does the hon. Gentleman concede that it will not deal with that problem?
  Mr. Powell: It would be a big help if the draft register were published in October and if adjustments could be made until February, which is what used to happen. Of course, it would help if people were allowed to go on a

  1271
  rolling register and to ensure that their names were on it before the day of the election. As my constituent had been on the register for 50 years, it is surprising that he should find that he was not on it.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East will get support for the Bill. I and a number of other hon. Members will be in the Lobby to support him, and we are grateful that he has taken the time, effort and energy to promote the Bill, with the backing of a number of organisations, so that Parliament has the chance to rectify many mistakes, and to allow people to exercise their democratic right to be on the register and to vote for a Labour Government which, in all probability, is what will happen at the next election.
  Mr. Barnes rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 0.

  NOES

  Nil

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. Piers Merchant and

  Mr. Roy Thomason.

  Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 ( Majority for Closure or for Proposal of Question).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 March.

WATER CHARGES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading, what day?
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 2 July.

HEDGEROWS BILL
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (TOBACCO SMOKING) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading, what day?
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 19 February.

COMMONWEALTH OF BRITAIN BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Tony Benn: The royal consent having been given, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 February.

LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PERSONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [15 January].
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed, what day? No day named.

COMMONWEALTH OF EUROPE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Benn: The royal consent having been given, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 February.

EUROPEAN UNION (PUBLIC INFORMATION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 February.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 16th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders No. 14 (Exempted business) and No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)), the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. John Smith relating to Agriculture (S.I., 1993, No. 70) not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon; and the said Motion may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 17th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Lang relating to Local Government (Scotland) not later than three hours after the first of them has been entered upon; and the said Motions may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr.Arbuthnot.]

Isle of Sheppey (Assisted Area Status)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
2.38 pm
Sir Roger Moate: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry for his continuing and helpful interest in our area. He is, I know, coming to Sheppey in a few weeks' time to open a new factory. He was in Thanet and Dover only a few months ago. He also arranged recently for a full, helpful and lengthy meeting with north and east Kent Members to discuss the east Kent initiative. We found that meeting most encouraging and I hope that we were right to do so. Not least, my right hon. Friend is responding to the debate today. I should apologise to him and to his constituents for keeping him here this afternoon if it were not to debate a matter of such significance to north Kent in general and to the Isle of Sheppey in particular.
The debate is about the economic situation of the Isle of Sheppey and assisted area status. I have deliberately specified the Isle of Sheppey for reasons that I shall give in a moment. An application for assisted area status has been lodged in respect of the east Kent coastal strip, which includes the travel-to-work areas of Sittingbourne and Sheerness, Thanet, Dover and Deal, Folkestone and the coastal towns of the Canterbury travel-to-work area, which have all been brought together under the east Kent initiative.
Many of my hon. Friends asked whether they could take part in the debate. I told them that the debate was about the Isle of Sheppey—not even about the whole of my borough of Swale or the whole of the area covered by the east Kent initiative. That is because the Isle of Sheppey has specific problems that I wish to place on record. At the same time, however, let me place on record my admiration for the highly professional way in which the easy. Kent initiative application has been presented and processed and for the co-operation of all the local authorities and other organisations and individuals concerned with the initiative. As I said, several of my hon. Friends from north Kent wanted to be here, but, although our combined efforts are, I think, fundamental to the application, this is, none the less, a debate about Sheppey.
It is estimated that by the year 2000 the area as a whole could have a jobs shortfall of more than 40,000. Some serious structural changes are taking place in north and east Kent, which is why the application that we have lodged is so important. The Kent impact study predicts a bleak future for east Kent if nothing radical is done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) constantly reminds us how many jobs will be lost in Dover alone as a result of the completion of the tunnel and of the single market. In passing, let me thank my hon. Friend and our Member of the European Parliament, Christopher Jackson, for their work in pressing successfully for a special fund to help customs clearance agents and freight forwarders who will become redundant as a result of the changes. Three years ago, it was estimated that well over 2,000—perhaps nearly 3,000—people were employed by such companies. As a result of their lobbying, substantial sums will be available this summer, in particular to help with retraining.
I shall paint a gloomy picture, although I stress that there is another side to the coin. Sheppey is one of the
1276
strongest manufacturing areas in the south-east of England. It is a leading producer of steel, pharmaceuticals, electrical goods, ceramics and other products. It has Britain's fifth-largest port by tonnage and a ferry company with the best ships on the channel—they are second to none. It is a newly designated environmentally sensitive area. The people of Sheppey are proud of their island and rightly so. In strategic terms, it is superbly located and there is great local determination to use the advantages to create economic growth and local prosperity.
The present position was summed up rather gloomily in the Financial Times of 8 August 1992, in an article entitled "Tackling Blight in the Garden of England, Depressed East Kent is Perceived as Part of the Prosperous South East". That perception is our problem. The article states that Sheppey is the worst blackspot of all, with regeneration hampered by the bottleneck of a narrow access road and a lifting bridge over the River Swale. It refers to the 22,000 vehicles a day crossing that bridge—the figure is actually 24,100—and mentions the big blow that was dealt to the hopes of the area when the Government recently rejected a £500 million development plan for Sheppey, which included a new road and a new Swale crossing.
Unemployment in Sheppey was then running at more than 16 per cent. Regrettably, it is now estimated to be 18 per cent. and it could be 20 per cent. by the end of February as a result of a sad dispute over contracts at Sheerness docks. In November, the Sittingbourne and Sheerness travel-to-work area, which includes Sheppey, was the 13th worst-hit in England and the 17th worst-hit in the United Kingdom. Even more serious, its long-term unemployment is the highest in Kent.
We have been hit hardest by the recession—particularly by the rundown in the construction industry and by the very severe recession in London, which has had a heavy fallout in north Kent. East Kent has a fragile economy which is about to undergo severe structural changes. Sheppey is worst hit of all because of our poor road and rail links.
As we have been hit hardest by the recession, the steps that we can and should take now would allow Sheppey and north Kent to help lead the south-east out of recession. Let me tell my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry what I would like him to do—if he can—to help us, quite apart from the question of assisted area status. I should like him to use his good offices to spur other Departments to make rapid progress with projects that are in the pipeline, but which always take a long time to conclude.
There is the all-important question of the second Swale crossing. I have already referred to the daily traffic movements of 24,100 over the single carriageway lifting bridge. The volume is higher than that of the M20 east of Maidstone.
I shall not refer in detail to the Lionhope scheme, which is sometimes referred to as the Swale project. As I have said, that project was turned down by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, anything that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry can do in that respect would be greatly appreciated.
The Secretaries of State for Environment and for Transport, their staff, local councils, planning authorities and many other organisations have been working very hard, and have impressed me enormously with their commitment, to produce a package to replace the

1277
Lionhope scheme or what we might call the Swale project phase 2. They have been working hard to produce a package that is environmentally acceptable and legally and financially viable and one which would use private sector finance to speed up construction of the second bridge to allow the development of the docks at Sheerness and the creation of new business parks.
However, time is of the essence. I have a real fear that the legal complexities will cause delays that will discourage private sector involvement. If we are to make a reality of private sector involvement in public sector projects, as we are so anxious to do, and if we are to make a reality of the east Thames corridor concept, it is vital to get that type of project off the ground, cut red tape wherever it impedes us and galvanise economic growth.
I wish once again to balance the picture. It was magnificent news last week when the Government approved the £47 million dualling of the road from the M2 as far as the Kingsferry bridge. That is a stimulus to economic confidence and new investment. I record again my appreciation that that very important decision has now been taken and that construction will soon be under way. Nothing can exaggerate the importance of that to our area. It is a lifeline for jobs and I am grateful that it is under way. However, we must press on with the second crossing and the road link that is supposed to link Sittingbourne to the new road.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to talk to the Minister for Energy—I am sure he does regularly. The Sheerness steelworks is one of the best in Europe. It is one of the leading steel producers in the United Kingdom. However, it is also a large, intensive energy user. Its outrageous electricity costs are a serious threat. We have made many representations, but so far with little result. My right hon. Friend the Minister will understand that there is little use in pouring new investment and infrastructure into the area if, at the same time, we are seriously undermining existing employers. I do not suggest that the problem is easy to solve. However, companies such as Sheerness Steel face unbearably high energy costs.
Although it may not be the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister, anything that he can to do co-ordinate efforts in Whitehall in respect of our new community hospital would help. It is estimated that that project would cost £11 million. The signs are encouraging, but the project must be started. That would be another stimulus for economic confidence and further investment on the island.
Economic growth in north Kent was built on the back of the railway links to London. Our rolling stock is ancient and overcrowded. We have been promised new trains and, in effect, that would virtually mean a new railway. Some of the money was allocated in the autumn statement, but there is a frustrating delay and we need some serious political pressure to deliver the new investment. At the same time, we seek improved rail services—that means passenger and freight services—to the Isle of Sheppey.
We know that assisted area status would be a great boost to the area. It would help us in all the arguments that we continually make for better infrastructure, whether we are arguing with Ministers, Whitehall generally or, indeed, Brussels. It would certainly encourage existing companies and new companies with a very useful range of grants.
1278
For example, I refer to one project—it is confidential at the moment and I should like to discuss it with my right hon. Friend—about which I have just learnt. It is certainly not yet on the record. A very large number of jobs could be safeguarded and new jobs generated by the grant that would come from assisted area status. There was a suggestion that we could create about £130 million of new investment. That is a considerable understatement, because I know of additional projects that would increase that figure substantially.
In a recession, it is very hard, even for large companies, to justify major investments when the companies concerned are not turning in adequate profits. Often a modest Government grant could be the key to opening up a parent company further away to make a significant investment, sometimes in new technology or sometimes to defend present employment. I am aware of circumstances in which a Government grant could be the factor that tilts the balance in favour of an investment decision.
I pay tribute to Swale borough council, which is not a Conservative-dominated body—three parties share the running of the council—for its highly professional work in promoting economic development in the area. I pay tribute also to the new professional chamber of commerce, which was established jointly by the local authority and local commerce, the Kent training and enterprise council, the east Kent initiative and the Sheppey Industries Association for all the work that has been done. Their work demonstrates their awareness—our awareness—that, ultimately, self-help wins through. We know that assisted area status is not a panacea by any means, but it would provide the framework in which those determined local organisations have a chance to succeed. We very much look forward to my right hon. Friend's visit. In particular, we hope that he will shortly be able to give some good news for the Isle of Sheppey.
2.52 pm
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) for his kind remarks. I very much look forward to my visit. I congratulate him on choosing this well-targeted subject for debate—as he said, not the whole of the borough of Swale but the Isle of Sheppey.
My hon. Friend has understandably referred to the granting of assistend area status. I am sure that he will understand that I cannot give any indication of whether the Isle of Sheppey, east Kent, or anywhere else for that matter, is likely to obtain assisted area status. I appreciate that there is great interest in the outcome. We shall announce the results of the review of the whole map as soon as we can. In doing so, we shall take account of the results of the coal review. We have also to obtain the necessary clearance by the European Commission. I know that my hon. Friend will understand why I cannot anticipate those decisions.
I can assure my hon. Friend that all the submissions made to us, including what he has said, will receive the same careful consideration. That is as true of the case made for Sheppey as it is for any other submissions. Our decisions will be based on the relative merits of the individual cases. My colleagues and I will be taking into account the up-to-date statistics in reaching our conclusions. I am, of course, aware of the problems that have affected parts of east Kent, to which my hon. Friend

1279
referred. They are forcefully set out in the submissions that I have received. My hon. Friend paid tribute to the work of the east Kent initiative and that of other bodies, and I am happy to recognise that, but, as my hon. Friend knows, I have also had the benefit of visiting the area. I have been shown at first hand both the difficulties and the potential of the area.
The Isle of Sheppey has to be seen in the context of the changes that are affecting the whole of east Kent. Great changes are taking place. The single European market and the channel tunnel are probably affecting east Kent more than any other area because of its position as the gateway to Europe. The changes are bringing problems—changes often do—and, as my hon. Friend has so eloquently said, the Isle of Sheppey has shared in those problems.
While not minimising the problems in any way, we must not lose sight of the fact that east Kent also has many advantages. I was pleased to hear what my hon. Friend said on that point. East Kent has a unique position between London and Europe. It has two large and attractive markets for business, with the channel tunnel making access to both even easier. It has excellent ports, including Sheerness. Road communications into the area are good. It is served by the A2/M2 and the M20, although I recognise that there are difficulties affecting access to the Isle of Sheppey itself. Its strengths make it well placed to benefit from the recovery as it comes through.
One possible approach to overcoming some of the specific problems was the original Sheppey—or should I call it Swale—project package of development proposals. The project was refused planning permission by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in July 1992 after a public inquiry. The main reason for the decision was that the proposals would cause damage to sites of national and international importance to nature conservation. There were also highways and countryside objections and significant conflicts with development plan policies. My hon. Friend is well aware that the area around the Swale is especially important to nature conservation in not simply national but international terms.
My hon. Friend referred to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Transport on 5 February which was extremely important to the area. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham for the welcome that he gave to that announcement on the funding that will be provided for the improvements to the A249 between the M2 and slightly north of Iwade.
Proposals for a second Swale crossing are being examined in the context of further improvements to the A249 between Queensborough and the Iwade bypass. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fully appreciates the need for that road and I know that every effort is being made to progress the scheme as quickly as possible.
There is land available in Sheppey for development, some of which is situated at the eastern end of the east Thames corridor. It is one of the major development opportunities of the future. The change may well bring problems. Equally, it can bring opportunities, as my hon. Friend recognised. East Kent and Sheppey are well placed to take advantage of those opportunities.
I have referred to the strength of the area, because there is an important point that must be recognised. In the past six months, I have received an enormous amount of correspondence urging on me the case for assisted area status to be granted to some parts of the country. I should
1280
make the point that assisted area status, by itself, is not a panacea, dispelling at a single stroke all the ills that are perceived as affecting an area. As its name implies, it is a mechanism for providing assistance of a specific sort. It can be used for creating and safeguarding jobs. In practice, it goes primarily to industry.
The major form of assistance that comes with assisted area status is regional selective assistance. As its name makes clear, the scheme is operated selectively to bring the maximum benefit to the areas in which it operates. It is not operated wholesale and it cannot, and nor should it, be a replacement or substitute for the efforts of all those concerned in an area to improve their position.
As my hon. Friend recognises, there is great potential in east Kent, but there is much work to be done to convert that potential into success. Work needs to be done, irrespective of assisted area status. Many potential investors are not primarily concerned about their ability to secure grants. For many of them at least, it is important to have the knowledge that they can identify suitable premises and staff, and that the local authority and others will work with business to help them succeed. I am sure that, as my hon. Friend said, that is not lost on the local authorities, the training and enterprise council or any other bodies in Kent.
Clearly, good-quality inward investment benefits the area in which it takes place and can directly and indirectly create much-needed jobs. Local authorities should organise themselves to provide speedy, detailed and high-quality responses to inquiries from potential inward investors. My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau is energetically pursuing inward investment into the United Kingdom. However, the bureau depends on individual local authorities for the detailed descriptions of available land that can attract investors' interests.
I am aware of the need to encourage investment in the Sheppey area. I am pleased to say that the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport are liaising closely with the local highways and planning authorities, with a view to enabling appropriate investment and infrastructure to be provided. Their Departments are involved in continuing discussions with a number of interested parties about future developments on and near Sheppey.
That brings me to a theme of particular importance in creating a climate locally that will encourage businesses to establish in an area and grow. It is essential that all local interests work together. The TEC, local chambers of commerce, business-support organisations and local authorities must work closely with each other in the service of the community—training the work force, assisting businesses and providing a climate in which businesses will invest.
I know that in Kent there is an effective and active training and enterprise council to which my hon. Friend referred. The TEC has received considerable support from the county council. My Department is currently discussing with the TEC the support that we shall be making available, through it, to assist small firms in the area. While those negotiations are not yet complete, it is our aim that there should be a soundly based structure of support for small businesses, particularly those operating in Sheppey and in other parts of Kent.
In many parts of the country and, I have to say, especially in Kent, the advice and support for small firms comes from many different sources. In Kent, there are

1281
many chambers of commerce, local enterprise agencies and other support bodies. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has invited bids from those concerned with the provision of support for the establishment of one-stop shops. The aim of the one-stop shop will be to create more effective organisations providing help and support for smaller businesses and to reduce the confusion surrounding the provision of support for small firms.
I am glad to say that there has been a strong response to the invitation, with 57 one-stop shop bids received from all parts of the country, including one from Kent. We are reviewing the bids with a view to drawing up a shortlist. There will be up to 15 winners from among those who have bid. Whether or not the Kent bid is successful, it is important that we continue to make progress towards the establishment of a fully effective support structure for small firms in all parts of Kent. I am sure that that is one of the ways in which we can best help to address the problems to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. My Department stands ready to assist in that process.
I know that my hon. Friend's constituents recognise the need for such work themselves. Indeed, much has already been put in hand. The east Kent initiative has done a splendid job of bringing together local interests in pursuit of the common goal. It is important that that work should continue, ensuring that local authorities and others are working together to identify the strengths of the area and, where weaknesses exist, what can be done to remedy them. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend is well aware of the necessary limits on public expenditure. That makes it all the more important that, in areas such as those that we are discussing, the priorities for expenditure should be identified. That is one of the valuable functions that the east Kent initiative can perform.
1282
My hon. Friend drew attention to several matters that affect Departments other than mine. I take note of his comments about the new community hospital, and I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
My hon. Friend referred to the important subject of electricity prices and their effect on industrial users. In fact, the average electricity price paid by industrial customers overall has fallen by 6 per cent. in real terms over the three years since privatisation. I accept, however, that some very large industrial companies have seen significant price increases. My Department is in discussion with large users about the working of the market, and electricity prices paid by large users are being considered in the coal review. I cannot, for reasons which I am sure my hon. Friend will understand, of course, anticipate the conclusions of that review.
I note my hon. Friend's comments about Networker express trains on coastal services. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is pursuing with British Rail its plans for rolling stock. I will draw to his attention my hon. Friend's concerns about the rolling stock used on the services to his constituency—perhaps at the same time that I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the rolling stock in use when I journey to my constituency.
This has been a most helpful debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the manner in which he approaches the challenges and opportunities of the Isle of Sheppey. I hope that my hon. Friend and, through him, his constituents accept that the Government recognise the problems that confront them and that the Government are willing to play their part in overcoming them. The enterprise and energy that can be brought together locally is of the greatest importance in addressing problems and taking advantage of the opportunities that my hon. Friend and I realise exist.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Three o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Visa Appeals
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many ministers of religion have appealed against refusal to grant a visa to enter the United Kingdom in each year since 1987; and how many such appeals were(a) upheld and (b) refused.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The independent appellate authority does not keep a separate record of the occupation or professional qualifications of individual appellants, and therefore the information requested is not available.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will publish the external advice given to the Lord Chancellor on his proposed changes in legal aid.

  Number

  Average age (years)

  Men

  Women

  Barrister

  Solicitor

  Black/Asian

  Oxbridge

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  10

  66·1

  10

  —

  10

  —

  —

  9

  Lords Justices

  27

  63·4

  26

  1

  27

  —

  —

  23

  Heads of Division (excludes Lord Chancellor)

  4

  62

  4

  —

  4

  —

  —

  4

  High Court Judges

  84

  58·6

  80

  4

  84

  —

  —

  68

  Circuit Judges

  482

  58·1

  458

  24

  425

  57

  2

  261

  Recorders

  764

  52·0

  727

  37

  701

  63

  6

  n/a

  Assistant Recorders (excludes Assistant Recorders in training)

  486

  45·4

  435

  51

  407

  79

  8

  n/a

  Stipendiary Magistrates

  78

  53·4

  69

  9

  38

  40

  1

  n/a

  Industrial Tribunal Chairmen

  61

  57·7

  50

  11

  31

  30

  1

  n/a

  Value Added Tax Tribunal Chairmen

  3

  63

  3

  —

  3

  —

  —

  n/a

  Social Security Appeal Tribunal Chairmen

  25

  51·2

  19

  6

  4

  21

  —

  n/a

  Magistrates Courts (Wales)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the annual cost of magistrates courts in Wales.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total cost of magistrates' courts in Wales for 1991–92, the latest date for which information is available, was £16,102,630. This comprises both central and local government provision, and both revenue and capital expenditure.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received concerning his new policies on legal aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor and I have received a number of such representations.
  784
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have received a number of representations since I announced these proposals. The extent to which these are published is a matter for the organizations and individuals concerned.

