Sitting of 15 February 1993

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

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the target period within which applicants for disability living allowance should receive a decision; and what target he has set for responding to representations from hon. Members on behalf of constituents in respect of applications for disability living allowance.
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new steps he is taking to ensure that the delays in responding to applications for disability living allowance are eliminated.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Current targets are that 60 per cent. of applicants for disability living allowance should receive a decision within 30 days and 95 per cent. should do so within 55 days. However, the latter target is under review. The Benefits Agency has also undertaken to reply to correspondence from hon. Members within an average of 20 days.
    I meet the chief executive of the Benefits Agency regularly to review progress. As I have already advised the
    2
    House, the level of work outstanding on disability living allowance has been reduced to normal levels–60 per cent. of new claims are being cleared within 30 days and older cases are being targeted.
    Mr. Michael: I have had a rash of letters from the head of the Benefits Agency since I tabled this question, but none met the 20-day target—most of them were replies to letters that had been hanging around on his desk for three months or more. Does the Minister recognise that by the time constituents go to their Member of Parliament they have often been trying to get sense out of the system in person, by letter and by telephone for a year or more? Does he also recognise that these are some of the most vulnerable people in our society? Whom does he want us to blame—the head of the Benefits Agency, for running a sloppy and incompetent administration? Or should we not blame the Secretary of State and seek his resignation?
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman was present for previous exchanges on the matter, he will know how much the Government and the agency regret the backlog that was caused by the early surge of claims for disability living allowance. I am confident that it is now under control and that targets will be met in future. As for letters, the agency gave priority to the clearance of claims. It is now writing to Members of Parliament with an up-to-date report on the way in which the claim have been decided.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware of the widespread anxiety about the quality of decision making by the Benefits Agency on disability living allowance? If the quality of decision making is bad, it will store up a great deal more trouble and anxiety for the vulnerable people who are affected. Will the Minister give two assurances? First, will he thoroughly investigate every allegation in The Sunday Times article yesterday and report to the House? Secondly, will he give a belated Valentine to the people affected and say that no one will lose out as a result of knock-on effects or any other repercussion caused by the disgraceful circus of disorganisation?
    Mr. Scott: No one will lose money, because the payment of any benefit that is awarded will be backdated

    3
    to the time of the claim. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the knock-on effects?"] As for other backlogs, outstanding letters from Members of Parliament should be cleared by the end of February. I believe that from then on we shall be in a steady state.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: In considering the administrative practicalities of providing support for disabled people rapidly, sensitively and cost-effectively, as I know is his wish, will my right hon. Friend also look sympathetically at the case for providing cash rather than services to certain severely disabled people who would rather organise their own personal assistance? Is there any reason why the Government should not give a fair wind to the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)?
    Mr. Scott: On the latter point, it will rest with local authorities from April this year to provide packages of community care. Local authorities are not enabled to pay cash, but they will be able to provide services. It is the intention of colleagues in the Department of Health that disabled people should be closely involved with the development of those packages. As the House already knows, I intend to legislate in the near future for a successor body to the independent living fund.
    Mr. Spring: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that more than 200,000 people who were not benefiting previously have benefited from the introduction of the new disability living allowance? Is that not striking proof positive that the Government are mindful of the needs of the disabled and of helping constructively in that respect?
    Mr. Scott: I well understand my hon. Friend's remarks and I am grateful to him for his support. The concept and, increasingly, the delivery of DLA has been spectacularly successful. Hundreds of thousands of people have benefited from it and the self-assessment system is working extremely well—better than any of the previous arrangements. The staff of the agency are to be congratulated on their achievement.
    Mr. Frank Field: For those constituents who come to our surgeries because they are gaining no money from the benefits, could the Minister give us the timetable during which their claims will be met and paid?
    Mr. Scott: I have already told the House what will happen to new claims, which will be met within targets. The Benefits Agency intends to ensure that all claims received up to December last year will be handled by April this year.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he responded to the embarrassement of riches in terms of the number of applicants for disability living allowance? Is it not worth pointing out that since 1979 the Government have increased spending on the long-term sick and disabled by 170 per cent?
    Mr. Scott: That is true, and DLA will further increase that figure. About 370,000 awards are being made under DLA, which is a great achievement.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept, as he must on the evidence, that the DLA experience has been a disaster for the many applicants left in limbo and also for the benefits system? The news that many people, some with no money coming in from a benefit source, will have to wait until
    4
    April will add to the distress. Does the right hon. Gentleman defend the distinction made by the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, who argues that no DLA file has been lost, although some are difficult to find? Has he seen the reports about a DLA filing system which does not fit the files and is 40 miles from the officers who take the decisions? How on earth could something like that arise?
    Mr. Scott: The remote filing system at Nelson serves not only DLA but a considerable number of other benefits and it seems sensible to keep those files at a central point. I acknowledge that there were delays, which caused considerable distress to a large number of customers during the early days of the benefit. I have apologised to the House for that, and I have acknowledged that the surge in claims at the launch of the benefit caused the problem. We are largely through that, and shall be able to meet targets from now on.

    Pensions
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average value of an occupational pension (a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that between 1979 and 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, it is estimated that the average value of occupational pensions in payment rose from £34 per week to £51.80 per week at 1988 prices—this represents an increase of about 52 per cent.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that about 70 per cent. of recently retired people obtain occupational pensions, and that that trend has been rising steadily throughout the past decade? Can she confirm that it remains Government policy to encourage as many people as possible to follow that means of provision?
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes, I have pleasure in confirming that my hon. Friend's figures are correct. They exclude the 5 million people who now provide for themselves through personal pensions, which is another sign of the Government's commitment to a proper combination of private and public provision for retirement income.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Is the Minister aware that retired local government officers in Scotland on average receive only £2,014 per annum from occupational pensions? Does she accept that that is below the figure bandied about as the sort of pension paid to retired local government officers? Does that not show that, before the Government start to tamper with the state pension, they should have regard to the fact that many occupational pensions do not pay that much money to their pensioners?
    Miss Widdecombe: I was pointing out that occupational pensions pay an increasing amount to their pensioners. The figures are somewhat depressed if one includes in them those who retired when occupational pensions were in their infancy. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly capable of understanding what an average is, however, and that if there is an average pension, some people will receive far more than that and some will get somewhat less.
    Mrs. Chaplin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the occupational pensions industry is increasingly equalising the pension age at 65 and that it would be helpful from its point of view if we equalised the state retirement age at 65 as well? I declare an interest in that I fully intend to work until the age of 65 at least.
    Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend intends to work until she is 65 and I am sure that she will represent her constituents well throughout that time. The Government are entirely committed to equalising the state pension age and our equalisation proposals were set out in a consultation document. Those four options are still under consideration.
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy on maintaining the value of the basic retirement pension in real terms.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Since 1979, we have more than fulfilled our pledge to maintain the real value of the basic state pension.
    Mr. Burden: The Secretary of State will recall that since the Government scrapped the link with earnings, single pensioners and married couples are, respectively, about £17–65 and £28 per week worse off. My city of Birmingham has more than 103,000 pensioners living in poverty who are forced to choose between having a decent diet and meeting the cost of rising fuel bills. Some 39 per cent. of them have no central heating and 45 per cent. have no loft insulation. Can the Secretary of State or the Government really be proud of their record of cutting the value of the state pension?
    Mr. Lilley: Because we have focused additional resources on the most needy, and because we have encouraged people to make increased provision over and above their basic state pension, the average income of pensioners has risen more every year under this Government than under the five years of the previous Labour Government. So the answer is yes, we are proud of our record and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of his.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend condemn a policy that seeks to means-test the state pension as well as to discourage private provision? Is he aware that such a policy is now an official policy of the Labour party?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is a most extraordinary combination for any political party to adopt. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has specifically required his social justice commission to consider means-testing every universal benefit, including the basic pension. The Opposition are bound to follow such a policy because of their commitment to uprate that pension in line with earnings rather than prices. If they are to get extra resources for the most needy, they will have to means-test that pension and they know it.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's assurances about the Government's intention regarding price protection for the basic state pension, does he acknowledge that the value of that pension depends to a large extent on fuel bills, food bills and public utility costs? If there is any truth in the rumour that the Treasury
    6
    is considering imposing value added tax on those items, will the right hon. Gentleman's Department ensure that those costs are made up through the social security system?
    Mr. Lilley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not answer hypothetical questions, but he will be interested in the fact that if, since 1979, pensions had been raised in line with the pensioners index—the index which looks specifically at the goods and services that pensioners buy —rather than with the retail prices index, as we have done, pensioners would be receiving £6–65 per week less.