  Judges, etc (Numbers)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the total number of(a) Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, (b) Lords Justices of Appeal, (c) heads of division, (d) High Court judges, (e) circuit judges, (f) recorders, (g) assistant recorders, (h) stipendiary magistrates and (i) full time chairmen; what is the average age of each category; and how many are (i) men, (ii) women, (iii) barristers, (iv) solicitors, (v) black or Asian (vi) ex-independent school and (vii) ex-Oxford or Cambridge, for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The available information (as at 1 January 1993) is set out in the table. The figures for black or Asian office holders are believed to be correct, but the formal recording of the ethnic background of applicants for judicial office began only on 1 October 1991, so such information may be incomplete. Aggregated information relating to the school and university background of judges is not readily available. However, the results of a recent special exercise in relation to the university background of the more senior judges are included in the table.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Tourism
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps his Department has taken to implement the recommendations of "Tourism in the United Kingdom: Realising the Potential" as it applies to his Department's responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Those issues in "Tourism in the United Kingdom" which are the responsibility of my Department are being taken forward in collaboration with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. The Tourism (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 which came into operation on 1 April 1992 provides enhanced powers for the board and places it in the pivotal role to promote, market and develop Northen Ireland as a tourist destination.

  A corporate plan for 1992 to 1995 published by the board develops in detail the guidelines outlined in the 1989–90 strategic review of tourism in Northern Ireland.

  785
  The statutory public consultative mechanism for tourism is in operation and the principles of the citizens charter are applied to the board's activities. The board will publish in the spring a report on "sustainable tourism" and open public consultation on the subject of tourism and the environment.

  A new selective financial assistance scheme has been introduced for the tourism industry which can assist both the public and private sector to develop and market areas prioritised in the strategic plan which aims to create jobs in tourism and add to the economy taking into account the effects on the environment.

  Roads
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what priority is being given to(a) upgrading the Larne to Belfast road and (b) submitting an application to the European Commission for funding improved transport links between Northern Ireland and Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland recognises the importance of the A8 Larne to Belfast road and a £2.5 million scheme to convert a further section of the road to dual carriageway has been included in the current five-year major road works programme.

  Under the Northern Ireland transportation programme 1989–93 the European Commission has made available some £120 million European regional development fund grant to support transport infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland. Of this amount £4·4 million is being allocated in respect of a number of projects at the port of Larne from which there are direct shipping services to Ardrossan, Cairnryan and Stranraer. In addition the port of Belfast has been allocated £0·75 million grant towards the provision of facilities to accommodate the Seacat service to Stranraer. Belfast city and Belfast international airports, which provide services to Scottish airports, have both received grant support under the transportation programme for a range of projects.

  It is expected that the present transportation programme will continue under the next round of funding post-1993, and will form an important part of the draft community support framework for Northern Ireland to be submitted to Brussels later this year.

  Legislation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a list of all legislation presently applicable in Great Britain which is intended to be applied to Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I keep the legislative needs of Northern Ireland constantly under review in the light of developments in legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom. In the current parliamentary Session planned legislation reflecting those developments includes provision on the subject of access to health records, fire safety, the civil service, social security, environment and safety information, and criminal justice.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many suckler cow premium application forms were processed during each month of 786
  1992; and what was (a) the shortest period and (b) the longest period to elapse between receipt of the application and payment of the claim.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of applications processed in 1992 was as follows:

  Number

  January

  1,602

  February

  642

  March

  2,034

  April

  144

  May

  119

  June

  59

  July

  8

  August

  11

  September

  6

  October

  4

  November

  3,112

  December

  7,389

  Information regarding the shortest and the longest period to elapse between receipt of the application and payment of the claim is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Decommissioning Scheme
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 896, what checks he will make on whether a fishing vessel applying for decommissioning is owned abroad; if vessels which have been registered overseas at any stop will be eligible for British decommissioning; what steps he intends to take to check where beneficial ownership lies; and if he will make a statement on the application of Community law to payments of decommissioning grants.

  Mr. Curry
  As I said in my answer of 29 January, the scheme will be confined to fishing vessels registered and licensed in this country. Checks will be made to ensure that this and all other conditions for payment under the scheme are satisfied. The rules of the scheme will be set out in a statutory instrument that the Government will shortly lay before Parliament. These will be in full accordance with Community law.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1991; whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision or whether the service was contracted out; what was the name of the successful contractor where appropriate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Of the market tests completed since November 1991, only two have involved the comparison of bids from internal and external service providers. These were:Headquarters reprographic services;
  Headquarters photographic services.

  The result of both market tests was the maintenance of the in-house provision.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The following firms of consultants have been used by the Department as part of its market testing programme since November 1991:

  Amtec Consulting;

  Coopers and Lybrand;

  Gould Consultants;

  Hoskyns Group;

  Leopold Joseph and Sons Ltd.

  These private sector consultancies together with self-employed purchasing specialists used by the Department have helped to

  identify suitable candidates for market testing;

  evaluate services currently provided;

  provide training in market testing;

  support in-house bids;

  conduct the competition phase of market testing.

  The total cost of these services to date is £80,926.

  Beef and Butter
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from persons in the Stoke-on-Trent, North constituency about eligibility for free EC beef and butter; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has received a petition on behalf of the Bentilee Volunteers, Stoke-on-Trent seeking the inclusion of people in receipt of state pension, long-term invalidity benefit and unemployment benefit as eligible groups for the receipt of food under the EC surplus food scheme. The inclusion of such groups would reduce per capita allocations to 0·21 kg of butter and 0·18 kg of beef per year. To distribute such amounts would be impracticable and would be of little benefit.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will extend the rules for eligibility for persons to whom designated organisations may distribute free butter and beef to include pensioners.

  Mr. Curry
  Those pensioners in receipt of income support or family credit or disability working allowance or who are homeless and destitute or living in welfare hostels are eligible for free food. To extend the scheme to all pensioners would reduce per capita annual allocations in the United Kingdom to approximately 0·24 kg of butter and 0·20 kg of beef per year. To distribute such amounts would be impracticable and would be of little benefit.

  Oil Spillages
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what bio-chemical studies are undertaken of(a) beaches contaminated by oil spillages and (b) beaches adjacent to areas affected by oil spillages.

  Mr. Curry
  The need for studies following oil spillages is considered on a case by case basis.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on what basis he assesses the toxicity to marine life of dispersants used in the marine environment to disperse oil from oil spillages;
  788
  (2) on which species toxicity tests were conducted for the dispersants used to disperse oil from the MV Braer.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 20 January at column 289. Full details of the toxicity testing procedures for oil dispersants are contained in the Fisheries Research Technical Report No. 39 which is available in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Music
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest figure for the annual running cost of each of the service schools of music, broken down into principal categories of expenditure; what is the annual intake of each of the service schools of music; and what is the(a) civilian and (b) service teaching complement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The net cash budget for the Royal Marines School of Music in 1992–93 is £6,693,000, of which £4,598,000 is for pay and allowances. This includes the cost of the 65 personnel of the Royal Marines band located at the school. The 1992 intake of trainees was 35 musicians and six buglers. The staff of the school comprises 47 personnel. Of these, 10 service personnel provide military training, and 23 service and 14 part-time civilian personnel carry out musical training.

  The forecast running costs for the Royal Military School of Music in 1992–93 are £1,730,000, which will be offset by estimated receipts of £192,000. Personnel costs account for £1,173,000. The annual intake capacity for initial musical training is 140, including 30 foreign and Commonwealth personnel. The teaching staff comprises six military and 11 civilian full-time instructors and 13 part-time civilian tutors.

  The RAF school of music is collocated with headquarters RAF music services and the two units' operating costs are not recorded separately. In the most recent year for which records are available (1991–92) the combined operating costs were £3,947,000. The 1992 intake of trainees was 14 new entrants, plus 19 for advanced training. The teaching complement comprises one officer, four non-commissioned officers and one civilian.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current established strength of each type of band in each of the services; and in each case what are the ranks of the band members, the number of each type of instrument established and the annual running cost.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The available information which is not necessarily in the same format for each service, is as follows:

  Royal Marine Bands
  The Royal Marines School of Music, Deal and the RM Bands at CINCFLEET and CINCHAVHOME each has a complement comprising:

  Deal

  1 Lieutenant Colonel (Special Duty Band)

  1 Lieutenant (Special Duty Band)

  2 Warrant Officer 2

  3 Colour Sergeants

  6 Sergeants

  789

  11 Corporals

  43 Musicians/Buglers

  CINCFLEET

  1 Captain (Special Duty Band)

  2 Warrant Officer 2

  3 Colour Sergeants

  6 Sergeants

  11 Corporals

  43 Musicians/Buglers

  CINCNAVHOME

  1 Captain (Special Duty Band)

  1 Warrant Officer 1

  4 Colour Sergeants

  6 Sergeants

  11 Corporals

  43 Musicians/Buglers

  Instrumentation for all three above is:

  1 Bandmaster

  2 Flute/Saxophone

  2 Oboes

  2 Bassoons

  2 Solo Clarinets

  6 Clarinet/Violin

  4 Clarinet/Viola

  4 Saxophone/Violin

  4 Horns

  2 Solo Cornets

  5 Cornet/Violin

  2 Cornet Piano

  5 Trombones

  3 Euphonium/Cello

  3 Basses

  3 Percussion

  1 Drum Major

  1 Bugle Major

  13 Bugler/Drummer

  The Royal Marine Bands at Flag Officer Plymouth, Flag Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland (FOSNI) and Commando Training Centre Royal Marines (CTCRM) each have 42 personnel, comprising:

  FO Plymouth

  1 Captain (Special Duty Band)

  1 Warrant Officer 2

  1 Colour Sergeant

  6 Sergeants

  6 Corporals

  27 Musicians/Buglers

  FOSNI

  1 Captain (Special Duty Band)

  1 Warrant Officer 2

  1 Colour Sergeant

  6 Sergeants

  6 Corporals

  27 Musicians/Buglers

  CTCRM

  1 Lieutenant (Special Duty Band)

  1 Warrant Officer 2

  2 Colour Sergeant

  5 Sergeants

  9 Corporals

  24 Musicians/Buglers

  Instrumentation for all three above is:

  1 Bandmaster

  1 Flute

  1 Oboe

  1 Bassoon

  1 Solo Clarinet

  3 Clarinet/Violin

  2 Clarinet/Viola

  2 Saxophone/Violin

  2 Horn

  1 Solo Cornet

  790

  3 Cornet/Violin

  1 Cornet Piano

  3 Trombones

  1 Euphonium/Cello

  2 Basses

  1 Percussion

  1 Drum Major

  7 Bugler/Drummer

  The annual running cost budget for the Royal Marine School of Music at Deal in 1992–93 is £6,693,000. Figures are not readily available for the individual Royal Marine Bands.

  Army Bands

  The strength of Army bands varies on the type of band, there are currently 63 bands in the Army. The establishment and rank of Army band members varies according to the type of band.

  Arm/Type of Band

  RAC Regimental/Infantry Regiment

  1 Warrant Officer 1

  1 Warrant Officer 2

  1 Staff Sergeant

  2 Sergeants

  4 Corporals

  4 Lance Corporals

  9 Privates

  Infantry Large

  1 Warrant Officer 1

  1 Warrant Officer 2

  2 Staff Sergeant

  4 Sergeants

  6 Corporals

  6 Lance Corporals

  14 Privates

  H Cav Mounted Minor Staff

  1 Major

  2 Warrant Officer 2

  2 Staff Sergeant

  4 Sergeants

  6 Corporals

  6 Lance Corporals

  14 Privates

  Minor Staff

  1 Major

  1 Warrant Officer 2

  2 Staff Sergeant

  4 Sergeants

  6 Corporals

  6 Lance Corporals

  14 Privates

  Foot Guards Major Staff

  1 Major

  2 Warrant Officer 2

  3 Staff Sergeant

  6 Sergeants

  9 Corporals

  8 Lance Corporals

  20 Privates

  Major Staff

  1 Major

  2 Warrant Officer 2

  3 Staff Sergeant

  6 Sergeants

  8 Corporals

  8 Lance Corporals

  20 Privates

  AGC Minor Staff

  1 Major

  1 Warrant Officer 2

  2 Staff Sergeant

  4 Sergeants

  6 Corporals

  791

  6 Lance Corporals

  15 Privates

  Gurkha Major Staff

  1 Major

  2 Captains

  2 Warrant Officer 2

  2 Staff Sergeant

  3 Sergeants

  8 Corporals

  8 Lance Corporals

  23 Privates

  The information on the number of instruments in Army bands is not held centrally, nor are the annual running costs for each type of band.

  RAF Bands

  Current Strengths

  Central Band— 86 (Two Bands and Salon Orchestra)

  Area Bands (4)—168 (42 Musicians in each)

  Central Band (includes Salon Orchestra):

  1 Director of Music (Sqn Ldr)

  1 Assistant Director of Music (Flt Lt)

  1 Flight Serrgeant

  16 Chief Technicians

  18 Sergeants

  25 Corporals

  19 Junior Technicians

  1 Senior Aircraftsman

  2 Leading Aircraftsmen

  Area bands (x 4)

  1 Director of Music (1 Sqn Ldr, 3 Flt Lts)

  1 Warrant Officer

  1 Flight Sergeant

  3 Chief Technicians

  6 Sergeants

  12 Corporals

  10 Junior Technicians

  6 Senior Aircraftsmen

  2 Leading Aircraftsmen

  The number of instrumentalists per band is:

  Instrument

  Central Band

  Area Bands (x 4)

  Flute/Piccolo

  4

  2

  Oboe

  2

  2

  Clarinet

  18

  9

  Saxophone

  6

  3

  Bassoon

  4

  2

  Horn

  8

  4

  Cornet

  12

  6

  Trombone

  8

  5

  Euphonium

  2

  2

  Tuba

  6

  3

  Percussion/Timpani

  6

  2

  Violins

  3

  —

  Viola

  1

  —

  Cello

  1

  —

  String Bass

  1

  —

  Piano

  1

  —

  The numbers above relate to the instruments established in each Band. Most musicians are accomplished players of more than one instrument.

  The annual running costs of the RAF Music Services, including Headquarters costs and the RAF School of Music, based on FY 91/92 rates are as follows:

  £

  Headquarters Music Services and United Kingdom Bands

  3,947,000

  Royal Air Force Germany Band

  792,000

  792
  The costs include staff costs, LOA, travel and subsistence and other miscellaneous costs, eg. quartering costs.

  Leyland DAF
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many DROPS vehicles are still outstanding from the order placed by his Department with Leyland DAF company.

  Mr. Aitken
  On 5 February 1993, 349 DROPS vehicles were still outstanding from the order placed with Leyland DAF.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of Leyland DAF company being placed in receivership on the British Army.

  Mr. Aitken
  A preliminary assessment has been made but it is not possible to be definitive until the receiver has determined the company's future.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many 4-tonne trucks are outstanding from the order placed by the British Army with the Leyland DAF company.

  Mr. Aitken
  On 5 February 1993, 2,080 4-tonne trucks were outstanding from the order placed with Leyland DAF.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is open to individual management areas within the Department to employ consultants as necessary, within the limits of their budgets. Information on these contracts and their value is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Scientists
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to assist the redeployment in civil research and development of scientists losing their jobs because of closure of defence research establishments.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Defence Research Agency under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Peter Temple-Morris dated 12 February 1993:
  In today's written answer the Secretary of State for Defence informed you that I would be replying directly to your question regarding the steps being taken to assist the redeployment in civil research and development of scientists losing their jobs because of closure of defence research establishments.
  While it is true that the DRA's rationalisation programme will result in some 2,000 job losses, we have been able so far to draw our plans to take those wholly in the support areas. Our aim is to retain and develop our front line scientific capability.

  793
  I hope you will find this information useful.

  Military Hospitals
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he plans for the status and activities of the seven military hospitals.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on 4 February Official Report, column 267.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 37, if he will list the movements and locations of the royal yacht Britannia during the Falklands' conflict; and what press releases or press advice were issued about its role during the conflict.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During the period in question, HMY Britannia left her home port of Portsmouth to visit St. Nazaire between 22 and 27 April 1982, and Dover between 7 and 11 June 1982, in support of official royal engagements. It is not possible to provide the rest of the information requested without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and where his Department first announced that the royal yacht Britannia was no longer considered necessary as a possible hospital ship.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence concluded during late 1992 that there was no longer a requirement for Britannia to fulfil the war role of a hospital ship. We have confirmed this decision in response to specific inquiries, the first instance being by my Department's press office on 20 January 1993.

  Royal Flights
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many nights in 1992 crew members of royal flights were found accommodation overseas; what was the cost; and what were the locations involved.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Whenever practical, aircraft of the Queen's Flight which have carried out tasks to overseas destinations recover to the United Kingdom, thus enabling them to undertake other tasks. When this is not practical, crew members are accommodated in hotels in accordance with the standard regulations which apply to all air transport crews. In 1992, 266 nights were spent away from RAF Benson as a result of flights in the United Kingdom or overseas. The estimate for travel and subsistence for financial year 1992–93 is some £264,000 which covers nights spent away in both the United Kingdom and overseas. Details of individual occurrences could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what policies are pursued to ensure that people from the ethnic minorities are recruited as Officers of the House.
  794
  Mr. Beith
  In recruiting all staff to the House of Commons service, it is the Commission's policy that all eligible persons shall have equal opportunities for employment and advancement on the basis of their ability, qualifications and fitness for the work and that there shall be no discrimination on any other grounds. The Commission has appointed an equal opportunities officer whose responsibility it is to monitor the Commission's policy of equal opportunity and to provide relevant advice to management and staff of the House.

  Members of selection boards are provided with written guidance as to the conduct of interviews. This makes it clear that there must be no discrimination on grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origins, sex or marital status.

  The Commission monitors its policy on racial equality by asking candidates to complete a questionnaire indicating their ethnic origin. This is voluntary and it is explained in the accompanying literature that the ethnic information is confidential to the equal opportunities officer and is not available to those involved in the selection process.

EDUCATION

  Schools Inspectors
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if schools are permitted to charge the Office for Standards in Education for the time and materials used in providing the essential information and statistics which independent inspectors need to make their inspections.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The information which registered inspectors will need to carry out an inspection will be readily available in all schools.

  Open University
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many people have been enrolled in Open university courses for each year since 1979;

  (2) how many Open university degrees have been awarded in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Boswell
  In 1979–80 there were 70,000 enrolments and 5,800 degrees awarded. Details of Open university enrolment and degrees awarded for later years up to 1990–91 are contained in statistical bulletin 8/92, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Books and Magazines (VAT)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the effect of a standard rate of VAT on books and magazines on the reading patterns of primary and secondary school children.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has made no such assessment. Books and magazines are zero rated for VAT.

  Reading
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to encourage reading among young people.

  Mr. Forth
  This is already an essential element of our policy. The current review of national curriculum English,
  795
  on which the National Curriculum Council is expected to report soon, has been addressing the need to ensure that pupils are encouraged to develop the habit of reading widely, and are introduced to the richness of great literature.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the number of students with special educational needs who gained entry to university and polytechnics for each year since 1982.

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is(a) the number and (b) the proportion

  LEA

  Middle

  Seconday

  Special

  Pupils with statements

  Pupils with statements

  Pupils with statements

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  City

  Camden

  —

  —

  137

  1·3

  277

  74·5

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  229

  1·6

  676

  91·1

  Hackney

  —

  —

  93

  1·2

  613

  94·2

  Hammersmith

  —

  —

  72

  1·2

  392

  89·9

  Islington

  —

  —

  86

  1·1

  323

  96·4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  34

  0·9

  87

  100·0

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  87

  1·4

  711

  84·3

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  127

  1·2

  422

  90·6

  Southwark

  —

  –

  95

  1·0

  371

  75·6

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  89

  0·8

  403

  78·9

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  112

  1·2

  663

  92·7

  Westminster

  —

  —

  81

  1·1

  158

  94·0

  Barking

  —

  —

  59

  0·6

  150

  93·2

  Barnet

  —

  —

  113

  0·6

  291

  79·7

  Bexley

  —

  —

  185

  1·3

  260

  95·6

  Brent

  —

  —

  94

  0·8

  256

  72·5

  Bromley

  —

  —

  121

  0·8

  302

  84·4

  Croydon

  —

  —

  164

  1·0

  505

  98·1

  Ealing

  69

  1·0

  87

  0·8

  428

  93·2

  Enfield

  —

  —

  26

  0·2

  128

  29·8

  Haringey

  —

  —

  42

  0·5

  242

  70·8

  Harrow

  70

  1·3

  98

  1·2

  173

  78·6

  Havering

  —

  —

  159

  1·0

  214

  95·1

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  85

  0·6

  313

  77·9

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  302

  2·3

  384

  98·2

  Kingston on Thames

  —

  —

  98

  1·3

  228

  98·7

  Merton

  82

  1·3

  89

  1·4

  235

  94·4

  Newham

  —

  —

  159

  1·2

  271

  79·2

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  63

  0·4

  367

  96·1

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  —

  124

  1·7

  149

  100·0

  Sutton

  —

  —

  90

  0·8

  274

  88·1

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  89

  0·7

  689

  88·7

  Birmingham

  16

  0·5

  418

  0·6

  2,325

  77·1

  Coventry

  —

  —

  79

  0·4

  777

  94·8

  Dudley

  —

  —

  112

  0·6

  569

  99·6

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  44

  0·2

  619

  75·6

  Solihull

  —

  —

  170

  1·2

  262

  94·6

  Walsall

  —

  —

  112

  0·6

  567

  98·6

  Wolvehampton

  —

  —

  167

  1·1

  499

  99·6

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  151

  1·7

  501

  80·2

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  69

  0·2

  1,487

  93·8

  St· Helens

  —

  —

  131

  1·1

  448

  95·3

  Sefton

  —

  —

  210

  1·1

  387

  90·4

  Wirral

  —

  —

  251

  1·2

  638

  82·6

  Bolton

  —

  —

  114

  0·7

  376

  77·8

  Bury

  —

  —

  274

  2·6

  278

  93·3

  Manchester

  —

  —

  134

  0·6

  646

  34·9

  Oldham

  —

  —

  229

  1·4

  444

  74·9

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  137

  1·1

  369

  73·4

  Salford

  —

  —

  75

  0·6

  298

  66·1

  Stockport

  —

  —

  315

  1·7

  405

  90·4

  Tameside

  —

  —

  173

  1·2

  340

  80·6

  Trafford

  —

  —

  168

  1·5

  343

  86·2

  Wigan

  —

  —

  189

  0·9

  461

  53·1

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  109

  0·9

  158

  100·0

  Doncaster

  45

  0·5

  128

  0·8

  689

  97·0

  796
  of children with statements of special educational needs in (i) primary schools, (ii) middle schools, (iii) secondary schools and (iv) special schools in each local education authority area.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about pupils with statements of special educational needs in maintained middle, secondary and special schools in each local education authority in England in January 1992 is shown in the table. The numbers of pupils with statements in maintained primary schools in 1992 are not available. In January 1991, the latest year for which reliable figures are available, there were over 30,000 pupils with statements in maintained primary schools.
  797

  LEA

  Middle

  Seconday

  Special

  Pupils with statements

  Pupils with statements

  Pupils with statements

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  83

  0·5

  623

  99·2

  Sheffield

  94

  1·3

  316

  1·3

  819

  93·3

  Bradford

  167

  0·7

  143

  0·7

  707

  73·5

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  85

  0·7

  179

  89·9

  Kirklees

  47

  1·3

  249

  1·1

  643

  99·7

  Leeds

  394

  2·3

  614

  1·8

  996

  97·7

  Wakefield

  39

  0·5

  89

  0·6

  569

  89·6

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  68

  0·6

  328

  90·1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  46

  1·4

  94

  0·7

  675

  85·2

  North Tyneside

  82

  1·5

  100

  1·1

  419

  95·4

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  117

  1·3

  346

  100·0

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  116

  0·6

  688

  99·0

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Avon

  —

  —

  553

  1·0

  1,917

  92·8

  Bedfordshire

  201

  1·2

  230

  0·8

  1,032

  90·3

  Berkshire

  102

  2·0

  262

  0·6

  1,572

  95·3

  Buckinghamshire

  339

  2·2

  634

  1·8

  1,452

  91·8

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  0·6

  489

  1·2

  711

  72·3

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  1,192

  1·9

  1,379

  91·6

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  496

  1·3

  1,266

  89·5

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  784

  2·7

  285

  95·6

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  654

  2·1

  287

  93·8

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  1,486

  2·6

  1,062

  78·3

  Devon

  131

  3·6

  1,300

  2·3

  1,677

  93·8

  Dorset

  79

  0·7

  413

  1·3

  1,095

  99·2

  Durham

  —

  —

  258

  0·7

  955

  89·4

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  117

  0·3

  1,273

  93·2

  Essex

  —

  —

  949

  1·0

  2,317

  88·8

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  305

  1·0

  848

  64·2

  Hampshire

  342

  1·6

  1,170

  1·4

  2,839

  77·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  25

  0·2

  175

  0·5

  787

  62·5

  Hertfordshire

  59

  1·9

  718

  1·1

  1,894

  99·1

  Humberside

  —

  —

  452

  0·8

  1,161

  93·6

  Isle of Wight

  45

  0·8

  36

  0·7

  214

  84·9

  Kent

  25

  0·6

  918

  1·0

  3,030

  90·6

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  1,599

  1·9

  2,891

  88·7

  Leicestershire

  91

  1·7

  570

  1·0

  1,076

  97·5

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  713

  2·0

  1,025

  89·5

  Norfolk

  446

  2·7

  862

  2·1

  768

  85·7

  North Yorkshire

  2

  0·5

  531

  1·2

  951

  94·4

  Northamptonshire

  48

  0·5

  287

  0·8

  991

  85·6

  Northumberland

  163

  1·1

  118

  0·9

  485

  99·4

  Nottinghamshire

  8

  0·3

  122

  0·2

  1,622

  94·4

  Oxfordshire

  11

  0·3

  116

  0·4

  645

  76·9

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  831

  3·1

  485

  88·2

  Somerset

  75

  1·7

  385

  1·6

  561

  92·1

  Staffordshire

  55

  0·8

  350

  0·6

  1,884

  84·8

  Suffolk

  511

  3·2

  871

  2·8

  717

  90·5

  Surrey

  621

  2·3

  498

  1·2

  1,781

  99·9

  Warwickshire

  95

  0·7

  151

  0·6

  1,019

  78·3

  West Sussex

  87

  0·9

  239

  0·6

  766

  62·1

  Wiltshire

  78

  6·3

  1,182

  3·7

  637

  84·6

  England

  4,791

  1·4

  32,538

  1·2

  79,190

  86·0

  Mrs. Anne Cambell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the number of pre-school and nursery school children with statements of special educational needs in each local education authority area.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of pupils with statements of special educational needs in maintained nursery schools in each local education authority in England in January 1992 is shown in the table. Information about pre-school children who have statements is not available.

  Pupils with statements of special educational needs in maintained nursery schools in England: January 1992

  LEA

  Number of pupils

  City

  0

  Camden

  1

  Greenwich

  0

  798

  LEA

  Number of pupils

  Hackney

  1

  Hammersmith

  1

  Islington

  1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1

  Lambeth

  0

  Lewisham

  0

  Southwark

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  Wandsworth

  1

  Westminster

  4

  Barking

  0

  Barnet

  1

  Bexley

  2

  Brent

  0

  Bromley

  0

  Croydon

  1

  Ealing

  0

  799

  LEA

  Number of pupils

  Enfield

  0

  Haringey

  1

  Harrow

  0

  Havering

  0

  Hounslow

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  12

  Merton

  0

  Newham

  6

  Redbridge

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  Sutton

  0

  Waltham Forest

  0

  Birmingham

  1

  Coventry

  0

  Dudley

  0

  Sandwell

  0

  Solihull

  0

  Walsall

  1

  Wolverhampton

  2

  Knowsley

  0

  Liverpool

  1

  St. Helens

  0

  Sefton

  1

  Wirral

  2

  Bolton

  3

  Bury

  0

  Manchester

  0

  Oldham

  0

  Rochdale

  2

  Salford

  0

  Stockport

  8

  Tameside

  0

  Trafford

  0

  Wigan

  0

  Barnsley

  1

  Doncaster

  0

  Rotherham

  3

  Sheffield

  1

  Bradford

  0

  Calderdale

  0

  Kirklees

  8

  Leeds

  0

  Wakefield

  1

  Gateshead

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3

  North Tyneside

  1

  South Tyneside

  1

  Sunderland

  2

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Avon

  5

  Bedfordshire

  3

  Berkshire

  30

  Buckinghamshire

  21

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  Cheshire

  6

  Cleveland

  0

  Cornwall

  2

  Cumbria

  5

  Derbyshire

  5

  Devon

  1

  Dorset

  0

  Durham

  51

  East Sussex

  0

  Essex

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  Hertfordshire

  9

  Humberside

  3

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Kent

  0

  Lancashire

  18

  Leicestershire

  1

  Lincolnshire

  8

  Norfolk

  2

  North Yorkshire

  7

  Northamptonshire

  2

  800

  LEA

  Number of pupils

  Northumberland

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  Oxfordshire

  1

  Shropshire

  0

  Somerset

  0

  Staffordshire

  7

  Suffolk

  0

  Surrey

  23

  Warwickshire

  3

  West Sussex

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  England

  298

  National Library for the Handicapped Child
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to grant governmental funding to the national library for the handicapped child.

  Mr. Forth
  We have no plans to fund the national library for the handicapped child.

  Higher Education Institutions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 744, if he will conduct a survey of higher education institutions on the advantages of a single organisation fowarding tuition fees to them.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to undertake such a survey.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 744, if he will bring forward proposals that local authorities forwarding tuition fees to higher education institutions after the specified date should add a payment for interest.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on representations he has received from and on behalf of higher education institutions in respect of late payment of the tuition fees from his Department via local authorities.

  Mr. Boswell
  Representations have recently been received from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and from two individual institutions.

  Professors of General Practice
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many professors of general practice there are in each medical school in England.

  Mr. Boswell
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not collected centrally.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid Loans
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the levels of reduction in debt service achieved by countries that have benefited from the relief of old aid loans granted by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since 1979 we have written off over £450 million, through retrospective terms adjustment, of aid loans to the poorest countries. In the period 1979–91 this, together with the rescheduling of other aid loans, translated into a £410 million reduction in debt service for the countries concerned.

  We recently announced that we would also write off £56 million of aid loans to Zambia from 1 April 1993, provided their economic reform programme stays on track. In addition, we agreed to provide India with local cost aid for projects to offset repayments of past aid loans amounting to £560 million. Thus, the Government have, overall, relieved the burden of aid loans to developing countries by about £1 billion. Twenty-four countries have benefited from these measures.

  Forests
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific measures were undertaken to ensure that aid is targeted to the poorest people in areas where the forests are facing the severest threats.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Britain's aid in all sectors is targeted predominantly to the poorest countries and our forestry programmes are focused on countries, and parts of countries, where forestry and deforestation are important issues such as in Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Kenya, Ghana and Malawi. Some relatively better off countries such as Brazil and Malaysia also receive our forestry aid because of the particular problems they face in this sector.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those logging activities recognised by the Overseas Development Administration as promoting sustainable forest use for the benefit of traditional and other forest dwellers.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The logging activities most likely to promote sustainable forest use for the benefit of forest dwellers are those in which they participate directly.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff in his Department are assigned to the market testing programme; how much the programme has cost his Department since November 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Work on market testing is combined with other duties and it is not possible to give a figure for the number of people assigned to the market testing 802
  programme. We broadly estimate that the cost of the programme to date is £155,000. This includes the cost of support for the in-house teams and other consultancy work. It does not include the cost of the in-house teams themselves.

  Tax Welfare
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review tax welfare alongside the review of spending Departments.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The tax system is reviewed each year in the run-up to the Budget.

  Disabled Employees
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of employees in his Department is registered disabled.

  Sir John Cope
  On 1 January 1993, the latest date for which this information is available, 0.9 per cent. of Treasury staff were registered disabled. The Department employs a number of people with disabilities who have chosen not to register as disabled.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what common procedures are being used by Government departments in relation to(a) the 1993 public expenditure survey, (b) plans for reductions in years beyond 1993–94 and (c) plans for 1996–97; what figure is being used to calculate reductions in 1996–97 from the 1995–96 baseline; and what information he has on the effect on real terms of reductions of (i) 2½ per cent. and (ii) 5 per cent. below the 1993–94 baseline for each Department.

  Mr. Portillo
  Procedures for the 1993 public expenditure survey are currently under discussion. No decisions have been taken.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the publishing industry about the possible imposition of VAT on reading matter.

  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. Friend has received many representations on Budget-related matters. As is usual, I cannot anticipate his Budget statement.

  Monarch (Taxation)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for Swansea, West can expect a reply to his letter of 12 January, concerning taxation of the monarch.

  Mr. Lamont
  I shall be replying to the right hon. Member's letter of 12 January very shortly.

  Output Statistics
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average output per head for each county in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.
  803
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 11 February 1993]: The latest available information, relating to gross domestic product by county for 1987 and 1989, was published in the December 1991 issue of "Economic Trends". Estimates for Scottish regions have recently been revised, reflecting improved methodology, and these are as follows.

  Gross domestic product at factor cost Scottish regions

  £ per head

  Region

  1987

  1989

  Borders

  5,271

  5,931

  Central

  5,465

  6,790

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5,384

  6,486

  Fife

  5,334

  6,228

  Grampian

  7,248

  8,966

  Highlands and Islands

  5,143

  5,934

  Lothian

  6,844

  8,190

  Strathclyde

  5,371

  6,536

  Tayside

  5,465

  6,593

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service has used consultants PE International and Price Waterhouse in its market testing programme at a cost of £12,800. The legal secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office have not used any firm of consultants.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Refugee Children
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what immigration status is granted to unaccompanied children from the former Yugoslavia; and what assessment he has made of the effect of their families of their immigration status.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Applications are considered individually and decisions take account of all relevant circumstances.

  Devon and Cornwall
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were employed by the Devon and Cornwall police force in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is set out in the table:

  Devon and Cornwall constabulary

  Strength as at 31 December

  Year

  Strength

  1979

  2,639

  1980

  2,721

  1981

  2,694

  804

  Year

  Strength

  1982

  2,729

  1983

  2,724

  1984

  2,745

  1985

  2,747

  1986

  2,753

  1987

  2,797

  1988

  2,812

  1989

  2,830

  1990

  2,867

  1991

  2,876

  1 1992

  2,909

  1 November.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notifiable criminal offences took place in Devon and Cornwall in each year since 1979; and if he will publish separate figures for(a) violence against the person, (b) sexual offences, (c) robbery, (d) burglary, (e) theft and handling of stolen goods, (f) fraud and forgery (g) criminal damage and (h) other offences.

  Mr. Jack
  Statistics for 1979 are published in Table 32 of the 1979 volume of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales". Statistics for 1980 are published in table 3.1 of the "Criminal Statistics, Supplementary Volume 3". Figures for 1981–90 are published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales"—table 2.4 in the 1983 volume and table 2.5 in the remaining volumes—copies of all these publications are available in the Library. Information for 1991 is published in the table. Figures for 1992 are not year available.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in Devon and Cornwall Number of offences

  1991

  Total

  108,208

  Violence against the person

  3,742

  Sexual offences

  806

  Robbery

  295

  Burglary

  25,708

  Theft and handling of stolen goods

  57,965

  Fraud and forgery

  4,175

  Criminal damage

  14,975

  Other offences

  542

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has introduced to reduce crime in the south-west.

  Mr. Jack
  The Devon and Cornwall constabulary has resources to maintain a strong and effective police service. At the end of November 1992 the force strength was 2,909 police officers and 1,400 civilians. This represents an increase in strength of 242 police officers and 292 civilians since 1979. We have also encouraged the development of effective crime prevention programmes. Nine crime prevention panels are in operation in the area and there are 3,378 neighbourhood watch schemes covering over 90,000 households. Other watch schemes have been introduced with the participation of the local community including boat watch, farm watch, community and business watch. The police have also reported a 3 per cent. decrease in the theft of vehicles of 1992 which is likely to be partly attributable to national and local car crime prevention campaigns. In addition an alcohol byelaw, which prohibits
  805
  the consumption of alcohol in certain public places in an effort to reduce disorder and anti-social behaviour, was confirmed in Restormel in 1991 following Home Office approval.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were arrested by the Metropolitan police in(a) the last six months of 1991 and (b) the last six months of 1992; and how many arrested in each period were subsequently (i) charged, (ii) cautioned and (iii) had no action taken against them.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Peter Faithfull
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consideration of an application to the Court of Appeal to review the conviction of Mr. Peter Faithfull, HMP Sudbury.

  Mr. Jack
  Following a number of representations on Mr. Faithfull's behalf, we are making enquiries into his case. I can not at present say when my right hon. and learned Friend will be in a position to decide whether a reference to the Court of Appeal would be justified.

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received a report from the Viscount Colville of Culross QC on the operation in 1992 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have received such a report from Viscount Colville and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women being held in police cells as a remand prisoner in England and Wales as of 1 February.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 1 February there were 159 male prisoners in police cells in England and Wales of whom 132 were unconvicted. There were no women in police cells. The most up to date information, however, is for 11 February when there were 53 male prisoners in police cells, of whom 39 were unconvicted.

  Brain Dead Patients
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will bring forward legislation to amend the law concerning brain dead persons on life support systems.

  Mr. Jack
  There are no plans to amend the law in this area.

  Primates (Experiments)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his answer to the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) of 2 December 1992,Official Report) column 215, about Shamrock Farms, what changes he proposes in terms of both numbers of staff and operational procedures in the Home Office inspectorate to prevent any repetition.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 15 December 1992,Official Report, col. 101. There are no plans to alter the size of the inspectorate or its operating procedures.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department many motorists were prosecuted for illegally driving in a bus lane in the Greater London area in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not separately identified in the statistics collected centrally.

  Market Testing Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Since November 1991, the Home Office has awarded contracts to the value of £239,000 for consultancies as part of the market testing programme.

  The following companies have been used by candidate areas to advise them on how best to respond to the market testing initiative, viz.

  Price Waterhouse

  Shreeveport

  Corporate Renewal Associates

  PA Consulting Group

  Worthy Associates

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte were also employed to assist the Department in developing its market testing programme.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his Department's target figures for days taken to reply to correspondence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  From 1 October 1992, the targets for answering ministerial correspondence are 35 calendar days (equivalent to 25 working days) for immigration and nationality department and prison service cases; and
  21 calendar days (equivalent to 15 working days) for correspondence on all other subjects.

  Prisoner Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and how many women were sent to prison(a) on remand and (b) on sentence in each month of 1992 and in January 1993.
  807
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: The available information is given in the table. Data for September 1992 to January 1993 are not yet available.

  Receptions into Prison service establishments in England and Wales by Sex and Type of Custody: January—August 19921

  Males

  Females

  Month

  Remand2

  Sentenced

  Remand2

  Sentenced

  Fine Defaulters

  Others

  Fine Defaulters

  Others

  January

  4,700

  2,000

  4,500

  210

  110

  230

  February

  4,200

  1,700

  4,600

  210

  80

  210

  March

  4,200

  1,400

  5,000

  210

  100

  210

  April

  4,200

  1,300

  4,200

  210

  90

  160

  May

  4,200

  1,300

  3,900

  210

  80

  190

  June

  4,200

  1,700

  4,400

  200

  80

  170

  July

  4,400

  1,600

  4,900

  220

  80

  230

  August

  4,000

  1,600

  3,800

  190

  80

  170

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 100 for males and the nearest 10 for females.

  2 Untried only; excludes prisoners first received as convicted but unsentenced.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the sentenced and (b) remand gaol population for England and Wales for each month in 1992 and in January 1993.