    Pensions and Benefits (Choice)
    Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for increasing the control and choice individuals have over their social security benefits and pensions.
    Mr. Lilley: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed to enabling individuals to take greater control of all areas of their lives. Our policy on earnings-related pension provision is an excellent example of that commitment. Since 1988, 5 million people have taken out personal pensions, in addition to the 11 million people who are members of occupational pension schemes.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, since 1979, Conservative Governments have maintained their manifesto pledges to increase the basic pension in line with prices? Does he agree that that clearly demonstrates that Conservatives take their manifesto pledges seriously? Will he therefore take this opportunity to condemn the scaremongering carried out by Labour Members of Parliament who frequently suggest that we are about to break our pledges?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservative party has a reputation second to none for keeping its pledges. The uprating statement in the autumn demonstrated that we keep our pledges to pensioners and families, despite the scaremongering by Labour Members which preceded the outcome of that round. The Labour party has a lot to be ashamed of, as it broke its pledges to pensioners, cut the real value of pensions by 60 per cent., cut the Christmas bonus and robbed pensioners through inflation, which wiped out their savings.
    Mr. Rooney: Does the Secretary of State realise that social security benefits constitute a two-way package whereby people contribute to the national insurance fund and then, in return, when the time comes, make their claims? In the 13 years of the Conservative Government there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the rate of contribution, but a withdrawal of the earnings-related element, sickness, unemployment and invalidity benefits, widows pensions and a range of other matters. How does the Secretary of State answer that charge?
    Mr. Lilley: I do recognise that. As I said to the Select Committee on Social Security, I think that there is more strength in the contributory principle than many intellectuals believe. However, the hon. Gentleman had better have an argument with one such intellectual, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who, in his leadership statement, questioned whether the Labour party should maintain the distinction between national insurance benefits, which are available

    7
    only on the contribution test, and means-tested benefits. I said that I recognised that issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, but does the Labour party? And will the Labour party keep its long-standing commitment to that principle? It seems not.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of encouraging alternative provision, especially occupational pension provision, is the control of inflation, and that no occupational pension fund, however well funded, could cope with the inflation levels that occurred under the last Labour Government?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. We are uprating the pension by 3.6 per cent.—the rate of inflation prior to the uprating statement. The current, most recent, figure is 1·7 per cent.—half that level. That means that during the past 12 months inflation has risen less than it did on average for every month of all five years of the last Labour Government.
    Mrs. Golding: Is the Minister aware that the only choice open to many pensioners is to live from hand to mouth? Why does he close his eyes to the desperate plight of those pensioners who are refused additional benefits because they receive tiny occupational pensions?
    Mr. Lilley: We have been increasing the amount of resources channelled to pensioners with the lowest incomes. I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that in the uprating statement I was able to confirm that, on top of the increase in line with inflation, an extra £500 million would go, through the pensioners' premiums, to those on the lowest incomes.
    Mr. Lidington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of Maxwell pensioners had no choice because membership of the pension scheme was a condition of their employment? Has my right hon. Friend a message for those office holders who are still haggling and delaying the unfreezing of the common investment fund, which should be paid to the benefit of those pensioners in need?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend powerfully makes his point, which I think will have much support on both sides of the House. We hope that Sir John Cuckney's request is successful and that matters will be resolved rapidly. We want those involved—liquidators, solicitors, executives or trustees—to bring about an early settlement and distribute the money so that the pensioners know that they can keep receiving their pensions.

    Pensions
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he is considering to the state retirement pension.
    Miss Widdecombe: We have more than maintained the value of the basic state pension since 1979.
    Mr. Winnick: If the Government have really dropped the idea of means-testing state pensions—we do not know for certain whether they have—is not that only because of the outrage in the country when reports appeared last week, such as the one in The Sunday Times, which clearly showed that that was what the Government intended to do? What possible justification can there be for raising the
    8
    state pension age for women from 60 to 65? There is no justification: it was not in the Tory election manifesto, and it would be quite wrong to take that step.
    Miss Widdecombe: On means-testing the basic state pension, the more intelligent Members on both sides will be aware that our manifesto promises are a somewhat better guide than press speculation. Furthermore, actions speak louder than words. As we promised in our manifesto to uprate pensions in line with prices and, despite immense public expenditure pressures, still went ahead and did that in the autumn statement, I find it amazing that the hon. Gentleman has not yet realised that we take our manifesto promises extremely seriously.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the greatest threat to pensioners, particularly those on small fixed incomes, is inflation and that in one year of the Labour party's term of office more than a quarter of the value of the basic pension was wiped out by inflation?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed—for all the talk by the Opposition about how pensioners would be better off from an earnings link, the fact remains that when the Labour party practised it, not only did inflation wipe out the value of the increases but retirement income actually rose no more throughout the whole time of the Labour Government than it has risen every year during our period of office.

    Independent Living Fund
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on future arrangements for the operation of the independent living fund.
    Mr. Scott: Details of these arrangements will be announced shortly.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that, putting it mildly, there seems to be some confusion between his Department and the Department of Health about the arrangements from April this year? Can he clarify the suggestion that there will be a £500 per week maximum for payment from the independent living fund plus the value of local authoriity services to any one client and that clients requiring more than that amount will be expected to enter residential or nursing care permanently? If that is so, and if care capping is to be introduced by the Department, does he accept that that completely undermines the whole process of assessment being introduced in the community care changes with effect from April?
    Mr. Scott: I shall certainly not be tempted into commenting on what I understand was a leaked document. As I have already made clear, the time will come when it will be right for me to announce to the House the full arrangements for the assessment and delivery of services, and any additional cash which may be necessary to support independent living for disabled people.
    Mr. Bradley: When the Minister considers future arrangements, will he look again at the chaos governing relations between the disability living allowance and applications to the independent living fund? Although he said in an answer to me that the trustees have discretion to take applications from people who have applied for DLA,

    9
    in practice that discretion has been taken away by the trustees due to lack of funds and they are taking applications only from people in receipt of the old attendance allowance. That is a double blow to people waiting in desperation for their DLA to come through. They are doubly disadvantaged because they will not now be allowed to apply to the ILF. Surely the Government have some responsibility for this chaos and for ensuring that people are not doubly disadvantaged, first by having to wait for the DLA and then by losing out in terms of money from the ILF. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into future arrangements and ensure that people are compensated for the chaos that the Government have created?
    Mr. Scott: No, I do not believe that that is so. I can only repeat that it would have been open to the trustees of the independent living fund to use their discretion to deem people to be in a position in which they would qualify for a payment from the ILF. We are, in any case, only about six weeks away from the beginning of the next financial year and the launch of the new independent living fund.

    Transfer Payments
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to reduce the current levels of public expenditure on social security transfer payments.
    Mr. Lilley: Our spending plans were set out in the autumn statement on 12 November 1992.
    Mr. Banks: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is something deeply offensive about an evening-suited Prime Minister standing up at the Carlton club and addressing a bunch of well-fed Tories about the possibility of people on benefit having to work to get their benefit? Is not it outrageous that the poorest in our society, particularly unemployed people, should have in effect to pay twice over for the economic incompetence of this most stupid and recalcitrant Government? For the sake of better clarity, will the right hon. Gentleman now make it quite clear that under no circumstances will a Conservative Government means test the basic state retirement pension —yes or no?
    Mr. Lilley: The world has been a better place since the hon. Member and his party improved their sartorial appearance. Under the previous Labour Government, whom the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) supported, one condition of receiving benefit was that one did nothing. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it is more sensible to look for ways of increasing the opportunities and requirements for people to do something—to improve their qualifications, to improve their contact with work and to contribute to the community. I think that that has widespread support. I made it quite clear that, unlike the social justice commission, which was established by the leader of the Labour party, we have no plans to means test the basic pension.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there are no questions about child benefit, because one of the ways of ensuring the welfare of children is for the Government to go on meeting their manifesto pledge, which was also set out in the autumn statement,
    10
    that child benefit will continue to recognise that when people have children their taxable capacity is reduced but their needs increased? The child cash allowance is more equitable than a child tax allowance.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend will know that we have no plans to abandon our manifesto pledge, which we upheld in the autumn statement.

    Mobility Allowance
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people receive mobility allowance; and what was the figure in 1979.
    Mr. Scott: In 1979 an estimated average of 95,000 people received mobility allowance. By 1992. the figure had risen to 660,000—almost a sevenfold increase. The introduction of disability living allowance has extended help with mobility costs even further.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those excellent figures. Will he confirm that they show an increase of 173 per cent. in real terms? Does he agree that that is acceptable progress, compared with the carping and jeering of Labour Members, whose party always failed to deliver the same level of support to sick and disabled people?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I am particularly glad that, unlike the Labour party, we were able to introduce the disability living allowance in one go rather than having to phase it in over four years. I am delighted at the success of the new lower rates that have been introduced for DLA, which will make a significant improvement in the provision for mobility costs.
    Mr. Wigley: May I press the Minister further on the reply that he gave earlier? Is he aware that since he last answered the question four weeks ago, hon. Members have received replies that had been waiting two or three months and that his assurances do not ring all that true? When will all those who are waiting have their cases cleared up, because it is they who are suffering from the Government's subterfuge in staging the introduction of the benefit?
    Mr. Scott: I well understand the puzzlement of hon. Members who have received letters informing them of the outcome of claims that were settled weeks ago. It is perfectly understandable for the Benefits Agency to have concentrated on clearing those claims first and then bringing hon. Members up to date. Hon. Members' letters should be cleared by the end of this month. All new Members' letters will now be met within the 20-day target. Last year's claims will be cleared by April, and reviews and appeals should be cleared by May.
    Mr. Milligan: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about the speeding up of the payment—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask Question 11.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Milligan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to improve the administration of the disability living allowance.
    Mr. Scott: As I have said before, I take a close, personal interest in the administration of disability living allowance and meet the chief executive of the Benefits Agency regularly to review progress and discuss the improvements in hand. Apart from the steps already taken, the agency is reviewing the procedures for processing claims, setting up additional processing centres and increasing the training for staff.
    Mr. Milligan: I welcome the additional announcements that my right hon. Friend has made for speeding up the payment of DLA, which will also be welcome to my constituents. Is he aware that dozens of my constituents have had their applications lost and have waited months without a reply, and that, according to The Sunday Times yesterday, more than 1,400 people are in that situation? Can he explain how that has happened and what measures he is taking to deal with the problem?
    Mr. Scott: I say to my hon. Friend as I have said on a number of occasions, both from the Dispatch Box and in other forums, that we recognise that there was an unexpected surge of claims following the successful launch of the new benefit, and particularly as a result of the success of the advertising campaigns. There is no doubt that the agency went through a rough time early on in overcoming the problems. I am sure that it is now in a position to overcome them and that we can look forward to a much smoother path.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the Minister or the Benefits Agency now say how many DLA claimants died before their claims were processed and how long they waited in each case?
    Mr. Scott: The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is the same as it was when he last asked it—no.

    Residential and Nursing Care
    Ms. Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations his Department has had from care providers regarding the costs of residential and nursing care.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alastair Burt): Several representations have been received recently, from both individuals and representative bodies.
    Ms. Eagle: Is the Minister aware that the cost of a weekly place in a residential or nursing care home as calculated by his Department falls up to £50 short of the real cost? Can he comment on the fact that the Government's hope that the cost-care gap will be made up by charitable donations is pie in the sky, given both the scale and length of the recession and the fact that the National Lotteries Bill will reduce charitable income even more? What will the Government do to put payments for care places on a more secure footing?
    Mr. Burt: I am sure that the hon. Lady will he pleased to know that expenditure on people in homes has increased enormously since 1979 from the £10 million spent then to £2.5 billion spent now. The last uprating increased the amount going into homes by over the rate of inflation—by about 3·6 per cent. The hon. Lady will
    12
    appreciate that no Government can make a commitment to pay all the fees up to the full limit because that would lead to the abuse that there was before.
    The amount of money spent by the Government on people receiving benefits in homes will stay at the level of commitment that we have now. The new system of community care will also ensure that that amount of money is best spent on domiciliary care, the independent sector or local authority care. I am sure that local authorities will administer the new system with the care with which it has been administered up to now.
    Mr. Willetts: Is my hon. Friend aware that the main concern among private providers of residential accommodation in nursing homes is the risk of a vendetta by left-wing local authorities from 1 April, who, for purely ideological reasons, will refuse to finance the cost of accommodation in such homes?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend will be aware that matters relating to the registration of homes are the responsibility more of the Department of Health than of this Department, but I am aware of the concerns already expressed to Departments about such matters. The quality of care delivered to the elderly has been immeasurably increased over the past decade partly because of the quality of care in the independent sector, and the way in which that has increased and encouraged the delivery of quality care in the local authority sector. The quality of care given to elderly people by all providers is substantially better than it was a decade or 20 years ago.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that the Government have forced local authorities to get rid of their beds? The Government have put enormous pressure on people to go into private homes. There is a real fear that after 1 April many of the most damaged people will not be able to pay for their accommodation in the private sector because of the Government's actions and the lack of money available to local authorities. How does the Minister satisfy those people? There are many who are terrified of what will happen to their elderly, who in many instances are mentally handicapped.
    Mr. Burt: Substantial resources have been placed into the community care system to cover situations such as those to which the hon. Lady has drawn attention. Before a new system comes into place, there are always concerns about what might happen on the actual day. We know that the amount of money put in and the degree of care exercised by local authorities will ensure, for the first time, that proper consideration is given to individual cases and all cases. This approach will ensure also that the available money is best spent to the benefit of everyone. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want to return to a system where limited resources were poorly spent. I am convinced that the amount of money and the degree of care that will he exercised will ensure the success of the community care policy.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been achieved in implementing the citizens charter.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): We have made good progress in implementing the charter. More than 90 per cent. of our initial commitments have been met or are in hand.
    Mr. Hain: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy confirm that if the Government proceed with their plans to privatise Parcelforce and the Royal Mail sections of the Post Office, none of the quality of service, entitlements and obligations set out in the citizens charter will apply? Or was that the right hon. Gentleman's agenda all along?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in these matters, knows that no final decisions have been made. As in other private utilities, there is the regulator. The charter covers those utilities.
    Ms. Mowlam: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that both he and the Prime Minister have emphasised, in relation to charters, the importance of prompt replies to correspondence? Goals have been set for British Telecom and British Gas, for example. What are the goals for the right hon. Gentleman's unit? I wrote on behalf of someone in Swanage, Dorset, and it took him two months to reply.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I apologise for that—it was inadequate service. All Departments of Stale have published targets for answering their letters, and we should meet them.