  Prison population by type of custody: England and Wales—January 1992 to January 1993

  Held in prison service establishments

  Held in police cells

  Month-date

  Remand1

  Sentenced

  Total2

  Remand1

  Sentenced

  Total

  Total population in custody

  1992

  31 January

  9,901

  35,098

  45,319

  760

  487

  1,247

  46,566

  29 February

  9,765

  35,896

  45,964

  982

  644

  1,626

  47,590

  31 March

  9,461

  36,086

  45,864

  1,217

  665

  1,882

  47,746

  30 April

  9,510

  36,141

  46,022

  1,136

  580

  1,716

  47,738

  31 May

  9,550

  35,495

  45,390

  744

  562

  1,306

  46,696

  30 June

  9,559

  35,564

  45,486

  845

  501

  1,346

  46,832

  31 July

  9,248

  36,187

  45,765

  694

  416

  1,110

  46,875

  31 August

  9,403

  35,682

  45,378

  725

  247

  972

  46,350

  30 September

  9,455

  35,339

  45,020

  565

  250

  815

  45,835

  31 October

  9,163

  33,933

  43,377

  442

  86

  528

  43,905

  30 November

  9,200

  33,236

  42,708

  259

  97

  356

  43,064

  31 December

  8,272

  31,785

  40,328

  218

  60

  278

  40,606

  1993

  31 January3

  9,200

  31,800

  41,346

  152

  7

  159

  41,505

  1 Untried and convicted but sentenced.

  2 Includes non-criminal prisoners.

  3 January 1993 totals are provisional; the remand only sentenced figures have been estimated and are shown to the nearest 100.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) when he will issue guidance to Departments on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1988 to market testing;

  (2) what proposals he has to issue guidance to the private sector, or make available on request to the private sector, the General Guidance: Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1988 and a document regarding the detailed implications if the regulations apply; and if he will make a statement:

  (3) what guidance he proposes on whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1988 will apply subsequent to market testing, where a
  808
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: The available information is given in the table.

  contractor employs most of the former staff but not the pre-existing premises or equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Attorney-General made a full statement on 21 January to the Standing Committee on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill which set out clearly the position on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.

  I am considering what further guidance might be helpful.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for the funding of legal advice for tenderers for departmental service provision contracting out under the market-testing procedure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Potential tenderers must make their own arrangements for seeking and paying for any necessary legal advice. They can reflect these and all other relevant costs in their bid proposals.

  Milking and Mastitis Centre, Berkshire
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the names of the companies that have given grants to the milking and mastitis centre in Compton, Berkshire.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Between 1985 and 1992 the milking and mastitis centre was in receipt of funds from the Milk Marketing Board. The centre has recently entered into a contract with a commercial company, under which the company is funding work to the value of some £140,000 over a period of three years. It is one of the terms of the contract that the identity of the company should be treated as commercial-in-confidence information.

  Research Funding
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the total cost of the alpha-rated research projects which were refused by each research council in the financial year 1991–92; and how much money was spent by each research council on alpha-rated projects in that financial year;

  Council

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  AFRC

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  53

  27

  16

  22

  45

  27

  ESRC

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  22

  46

  40

  56

  56

  MRC 1

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  17

  36

  19

  45

  53

  51

  57

  NERC

  49

  25

  61

  48

  63

  47

  48

  13

  37

  39

  43

  SERC

  25

  22

  22

  19

  21

  40

  35

  38

  46

  59

  52

  1 Figures for the MRC are for Project Grants only.

  Figures which show the proportion of rejected alpha-rated research projects which involved expenditure of less than £250,000 in 1991–92 are as follows: 100 per cent. of the AFRC's, ESRC's, MRC's and NERC's awards in 1991–92 were less than £250,000. 87 per cent. of rejected alpha-rated grant applications to SERC involved expenditure of less than £250,000.

WALES

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff in his Department are assigned to the market testing programme; how much the programme has cost his Department since November 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Department's efficiency unit is responsible for managing its market testing programme and it has the equivalent of approximately six full-time staff engaged on the work. The estimated cost to date is £233,000.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1991; whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision or whether the service was contracted out; what was the name of the successful contractor where appropriate; and if he will make a statement.
  810
  (2) what proportion of research projects in fundamental science and technology from university departments graded alpha has been rejected in each year since 1981;

  (3) what is the proportion of fundamental science and technology projects graded alpha and rejected which involved expenditure of less than £250,000.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the financial year 1991–92, the Agriculture and Food Research Council (AFRC), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) refused funding for alpha-rated research projects worth £13 million, £22.8 million and £10.2 million respectively, and spent £21.7 million, £7.8 million, and £9 million on alpha-rated projects, respectively.

  In the academic year 1991–92, the Medical Research Council (MRC), and the Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) refused funding for alpha-rated research projects worth £45 million and £151.8 million respectively, and spent £26 million and £105.6 million on alpha-rated projects, respectively. Figures for the financial year, for these research councils are not available.

  The proportion of alpha-rated research projects rejected by each research council is shown in the table:

  Mr. David Hunt
  A market test of building maintenance services has been carried out covering building project services and building inspections. The contract was awarded to Kirkham, Williams and Lewis.

  Nuclear Power Plants
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the environmental safety of the operation of nuclear power plants in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The two nuclear power stations in Wales at Trawsfynydd and Wylfa are subject to strict regulatory controls, as part of which an extensive environmental monitoring programme is undertaken. The results of this monitoring are regularly published by the Government and have consistently shown that the levels of radioactivity in the vicinity of the two stations meet international and national guidelines.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his estimate of the maximum and minimum capital allocation that fund-holding general practitioners in Wales will receive for hospital referrals in 1993–94;

  (2) what is the maximum and minimum for capital allocation that fund-holding general practitioner practices in Wales have had for hospital referrals in 1992–93.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  GP fund holders do not receive any capital allocations. A fund is provided to enable them to purchase the hospital services included in the fund-holding scheme. The minimum and maximum allocations to fund holders for these services in 1992–93 were £145,000 and
  811
  £1,328,000 respectively. Individual allocations depend on practice list size—which will reflect the number of GPs in the practice—and on the historic level of use of hospital services. Allocations for 1993–94 have not yet been determined.

  Housing
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been allocated to each local authority area in Wales for care and repair housing schemes during each of the last five years.

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

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of his Department's planning policy guidance note on the development of wind energy and other renewable resources, published on 3 February have been printed; and to whom the guidance note has been distributed.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I understand that 4,500 copies of the joint Department of the Environment/Welsh Office planning policy guidance note on renewable energy have been printed by HMSO. Copies have been distributed to local authorities in England and Wales and for use by Government Departments, and others are available for sale from Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Valleys Programme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the(a) number and (b) percentage, in terms of the total population of the valleys programme area, of economically inactive males for the valleys programme area for 1991;

  (2) what was the percentage, in terms of the total male population aged over 16 years, of economically inactive males in the valleys programme area, at the latest available date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Statistics from the 1991 census are currently being prepared for the valleys programme area and I will write to the hon. Gentleman to give a full answer to the question shortly. Until then I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on 13 January at columns 750–51, which gives the percentage of economically inactive males aged 16 to 64 for districts included in the valleys programme area.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funds will be made available to the Cardiff Bay development corporation in the next financial year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  During 1993–94 my Department will make available to Cardiff Bay development corporation grant in aid of £44.9 million.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the current capability of the fire service in Wales to cope with the demands made upon it; and what representations he has had from the Fire Brigades Union on the resourcing of the service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  On the basis of reports of inspections during 1992 by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services, I am broadly satisfied that fire authorities in Wales are in this financial year complying with the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover and with the statutory duties under the Fire Services Act 1947. Her Majesty's inspectorate has, where appropriate, drawn the authorities' attention to some minor areas where they are failing to comply with these standards and duties. I have received no representations from the Fire Brigades Union specifically about the resourcing of the fire service in Wales, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has discussed some resource issues relating to the fire service more generally with representatives of the Fire Brigades Union last November.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if, following the change in the value of the pound sterling, he will reassess the case for central funding of the promotion of tourism in England.

  Mr. Key
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the importance of sports-related tourism.

  Mr. Key
  The relationship between sports and tourism is strong and mutually beneficial. The Sports Council estimates that some 11 per cent. of expenditure by domestic and overseas tourists is sport-related.

  My Department provides grant in aid to the Sports Council to promote sport and leisure activities in Britain, and this includes activities undertaken by tourists.

  We have already committed up to £75 million towards an arena, a velodrome and for the preparation of the site for the Olympic stadium. If Manchester is successful, then the benefits to British tourism, particularly in the north-west, will be considerable.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Eastbourne, (Mr. Waterson) of 25 January,Official Report, column 694, what assessment his Department has made of the levels of investment in tourism-related projects since the decision to suspend grants made under section 4 of the Tourism Development Act 1969; and what the figure was in 1989.

  Mr. Key
  The English tourist board (ETB) publishes a biannual survey of investment in tourism-related projects. According to ETB figures, projects with a total value of £2,921 million (excluding those with a value of less than £500,000) were under construction in England between January and June 1989. The corresponding figure for the six months from January to June 1992 was £1,062 million.
  813
  This level of investment is many times higher than the total value of projects assisted by the section 4 scheme in England. In the 1988–89 financial year, expenditure on section 4 grants amounted to £13.2 million and total investment in projects assisted by these grants was just over £123 million.

EMPLOYMENT

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the firms of consultants used by her Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive, the employment Department headquarters and the Employment service have used the following consultants to advise on its market testing programme, at a total cost of £144,885 (including VAT and expenses):

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Ernst and Young

  John Pearce

  KPMG

  PA Consulting

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list all the market tests that have taken place in her Department since November 1991; whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision or whether the service was contracted out; what was the name of the successful contractor where appropriate; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Four tests have been completed. One is under negotiation and therefore details are confidential. Of the remainder, both the Employment Department headquarters and the employment service travel services contracts were awarded to Wagons Lit. In-house provision was maintained for the employment service's information technology mainframe service.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff in her Department are assigned to the market testing programme; how much the programme has cost her Department since November 1991; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Full information on the costs and staffing involved in the market testing programme across the Employment Department group are not held centrally. I will write to the hon. Member when the information can be collated.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give estimates for the number of black workers likely to be adversely affected by the abolition of the wages councils.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 8 February 1993,Official Report, column 503.

  Youth Training
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many youth training places are currently available in the Bristol travel-to-work area.
  814
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from Avon training and enterprise council that as at 29 January 1993 there was a total of 258 YT places available in the county of Avon. Separate records are not maintained for individual travel-to-work areas.

  Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which elements of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill were not discussed in advance with the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Equal Opportunities Commission was consulted about the most significant provisions in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill which concern equality of opportunity and in which it has a legitimate interest. The commission was not consulted about the provisions affecting trade unions or other broader industrial relations issues.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) improvement notices, (b) prohibition notices and (c) prosecutions have been issued or commenced by the Health and Safety Executive's offshore division (i) from 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992 and (ii) since 1 April 1992; and what were the results and penalties in each case of a completed prosecution.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:

  1 April 19991 to 31 March 1992

  Since 1 April 1992

  Number of improvement notices served

  nil

  8

  Number of prohibition notices served

  2

  3

  Information on completed prosecutions is as follows:

  (i) Between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1992, a total of three companies were convicted and fines of £850, £20,000 and £5,000, respectively, were imposed.

  (ii) Since 1 April 1992, a total of six companies have been convicted. Fines of £100,000, £1,000 £30,000, £1,000, £1,000 and £5,000, respectively, were imposed. Charges brought against two compamnies were not proved.

  Economically Inactive Males
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the(a) number and (b) percentage, in terms of the total population, of economically inactive males in the United Kingdom, at the latest available date.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The most recent results from the labour force survey for the whole of the United Kingdom are for spring (March to May) 1992. At that time there were a total of 5,733,000 economically inactive males representing 26.3 per cent. of the total male population aged 16 and over.

HEALTH

  NHS Employees
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time equivalent(a) nursing, (b) midwifery, (c) management and (d) clerical staff were employed by the national health service in each Birmingham health authority area and the West Midlands regional health authority area in each year since 1983.

  Whole-time equivalent staff in each Birmingham health authority area and West Midlands regional health authority

  Nursing

  Midwifery

  Management

  Administration and clerical

  September 1983

  West Midlands RHA

  38,450

  2,370

  2—

  11,120

  Central Birmingham DHA

  2,310

  260

  2—

  880

  East Birmingham DHA

  1,320

  20

  2—

  440

  North Birmingham DHA

  1,490

  150

  2—

  460

  South Birmingham DHA

  2,540

  110

  2—

  680

  West Birmingham DHA

  2,420

  150

  2—

  600

  September 1984

  West Midlands RHA

  38,460

  2,540

  2—

  11,150

  Central Birmingham DHA

  2,420

  260

  2—

  870

  East Birmingham DHA

  1,360

  20

  2—

  450

  North Birmingham DHA

  1,500

  160

  2—

  480

  South Birmingham DHA

  2,390

  120

  2—

  630

  West Birmingham DHA

  2,440

  150

  2—

  580

  September 1985

  West Midlands RHA

  39,480

  2,570

  10

  11,000

  Central Birmingham DHA

  2,480

  250

  1—

  890

  East Birmingham DHA

  1,390

  20

  1—

  460

  North Birmingham DHA

  1,560

  160

  0

  380

  South Birmingham DHA

  2,350

  110

  1—

  660

  West Birmingham DHA

  2,490

  140

  0

  610

  September 1986

  West Midlands RHA

  39,930

  2,590

  60

  11,220

  Central Birmingham DHA

  2,550

  250

  10

  880

  East Birmingham DHA

  1,380

  30

  1—

  470

  North Birmingham DHA

  1,300

  140

  1—

  360

  South Birmingham DHA

  2,440

  100

  1—

  670

  West Birmingham DHA

  2,460

  130

  1—

  600

  September 1987

  West Midlands RHA

  40,490

  2,690

  90

  11,480

  Central Birmingham DHA

  2,660

  250

  10

  910

  East Birmingham DHA

  1,380

  30

  10

  450

  North Birmingham DHA

  1,260

  150

  1—

  340

  South Birmingham DHA

  2,530

  100

  1—

  680

  West Birmingham DHA

  2,460

  120

  1—

  580

  September 1988

  West Midlands RHA

  39,440

  2,720

  150

  11,530

  Central Birmingham DHA

  2,620

  250

  10

  920

  East Birmingham DHA

  1,370

  20

  10

  450

  North Birmingham DHA

  1,230

  150

  1—

  350

  South Birmingham DHA

  2,520

  100

  10

  710

  West Birmingham DHA

  2,410

  130

  10

  580

  September 1989

  West Midlands RHA

  39,770

  2,770

  530

  11,800

  Central Birmingham DHA

  2,790

  270

  40

  940

  East Birmingham DHA

  1,350

  30

  20

  440

  North Birmingham DHA

  1,290

  150

  20

  350

  South Birmingham DHA

  2,480

  90

  10

  750

  West Birmingham DHA

  2,260

  130

  30

  590

  September 1990

  816
  Mr. Sackville
  The figures are shown in the table. Many of the functions undertaken by senior nursing and senior professional staff are now reflected in the national health service management figures. This means that year-on-year comparisons are invalid. Management still accounts for less than 1.8 per cent. of the NHS work force and the ratio of clinical to support staff has never been higher.
  817

  Nursing

  Midwifery

  Management

  Administration and clerical

  West Midlands RHA

  40,410

  2,820

  1,060

  11,950

  Central Birmingham DHA

  2,830

  280

  80

  950

  East Birmingham DHA

  1,390

  30

  40

  490

  North Birmingham DHA

  1,270

  130

  30

  350

  South Birmingham DHA

  2,400

  90

  50

  750

  West Birmingham DHA

  2,250

  150

  60

  670

  September 1991

  West Midlands RHA

  38,960

  2,710

  1,440

  12,740

  East Birmingham DHA

  1,440

  30

  2—

  2—

  North Birmingham DHA

  1,310

  130

  2—

  2—

  South Birmingham DHA3

  4,600

  360

  2—

  2—

  West Birmingham DHA

  2,210

  150

  2—

  2—

  Source:

  Non Medical Manpower Census, except for 1991 Managerial and Administrative and Clerical staff which is collected on the form KM49.

  The above tables catergorise staff by the terms and conditions on which they are paid. Staff with managerial reponsibilities were, until a discrete NHS management function was introduced in a series of phased implementations for 1984, paid on terms according to their professional function (eg. administration, nursing etc).

  1 means less than 5.

  2 not available.

  3Central Birmingham DHA merged with South Birmingham DHA on the 1st April 1991.

  Notes:

  1. Includes agency staff.

  2. Management figures can not be broken down by DHA in 1991 due to changes in data collection to a Regional return KM49.

  Staffordshire Health Authorities
  Dr. Wright
  To ask Secretary of State for Health how many full-time equivalent staff were employed by the national health service as(a) managerial staff,

  Nursing and midwifery, administrative and clerical and general and senior managers in South-East Staffordshire and Mid-Staffordshire HAs from September 1987 to September 1991 Whole-time equivalents

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  South-East Staffordshire

  Nursing and midwifery (excluding agency)

  1,910

  1,900

  1,880

  1,840

  1,760

  Administrative and clerical

  430

  440

  430

  440

  —

  General and senior managers

  10

  10

  30

  50

  —

  Mid-Staffordshire

  Nursing and midwifery (excluding agency)

  1,780

  1,760

  1,800

  1,750

  1,830

  Administrative and clerical

  410

  410

  390

  420

  —

  General and senior managers

  10

  10

  60

  80

  —

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. '—' indicates that the 1991 figures for Administrative and Clerical and General and senior Managers are not centrally available at District level.

  3. Source of information: Non-Medical Manpower Census HAP(STATS)B.

  4. The fall in the number of nursing and midwifery staff in South-East Staffordshire is because of the transfer of services for elderly mentally ill patients from St. Matthews's hospital to other health authorities and to community homes.

  Hospital Costs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what returns and at what intervals are made to her by hospitals on the average costs of procedures; and in what form those returns are made available to Parliament.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not routinely collect information on the costs of particular operations or procedures. However, since 1987–88 the Department has collected annual figures on average treatment costs by specialty by district. The health service indicators have included average treatment costs for patients using a hospital bed for most specialties. A copy of the indicators is available in the Library. For 1991–92 the specialty costs
  818
  (b) administrative and clerical staff and (c) nursing and midwifery staff in (i) the South-East Staffordshire health authority area and (ii) the Mid-Staffordshire health health authority in each year since 1987.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The figures are shown in the table.

  return was developed to collect total average costs by specialty on a provider unit basis. When the 1991–92 indicators are published later this year average specialty costs will therefore be at hospital rather than district level.

  Health Care Provision
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent her Department collects and analyses statistics relating to hospital and health care provision within the private sector as well as national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Centrally collected information about the private sector is via Department of Health forms KO36, KO37 and KO71.
  819
  KO36 provides information about beds and other facilities in private hospitals, homes and clinics registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984. As well as recording the number of institutions, there is a count of available beds, hospitals with operating theatres, consulting rooms and various clinical departments. The return also records the numbers of nursing staff by their level of qualification.

  KO37 collects aggregate activity for all private mental nursing homes registered by a health authority under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984. The return records data on patients detained under the provision of the Mental Health Act 1983. Latest data are published in a Statistical Bulletin "In-Patients Formally Detained in Hospital Under the Mental Health Act 1983 and Other Legislation, England 1984—1989–90" Bulletin 2(7)92, ISBN 1 85839 007 9.

  KO71 collects aggregate data on new episodes of drug misuse and the type of drug used. The return collects data from the national health service, voluntary, local authority and private services. This is a new return and it is proposed to publish data later this year.

  Nurse Prescribing
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the financial implications of deferring the implementation of nurse prescribing; what information she has on the long-term savings in health care costs which would flow from enabling certain nurses to write prescriptions; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Based on the Touche Ross cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the Department, we estimate that postponing the implementation of nurse prescribing will avoid start-up costs of £11 million and annual costs, once all nurse precribers are trained, of £15 million at 1991–92 prices.

  The time savings for each prescribing nurse and general practitioner consequential on the implementation of nurse prescribing are unlikely to be translated into reduced expenditure because the relatively small amounts of time saved per week are likely to be used up in a wide range of other activities. The main benefit of nurse prescribing is a speedier and better service for patients, the effects of which cannot be translated into monetary terms. As my hon. Friend knows, we are committed to implementing nurse prescribing as soon as resources permit.