    Market Testing and Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he uses to assess the benefits of market testing and compulsory competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: In market testing, Departments assess savings in costs; and improvements in quality, such as reliability and timeliness. They monitor how these benefits are delivered in practice.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for compulsory competitive tendering. The benefits of CCT are being assessed through a continuing programme of research commissioned by his Department.
    Mr. Congdon: I welcome that answer. Given the success of the competitive tendering programme, especially in local government, will my right hon. Friend ensure that market testing in central Government delivers the savings that we desire?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, I can confirm that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently announced what amounted to the saving of two regiments, he was able partly to attribute that to the savings that he has made in his Department as a result of market testing. That is a good example of market testing leading to proper savings.
    Mr. Madden: What action are the Government taking to safeguard the confidence of taxpayers' records when sections of the Inland Revenue are privatised?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Any privatisation in that Department or any other in which confidentiality is involved would need contracts to cover that. Major state secrets in the
    14
    defence industry have been possessed by the private sector for generations, and there is no essential difference elsewhere.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in regretting the insensitivity of Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, which has bought six Mercedes tipper trucks at a time when many jobs are on the line at Leyland Daf, which produces extremely good—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Chancellor of the Duchy is not responsible for a local authority's purchasing policy.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that that is the correct judgment, Madam Speaker, as always.
    I have to say that there are many things about Lancashire county council that my hon. Friend and I find surprising, perhaps not least the one that she has mentioned.

    Compensation
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many charters contain provisions for compensation to be paid to members of the public.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): All charters contain information about what to do if things go wrong. Six charters contain provision for financial compensation. Those include the British Rail passengers charter and London Underground customers charter.
    Mr. Bayley: Will the Minister give a firm guarantee that all the provisions of the BR passengers charter will apply to private sector train operators if the Government go ahead with privatisation, or will the private sector be let off the hook?
    Mr. Jackson: The charter will apply to everyone who operates a service. Meanwhile, it applies to BR. The House should know that it is not simply a question of compensation for individuals, which the hon. Gentleman may have had in mind; there is a provision under which fares are reduced in a particular area if the service to it is performing below standard.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many citizens charters are now in place; how many more are expected; when these are expected; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: We have published 30 charters, including the Ulsterbus charter launched today. We plan to publish at least 10 more in 1993. Those charters empower the consumers of public services, better enabling them to insist on good quality services and proper redress where things go wrong.
    Mr. Greenway: Has my hon. Friend seen the interesting Fabian Society pamphlet by Margaret Hodge, the former Labour leader of Islington council, in which she welcomes the publication of local authority performance indicators such as those proposed in the citizens charter? Will he now consider extending the charters and strengthening them to ensure that they are effective for all citizens?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to Margaret Hodge's pamphlet. A number of serious Labour leaders in local government are coming out in support of some of the Government's actions. Margaret Hodge said—and it is something that is not often supported by Labour Members:
    "Most important, Government can insist that authorities submit their services to external validation … They can insist on publishing outcomes and they can compare performance between authorities".
    That is the approach of the charter, the approach through local authority audit and the approach endorsed by Margaret Hodge, who has great experience of local government. It is an approach opposed by far too many Labour Members.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does the Minister accept that, despite the citizens charter, many people who rely on the activities —or inactivities—of the Benefits Agency are suffering badly because of its inefficiency? Because of that serious problem, will the Minister undertake urgently to review the provision of compensation for those who are adversely affected by that inadequate service? Will he report to the House on that matter as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Jackson: Like the hon. Gentleman, I heard the point made on that subject during Social Security questions earlier. A full apology was made for the circumstances surrounding disability living allowance. The position is improving and it will be put right. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about compensation.

    Quangos
    Mr. Elletson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many non-departmental public bodies were in existence in (a) April 1991 and (b) April 1992; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: There were 1,412 non-departmental public bodies in existence in April 1992 compared with 1,444 in April 1991. The April 1992 total is the lowest since the data were first collected in 1979.
    Mr. Elletson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his answer—the fall in the figures is small, but welcome. Will he comment on the increase in the number of quangos that would have occurred under a Labour Government, especially in view of the Labour's plans for regional women's units and specialist—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Not only is the hon. Gentleman's question out of order, it is hypothetical. If the hon. Gentleman has a substantive question that is in order, I shall take it.
    Mr. Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that over the past year there has been a substantial fall in the number of quangos, which significantly would not have occurred under a Labour Government?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As you decisively said, Madam Speaker, any reference to a Labour Government is indeed very hypothetical.
    My hon. Friend is entirely right: there has been a fall. There are now 800 fewer quangos than there were in 1979, and 100,000 fewer people are employed in them.

    Scientists
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to discourage scientists trained in the United Kingdom from seeking work outside the EC.
    Mr. Waldegrave: No. It would be wrong to do so. Science is international. The United Kingdom benefits from scientists coming here from other countries, and our own scientists benefit from experience overseas.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy realise that his reply is breathtaking in its complacency —and also unpatriotic? Is he not aware that 1,000 British scientists are allowed to work in the United States alone, and that a real gap exists—both in terms of the graduates who seek to work in research science, and in terms of our ability to maintain them? Is it not time that the Government ensured that proper rewards existed in this country to encourage scientists to stay here working and developing their skills? Should not the Government also ensure that a proper career structure exists for research scientists?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little carried away. The universities' own statistical records show that there has been a net inflow of scientists every year since 1983. There is a tiny movement either way: about 1 per cent. leave each year. If we hark back to the long-distant days of Labour government, we find that about 35 per cent. of those with PhDs left for the United States in the 1960s. The figure is now rather under 10 per cent.
    As for my reply being unpatriotic, is the hon. Gentleman really saying that it was unpatriotic of Freeman Dyson to go and work at Cornell university with Feynman? That is madness.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who normally endears himself to the House, has looped the loop in his question? Does not Britain provide the world —particularly the developing world—with a great benefit by sending its experts, especially its scientists, to help other countries to develop? Does it not also encourage young people to come to this country to train as scientists, and then to return to their own countries? Neither would be possible if my right hon. Friend listened seriously to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. All of us who spend our time going around university science departments welcome the fact that we hear many different accents from all over the world. Science is international. We are attracting as many scientists to this country as leave our shores—indeed, more. Of those who leave, the majority leave for short-term appointments and many subsequently return.
    Dr. Moonie: It is very sad that the Chancellor of the Duchy fails to distinguish between going abroad voluntarily to expand one's career horizons, and being forced abroad by the grossly inadequate remuneration given to research scientists in this country and the utter failure to provide them with an adequate career structure. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on figures produced by the Science and Engineering Research

    17
    Council and the Medical Research Council over the past year, which show a 15 per cent. fall in the number of PhD awards?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I would be the last to say that more cannot be done to encourage science careers in this country, and I hope that we shall present appropriate proposals. It is wrong, however, to adopt the broad-brush approach of saying that every scientist who leaves the country represents a setback, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not adopt such an approach.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Tracey: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the next interdepartmental meeting on the citizens charter will be held; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: On Wednesday, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Tracey: That is extremely good news. At the meeting, will my right hon. Friend ensure that standards of service and propriety in local government—particularly in Labour-controlled Lambeth council—are well examined?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That might take up rather too much of our time. Others are interested in the matter, including the Audit Commission, which is right. That leads me to a natural development of my hon. Friend's point. Conservative Members welcome, for example, the Audit Commission's publication of comparative performance indicators for local authorities; the Opposition have opposed them at every turn.
    Ms. Abbott: Does the citizens charter offer any recourse to British Rail pensioners who, it seems, must stand by and watch the Government loot their pension funds to the tune of £4.25 billion, something about which those pensioners will, apparently, have no say?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that the hon. Lady is right about that matter, but I shall write to her further.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity at Wednesday's meeting to press for further publication of the league tables to ensure better services all round?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Opposition, including their distinguished representative who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), always claim that they are in favour of open government, but whenever the question of the publication of information arises, such as the league tables on school information, they are against it.

    Science In Higher Education
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of the Higher Education Funding Council for England to discuss funding for science in higher education.
    Mr. Jackson: My right hon. Friend has not recently met the distinguished chairman of the Higher Education Funding Council, but it so happens that I met the chief executive only a week last Friday.
    Mr. Miller: What steps does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster intend to take to stop the long-term decline in science funding in universities? Does he acknowledge that the dual support system is under threat and that that will have an adverse effect on attracting industrial funds to our universities?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken to talk about a fall in funding. Support for higher education in England will rise by 7·3 per cent. in 1993–94, or 4·4 per cent. in real terms. The figure for Scotland is about the same and that for Wales is about 9 per cent. The hon. Gentleman says that the dual support system is in jeopardy. We do not accept that it is. Total funding for academic research through the dual support system is now above £1 billion. The HEFC has allocated £673 million for research 1992–93. Estimated expenditure in higher education institutions by the research councils—the other part of the dual support system—in the current financial year will be £367 million. These represent considerable increases in funding over recent years.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at what age people become citizens for purpose of each charter promulgated by the Government.
    Mr. Waldegrave: People of all ages can—and do—benefit from better quality services promoted by the citizens charter.
    Mr. Hughes: That was not really the answer that I expected. The important issue, which I hope the Chancellor's Department will address—in conjunction, I assume, with the Home Office—is the ridiculous state in Britain whereby people come of age for different civic rights at different ages: some at 16, some at 17, some at 18 and some at 21. It would be much easier and much more in line with international practice to have a clear age of majority, which at the moment is meant to be 18, that applied to all civic rights and duties. Can the Chancellor look into that possibility and bring forward a proposal to that end?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Every Member of this House will have his own views on that issue. I shall look into the matter. The difficulty is that I cannot imagine that anyone would welcome the age for any of those civic rights and duties going up. To bring the age down in certain respects would involve very controversial matters for the House. The hon. Gentleman has, however, raised a serious matter and I shall consider it.
    Dr. Kim Howells: At what age might the patients of Wessex regional health authority be able to complain, through the citizens charter, about the fact that the health authority was ripped off for an undisclosed sum of between £23 million and £63 million of taxpayers' money to pay for a computer system that never worked and which made a lot of people rich?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should table a substantive question if he wishes to deal with a matter of that nature.

    Justices of the Peace
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about recruitment of justices of the peace in the duchy.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The recruitment of justices in the duchy area follows the same pattern as in the remainder of the country. Advisory committees recommend suitable candidates after interviewing applicants and considering the balance of the bench, which takes into account age, profession, residence and political views. In this way we try to ensure that a bench broadly reflects the community that it serves.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that my constituents, particularly those who live in the Reddish and Brinnington wards of Stockport, feel very aggrieved that the bench in Stockport does not reflect the social composition of the whole of Stockport but appears to reflect the membership of the Conservative party and of secret societies, such as the masons, rather than a proper cross section of the population? What is the Minister going to do to ensure that we have a judiciary on the bench represents the whole of the area that I represent?
    Mr. Waldegrave: One of the things—and the hon. Gentleman has been helpful in this regard—is to bring forward more volunteers. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that since he quite legitimately began pursuing the matter in 1988, the number of people from the Reddish and Brinnington wards has increased from five to 13. That is an improvement and balances the number from the
    20
    Denton ward. We must get good candidates and we need the help of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and all hon. Members in that regard.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to extend the citizens charter into the private sector.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: The Government are pleased that so many private sector concerns are adopting the charter approach. However, I must emphasise that the purpose of the citizens charter is to raise the quality of service in the public sector where many customers have little choice about the services that they receive.
    Mr. Banks: Yes, but if the Government are continually reducing the scope of the public sector through privatisation, surely the logic follows that the charters, which are mostly useless, should be extended into the private sector in respect of which hon. Members deal with a host of complaints. May I suggest that the Minister could start with a citizens charter for bank customers? Some customers have to face the most ridiculous charges imposed by greedy, grasping banks which, of course, are always looking to support the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he agrees with his party's line on public ownership. I notice that he has been saying that the privatised bus and rail services would be absorbed back into the public sector. Some of us wonder how that squares with the commitment of the Leader of the Opposition to the proposition that ownership is irrelevant

Sellafield (Discharge)
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham(by private notice): To ask the Minister for the Environment and Countryside if he will make a statement about excessive discharges of radioactive material which occurred at Sellafield on Thursday 11 and Friday 12 February 1993.
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate were informed of an incident at Sellafield at 1600 hours on Friday 12 February. The information indicated that the release occurred from the B204 stack as a result of work prior to decommissioning in building B203 which shares a ventilation stack with B204. This preparatory work in B203 was stopped as a result of the release and will not recommence until HMIP has reported.
HMIP and NII arranged for inspectors to visit the Sellafield site on Saturday 13 February to investigate the background to the release. B203 is a redundant building which has been shut down for 10 years. It is important that this and other buildings no longer in use are properly and safely decommissioned. We understand that as part of the preparatory work on decommissioning a small amount of alpha-emitting radioactive material was disturbed and emitted into the atmosphere. It is estimated that from the start of the incident to date, about 1,000 mega-becquerels of activity has been released. British Nuclear Fuels monitoring shows that emissions have dropped substantially. The most recent results show that emissions are down to about 20 mega-becquerels over a 24-hour period.
The House will be interested to know that the current authorised discharge limit is 4,300 mega-becquerels per annum, although BNFL. has been operating well within that limit in recent years, at about 100 to 200 mega-becquerels per annum. We therefore regard the incident as serious, although it is well within safety limits.
The House will also wish to know that on the basis of pessimistic estimates, the increase in dose to the public close to the plant is approximately 10 micro-Sieverts. The annual average dose in the United Kingdom is 2,500 micro-Sieverts.
Starting with HMIP and NII's preliminary visit to the site on Saturday, 13 February, a full investigation is in hand. There will be a further visit by HMIP and NII tomorrow. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspectors have also arranged for samples to be taken around the site perimeter. The results of this investigation will he reported to the chief inspectors of HMIP and the NII. I have asked the chief inspector of HMIP to report to me on all the circumstances of the incident, the lessons to be learnt and the actions to be taken for the future. I shall, of course, publish that report.
I emphasise that the incident occurred in redundant plant and is not associated with normal or planned operations on the Sellafield site.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Minister. Although we can all agree that the incident was serious, does the Minister agree that it is also unacceptable that one quarter of the annual authorisation of certain radio nucleides should be discharged in just 24 hours? Is it not also unacceptable that it took the management of British Nuclear Fuels longer than one would expect to make the
22
incident public, especially bearing in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and I visited the site on Thursday and Friday last week and were not informed that those excessive discharges had taken place?
Does the Minister accept, and will the management of British Nuclear Fuels note, that such behaviour does nothing to inspire confidence in them and the way in which they discharge their responsibilities? Can the Minister tell me and my constituents more about the qualitative nature of the radio nucleides which escaped? It clearly was not a contemplated and managed discharge, but an accident which should not have happened. What radio nucleides were involved? Is it true, for example, that one was americium? Can the Minister identify any others?
Will the Minister ensure that there will be the most rigorous and searching inquiry? I welcome his assurance that a report will be published. Is there any indication yet that British Nuclear Fuels might have exceeded the terms of its operating licence or failed to sustain best management practice in the conduct of the decommissioning? Can the Minister tell us whether any legal proceedings against the company will follow this totally unacceptable series of events?
Mr. Maclean: Of course it is always unacceptable when such unplanned incidents take place. The fact that hon. Members visiting Sellafield at the time were not informed, although that is not a legal requirement, would seem to be a rather extraordinary discourtesy. I suggest that the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) take up that matter with the management of the plant.
I am, of course, concerned about the reporting time to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and to the NII. HMIP and NII will look at that matter, and 1 expect them to report back to me. I can tell the House at this stage that the radio nucleides which were emitted were all those that one would associate with the plutonium atom. Of course, in due course I shall publish full details of whatever the radio nucleides were when we have that information.
I am not aware of any breaking of the licensing conditions, but of course that is a matter for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and NII when they carry out a thorough investigation to determine whether the best management practices were used. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that the authorities were not actually decommissioning at the time; they were undertaking some preparatory work, looking at ventilation shafts and trying to improve systems before actual decommissioning should take place. Obviously, I cannot say anything about whether legal proceedings would follow; that depends on the investigations carried out by the inspectors, and they must determine whether there is a legal case to answer.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Does my hon. Friend the Minister understand that there will be considerable concern at the seriousness of the incident? Will he confirm the figures which I thought I heard—that people living closest to the site will receive a dose estimated at 10 micro-Sieverts, compared with what is held to be the danger point of 2,500 micro-Sieverts? Am I right in understanding that that means that the dose which the people closest to the site may have received will be between a quarter and a half of 1 per cent. of the safety level? If that is so, may we not take comfort from the fact