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is currently being undertaken by her Department to ensure that local authorities fulfil obligations outlined in section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

  Mr. Yeo
  We expect local authorities to be aware of their statutory duties under section 2(1) of the 1970 Act to provide a range of services for disabled people, where they accept that there is need. Each case is assessed on its own merits by the local authority. The Department receives regular returns on certain services provided by local authorities under the Act, as well as information from other sources including the social services inspectorate. We 820
  follow up specific cases referred to the Department, where it is alleged that a local authority is in breach of its statutory duties.

  Oil Spillages
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she collects to identify human health risks arising out of oil spillage incidents; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health keeps under continual review the relevant scientific literature on chemicals which are likely to be harmful to human health. The Department is also able to seek advice from its expert advisory committees. Decisions on any necessary monitoring of food and the environment following an oil spillage incident are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who would consult the Health Departments on health effects.

  Refugee Children
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources have been targeted towards unaccompanied children who are refugees from former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment gave to him today.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when guidance under the Children Act 1989 on refugee and asylum-seeking children will be published.

  Mr. Yeo
  Guidance and training material for social services staff working with unaccompanied refugee and asylum-seeking children is expected to be published in the spring.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she issues on the identification of who has parental responsibility for unaccompanied children who enter the United Kingdom as refugees.

  Mr. Yeo
  No specific guidance has been issued on parental responsibility for unaccompanied refugee and asylum-seeking children. Local authorities have responsibilities under the provisions of the Children Act 1989 in relation to unaccompanied refugee and asylum-seeking children.

  In-vitro Fertilisation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the availability of in-vitro fertilisation services within the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 4 December 1992 at columns 433–34.

  Refugees
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to local authorities and voluntary organisations in order to deal with the co-ordination of health care for refugees from the former Yugoslavia.
  821
  Mr. Yeo
  For the 1,000 displaced persons and their dependants whom the Government have agreed to accept from the former Yugoslavia, three reception centres have been opened. The staff of these centres, which are run by voluntary organisations, will liaise with the statutory authorities as necessary to ensure that health or personal social services needs are met. Departmental officials have written to both local authorities and health authorities in the reception centre areas to alert them to the expected arrivals.

  Child Care
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the voluntary child day care organisations which have closed due to the introduction of regulations regarding adequate facilities under the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not held centrally.

  Referral Decisions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 470, if she will now issue guidelines to ensure that community health councils are notified about extra-contractual referral decisions, affecting the population in their areas.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have already asked regional health authorities to ensure that community health councils have access to information about purchasers' contracts with providers and their purchasing plans which will include extra-contractual referral patterns. However, as each ECR decision is based on individual clinical factors, it would not be appropriate to notify community health councils of these decisions.

  North West Thames Health Authority
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the contract of employment for the current chairman of the North West Thames health authority expires.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The date is 31 July 1994.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions Ministers from her Department and senior civil servants have had with the chairman and the chief executive of the North West Thames health authority; and what was the outcome of these discussions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Ministers and senior officials frequently meet the chairman and chief executives of regional health authorities to discuss a wide range of topics and issues.

  Tomlinson Report
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health is she will place copies of the Capita and Touche Ross studies commissioned by her Department in connection with the Tomlinson report in the Library.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Capita/Touche Ross study is one of three commissioned from management consultants as part of a preliminary review of options for reconfiguring acute services in inner London. Some of the information 822
  supplied by purchasers and providers for the studies was on an in-confidence basis and the full reports are not intended for publication. I will, however, arrange for executive summaries to be placed in the Library in due course.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the allocations to non-GP fund-holding practices in each region for 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, the aggregate indicative prescribing amounts allocated to non-fund-holding general practitioners at regional and family health services authorities level for 1992–93 are shown in the table.

  1992–93 Indicative prescribing amounts1

  £

  Northern

  161,551,312

  Cleveland

  28,278,187

  Cumbria

  26,895,353

  Durham

  29,197,667

  Gateshead

  9,935,418

  South Tyneside

  9,018,511

  Sunderland

  18,585,952

  Newcastle

  14,318,000

  North Tyneside

  11,846,208

  Northumberland

  13,476,016

  Yorkshire

  170,944,380

  Humberside

  41,995,512

  North Yorkshire

  31,473,094

  Bradford

  23,116,300

  Calderdale

  9,528,533

  Kirklees

  19,674,833

  Leeds

  33,224,889

  Wakefield

  11,931,219

  Trent

  226,040,528

  Derbyshire

  40,157,309

  Leicestershire

  39,607,897

  Lincolnshire

  31,611,166

  Nottinghamshire

  44,955,047

  Barnsley

  14,134,291

  Doncaster

  15,822,522

  Rotherham

  12,578,370

  Sheffield

  27,173,926

  East Anglia

  110,081,510

  Cambridgeshire

  32,930,439

  Norfolk

  44,715,873

  Suffolk

  32,435,198

  North West Thames

  161,624,985

  Barnet

  16,159,297

  Bedfordshire

  25,617,020

  Hertfordshire

  38,543,203

  Brent and Harrow

  25,640,541

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  31,987,000

  Hillingdon

  10,039,430

  Kensington, City and Westminster

  13,638,494

  North East Thames

  183,970,935

  Essex

  73,773,600

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  17,921,299

  Camden and Islington

  17,244,237

  City and East London

  29,756,162

  Enfield and Haringey

  21,791,339

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  23,484,298

  South East Thames

  182,199,827

  Kent

  75,300,058

  East Sussex

  41,110,910

  Bromley

  13,356,276

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  32,360,943

  823

  £

  Greenwich and Bexley

  20,071,640

  South West Thames

  135,778,738

  Surrey

  44,554,588

  West Sussex

  37,042,262

  Kingston and Richmond

  11,621,062

  Croydon

  14,246,115

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  28,314,711

  Wessex

  142,533,409

  Hampshire

  72,991,774

  Dorset

  35,685,885

  Wiltshire

  27,966,799

  Isle of Wight

  5,888,951

  Oxford

  103,651,699

  Berkshire

  31,046,847

  Buckinghamshire

  23,727,503

  Northants

  26,007,082

  Oxfordshire

  22,870,267

  South Western

  177,396,623

  Avon

  47,107,788

  Cornwall

  28,843,210

  Devon

  55,347,684

  Gloucestershire

  25,608,280

  Somerset

  20,489,661

  West Midlands

  261,441,507

  Birmingham

  56,355,959

  Coventry

  16,689,102

  Dudley

  15,535,775

  Hereford and Worcester

  29,495,176

  Sandwell

  14,411,416

  Shropshire

  19,110,046

  Solihull

  8,307,163

  Staffordshire

  49,634,920

  Walsall

  15,457,921

  Warwickshire

  22,269,467

  Wolverhampton

  14,174,562

  Mersey

  126,929,323

  Cheshire

  44,430,300

  Liverpool

  27,252,313

  Sefton

  13,647,842

  St. Helens

  20,320,141

  Wirral

  21,278,727

  North Western

  223,227,213

  Lancashire

  81,516,576

  Bolton

  12,207,541

  Bury

  10,896,582

  Manchester

  27,101,200

  Oldham

  11,571,437

  Rochdale

  10,213,084

  Salford

  12,454,860

  Stockport

  15,253,520

  Tameside

  10,783,925

  Trafford

  12,668,266

  Wigan

  18,560,222

  1 Taken from December 1992 PPA data.

  Death Certificates
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are issued for the completion of death certificates in cases where the actual cause of death is as a result of a long illness, in order to identify the illness contributing to, and indirectly the cause of, death.

  Mr. Sackville
  Medical certificates of cause of death are required to be completed by a registered medical practitioner. The form of the certificate is prescribed and is in the internationally agreed format which is designed to 824
  identify an underlying cause for all recorded deaths, except where the deceased is aged under 28 days. In addition, the certifier may record other significant conditions contributing to the death but which are not related to the disease or condition causing it.

  Guidelines relating to their completion accompany the death certificates and are supplied to registered medical practitioners. Specimen copies have been placed in the Library and are available to interested parties on request.

  Capitation Targets
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 469–70, if she will publish such information as she has on capitation targets.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. As I explained in my earlier reply, the information at present held centrally contains inconsistencies and would be misleading as a source of comparisons between districts of different health regions. Consistent and comparable information will be placed in the Library as soon as it is available.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those self-governing trusts that have filed their current accounts, indicating what percentage of the total this represents.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All 57 first-wave national health service trusts have submitted the necessary financial accounts information for 1991–92 to the Department.

  Creutzfeld Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the present number of known and suspected cases of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease and the geographic location of these cases; and what comparable data she has for the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information showing the total number of definite and probable cases of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease is produced on a yearly basis by Dr. R. G. Will, consultant neurologist at the national CJD surveillance unit, Edinburgh. Data for 1992 will be available later this year.

  Between 1987 and 1990 there were a total of 104 definite cases of CJD. The available data on deaths in the calendar year 1991 show that 28 people have been confirmed as CJD with a further four probable cases. The available information is shown in the table.

  Definite and probable cases of CJD 1987–1991

  Year and status

  Number

  1987

  Definite

  22

  1988

  Definite

  22

  1989

  Definite

  28

  1990

  Definite

  32

  1991

  Definite

  28

  Probable

  4

  Detailed information on geographical location of definite and probable cases is contained in the last report from Dr. Will. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  This report confirms that there has been no change in the incidence, geographical distribution or occupational

  825
  distribution of CJD. It will, however, be necessary to continue the study into the incidence of CJD for a decade or more to detect any change in the pattern of the disease.

  Hospitals (Alcohol Sales)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of hospitals have bars on hospital premises selling alcohol.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Down's Syndrome
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies her Department has conducted into the use of, and efficacy of the Bart's test for pregnant women for Down's syndrome.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: Recently published articles and published studies on maternal serum screening, including the Bart's triple test, are listed as follows. Copies are available in the Library. These were funded from various sources.

  The implications of these new tests are complex and are being addressed at the moment by two separate working parties set up by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and regional directors of public health.
  Maternal serum screening for Down's Syndrome in early pregnancy—Wald N. J, Cuckle H. S, Dansem J. W. et al, British Medical Journal 1988, pp 883–7.
  Antenatal maternal serum screening for Down's Syndrome: results of a demonstration project—Wald, Kennard, Densem et al, British Medical Journal 224/92, pp 391–4.
  Prenatal screening for Down's Syndrome with use of maternal serum makers—Haddow J. E, Palomaki G. E, Knight G. J, et al, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, No. 9, pp 588–93.
  Maternal serum screening for fetal Down Syndrome in Women less than 35 years of age using alpha-fetaprotein, hCG, and unconjugated estriol: a prospective 2 year study—Phillips et al, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 80, No. 3, Part 1, pp 353–8.
  Prospective intervention trial of a screening protocol to identify fetal trisonomy 18 using maternal serum alphafetoprotein, unconjugated oestriol, and human chorinonic gonadotropin—Palomaki GE, Knight GJ et al, Prenatal diagnosis, Vol. 12, pp 925–30.

  Health Care Funding
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the amount of funding per capita for health care for each of the last five years for(a) the North East Essex health district and (b) the East Suffolk health district.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the amount of funding per capita for health care in each of the last five years for(a) Mid Essex health district and (b) the East Suffolk health district.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: The allocation of funds to the district health authorities is a matter for the North East Thames and the East Anglian regional health authorities respectively and detailed information is not collected centrally.

  Information which relates the expenditure of the DHAs to their resident populations is shown in the table.

  The figures which for the years before 1991–92 predate the national health service reforms, show the DHAs as
  826
  providers of health care. Expenditure per head of population therefore reflects patterns of local service provision and the effects of patient flows across health authority boundaries.

  The figures for 1991–92, which show the DHAs as purchasers and are not comparable to those for earlier years, reflect a transitional position as each RHA moves towards allocating funds to DHAs on a weighted capitation basis. Figures for total spending per capita include other resources, such as regional budgets and local income, in addition to allocations for resident population.

  Revenue expenditure per head of population

  Year

  North East Essex district health authority £

  Mid Essex district health authority £

  East Suffolk district health authority £

  1987–88

  202

  199

  206

  1988–89

  220

  219

  226

  1989–90

  236

  237

  245

  1990–91

  247

  255

  270

  1991–92

  317

  316

  345

  Sources:

  a. Annual accounts of the North East Essex, the Mid Essex and the East Suffolk district health authorities.

  b. Mid-year estimates of resident population—1987–91 (Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys).

  Notes:

  1. For the years prior to 1991–92, the figures for the DHAs are based upon their total revenue expenditure on the services which they managed or accounted for in the relevant financial years. For 1991–92 the figures for the DHAs are based upon their total revenue expenditure on purchases of health care and directly related services through contracts placed with their own Directly Managed Units and other providers of health care. Expenditure incurred on the authorities' administrative and purchasing functions is excluded.

  2. Capital expenditure incurred by the DHAs and all expenditure incurred by RHAs on behalf of their regions as a whole is excluded.

  3. The population figures used make no allowance for people resident in particular districts who receive treatment in others. For consistency the population estimates employed are those based on the 1981 Census.

  Wessex Regional Health Authority (Computer)
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate of the money lost by Wessex regional health authority in attempting to install a new computer system; and if she will make a statement on the current situation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to the reply, 10 February, column 701]: A comprehensive report in the public interest on this subject was published in July 1992. In addition, the district auditor decided to provide further material to Wessex regional health authority in confidence, to enable the authority to pursue all avenues for legal action. When I was informed of these documents, I instructed the chief executive of the national health service to ensure that rigorous remedial action was taken by the region and closely monitored by the national health service management executive; and that every opportunity for legal and police action was fully explored. Wessex regional health authority made all the material available to the police, whose inquiries are continuing. Legal action is still in progress.

  It is very important that these serious matters should be fully studied and lessons learnt. I understand that the Public Accounts Committee has commissioned a further

  827
  report on the project from the Comptroller and Auditor General and I shall consider it very carefully. It is important that as much information as possible should be in the public domain. With regard to the confidential reports to the regional health authority, I am advised that under section 30 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, disclosure would require the consent of the people to whom the information relates. All the major points of concern are, however, set out very fully in the district auditor's public report.

  Drug Addiction
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many individual general practitioners provided notifications of drug addiction in the last year.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 1991, the last year for which figures are available, there were 3,075 general practitioners in the United Kingdom who provided such notifications to the Home Office.

  Radiation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to reduce the United Kingdom's radiation dose limit to 0.3 milliSieverts and the lifetime radiation dose limit to 21 mSv.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom's radiation dose limits, for the public and for workers, comply with the current EC Eurotom directive on basic standards for radiation protection. Revision of this directive, and the dose limits therein, will begin later this year. My right hon. Friend has no plans to reduce dose limits in advance of revision of the directive.

ENVIRONMENT

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a list of all the regulations for which his Department is currently responsible with a descriptive title for each individual regulation.

  Mr. Howard
  A provisional list of the regulations for which this Department is responsible and which impact on business has recently been prepared. I will arrange for it to be placed in the Library once it has been fully checked for accuracy and consistency of definition.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department has used the following consultancy services to assist it in the development of the market testing process since November 1991:

  Dr. Alan Kemp

  Shreeveport

  828

  Simon Thorpe Consultancy

  Hoskyns Group plc

  Prime Strategy Consultants

  Symonds

  Capita Management Consultancy

  Civil Service College

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Peter Burholt Consultancy Ltd.

  Lane Whittlesey Business Consultants.

  The total cost of consultancies let to date is £302,004.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the meetings his Ministers have had with representatives of the voluntary sector to discuss the impact of the reduction of the urban programme, including an account of the representations made; and what action he intends to take as a result of these representations.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have met representatives of the voluntary sector to discuss how the changes to the urban programme might affect them. I welcome the valuable work that the voluntary sector does in urban areas and I am pleased that the urban programme will be able to continue to fund voluntary sector projects that have been approved in this or previous financial years, for up to four years. The voluntary sector draws its funding from a wide range of sources and non-urban priority authorities support such groups without additional assistance from central Government.

  Forest of Dean Council
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the indebtedness of the Forest of Dean district council in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is given in the table:

  Total external debt (temporary and longer-term)

  Year End

  Forest of Dean £000

  1979–80

  20,000

  1980–81

  22,000

  1981–82

  22,000

  1982–83

  21,000

  1983–84

  26,000

  1984–85

  31,000

  1985–86

  31,000

  1986–87

  25,635

  1987–88

  22,872

  1988–89

  26,777

  1989–90

  26,653

  1990–91

  31,334

  1991–92

  30,523

  Figures for 1985–86 and earlier have been rounded to the nearest £100,000

  Source:

  1979–81 CIPFA Return of Outstanding Debt.

  1981–90 CIPFA Capital Expenditure and Debt Financing Statistics.

  1990–92 Local authority returns and PWLB.

  Local Government Debts, Essex
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the indebtedness of Essex county council, Colchester borough council and Maldon district council in each year since 1980.
  829
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is given in the table:

  Total external debt (temporary and longer-term)

  Year end

  Essex £000

  Colchester £000

  Maldon £000

  1979–80

  85,000

  44,000

  13,000

  1980–81

  48,000

  46,000

  13,000

  1981–82

  44,000

  44,000

  12,000

  1982–83

  51,000

  41,000

  10,000

  1983–84

  41,000

  42,000

  n/a

  1984–85

  70,000

  49,000

  10,000

  1985–86

  62,000

  44,000

  9,000

  1986–87

  86,420

  39,365

  6,791

  1987–88

  103,465

  34,655

  4,703

  1988–89

  113,466

  36,512

  2,707

  1989–90

  128,411

  46,246

  5,393

  1990–91

  131,130

  47,890

  8,269

  1991–92

  172,424

  50,444

  8,624

  Notes:

  Figures for 1985–86 and earlier have been rounded to the nearest £100,000

  Source: 1979–81 CIPFA Return of Outstanding Debt.

  1981–90 CIPFA Capital Expenditure and Debt Financing Statistics

  1990–92 Local authority returns and PWLB.

  Local Government Debts
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish a table showing the indebtedness of each district authority in ascending order;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the indebtedness of each county authority in ascending order.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have today placed the information requested about the outstanding debt of county and district councils in the Library of the House.

  Community Charge
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people registered for the community charge became liable to pay the charge as a result of attaining the age of 18 years after 31 March 1992.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Individual community charge registration officers hold information about charge payers; there are no central records.

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the community charge reduction scheme to people registered who became liable to pay on reaching 18 years of age after 31 March 1992.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None.

  Refugees (Local Authorities)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources, additional to standard spending assessment provision, will be made available to local authorities providing support to refugees of former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Details of the financial assistance in respect of 1992–93 which will be available to those local authorities most affected by the influx of displaced persons from the former Yugoslavia are set out in the Special Grant Report (No. 5) which was approved by the House 830
  on 3 February 1993. A further Special Grant Report incorporating details of a scheme of financial assistance for the financial year 1993–94 will be laid in due course.

  Oil Spillages
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish an advisory team to collate information on oil spill impact on the environment and pursue research into control and prevention measures.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on oil spills and discharges throughout the north-east Atlantic is collected and evaluated by the Paris Commission, in which Department of the Environment officials play a full part. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced an ecological steering group to consider what lessons are to be learnt and what research is suggested by the MV Braer incident.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 522, if he will place in the Library the information subsequent to the 1981 census which was used to amend the criteria for urban areas eligible to apply for city challenge.

  Mr. Howard
  Information on unemployment levels and derelict land was used to inform the selection of urban priority areas subsequent to the 1981 census. Both sets of information were published; unemployment data in the regular statistical series from the Department of Employment and derelict land from the Department of the Environment's survey—"Survey of Derelict Land in England 1982, DOE 1984".

  Transfers of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has issued to Cherwell district council and Hampshire county council on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No guidance on the application of the regulations has been issued to either authority. My Department has, however, made clear in correspondence with Cherwell district council and with the local authority associations that in its view the regulations will not normally apply to the straightforward contracting out of local authority services in consideration of a fee. It is accepted that the regulations may apply in certain circumstances where the arrangements entered into with a contractor are more complicated, but any local authority which attempts to structure a contract to ensure that the regulations apply, or insists that contractors tender on the basis that they apply, may be guilty of anti-competitive behaviour and thus risk sanctions imposed by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Urban Partnership Fund
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities will receive assistance from the urban partnership fund; and if he will make a statement on the progress of the capital partnership programme.
  831
  Mr. Howard
  There has been an enthusiastic response to our invitation to the 57 urban priority authorities to bid for a share of the £20 million urban partnership fund element of capital partnership. I am pleased to announce offers of support to these local authorities and their partners:Birmingham, Bolton, Brent, Bristol, Burnley, Coventry, Derby, Doncaster, Dudley, Gateshead, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Hartlepool, Hull, Islington, Kirklees, Knowsley, Leeds, Leicester, Lambeth, Langbaurgh, Liverpool, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Newham, North Tyneside, Nottingham, Oldham, Plymouth, Preston, Rochdale, Rotherham, Salford, Sandwell, Sefton, Sheffield, South Tyneside, Southwark, Stockton, Sunderland, Wandsworth, Wigan, Wirral, Wolverhampton.