23
that our safety rules and arrangements are such that the release of such a minute amount of material has led to widespread concern and a statement in the House?
Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right in principle to draw attention to the small amount of radioactivity emitted locally and normal background radiation. The level of 2,500, which includes radiation emitted through medical processes as well, is not a safety limit or a danger limit; it is the normal dose emitted throughout the country in an average year. The safety level would be many times higher than 2,500, which makes my right hon. Friend's point even better. The fact that we have a full investigation of what has been a small emission shows how rigorous the inspectorate systems are in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Simon Hughes: In addition to the figures that the Minister gave as to the level of discharge relating to the current authorisation level, can he confirm. that the discharge recorded is about 300 mega-becquerels higher than the authorisation limit currently being discussed by HMIP and British Nuclear Fuels, which is about a third or a quarter as much again as is now regarded as acceptable? What will be the consequences of the discharge for the current application for thermal oxide reprocessing plant and the Government's consideration of that?
Mr. Maclean: That is highly speculative and has no connection whatever with the draft authorisation currently being considered by HMIP. It is for HMIP to determine what any new level should be.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Bearing in mind the presence on the site of the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), and their tendency to meddle in things, can my hon. Friend confirm that there is absolutely no question of their having left any doors open or pressed any buttons while they were on the site?
Mr. Maclean: I do not think that the hon. Members for Copeland and for Kirkcaldy would wish to push any nuclear buttons; I believe that their policy on that has changed now.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can the Minister confirm that the only reason why we have had an answer to this private notice question today is that, coincidentally, the discharge happened at the time my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and others were present at the plant? The truth is that many such discharges take place in nuclear power plants up and down the country which we never hear about.
It is high time that we had a full-scale public inquiry into the effectiveness and safety of nuclear power generally, especially when we are examining the question of the energy markets and the coal industry. We are subsidising nuclear power to the tune of £1.2 billion a year, and we are in the process of allowing Sizewell to add to that figure.
Mr. Maclean: As usual, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is talking absolute nonsense on the subject. Nuclear installations regularly report incidents and releases, and do so on every occasion. The fact that we
24
have a statement in the House today is not because of any cover-up, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but simply because the hon. Member for Copeland asked for it.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the considerable concern along the north Wales coast about the effect on health of radioactivity coming from Sellafield? The incident will have caused additional dismay, especially in view of the level of cancer which has been experienced along that coast recently. Can the Minister give an assurance that every aspect of the leak will be thoroughly investigated by the NII, especially those aspects which may be relevant to the decommissioning of nuclear power stations so that if there are lessons to be learnt they can be learnt before the decommissioning of further stations?
Mr. Maclean: There would be grave cause for anxiety and alarm only if people grossly exaggerated the release which has taken place. I hope that the facts and figures that I have given to the House today will allay any anxieties. I have said that there will be a full investigation by HMIP. It will report to me on any further action which may be necessary before we start a programme of proper decommissioning. I have also said that we shall publish that report fully.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: The Minister has said that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will do some testing. Will he assure the House that the results of that testing will be published? Can the south of Scotland and its agriculture industry, which has suffered previously from radiation leaks, be assured that testing will be undertaken properly and that the leak will have no effect on livestock and the food market in the south of Scotland?
Mr. Maclean: It does not help the hon. Gentleman's constituents or the food market in the south of Scotland or anywhere else to compare this incident with the Chernobyl incident. That is the only other major incident which has affected the food chain in Britain. The two incidents are totally different. The hon. Gentleman does a grave disservice to our industry by comparing them. I can assure the House that all the facts and figures that we collect are regularly published. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food publishes copious volumes of all the testing undertaken throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Alex Salmond: In view of the major leak from the same site in the 1950s, which was not revealed to the country for many years, perhaps the Minister would like to review the statement that he has just made to the House. In view of the recent incident, the long history of incidents at the site—under various names and various managements—and the pending prosecutions against BNFL for four breaches of the site conditions, can the Minister seriously tell the House that he is happy and satisfied with the management and safety of the site?
Mr. Maclean: The site is inspected regularly by HMIP and NII. I know of no country in the world which has such rigorous standards for nuclear safety as we have in Britain. If there are lessons to be learnt before decommissioning of old plant takes place, they will be learnt. That is why I look forward to the report from HMIP, which will give us and other countries good guidance on how one may undertake safe decommissioning of very old nuclear plant.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Minister reconsider once again his statement that there have been no previous incidents which have resulted in the contamination of food? In 1957, 11 tonnes of uranium were burning out of control at Windscale—now Sellafield —resulting in large-scale contamination of milk in the area. For a long period before that, Windscale contaminated the area by discharging to the atmosphere when it was a bomb factory. There has been a history of deception by the nuclear industry in Britain. Why do the Government not come clean and turn up on Friday to vote for a genuine freedom of information Act?
Mr. Maclean: I was not referring as far back as 1956 and the Windscale inquiry. The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) certainly suggested that more recent incidents of nuclear pollution had affected the food chain in Britain. I stand by what I said: it is of no help to constituents, food producers or food consumers in Britain to suggest that an incident of 1,000 mega-becquerels released into the atmosphere is responsible for massive contamination of the food chain. It is nonsense to suggest that or to compare the incident with Chernobyl.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Are there not great dangers in Members of Parliament using exaggerated language about problems which may exist in parts of the nuclear industry? In addressing a question to the Minister, may I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who suggests that incidents at Sellafield are not necessarily reported to the country, that every time an incident takes place at Sellafield the local Members of Parliament are informed? On this occasion there was a day's delay, but we are always informed. It is quite wrong for any Member of the House to compare what happened last week to what happened in 1957. In terms of damage to the environment, the incident last week was infinitesimal compared with that of 1957, which was an incident that we all regret.
Mr. Maclean: It is not often that the hon. Gentleman and I are on the same side in our reaction to an incident. I congratulate him on his wise words and commend them to all Members of the House.
Mr. Chris Smith: Can the Minister confirm that, while he said that the discharge was 1,000 mega-becquerels, the total discharge during
26
1991 was 274 mega-bequerels? Therefore, the incident is four times the total annual discharge, according to the last recorded facts, and should not be dismissed as minor. Can the Minister tell us why the discharge authorisations are so organised that no limits were broken in that instance? It cannot be right that one quarter of the plant's annual discharge limit went up one chimney in one day; surely the time scale of discharges ought to be taken into account, and not merely the total annual limit.
Does not the incident emphasise the importance of HMIP taking the utmost care, and erring on the side of caution if necessary, in their current consideration of discharge limits for Sellafield, including the thermal oxide reprocessing plant? Does not the incident throw into sharp relief the Government's drive for deregulation and self-monitoring of pollution discharges? There must be no cutting of corners in relation to the concern for the protection of public health and of the environment that we all share. Opposition Members demand that the highest and toughest standards, enforced and monitored by the public sector in the public interest, should be maintained to safeguard the public and the environment.
Mr. Maclean: So do the Government—that is why HMIP and NII inspectors were on site on Saturday morning, why their investigation is under way and why I shall publish the report that the chief inspector of HMIP makes to me. Judging from the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, it is a pity that he did not listen to the wise words of his hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I did not play down the incident or say that it was not serious; I said that we considered it serious, although it was well within the existing authorisation limit of 4,300 mega-becquerels.
The emissions during that three-day period were more than has been emitted by Sellafield as a matter of practice during the past few years. The emissions were within the authorised limit, which is for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to set. It is not for me to pronounce on the limit or for the House to pontificate on it. We have independent inspectors and regulators, who are admired for their independence. They set safety limits and regulatory requirements. Although the emission was unacceptable, it was within the authorised limits; that is the important point that the House should bear in mind, plus the fact that the emission was very low indeed.

Maastricht Treaty
3.53 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the process of ratification of the Maastricht treaty.
As the House knows, the purpose of the Bill before the House is to ensure that United Kingdom law, where necessary, conforms with the provisions of the Maastricht treaty.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in this House on 20 January that if amendment No. 27 were carried, United Kingdom law would not conform to the provisions of the treaty and that the United Kingdom would therefore be unable to ratify the treaty.
Those remarks were, of course, based on legal advice. However, in the light of discussion in this House and elsewhere, further careful and detailed consideration was given to the matter, and the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate were asked for their advice. I think it right, with the agreement and on the authority of the Law Officers, to inform the House of that advice, at the earliest practicable opportunity, and to explain the Government's position in the light of that advice.
In accordance with our usual practice when legislating, clause 1 of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill has been drafted to incorporate in our domestic law all amendments and protocols to the treaty of Rome which were included in the treaty on European union—the treaty of Maastricht.
The House will recall that the protocol on social policy authorises the other 11 member states of the Community to have recourse to the institutions, procedures and mechanisms of the treaty of Rome for the purposes of implementing their agreement on co-operation in the social area—the so-called social chapter. Most significantly, it specifies that acts adopted by the Council under the terms of the protocol shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 27 would exclude from the scope of clause 1 of the Bill the protocol on social policy. That is all that amendment No. 27 would do. The amendment would not have any effect on the treaty itself. It would not change the agreement among 11 into an agreement among 12. It would not bring the social chapter into effect in this country. The amendment would simply exclude the protocol from incorporation in domestic law under the European Communities Act. The legal question is therefore whether the United Kingdom could ratify the treaty even if the protocol were not incorporated into domestic law.
The Law Officers advise that, if the amendment were carried, acts adopted under the protocol would still not apply to the United Kingdom. That is because it is of the very nature of the protocol that acts adopted under it should not be applicable to the United Kingdom. It follows that no rights and obligations arise from those acts which need to be given effect in our domestic law.
In summary, the Law Officers consider that, while incorporation of the protocol in domestic law is desirable, it is not necessary for ratification or implementation of the Maastricht treaty. In other words, there would be no
28
impediment to ratification if the amendment were carried because acts adopted under the protocol would still not apply to the United Kingdom.
I must make it clear that there can be no question of the United Kingdom ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures. The House will have the opportunity on Third Reading, after detailed consideration of all aspects of the Bill, to decide whether the Bill should pass into law. The United Kingdom will not ratify the treaty unlesss the Bill is approved by Parliament. But amendment No. 27 is not a proposal to adhere to the social chapter and its passage would not be a decision that this country should do so. The Government will continue to oppose the amendment because, as I have said, incorporation of the protocol in domestic law would be desirable. But, in the light of the Law Officers' advice, if the amendment were carried it would have no effect on our ability to ratify the treaty. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. This is an important statement which the House has been waiting to hear. The House must come to order to hear the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Hurd: It constitutes a different siituation from that implied by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) when he moved the amendment and the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the House on 20 and 27 January. I regret that the legal advice then given to the House was not correct.
The Government's position on the substance of the matter remains unchanged. We continue to believe that the social chapter will harm growth and jobs in this country. We intend to press forward with the Bill so that we can ratify the treaty which I, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer negotiated at Maastricht, and which won an overwhelming majority on Second Reading in this House.
Madam Speaker: It may assist the House if I say a few words about the Foreign Secretary's statement. I felt it right to allow the Government to correct a mistake that had been made as soon as it came to light. Some questions will no doubt arise seeking clarification of what has been said. Page 500 of "Erskine May" states:
"The House is not formally aware of the detailed proceedings of any committee until the bill has been reported; and attempts to refer in the House to proceedings on a bill during its consideration in committee are consequently irregular."
Therefore—[Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order and listen to this important announcement.
Therefore, any consideration of further proceedings in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill cannot be pursued in detail with either the Foreign Secretary or myself. The House cannot legislate in two places at once. I trust that hon. Members will appreciate that when I judge it time to move on.
Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for agreeing to make a statement today in response to my request. I am sure that he welcomed the opportunity to try to remove at least some of the confusion and disarray in Government circles resulting from the mess that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have got into over their fanatical determination to deny the benefits of the social chapter to the people of our country. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to remove the confusion and disarray set in train by