  Along with support from the fund, the authorities will make use of about £33 million capital receipts and, taken together, the projects are estimated to lever in over £130 million of private sector resources. The projects will provide a major boost to regeneration activity and continue the partnership approach to renewal which is a central feature of Government inner cities initiatives and crucial to achieving lasting regeneration.

  A wide range of project proposals to benefit urban areas and their communities were submitted. Those selected were the ones which best met the criteria. These include: whether the proposals address the needs of local people and business in the area; whether they complement other activity in the area; and value for money, including whether they lever in resources which might otherwise not be available for renewal of the area.

  Each authority has today been notified of the outcome of its bid. Authorities whose bids were not successful, due to the heavy demand on the funds available, will naturally be disappointed. We hope that at least some elements of the proposals can be taken forward using their capital receipts.

  A full list list of proposed projects has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The urban partnership fund is only the first of a number of components of capital partnership for which successful bids will be announced. The others are:
  Housing Partnership, including the Housing Partnership Fund; Environmental Partnership, including programmes for recycling, waste management, contaminated land and landfill gas; and Countryside Partnership, covering programmes of the Rural Development Commission and Countryside Commission.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what public appointments he has made since 1 November 1992; and what information he has on the political affiliations of those appointed.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend is responsible for a total of over 800 public appointments. A total of 114 appointments, including reappointments, to 21 public bodies have been made since 1 November 1992. We do not routinely collect information on the political affiliations of those appointed, although sometimes this information is already in the public domain. The readily available information about the public appointments for which my right hon. Friend is responsible is published regularly in "Public Bodies".

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with his EC counterparts about the level of(a) Italian Government intervention in support of Fiat and (b) French Government support of Renault.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government have consistently drawn to the attention of the Commission cases involving alleged unfair state aid in the vehicles sector. The Commission's investigations have included reviews of state support for Fiat and Renault and have resulted in legally binding decisions on the level of aid permissible.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will outline the research undertaken by his Department to date on(a) the quality and (b) pollution levels occuring when burning (i) deep-mined coal produced within the United Kingdom coalfields, (ii) open-cast coal produced within the United Kingdom, (iii) deep-mined coal from each country that exports coal into the United Kingdom and (iv) open-cast coal from each country that exports coal to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  The key aim for Government support for clean coal technology research over the past few years has been to ensure that coal can achieve its full economic potential in contributing to United Kingdom energy supply taking account of the increasing severe environmental constraints. Although our programme has focused on improving the quality and reducing the pollution levels of using United Kingdom coals, much of the research would be applicable to deep mine and opencast coal from both the United Kingdom and overseas.

  The present programme is funding a portfolio of 56 projects with a value of over £114 million. Many of these projects are collaborative projects undertaken in partnership with United Kingdom industry, universities, British Coal, and overseas organisations under the auspices of the European Commission and International Energy Agency. Most of this expenditure is funding research on advanced power generation such as British Coal's topping cycle technology, alternative uses of coal—for example, British Coal's coal liquefaction project at Point of Ayr, North Wales—and coal science research with universities and United Kingdom industry.

  A wide range of reports on coal quality, emissions, and technologies applicable to both United Kingdom and overseas coals are published by IEA Coal Research which forms one of the projects supported by my Department. A list of its publications are in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what total funding for clean coal technology, including funding by the International Energy Association, has been given in the United Kingdom for each year since 1985; and what comparable information he has for Japan and the United States of America.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The International Energy Agency does not provide funds of its own, but encourages voluntary collaborative arrangements between member countries who contribute funds to a number of agreements including those based on clean coal technologies. Figures for the distribution of such

  833
  funds among member countries are not readily available and I cannot add any further financial information to my previous reply in the Official Report, column 206 on 3 February 1993. The United Kingdom has, however, participated in most of the coal-related IEA agreements.

  Wave Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what change his Department has made in the method of calculating the cost of wave power since the report of the energy technology support unit (ETSU-R-26) on wave energy in 1985.

  Mr. Eggar
  The method of calculating the cost of wave power as part of the 1992 review of wave energy is detailed in ETSU report R-72, "A Review of Wave Energy", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Disabled Employees
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of employees in his Department are registered disabled.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 1 July 1992, the latest date for which information is readily available, 1·0 per cent. of the Department's employees were registered as disabled.

  The Department also employs a number of people who are known to be disabled but have chosen not to register.

  Japanese Investment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry in relation to flows of Japanese investment in manufacturing industry into each European Community country.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: My colleagues and I hold regular meetings with the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry. Our discussions on Japanese manufacturing investment are of a bilateral nature only.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people are directly or indirectly employed in the coal mining industry(a) in Scotland and (b) in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest available estimates of employees in employment show that there were 63,000 employees in the coal extraction and manufacture of solid fuels industry in the United Kingdom in September 1992. More detailed estimates are available only from the census of employment. The latest results relate to September 1989 and are as follows:

  Employees in employment

  Coal extraction and manufacture of solid fuels

  Of which Deep coal mines

  Scotland

  3,400

  2,400

  United Kingdom

  96,000

  88,700

  Note: Estimates for 1991 will be published in April 1993.
  834
  The Department has no figures for people indirectly employed in any industry.

  Ship Building
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many engineering apprenticeships were available in the United Kingdom ship building industry in(a) 1974, (b) 1979 and (c) 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information relating specifically to the number of engineering apprenticeships available in the shipbuilding industry for the years 1974, 1979 and 1992 is not available.

PRIME MINISTER

  Pay Review Bodies
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest reports of the pay review bodies.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1993 reports of the review bodies on the pay of nursing staff, midwives and health visitors, the professions allied to medicine, the armed forces, and school teachers have now been published. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The Government are grateful to the members of the review bodies for the time and care which they have put into the preparation of the reports.

  In November the Government announced that public sector pay settlements in the coming year would be restricted to a range of 0 to 1·5 per cent. In line with the approach to public sector pay restraint, the groups covered by the Doctors and Dentists Review Body, the Nurses Pay Review Body and the Armed Forces Pay Review Body would receive an increase in pay of 1·5 per cent. from 1 April 1993. These review bodies were, however, invited by the Government to continue work on other specific issues and consider their position on performance pay, as appropriate to their remit groups.

  In accordance with this earlier statement, the Government will pay increases of 1·5 per cent. to doctors and dentists, nursing staff, midwives and health visitors, professions allied to medicine and the armed forces with effect from 1 April 1993.

  The School Teachers Review Body had previously been directed to report on school teachers' pay and conditions in 1993–94. The Secretary of State for Education directed it to have regard to the Government's general approach to public sector pay restraint.

  The School Teachers Review Body has recommended an across the board increase of 1 per cent. from 1 April 1993 together with restructuring of classroom teachers' pay effective from 1 September 1993. The recommendations would cost a total of 1·5 per cent. in the financial year 1993–94 and an additional 0·35 per cent. in the following year. The Government therefore propose to reduce the across-the-board increase for qualified classroom teachers at 1 April to 0·55 per cent., but to make a one-off payment of £90 to those teachers on 1 May 1993. This, together with the implementation of restructuring designed to develop the relationship between pay and performance in schools, will give teachers, like most other review body groups, an increase in pay of 1·5 per cent. whilst containing the total cost within the settlement limit. Head and deputy head teachers will, as recommended by the review body, receive an increase of 1 per cent. on 1 April.
  835
  The Top Salaries Review Body did not report this year. In common with Ministers and Members of Parliament, Top Salaries Review Body groups will receive no pay increase in respect of 1993. The Government will honour their commitment to pay the deferred second stage of the 1992 award, under which these groups will receive an increase of 2.9 per cent. from 1 April 1993.

  The Doctors and Dentists Review Body also decided not to report this year, but recommended an increase in the number of distinction awards for consultant medical and dental staff. The Nurses Pay Review Body and Armed Forces Pay Review Body also produced a number of recommendations. The Government have accepted all of these recommendations.

  The Government are also committed under the citizens charter to establishing a regular and direct link between a person's contribution to the quality of services and his or her reward. The review bodies have therefore been asked to consider the longer-term development of performance pay which will make this a reality.

  The table shows the increases for each group, and their cost.

  Review body

  Pay bill increase 1993–941 Per cent.

  Public expenditure expenditure cost £ million

  Doctors and dentists (DDRB)2

  1·5

  3 461

  Nurses and allied professions (NAPRB)2 nurses and midwives

  1·5

  3114

  professions allied to medicine (PAMs)

  1·5

  312

  Armed forces (AFPRB)5

  1·5

  85

  School teachers (STRB)6

  1·5

  7157

  1 Percentages by which the awards would increase the estimated 1993–94 pay bill.

  2 Great Britain. Northern Ireland health service pay normally follows Great Britain but is decided separately.

  3 Includes cost of staff in NHS Trusts.

  4 Figures exclude general medical practitioners' expenses which are subject to negotiation.

  5 United Kingdom.

  6 England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate pay regimes for school teachers.

  7 Does not include any consequential increases in the paybill of sixth form colleges becoming Further Education Corporations on 1 April.

  The cost of implementing these increases will be met from within the public expenditure planning totals published in the autumn statement.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what incentives he proposes to give councils to strengthen the numbers of staff engaged in the detection of housing benefit fraud; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 12 November a number of measures to encourage local authorities to bear down on housing benefit fraud. From April this year, the level of benefit subsidy for housing benefit fraudulent overpayments will be increased from 25 per cent. to full rate 95 per cent. It is also proposed to allow local authorities to share in any weekly benefit savings above a specified level and 836
  generated through their anti-fraud efforts. These savings will be paid through the administrative subsidy arrangements.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to refund councils involved in the detection of housing benefit fraud their legitimate overhead costs, legal expenses and any other sums not recompensed by recovery from those convicted of fraud and conspiracy to defraud that council.

  Mr. Burt
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under present arrangements, there is no specific element in central Government funding, including the amount paid for administration subsidy by the Department, to cover those costs. However, under proposed arrangements from April 1993, authorities will be able to share in any weekly benefit savings, above a specified level, which their fraud staff generate.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners had an income of less than £5,000 a year, at the latest available date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [pursuant to her reply, 11 January 1993, c. 675]: The following information was incorrect.
  'It is estimated1 that 61 per cent. of single pensioners2 had an income of less than £5,000 per year in 1988 (the latest available date).'

  The correct information is as follows:
  'It is estimated1 that 61 per cent. of pensioners2 had an income of less than £5,000 per year in 1988 (the latest available date)'.

  Notes:
  1 Family Expenditure Survey 1988.
  2 Based on pensioner units—ie single people over state pension age and couples where the husband is aged 65 or over, regardless of whether they are drawing state pension.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Mohd Khalil
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision will be taken on an application made to the British post in Islamabad by Mr. Mohd Khalil (Ref. IMM/B4131) to join his wife in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lenox-Boyd
  A decision was made by the British high commission in Islamabad on 28 September 1992 to refuse entry clearance to Mr. Mohammed Khalil as the entry clearance officer was not satisfied, as he is required to be under the immigration rules, that the primary purpose of the marriage was not to gain entry to the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the ECO was not satisfied that there was adequate support and accommodation available for Mr. Khalil in the United Kingdom without recourse to public funds.

  Due to an administrative error, the formal notice of refusal was not sent to Mr. Khalil, but the ECO will now shortly do so. Any inconvenience this may have caused to Mr. Khalil is regretted.

  Ministers of Religion
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many complaints were received by the British post in Islamabad before 1989 from
  837
  those applying for entry clearance to settle in the United Kingdom or to visit the United Kingdom concerning priority entry clearance procedures being applied to ministers of religion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1989 many complaints were received by the post in Islamabad from sponsors and Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom about the waiting time for interviews for members of families seeking to join heads of households settled in the United Kingdom. The numbers of complaints was not recorded.

  In order to give priority to family reunification cases, the queues were reorganised. As part of that exercise ministers of religion were reallocated from Q1 to Q3. This is the correct queue for applicants wishing to remain in the United Kingdom for more than six months other than those qualifying for Q1; those with a right of abode; applicants with a prima facie claim to British citizenship; aged dependents over 70; compassionate cases; Q2, spouses and dependent children under 18; and Q4, reapplicants.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ministers of religion have applied for visas to enter the United Kingdom at British overseas posts in each year since 1987; and how many were(a) granted and (b) refused.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested could not be provided except at disproportionate expense. The records since 1987 would need to be checked manually at 156 posts worldwide.

  Muslim Women (Rape)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence is being collated by Her Majesty's Government over the systematic rape of Muslim women in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is collecting a large body of information about alleged breaches of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia, including information about the sexual abuse of women. We propose to submit any substantiated evidence to the United Nations Secretary-General.

  Mr. Salman Rushdie
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent meeting between the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Grantham, and Mr. Salman Rushdie.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My meeting on 4 February was a significant step in raising the profile of Mr. Rushdie's continuing plight. It is almost four years since Ayatollah Khomeini issued his death threat against him. In the face of the continued threat to Mr. Rushdie and recent statements by senior figures in Iran, it was right to demonstrate our support by holding the meeting.

  I brought Mr. Rushdie up to date on our continuing efforts to resolve the problem of the fatwa and our decision to raise our profile and encourage international leaders and organisations to rally behind his cause. I reassured Mr. Rushdie that we remained greatly concerned by the
  838
  continuing failure of the Iranian authorities to repudiate the incitement to murder and the bounty offered in that respect by an Iranian organisation. This failure inevitably prevents the establishment of full and friendly relations with Iran.

  Secret Intelligence Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest estimate of the cost of modifications to the new secret intelligence service headquarters building; if he will categorise that expenditure with amounts; and what proportion the cost of modifications bears to the cost of construction.

  Mr. Hurd
  The latest estimate of the total cost of the new secret intelligence service headquarters is £236 million. The cost of the site and original construction was some £150 million and completion costs including fitting out and equipping the building are likely to be a further £86 million. Part of the cost relates to the specialised nature of the secret intelligence service's requirements. It is not usual or sensible to comment further on matters of this nature.

  Overseas Missions
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many tennis courts are attached to British missions abroad; how many have been built in the last 10 years; at what cost to the taxpayer; and what is the monthly maintenance cost.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: There are 81 tennis courts at Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts overseas. Eleven courts have been constructed in the past 10 years, at a total cost of about £225,000. The estimated monthly maintenance cost of an average tennis court is about £50.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many swimming pools are attached to British missions abroad; how many have been built in the last 10 years; at what cost to the taxpayer; and what is the monthly maintenance cost.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: There are 135 swimming pools at Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts overseas. Twenty swimming pools have been built in the last 10 years, at a total cost of about £750,000. The estimated monthly maintenance cost of an average pool is about £200.

SCOTLAND

  Castle Fraser Estates
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide extra funds for Scottish Homes under the rural housing initiative to accommodate tenants to be evicted by Castle Fraser Estates; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No, Scottish Homes' total resources for 1993–94 already allow for a significant increase of 9 per cent. over its original programme for 1992–93. It is for Scottish Homes to decide on the relative
  839
  priority of particular projects within its programme. The responsibility for dealing with any individuals who become homeless rests with local authorities which have a duty in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to provide advice and assistance to people in their area who become homeless.

  Tied House Tenants
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce legal protection for long-standing tenants of tied houses on estates; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  These tenancies are private arrangements between the tenants and their employers, and the conditions of tenure are known to the tenants when they enter into their contract of employment. However, tied tenants cannot be removed from their homes without a court order.

  Drug Prescribing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the savings achieved in Scotland in each of the seven therapeutic categories covered by the limited list regulations of 1985 in each of the years 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991; and what were the total savings achieved in each year.

  Mr. Stewart
  In 1985–86, the first year of its operation, the selected list scheme saved £8.1 million on the Scottish NHS drugs bill. The savings in each of the therapeutic categories within the scheme were as follows:

  £ thousands

  Analgesics for mild to moderate pain

  2,400

  Antacids

  465

  Benzodiazepine tranquillisers and sedatives

  1,995

  Cough and cold remedies

  2,301

  Laxatives

  105

  Ingredient cost of prescriptions dispensed in the community

  £ million

  Health Board

  1991–92

  1990–91

  1989–90

  1988–89

  1987–88

  1986–87

  1985–86

  Argyll and Clyde

  26·47

  23·54

  21·31

  19·09

  16·93

  15·34

  13·70

  Ayrshire and Arran

  23·98

  21·47

  19·54

  17·25

  15·41

  13·98

  12·45

  Borders

  5·82

  5·21

  4·76

  4·28

  3·85

  3·49

  3·12

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8·70

  7·61

  6·84

  6·02

  5·39

  4·98

  4·40

  Fife

  18·25

  16·32

  14·80

  13·10

  11·50

  10·58

  9·40

  Forth Valley

  15·83

  13·74

  12·29

  10·94

  9·69

  8·82

  7·93

  Grampian

  24·00

  21·36

  19·36

  17·40

  15·48

  13·95

  12·57

  Greater Glasgow

  54·64

  48·79

  44·50

  39·54

  35·45

  32·21

  28·84

  Highland

  10·19

  8·97

  7·99

  6·98

  6·13

  5·49

  4·84

  Lanark

  35·03

  30·99

  28·24

  24·99

  21·99

  19·82

  17·62

  Lothians

  38·42

  34·48

  31·68

  28·51

  25·66

  23·27

  20·75

  Orkney

  0·93

  0·82

  0·72

  0·64

  0·59

  0·54

  0·50

  Shetland

  0·94

  0·85

  0·75

  0·66

  0·60

  0·54

  0·48

  Tayside

  24·33

  21·68

  19·47

  17·28

  14·92

  13·35

  11·85

  Western Isles

  1·37

  1·26

  1·17

  1·03

  0·95

  0·87

  0·77

  Scotland

  288·91

  257·09

  233·42

  207·70

  184·54

  167·23

  149·22

  Ingredient cost supplied to hospitals

  £ million

  Health Board

  1991–92

  1990–91

  1989–90

  1988–89

  1987–88

  1986–87

  1985–86

  Argyll and Clyde

  3·59

  2·79

  2·64

  2·29

  2·03

  1·59

  1·63

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2·95

  2·36

  2·01

  1·75

  1·66

  1·44

  1·40

  Borders

  0·73

  0·62

  0·59

  0·43

  0·33

  0·29

  0·30

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1·35

  0·99

  0·88

  0·74

  0·70

  0·60

  0·53

  840

  £ thousands

  Tonics and bitters

  35

  Vitamins

  772

  It is not possible to make meaningful estimates for subsequent years, but we have no reason to doubt that significant savings will continue to be made·

  Mrs· Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prescription items per person in Scotland there have been each year since 1985·

  Mr· Stewart
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: From the Scottish health service statistics the number of prescription items per person in each year since 1985 has been:

  Year

  Number

  1985

  6·96

  1986–87

  7·04

  1988

  7·33

  1989

  7·59

  1990

  8·00

  1991

  8·22

  1992

  8·63

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the general practitioners drugs bill in Scotland has been each year since 1985; if he will provide a breakdown by health board; and what has been(a) the expenditure on NHS medicines and (b) the total NHS drugs bill in Scotland in each year.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer of 9 February 1993]: The following are the cost of drugs dispensed in the community by health boards for each year since 1985 and the cost of drugs supplied to hospitals for the same years. Over 99 per cent. of the costs for drugs dispensed in the community relate to prescribing by GPs.
  841

  Health Board

  1991–92

  1990–91

  1989–90

  1988–89

  1987–88

  1986–87

  1985–86

  Fife

  2·42

  2·09

  1·91

  1·69

  1·53

  1·36

  1·20

  Forth Valley

  2·24

  1·97

  1·82

  1·61

  1·53

  1·45

  1·27

  Grampian

  5·15

  4·60

  4·23

  3·86

  3·42

  3·11

  2·75

  Greater Glasgow

  14·66

  13·34

  12·27

  16·70

  10·05

  9·52

  9·52

  Highland

  1·58

  1·47

  1·22

  1·07

  1·02

  0·87

  0·74

  Lanarkshire

  4·47

  4·24

  3·88

  3·47

  3·08

  2·86

  2·74

  Lothian

  9·60

  8·80

  8·79

  7·70

  6·79

  6·24

  5·98

  Orkney

  0·10

  0·08

  0·08

  0·07

  0·08

  0·06

  0·06

  Shetland

  0·12

  0·12

  0·09

  0·09

  0·08

  0·07

  0·08

  Tayside

  5·44

  4·72

  4·19

  3·97

  3·68

  3·04

  3·02

  Western Isles

  0·20

  0·11

  0·15

  0·12

  0·11

  0·10

  0·09

  Scotland

  54·60

  48·30

  44·75

  45·56

  36·09

  32·60

  31·31

  Scotland—community and hospital

  343·51

  305·39

  278·17

  253·26

  220·63

  199·83

  180·53

  Holyrood House (Entrance Fees)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of the entrance fees for Holyrood house for the latest year for which figures are available; and to what purposes the revenues are applied.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the presentation of the Palace of Holyrood house to the public. The amount collected in entrance fees, which is directed towards the administrative and conservation costs of the royal collection, is a matter for the director of the royal collection, to whom the hon. Member may wish to write.

  Tourism
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department has taken to implement the recommendations of "Tourism in the UK: Realising the Potential" as it applies to his Department's responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In respect of the tourism issues relating to Scotland, the following action has been taken. The work of the task forces charged with improving arrangements for training in the tourist industry, developing arts-based tourism and implementing environmental tourism management schemes have been advanced. A new initiative to help tourists with disabilities has been launched. The Scottish tourist board has fully committed itself to the principles of the citizens charter. In addition, we have set in train a fundamental review of the structure of arrangements under which support is provided to the industry.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of the construction of the bridge to Skye what changes have been made relevant to the planning inquiry to(a) the design of the secondary bridge, (b) the route of the approach road and (c) the construction of the prefabrication plant on the Plock of Kyle; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The changes made relevant to the public local inquiry held into the Skye bridge in early 1992 were:(a) the design of the secondary
  842
  bridge was confirmed as a cast in-situ single spine beam deck launched incrementally on to single elliptical piers; and (b) the level of the approach road was lowered in front of Lochalsh road. The reporter was advised and took into consideration (a) and (b) before making her recommendation to the Secretary of State. This information therefore formed part of the inquiry and decision-making process.

  The method of construction of the secondary bridge requires a temporary facility, to launch incrementally the deck of the bridge. The "cast and push" facility is contained within the boundaries of the confirmed road line and is a matter of construction for the contractor.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many suckler cow premium application forms were processed during each month of 1992; and what was(a) the shortest period and (b) the longest period to elapse between receipt of the application and payment of the claim.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]: The number of suckler cow premium applications processed for payment during each month of 1992 is set out in the following table. The information on the shortest and longest periods between receipt of application and payment of claim is not available and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  1992

  Number of claims processed

  January

  1,075

  February

  777

  March

  233

  April

  134

  May

  31

  June

  39

  July

  0

  August

  594

  September

  2,253

  October

  1,834

  November

  1,305

  December

  1,709

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many late applications were received for suckler cow premium in respect of 1990 and 1991; and how many of these were(a) paid in full, (b) paid in part and (c) refused.
  843
  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]: Under the 1990 suckler cow premium scheme a total of 80 late applications were received. All these were received between the closing date of 31 January 1991 and 14 February 1991, thereby qualifying for the 70 per cent. of premium specified by the European Community rules of the scheme.

  Under the 1991 scheme a total of 67 late applications were received. Of these 62 were received between 31 January 1992 and 14 February 1992, qualifying for a 70 per cent. rate of premium. Five claims received after 14 February 1992 were refused as required by the rules of the scheme.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many late applications for suckler cow premium in respect of 1992 he has received to date.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]: A total of 101 applications have been received since 15 December 1992, the closing date for the 1992 suckler cow premium scheme.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations and discussions he has had about the continuation of the less favoured areas supplement to the suckler cow premium; and what plans he has to continue the less favoured areas supplement to the suckler cow premium.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: I announced on 12 November 1992 that the rate of suckler cow premium from 1993 onwards would be limited to that part of the premium which is entirely funded by the European Community. In 1993 the rate will be £65·73, which represents an increase of 10 per cent. on the rate currently payable in the less-favoured areas.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the beef special premium in each year since 1979; and what was the less favoured areas supplement to the suckler cow premium in each year since 1990.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer of 9 February 1993]: The beef special premium scheme commenced in the United Kingdom in April 1989. Throughout the period 2 April 1989 to 31 December 1992 the premium was 40 ecu, but the amount paid to farmers varied with the value of the green pound on the date of receipt of their claims. The beef special premium increased to 60 ecu on 1 January 1993. The sterling value of the premium since its introduction is shown in the following table:

  Date of Change

  Rate £

  2 April 1989

  28.42

  1 May 1989

  29.19

  11 January 1990

  29.32

  14 May 1990

  31.81

  17 June 1991

  31.82

  17 September 1992

  32.33

  22 September 1992

  32.76

  19 November 1992

  35.22

  26 November 1992

  35.90

  1 January 1993

  56.34

  844
  The LFA supplement to the suckler cow premium was £4·26 in each year from 1990 to 1992.

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to amend section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 so as to substitute the age of 16 for the age of 21 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to amend section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has, following the issue of Crown Office circular No. 2025/1, on 20 December 1991, to amend the law relating to offences listed under statute or under common law; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to amend the law in this area.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on his prosecution policy in relation to prosecution of offences under section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, and similar offences under the common law.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Prosecution policy is a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. A review of prosecution policy in relation to such offences which was instructed by the Lord Advocate in December 1991 is continuing.

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what account he has taken of research by the Law Society of Scotland into the differing levels of remuneration for civil legal aid work by solicitors in(a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales in assessing proposed changes to legal advice and assistance in civil legal aid in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has considered the comparisons made on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland in November 1990. These comparisons are not, however, directly relevant to the proposed changes to eligibility for advice and assistance and civil legal aid. Legal aid fees in Scotland are set to take account of the circumstances of the Scottish legal and legal aid systems.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the cost of administration of the civil legal aid system by the Scottish Legal Aid Board for each financial year since 1987–88; and if he will show this as a percentage of the net payments from the civil legal aid fund in respect of each year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:
  845

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Administrative costs for civil legal aid

  2·915

  3·138

  3·479

  3·796

  3·850

  Net civil legal aid payments

  11·694

  11·379

  10·769

  11·715

  12·343

  Administrative costs as a percentage of net civil legal aid payments

  24·400

  27·600

  32·300

  32·400

  31·200

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in each of the past five years his permission has been sought prior to legal proceedings being instituted by the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. There is no statutory requirement for the Scottish Legal Aid Board to obtain my right hon. Friend's permission before instituting legal proceedings.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number and source of representations he has received from the individual members or committees of the Scottish Legal Aid Board in relation to changes to legal advice and assistance and to civil legal aid to be instituted on 1 April.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations from individual

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1 1992–93

  2 1992–93

  Gross civil legal aid payments

  15·697

  15·273

  14·729

  15·679

  16·581

  20·535

  23·449

  Gross civil legal aid payments adjusted to a 1987–88 base of 100

  15·697

  14·237

  12·883

  12·699

  12·562

  14·924

  17·041

  1 Actual to January 1993.

  2 Estimate.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the net sum met from civil legal aid in each financial year since 1987–88 after deducting from gross payments those amounts recovered.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table.

  Net civil legal aid payments

  £ million

  1987–88

  11·964

  1988–89

  11·379

  1989–90

  10·769

  1990–91

  11·715

  1991–92

  12·343

  MV Braer
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the aftermath of the grounding of the MV "Braer".

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 3 February 1993]: Follow-up action to the Shetland oil spill received the highest priority. The Government's bridging fund for businesses facing economic hardship is now in place; the health survey of people living in the vicinity has started; the remit and chairman, Professor William Ritchie, of the ecological steering group have been announced and the remaining membership will be shortly; and the fishery exclusion zone has been extended. The Government will continue to ensure that all necessary steps are taken.
  846
  members of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. The board itself and its legal aid committee submitted advice to my right hon. Friend on the proposed changes to eligibility for advice and assistance.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the gross payments for civil legal aid in each financial year since 1987–88; and if he will show each year's figure in real terms, using 1987–88 at base 100.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table shows(a) the gross expenditure on civil legal aid in each year since 1987–88, including actual expenditure in 1992–93 to January 1993 and estimated expenditure for the full year 1992–93; and (b) the same figures revalued where appropriate in line with the GDP deflator and expressed on a 1987–88 base of 100.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) business frauds, (b) cheque, credit and cash card frauds, (c) thefts from companies, (d) thefts from employees, (e) offences of shoplifting, (f) offences of vandalism against business and (g) assaults at the workplace were committed (i) in Scotland and (ii) in each police force area in 1991.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: The only available information collected centrally is given in the table.

  Number of cases of theft by shoplifting recorded by the police in Scotland, 1991

  Police force

  Number

  Northern

  905

  Grampian

  2,329

  Tayside

  2,918

  Fife

  1,064

  Lothian and Borders

  5,750

  Central

  1,723

  Strathclyde

  14,862

  Dumfries and Galloway

  547

  Scotland

  30,098

  Scottish Record Office
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future organisation of the Scottish Record Office.
  847
  Mr. Lang
  I have decided that, under the next steps initiative, the Scottish Record Office should be considered for executive agency status.

  Sports Council
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, on a parliamentary constituency basis, all the projects in which the Scottish Sports Council has made a financial contribution in the current year and for the years 1991–92 and 1990–91.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Muir Russell
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how often Mr. Muir Russell of his Department has met representatives of Stagecoach Holdings plc, in connection with his official duties, in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lang
  Prior to the first discussion of his possible appointment as a non-executive director, which was held on 1 December 1992, Mr. Russell had no meetings with representatives of Stagecoach Holdings plc.

  Under-age Drinking
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to deal with under-age drinking in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Scotland Act 1990 prohibited the unsupervised sale of alcoholic liquor by under-age persons; required the sale of alcoholic liquor in wholesale quantities by under-age persons to be specifically authorised by responsible adults; and made it an offence to sell alcohol by wholesale to an under-age person. These provisions complemented existing legislation under which it is an offence for a licensee to allow a person under 18 to consume liquor in a bar and for alcoholic liquor to be sold to people under 18 or to be purchased on their behalf. The impact of experimental byelaws prohibiting drinking in public places in parts of Motherwell, Dundee and Galashiels is currently being assessed. If found to be effective my right hon. Friend will consider applications for the introduction of similar byelaws elsewhere.

  The Government encourage schools to tackle alcohol education. Two conferences for student teachers were held in Scotland last year to increase teachers' awareness of the levels of alcohol misuse among young people and the ways in which alcohol education can be integrated into the school curriculum.

  Much of the work of the Health Education Board for Scotland focuses on the young drinker. Further initiatives, bearing particularly on young people, are envisaged for 1993–94.

  National Portrait Gallery
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to intervene in the proposed closure of the Scottish national portrait gallery; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received on the importance of the Scottish national portrait gallery as a scholarly resource and to Scottish life; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: When the trustees of the National Galleries of Scotland first announced, in August 1991, that they wished to establish a gallery of Scottish art, one member of the public wrote to my right hon. Friend expressing concern that such a proposal could lead to the demise of the Scottish national portrait gallery.

  My right hon. Friend has not received from the trustees a firm and costed proposal for a Scottish gallery and has given no commitment to funding for such a proposal. The trustees have been specifically asked to examine the effect of the proposed gallery on the existing grouping of the national collections and on the buildings in which these are currently housed.

  Severely Disadvantaged Areas
  Dr, Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many regular full-time hired farm workers are employed on farm holdings in the severely disadvantaged areas according to the most recent figures for each year since 1978.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: Figures for severely disadvantaged areas are not readily available. However, the employment information requested for holdings within the Scottish less-favoured areas is set out in the table below. Information for the years prior to 1982 is not available.

  Number

  1982

  10,109

  1983

  9,993

  1984

  9,544

  1985

  9,393

  1986

  8,607

  1987

  8,133

  1988

  7,855

  1989

  7,609

  1990

  7,264

  1991

  6,916

  1992

  6,658

  Source: Scottish June Agricultural Census. Figures are hired male and female full time regular staff who are not members of the occupier's family.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the level of indebtedness among mostly sheep farmers and sheep and beef farmers, respectively, in the severely disadvantaged areas for each year since 1978.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: The information requested is set out in the table. Figures are available only since 1986–87.
  849

  LFA mainly sheep farms

  LFA sheep and cattle farms

  Total1 liabilities

  Total liabilities as a percentage of total assets2

  Total1 liabilities

  Total liabilities as a percentage of total assets2

  £ per farm

  £ per farm

  1986–87

  19,000

  13·5

  32,000

  16·8

  1987–88

  21,000

  12·7

  36,000

  18·1

  1988–89

  16,000

  10·5

  33,000

  15·1

  1989–90

  18,000

  10·6

  35,000

  16·7

  1990–91

  22,000

  13·3

  34,000

  15·7

  1991–92

  21,000

  11·6

  36,000

  16·3

  Source: Scottish Farm Accounts Scheme: Owner-occupied and tenanted farm results weighted together.

  1 Liabilities include bank loans, overdrafts and other long and short term loans.

  2 Total assets includes land and buildings, machinery, vehicles and breeding livestock, and current assets.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes there have been in the proportion of mostly sheep and sheep and beef farmers in severely disadvantaged areas in relation to the number of mostly sheep farmers and sheep and beef farmers in total for Scotland since 1978; and if he will chart the change.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: Information for severely disadvantaged areas is not readily available. The information requested comparing sheep and cattle and sheep holdings within the Scottish less-favoured areas with such holdings in Scotland as a whole is set out in the table. Information prior to 1982 is not available.

  Percentage of mainly sheep and cattle and sheep holdings in the Scottish LFA in relation to the numbers of such holdings in Scotland as a whole

  Per cent·

  1982

  60·1

  1983

  60·6

  1984

  62·8

  1985

  64·0

  1986

  69·2

  1987

  69·7

  1988

  70·1

  1989

  69·2

  1990

  68·6

  1991

  70·3

  1992

  71·5

  Source: Derived from Scottish June Agricultural Census.

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 232, how many Caledonian MacBrayne ferry routes are unprofitable; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: My right hon. Friend does not consider it desirable to indicate which Caledonian MacBrayne's routes are profitable or unprofitable or to require the company to make public commercially sensitive information about operating surpluses and deficits incurred on individual routes.

  Forestry Commission
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in support of separating the two branches of the Forestry Commission into separate organisations; and what discussions have taken place.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The House of Commons Agriculture Committee, in its report "Land Use and Forestry", published in February 1990, recommended that the Forestry Commission's forestry authority and forest enterprise functions should be divided between separate departments. The Government did not accept this recommendation, but subsequently agreed that the Forestry Commission should carry out an internal reorganisation to distinguish clearly between its functions as a Government Department and its role in managing publicly owned forests. This reorganisation took place with effect from 1 April 1992.

  The Government have since received some representations in support of splitting the two parts of the Forestry Commission into separate organisations, most notably from the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. No discussions have taken place.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public access in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England has been lost since 1981 when Forestry Commission land was sold to the private sector.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The Government have retained no direct interest in such land following its sale by the Forestry Commission and no official statistics on the provision of access by the new owners have therefore been collected.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Forestry Commission land in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England has been sold to the private sector each year since 1981; and how much money has been raised in each case.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The areas of land sold by the Forestry Commission in each year since 1981 are shown in the following table. These include woodlands and other land such as agricultural land and residential properties. The total receipts from these sales are also shown. A breakdown of the receipts by country is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  851

  Forestry Commission land sales

  Scotland

  Wales

  England

  Great Britain

  Year ended March

  (hectares)

  (hectares)

  (hectares)

  (hectares)

  Receipts (£ million)

  1982

  7,371

  1,743

  1,309

  10,423

  6·9

  1983

  8,135

  1,450

  2,523

  12,108

  14·6

  1984

  36,543

  3,347

  4,680

  44,570

  23·6

  1985

  18,359

  3,522

  6,976

  28,857

  22·1

  1986

  10,555

  3,229

  2,789

  16,573

  17·0

  1987

  6,220

  1,950

  2,786

  10,956

  14·7

  1988

  3,359

  977

  4,593

  8,929

  13·1

  1989

  4,286

  1,760

  1,629

  7,675

  12·4

  1990

  4,620

  1,242

  1,989

  7,851

  13·0

  1991

  4,754

  1,118

  1,556

  7,428

  12·0

  1992

  3,517

  1,657

  1,737

  6,911

  14·5

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken or intends to take, to introduce legislation which will ensure public access before and after Forestry Commission land is sold.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the announcement made on this subject by my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland on 21 November 1990, Official Report, columns 164–66. The Government have no plans to introduce legislation.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hectares of land the Forestry Commission has held in each of the years since 1979 in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England; and what percentage of total land this is.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The information is given in the following table:

  Year ended 31 March

  Area (hectares)

  Percentage of total land

  Scotland

  1980

  799,700

  10·4

  1981

  800,052

  10·4

  1982

  797,511

  10·3

  1983

  793,540

  10·3

  1984

  759,758

  9·9

  1985

  741,993

  9·6

  1986

  732,154

  9·5

  1987

  729,217

  9·5

  1988

  727,670

  9·4

  1989

  725,576

  9·4

  1990

  723,497

  9·4

  1991

  720,467

  9·3

  1992

  718,421

  9·3

  Wales

  1980

  160,700

  7·8

  1981

  160,674

  7·8

  1982

  158,979

  7·7

  1983

  157,699

  7·6

  1984

  154,410

  7·5

  1985

  150,901

  7·3

  1986

  147,751

  7·2

  1987

  145,306

  7·0

  1988

  144,329

  7·0

  1989

  142,654

  6·9

  1990

  141,490

  6·9

  1991

  140,299

  6·8

  1992

  138,671

  6·7

  England

  1980

  303,000

  2·3

  1981

  303,271

  2·3

  1982

  302,193

  2·3

  1983

  299,685

  2·3

  852

  Year ended 31 March

  Area (hectares)

  Percentage of total land

  1984

  295,004

  2·3

  1985

  288,080

  2·2

  1986

  285,685

  2·2

  1987

  282,031

  2·2

  1988

  277,440

  2·1

  1989

  276,026

  2·1

  1990

  274,638

  2·1

  1991

  272,157

  2·1

  1992

  270,502

  2·1

  Note:

  All the 1980 figures are rounded to the nearest 100 hectares.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many access arrangements, and how many access agreements, the Forestry Commission have made in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England in each year since 1991.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: Arrangements for securing continued public access to Forestry Commission woodlands after sale, by means of prior agreements entered into between the Commission and local authorities, were introduced in October 1991. No access agreements were completed in that year, but three were concluded in 1992, two in Wales and one in England.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hectares of(a) Forestry Commission and (b) private planting each year since 1981 in (1) Scotland, (2) Wales and (3) England have been (i) new planting of conifers, (ii) restocking of conifers, (iii) new planting of broadleaf trees and (iv) restocking of broadleaf trees.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her yesterday at column 634.

  Forestry
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what representations he has received, and what discussions he has held, in respect of increasing forestry in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England;

  (2) what plans he has for increasing forestry in (a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: I have had many representations on the need for increasing forestry in Britain. The Government made clear their support for
  "a steady expansion of tree cover to increase the many, diverse benefits that forests provide"

  853
  in a statement published in September 1991 under the title "Forestry Policy for Great Britain", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This continues to be our policy, and we shall be reviewing the effectiveness of the incentives currently available for forestry investment in accordance with the commitment we gave in our election manifesto. This review will be completed later this year.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of afforestation in Great Britain has been in Scotland each year since 1981; and how much of this has been coniferous.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The information is given in the following table.

  Year ended 31 March

  Area afforested in Scotland as percentage of area in Britain

  Area of conifers planted as percentage of total area planted in Scotland

  1982

  89

  100

  1983

  85

  99

  1984

  87

  99

  1985

  89

  99

  1986

  91

  99

  1987

  91

  97

  1988

  90

  95

  1989

  90

  93

  1990

  78

  84

  1991

  74

  80

  1992

  74

  78

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hectares of forest have been planted each year in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England without a grant from the woodland grant scheme since its introduction.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The Forestry Commission's estimates of the area of new woodlands planted without grant-aid each year since the woodland grant scheme was introduced are given in the table.

  (hectares)

  Year ended 31 March

  Scotland

  Wales

  England

  Total

  1989

  38

  22

  136

  196

  1990

  2

  4

  185

  191

  1991

  0

  3

  134

  137

  1992

  0

  4

  119

  123

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Number of applications approved

  Grants paid (£ thousand)

  Number of applications approved

  Grants paid (£ thousand)

  Number of applications approved

  Grants paid (£ thousand)

  Number of applications approved

  Grants paid (£ thousand)

  Scotland

  698

  222

  1,436

  5,026

  1,218

  6,509

  697

  6,926

  Wales

  290

  25

  348

  406

  347

  463

  283

  621

  England

  2,233

  382

  3,688

  4,773

  2,935

  6,527

  2,273

  7,048

  Total

  3,221

  629

  5,472

  10,205

  4,500

  13,499

  3,253

  14,595

  Forestry Commission (Privatisation)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to privatise the Forestry Commission; and what consultations he has held.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The Government have no plans at present to privatise the Forestry Commission.

  Fishing Nets
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the approximate cost to the Scottish Office of the recent prosecution of the owner of the Moyallan for carriage of a monofilament net.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The case has been handled through the normal procedures that exist for dealing with alleged breaches of fisheries law. It has involved a number of different officials who have spent small amounts of time over a period and for that reason it is not possible to estimate the costs involved.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's policy towards the carriage of monofilament nets in Scottish waters by fishing boats which are(a) United Kingdom-registered flag of convenience boats and (b) United Kingdom-registered in ports other than in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: Under the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Carriage of Monofilament Gill Nets) (Scotland) Order 1986 the carriage of monofilament gill nets by any British fishing boat, including United Kingdom-registered flag of convenience boats and United Kingdom boats registered in ports other than in Scotland, is prohibited in the 0 to 6 mile sea area adjacent to the coast of Scotland.

  Woodland Grant Scheme
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many grants have been paid out under the woodland grant scheme in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England; and how much this has amounted to in each of the years since 1988.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The numbers of applications approved under the woodland grant scheme in each of the last four financial years, together with the grants paid, are shown in the following table. Applications associated with the farm woodland scheme have been included, but the grants paid do not take account of any annual payments made under that scheme.

  NHS Drugs Committee
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appointees serve on the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs; and how many more seats there will be when the Committee is extended.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: There are currently 15 members on the advisory committee on NHS drugs; a further five members are being appointed.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had about extending the increase to the SAP less-favoured areas supplement after the current year; ane when the SAP less-favoured areas supplement will be paid.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: I have received no such representations. An LFA supplement of 5.5 ecu was paid to Scottish sheep producers in late summer. The further 1·5 ecu agreed by the Agriculture Council in December is expected to be paid in April 1993.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the value of hill livestock compensatory allowance payments for the forthcoming year; and what was the value of hill livestock compensatory allowance payments in each year since 1979.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The great majority of sheep and cattle which qualify for HLCAs in Scotland are located in the severely disadvantaged area of the less-favoured area. The HLCA sheep and cattle rates in the severely disadvantaged area in each year since 1979 were as set out in the following table:

  Year

  Cows £

  Upland sheep £

  Hill sheep £

  1979

  29·00

  2·85

  3·60

  1980

  35·00

  4·25

  5·50

  1981

  42·50

  4·25

  6·25

  1982

  44·50

  4·25

  6·25

  1983

  44·50

  4·25

  6·25

  1984

  44·50

  4·25

  6·25

  1985

  44·50

  4·25

  6·25

  1986

  54·50

  4·50

  6·75

  1987

  54·50

  4·50

  6·75

  1988

  54·50

  4·50

  6·75

  1989

  54·50

  4·50

  6·75

  1990

  54·50

  4·50

  7·50

  1991

  63·30

  4·90

  8·75

  1992

  63·30

  4·90

  8·75

  1993

  63·30

  3·60

  6·50

  Potatoes
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what national support schemes are planned within the proposed EC potato regime.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Holding answer 9 February 1993]: The current EC proposals for potatoes make no provision for the recognition or maintenance of national support measures.
  856
  The EC considers that potatoes should be brought within the coverage of the CAP and that a harmonised regime is necessary for completion of the single market.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the operating costs of the Potato Marketing Board in each year since 1979.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The operating costs of the Potato Marketing Board are to be found in the annual report and accounts of the board. The figures in the table, for the period 1979 to 1991, reflect the total administrative costs incurred, excluding costs of market intervention.

  Administration cost

  £ million

  1979

  3·3

  1980

  3·9

  1981

  4·8

  1982

  5·0

  1983

  5·7

  1984

  6·0

  1985

  6·9

  1986

  7·0

  1987

  7·5

  1988

  7·8

  1989

  8·2

  1990

  6·9

  1991

  9·1

  Source: PMB Annual report and accounts.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times the Government have intervened in the potato market; and what was the tonnage and cost in each year since 1979.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The Government do not intervene directly in the potato market but may pay a proportion of the cost of any intervention by the Potato Marketing Board under the provisions of the potato marketing scheme.

  It is therefore difficult to link Government expenditure to tonnage. Since 1979 Government expenditure has been as follows:

  £ million

  1981

  13·5

  1983

  0·3

  1985

  12·9

  Wool
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations and discussions he has received about retaining the British Wool Marketing Board's statutory guarantee duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: I have received representations about the ending of the wool guarantee from a number of hon. Members, from the National Farmers Union of Scotland, from the Scottish Crofters Union and from the Scottish northern regional committee of the British Wool Marketing Board.

  We announced our decision to terminate the wool guarantee in 1988. This element of direct involvement in

  857
  the wool market has outlived its usefulness, particularly in the face of EC support measures under the common agricultural policy. Sheep farmers will continue to receive very substantial Government support through ewe premium and hill livestock compensatory allowances. Scottish producers currently benefit each year by over £100 million in direct subsidies from these sources.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the British Wool Marketing Board's standard guarantee price in each year since 1979; what was the world wool price in each year since 1979; and what the income from wool has been to producers in the less favoured areas in Scotland in each year since 1979.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The guarantee price for wool in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979 is given in the table:

  Year

  Price (p/kg)

  1979

  112

  1980–83

  115

  1984

  120

  1985–89

  129

  1990

  125

  1991

  130

  1992

  117

  The price of wool on world markets varies from country to country and is influenced by factors such as demand, availability and quality. The average price achieved for British wool at auction in each year since 1979 is given in the table:

  Year

  Price (p/kg)

  1979–80

  103·20

  1980–81

  87·64

  1981–82

  101·99

  1982–83

  99·86

  1983–84

  119·91

  1984–85

  138·70

  1985–86

  112·69

  1986–87

  116·72

  1987–88

  133·87

  1988–89

  136·38

  1989–90

  109·58

  1990–91

  61·85

  1991–92

  161·08

  1 Provisional.

  Information covering the income of producers in the less-favoured areas only is not available.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations and discussions he has had with regard to maintaining the current restrictions which ensure the milk quotas on remote and island areas in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: A number of representations have been received about ring-fencing milk quotas within the remote and island areas of Scotland. The Government are considering this matter in the light of new European Community regulations governing milk quotas.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table of farm income figures in Scotland in each year since 1979, at 1992 prices.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The figures requested are set out in the table:

  Farming income at 1992 prices1

  £ million

  1979

  182·8

  1980

  47·5

  1981

  146·5

  1982

  226·5

  1983

  148·3

  1984

  281·4

  1985

  32·4

  1986

  125·0

  1987

  215·5

  1988

  138·9

  1989

  205·8

  1990

  153·3

  1991

  100·9

  2 1992

  163·4

  1 Aggregate farming income in cash terms deflated by the retail price index (1992= 100).

  2 Estimated.

  Note: Farming income is the return to the farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial input and the capital they have in the farm business.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of redundancies among NHS staff for each year since 1989–90 dividing the figures by the reason.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]: Statistics on redundancies in the NHS in Scotland are not collected centrally other than in respect of staff who are both over 50 years of age and have at least five years' reckonable service for superannuation purposes where a benefit is immediately payable under the NHS (Compensation for Premature Retirement) (Scotland) Regulations 1981. The total number of such premature retirement awards for the years since 1989–90 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of cases

  1989–90

  1,040

  1990–91

  480

  1991–92

  625

  A breakdown by reason of redundancy is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Roads
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances EC funds can be sought to meet the cost of bringing a private road up to a standard where it can be adopted by the roads authority.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The normal method of attracting EC funding for a road project would be through the European

  859
  regional development fund. To qualify, the project would have to be in an eligible area and be carried out by a public body. In Scotland, the areas eligible for ERDF are parts of Galloway, Lothian except Edinburgh city, parts of Central, Fife and Tayside regions, and all of Strathclyde and Highlands and Islands regions.

  In the majority of circumstances roads projects can be funded by ERDF only if they make a direct contribution to the creation and maintenance of employment, economic development, and productive investment. They must also be essential to the efficient movement of industrial, commercial, or tourist traffic. I am unaware of any other EC funds which might be available for the stated purpose.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a list of all the regulations for which his Department is currently responsible with a descriptive title for each individual regulation.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]: A provisional list of regulations which impact on business has recently been put together. Consideration will be given to placing the list in the Library once it has been fully checked for accuracy and consistency of definition.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the capital spending allocation for the Greater Glasgow health board for each of the last five years together with the comparable figure for 1992–93 and the projected capital budget for each of the next three years both in cash and real terms.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 February 1993] The figures for total capital allocations to Greater Glasgow health board for 1987–88 to 1992–93 are given in the table.

  Year

  Cash

  £ million at 1992–93 prices

  1987–88

  20·216

  27·817

  1988–89

  21·365

  27·403

  1989–90

  28·031

  33·735

  1990–91

  22·341

  24·900

  1991–92

  30·627

  31·929

  1992–93

  41·613

  41·613

  For 1993–94, Greater Glasgow health board, along with all other boards, received capital allocations for the building programme and computer developments which will be carried out by its directly managed units. It has also received provisional allocations for its directly managed units' building programme for 1994–95 and 1995–96. However, these figures are not comparable with those for previous years since they do not include the building and computer programmes of the prospective trusts. Capital provision for those will be included in their external financing limits. Additional small capital allocations may also be made for other purposes. For all boards and trusts the provisional allocations for 1994–95 and 1995–96 reflect only the consequences of the 1993–94 allocation and do not take into account potential new approvals given in the course of 1993–94. The figures are:
  860

  Cash

  £ million 1992–93 prices

  1993–94 Building and computer programme

  29·196

  28·415

  1994–95 Building programme only

  20·048

  18·897

  1995–96 Building programme only

  18·984

  17·415

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all schools which have opted to adopt grant-maintained status.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 February 1993]: Parents at London Street primary school in Edinburgh and Dalmuir primary school in Clydebank have voted in favour of applying for self-governing status. The subsequent application by the London Street primary school board was rejected and the Dalmuir primary school board has been advised that I am considering rejection of their application.

  Parents of three schools are currently being balloted by their school boards on self-governing status. The schools are St. Mary's Episcopal primary school, Dunblane where the school board has passed two resolutions calling for a ballot; and St. Gerard's and Queen's Park secondary schools in Glasgow where parents have presented the school board with a petition seeking a ballot.

  Hospitals
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce a guarantee for patients who wish to receive in-patient treatment at the same hospital they attended as out-patients.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]: No. The decision as to how treatment should be carried out is a matter for discussion between the patient and his or her general practitioner and then the patient and consultant to whom he or she is referred. This may lead to a decision that the in-patient treatment may be most appropriately provided at another hospital.

TRANSPORT

  Tourism
  Mr.Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department has taken to implement the recommendations of "Tourism in the UK: Realising the Potential" as it applies to his Department's responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department recognises that travel is an integral part of tourism and continues to make progress in the areas of work which are described in "Tourism in the UK: Realising the Potential". As foreshadowed in the report a number of initiatives have been taken to assist tourist coach operation in central London, including the provision of over 160 additional parking spaces for the 1992 summer season.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1991; whether
  861
  the result was the maintenance of in-house provision or whether the service was contracted out; what was the name of the successful contractor where appropriate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Two market tests have taken place in the Department of Transport since November 1991:1. Subject: Procurement and Storage of Protective Clothing. Service was contracted out. Contractor is Greenham Trading Limited.
  2. Subject: Bulk/High Speed Reprographic Services. Service was contracted out: a split award, the contractors are HMSO Reprographics and Multiplex Technics Limited.

  These services were examined and tenders invited under the procedures obtaining before the publication of the White Paper "Competing for Quality" in November 1991. It is likely that any remaining items from this original programme will be dealt with under the new procedures, including the in-house bid. None of the items included in the new programme, published in the citizens charter first report, has reached tender stage.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff in his Department are assigned to the market testing programme; how much the programme has cost his Department since November 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The equivalent of eight full-time staff are assigned to the market testing programme. The approximate costs, including consultancies since November 1991 are £250,000.

  Pedestrian Crossing, Dorrington
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to respond to representations on the need for pedestrian crossing facilities on the A49 in Dorrington, Shrewsbury.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Discussions on the need for pedestrian crossing facilities on the A49 in Dorrington have been proceeding for some time. The Department's officials are arranging to meet representatives of Shropshire county council and Condover parish council later this month to discuss the options.

  Exmoor
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the representations by the Exmoor Society about the protection of moorland and villages from increased motor traffic.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I am aware that the Exmoor Society has expressed to the national park authority its concern about traffic on Exmoor. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has not been asked to consider this matter which is one for the local authorities concerned.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what tonnage of freight was transported by railway in each year since 1974; and what percentage this represented of total freight movements.

  Mr. Freeman
  Annual freight tonnages moved by rail can be found in table 9.3 of "Transport Statistics Great 862
  Britain 1992," a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Rail's percentage share for the years 1981 to 1991 is shown in table 1.9; comparable data for ealier years may be found in previous editions.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 418–19, if he will now make public payment for track costs of rail freight operations in advance of conclusions to the parliamentary consideration of rail privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. Such payments must await the clear identification of track costs which the formal establishment of Railtrack will bring and the designation of the Secretary of State as the competent authority under EC regulation 1893–91.

  Maritime Radar
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost of a maritime radar installation with a recording facility.

  Mr. Norris
  It is not possible to estimate the costs of a radar installation without knowing the details of the location and type of facility proposed.

  Lorries
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been undertaken on the night and weekend exemption system for lorries in parts of London, on its costs and benefits, and on the average cost of each lorry refused an exemption permit in each year of operation of the scheme.

  Mr. Norris
  The Londonwide overnight and weekend lorry ban was adopted by a number of London borough councils following the abolition of the Greater London council. It is administered by the London Boroughs Transport Committee. None of the information requested is readily available to my Department.

  Fuel Consumption (Motorways)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the revenue from duty on fuel consumed on motorways.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Approximately one eighth of the petrol and one quarter of the diesel fuel used in this country is consumed on motorways. The duty paid on this fuel would have been about £1·7 billion in 1991–92.

  Trans-Pennine Routes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 493, what route across the Pennines he intends to exclude from consideration.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The route referred to by my right hon. Friend in that answer was a dual carriageway on the A628-A616 through the Peak District national park. I shall consider any suggestions about extension of the M65 which may emerge from the current consultation on the trans-Pennine study strategy report.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the terms of reference for the consultants responsible for the trans-Pennine study strategy report.
  863
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  To study traffic levels on the existing routes across the Pennines; to identify existing and future problems on the road network taking into account planned network developments and forecast increases in traffic and the role of public transport; and to identify potential solutions and assess their environmental and economic impact.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies and reports he has commissioned on the extension of the M65 eastwards from Colne.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None apart from the trans-Pennine study, which looked at all major routes across the Pennines.

  Stockport Bypass
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to hold the next public inquiry into the A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I cannot yet say when we shall be able to hold the next public inquiry. I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Railway Staff
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will conduct an examination of the consequences of the cessation of national negotiating machinery for weekly wages railway staff on their respective responsibilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. Collective bargaining arrangements are a matter for negotiation between employers and employees.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what timetable he expects to be followed in the award of the initial franchises for existing British Rail services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Subject to Parliament approving the Railways Bill, we expect the franchising director to award the franchise contracts for the initial franchises in time for the first private sector railway franchises to commence services in 1994.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has received from external sources on the effect of the cost of capital to private investors relative to the cost to the public sector on the level of future investment in the railways.

  Mr. Freeman
  We receive advice on a regular basis from our merchant bank advisers, Samuel Montagu. The cost of capital to private sector companies involved in the railway will depend on the market's view of the risks and rewards involved.

  Railway Equipment
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the length of time it will take to renew existing British Rail bridges,864
  trains, signalling and power supply equipment at the present rate of replacements; and what information he has on the average design life of each category or main type of (a) bridge, (b) train, (c) signalling and (d) power supply equipment.

  Mr. Freeman
  An assessment of this kind would not yield meaningful results given the varied durability of the different assets mentioned. The design life of bridges varies from 20 years to more than a century, of trains from 25 to 40 years and for signalling and power supply equipment from 20 years upwards. Asset lives assumed for the purpose of calculation of amortisation and depreciation charges in British Rail's annual report and accounts for 1991–92 are set out in note 4 on accounting policies in that report.

  Oil Tankers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many oil tankers travelled through United Kingdom waters in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to provide 24-hour availability of tugs to assist oil tankers in distress.

  Mr. Norris
  The provision of salvage tugs is a matter for commercial salvage companies and other owners of suitable vessels. Suitable Ministry of Defence vessels will offer emergency assistance if they are available and no suitable commercial vessel is within reach. The Government have no plans to provide salvage tugs themselves, other than for Ministry of Defence purposes. The Government are aware of work being done by the international salvage industry on the availability of salvage services and will consider carefully the implications of the forthcoming report by the industry's salvage working group. In addition, Lord Donaldson has identified that one of the topics which he expects his inquiry to consider is whether present and traditional salvage arrangements are satisfactory in the context of a hazardous cargo, and at its recent meeting the EC Council noted that the Commission intends to include in its communication on maritime safety"Initiatives to … promote measures concerning emergency services, in particular towing and co-ordination of the availability of salvage capacities".

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ban oil tankers built before 1980 from British waters.

  Mr. Norris
  There is no justification for banning tankers on a basis of age. A well-operated pre-1980 tanker presents less risk to the environment than a badly managed new vessel. This will be considered by Lord Donaldson in his inquiry, taking account of the economic implications as set out in his terms of reference.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to advocate mandatory standards at international level for alcohol policies and fail-safe mechanisms on oil tankers.

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom already gives support at the International Maritime Organisation to international endorsement of a legal intoxication standard based on
  865
  blood-alcohol level or equivalent and has a leading role in ensuring international recognition of the highest possible standards of design and construction for oil tankers and other merchant ships, having regard to detailed Classification Society requirements and any ship's specific company requirement related to the intended nature of service.

  Sea-going Tugs
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many sea-going tugs are available in British waters; and where they are stationed.

  Mr. Norris
  According to the records held by the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen, there are approximately 455 tugs. Information as to where they are stationed is not recorded.

  Community Transport, London
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the community transport budget for London in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Norris
  The provision of community transport is primarily a matter for individual London boroughs. My Department does, however, provide funds for the Dial-a-Ride service through London Transport. Expenditure on this since 1987, in cash terms, is as follows:
  866

  £ million

  1987–88

  6·000

  1988–89

  6·270

  1989–90

  7·270

  1990–91

  8·270

  1991–92

  10·015

  1992–93

  10·500

  ScotRail
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of the public service obligation grant requirement of regional railways was allocated to ScotRail in each year for which figures are available; and what was the amount in each year.

  Mr. Freeman
  PSO grant is given in relation to the total requirements of Regional Railways and Network SouthEast. It is not allocated to particular sectors within these businesses.

  Chelmsford Bypass
  Mr Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to begin on widening the Chelmsford A12 bypass.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 11 February 1993]: We expect to consult the public by the end of this year and announce a preferred option in 1994. Further progress will be dependent on the successful outcome of statutory procedures and the availability of funds.