29
the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), on 20 January in this Chamber when he said that he was speaking on legal advice.
As today's statement is about the fourth different interpretation that we have had of the Government's position in the past five days, why should the House or the country have any more confidence in today's opinion than they were able to have in any of the others, including that of the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford, which has been so summarily dismissed by the Foreign Secretary in the Chamber today? I am surprised that the Minister of State has not accelerated the process of his already tendered resignation.
Does the Foreign Secretary recall that, from the outset, starting with the statement made by the Prime Minister, the House has been promised
"that common consent in this country is exercised through a parliamentary democracy and through the voices and words of Members of Parliament in this House."—[Official Report, 3 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 832.]
If that has any meaning, why are we being told that the Government intend to ride roughshod over decisions made in the Chamber of the House of Commons? Does it not make a charade of the proceedings when we are told that —as the Foreign Secretary said in a radio interview—regardless of the decisions of the House, the Government will verify or ratify the Maastricht treaty only as it was when the Government agreed to it? What is the purpose of the weeks and weeks of deliberations in the Chamber and elsewhere if no effective change can be made?
If the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that he apparently does of amendment No. 27, which I tabled on behalf of the Labour party and which we shall certainly continue to press to a vote, why has he reiterated this afternoon the Government's determination to oppose it? What is the purpose of opposing it if, as he says, it makes no difference to the final outcome of events?
The truth is—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it —that our European partners would be pleased to see this country endorsing the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty, as they have done themselves. Today's statement reiterates the briefing heavily given on Friday to the effect that the Government would use the royal prerogative to ignore Parliament. The statement has the same message and the same impact as that briefing. The BBC said today that a Foreign Office official was now describing that briefing as mischievous nonsense. If it was, why did the Government indulge in the briefing in the first place—as they clearly did just a few days ago?
Amendment No. 27 was tabled on 30 May 1992, almost a year ago. The Government have wriggled, produced one explanation after another, and finally come to today's further explanation of why it is necessary to oppose the amendment and of what the legal consequences will be if it is not opposed or defeated. We had no confidence in the first Government position; we had no confidence in the position as explained by the right hon. Member for Watford; and we have no confidence in the statement by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon.
Mr. Hurd: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's points in sequence. I had intended to make a statement today, having received the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General last Thursday—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
There is no question of riding roughshod over the will of the House. If the House, against the Government's
30
advice, carried amendment No. 27, that would be the decision of the House, and it would mean, perforce, that the protocol that we are discussing would not be incorporated in the domestic law of this country. That would be a pity, because it is desirable that it should be, for the sake of completeness and tidiness. But for the reasons that I have given, on the advice of the Law Officers, it is not essential.
This leads to a crucial point. The House will be aware that the purpose of the Bill which, as you rightly said, Madam Speaker, is before a Committee of the House is to make United Kingdom law compatible with the union treaty. Two types of amendment can be and are being moved to it. Any amendment that would render United Kingdom law incompatible with the treaty would have the effect of making it impossible for the treaty to be ratified. Thus, from the Government's point of view, it is necessary for such amendments to be defeated.
Other amendments, while we may oppose them as undesirable, do not render United Kingdom law incompatible with the terms of the treaty. Another amendment that can be cited in this respect is the one about membership of the Committee of the Regions. We can argue about that and reach a decision on it; we can in either event ratify the treaty. Although the Government would seek to oppose that class of amendment, it would not, if carried, have any implications for ratification. The advice of the Law Officers is that amendment No. 27 falls into this latter category.
Now that he has said his piece, I think that the hon. Member for Copeland would probably accept the background as follows. The aim of his amendment, which, as he says, has been around for a long time, was to make it impossible for the Government to ratify the treaty in its present form and so, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, to bring about an intergovernmental conference at which we, the Government, would have to choose between accepting the social chapter and abandoning the treaty —that was the hon. Gentleman's declared aim. That, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase of 20 January, was the predicament in which he prides himself on seeking to place us. But his amendment does not achieve that aim, for the reasons that I have just given; it does not have that effect. We made that clear at the earliest practical opportunity after my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made it clear to me.
May I say something about the hon. Gentleman's main point, which must have been drafted before he heard what I had to say? There is no question of the decision about the Bill, and therefore about ratification, being made anywhere except in this House or in the other place. After thorough discussion, this House will decide whether to pass the Bill. If there is no Bill, there is no ratification of the treaty; and that is what parliamentary sovereignty means.
Mr. David Howell: Is not the position that Parliament makes laws and the Executive have the authority to make treaties? Is not the position that, as long as this Parliament enacts all the legal provisions that flow from the Maastricht treaty, and as long as Parliament approves the treaty in principle, as the House did on Second Reading, the Government are free to ratify the treaty? What steps will my right hon. Friend take to get that simple point into the mind of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?
Mr. Hurd: As my right hon. Friend says, ratification of the treaty is a matter for the Executive, but it is our practice, and must be our practice, not to ratify a treaty until Parliament has approved such changes in our domestic law as flow from the obligations of the treaty. That is why the Bill has been introduced before we ratify and why the Bill needs to be passed before we ratify.
Sir Russell Johnston: Is not the simple point that where there is a political will there is a legal way? Will the Foreign Secretary now tell us, quite directly, whether, if he had not received this new and convenient legal advice, he and the Government would have been prepared to jeopardise the treaty, irrespective of the damage that would be done in Europe, rather than accept the social chapter, irrespective of what Parliament said?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows, because he and I have discussed this across the Floor on several occasions and personally, of the very strong objections in terms of jobs and economic growth that every Conservative Member feels to the social chapter and its consequences for this country. The question in the form that he puts it does not arise.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the real reason for all this confusion, chaos and mess is that the Maastricht treaty is riddled with contradictions and, furthermore, that the arrangements that he has just described will not alter that position? Does he agree that the time has come to ensure that this treaty goes in the dustbin of history?
Mr. Hurd: I give a general answer to my hon. Friend's general point. The world is in substantial turmoil, both economic and political. The destruction of the treaty of Maastricht would add substantially to that turmoil. It would frustrate much of what we are trying to do, and if we were held responsible it would substantially reduce our say on matters of vital concern to us in Europe and the world.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, far from reassuring the House about the Government's use of the royal prerogative, he has confirmed it? The treaty was signed by the royal prerogative. The royal prerogative—the right to control a Bill—allowed the Bill to be drafted in such a way as to make the amendments meaningless. The right hon. Gentleman says that if amendment No. 27 were made it would have no meaning. Why? Because the Bill and the long title were drafted in that way. Is it not a fact that the whole problem about Maastricht is that all laws made under Maastricht thereafter will be made by the royal prerogative? If the House passes that Bill and the treaty is ratified, the legislative competence of the Council of Ministers in Brussels will get wider and wider, and that affects the domestic rights of the electorate and of the House. That is why the British people should have a say and why Parliament should have the right to amend the Bill in a meaningful way before it is put to the House. He has made the issue much clearer in his answer today.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is making his usual case against the treaty of Rome and the European Communities Act 1972. Of course they affected the situation, but the constitutional position remains as I set it
32
out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). Ratification of the treaty is an executive matter, but the Executive does not and cannot act unless and until Parliament has approved the necessary changes in domestic law. There is nothing new about that principle, although the right hon. Gentleman may wish to change it. The treaty of Maastricht involves no new principles.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there was never any intention to bypass Parliament in order to ratify the treaty? Will he also show some sympathy to those opponents of the Bill who have been prepared to vote in favour of the social contract, which every one of my right hon. and hon. Friends opposes, and even deprive them of their preparedness to vote for the proposition that the moon is made of blue cheese?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The political truth is surely that there is a majority in the House —that is demonstrated over and over again—in favour of ratification of the treaty. I believe that there is a majority against the social chapter. But the voting on amendment No. 27 is not central to either issue.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, if what he said today is correct, what the Minister of State said on 20 and 27 January on advice from the Law Officers was wrong? Would it not be a good thing for Law Officers to attend the Committee?
In respect of the prerogative, while it is true that certain titles of the treaty are subject to debate in the House and are part of the Bill, does the Foreign Secretary agree that titles I, V, VI and VII are not? Would it not be possible —indeed, is it not his intention—to ratify those titles by the prerogative? If he were really concerned with parliamentary democracy, would not the way forward be to print the whole of the treaty as schedules to the Bill so that we could go through it as we go through our domestic legislation?
Mr. Hurd: On the second point—I have heard the hon. Gentleman on that theme before, in Committee—he knows that those titles deal with intergovernmental co-operation. That is one of the characteristics of the treaty of Maastricht, although its critics would not always accept that. There are no obligations here that need incorporation into domestic law, and that is why they are not included in the Bill.
There is a point in the hon. Gentleman's first question, although I should like to correct him on one factual matter. What my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said on 20 and 27 January was said on advice not from the Law Officers but from legal advisers within the Department. In introducing the amendment, the hon. Member for Copeland went astray, and that is why I linked the two in my statement.
There are lessons to be learnt from this. My conclusion, and the error for which I have expressed regret and for which I take responsibility, is that we should have put the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown earlier. If the House wishes further advice on the meaning and effect of the proposed legislation, Law Officers are willing to be present when the Committee stage of the Bill resumes.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As we were misled on previous occasions, will the Foreign Secretary tell us

33
which Department's legal advisers gave the legal advice? In view of his clear statement, will he agree that it is outrageous, and contrary to the standards of a Conservative Government, that Cabinet Ministers should go on television and say that those voting for the amendment would be voting to apply the social chapter to Britain? In view of the content of the protocol, can he tell us who pays for the social chapter? It seems that the protocol says that we pay only the administrative costs. Could we not clarify these matters before we proceed?
Mr. Hurd: I shall try to do so. The legal advice came from within my Department. Those who are members of the legal profession and others will accept, I believe, that what I am about to say is true. In this sort of situation there are legal considerations on either side of the argument. The question at the end of the day is not whether those views or considerations are valid but which set of considerations is the more important. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in weighing the different considerations, came to the conclusion that I have reported to the House. That answers my hon. Friend's second point.
What my hon. Friend says about costs is accurate. I am advised by the Law Officers that the United Kingdom is obliged under the social protocol to contribute to such administrative costs to the institutions. It is not clear when or whether such costs will arise. If and when they do, I am advised that the likelihood is that they will be a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, as authorised under the 1972 legislation.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Is not the central dilemma facing the Foreign Secretary that he states that the incorporation of the exemption is desirable but then states that the passing of amendment No. 27 would not have any effect? If I understand the matter correctly, the right hon. Gentleman has said that it is necessary for tidying-up purposes to incorporate the social protocol into United Kingdom law. Is not the reason for that to ensure that if a United Kingdom citizen took a case based on the social protocol before the European Court of Justice, he or she would be met by a defence in British law, namely, that we had already legislated by means of the exemption? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's version of the legal position now creating still further uncertainty for the future?
Mr. Hurd: The legal advice is clear, and I have already given it. As a normal course of events, we seek to make the description of these clauses comprehensive. That is desirable for the sake of tidiness and completeness. The question is whether that consideration—it is the one that the hon. Gentleman is talking about—implies or constitutes necessity. The advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is that it does not.
Sir Cranley Onslow: Will my right Friend confirm for the benefit of any hon. Member who may have thought that by voting for amendment No. 27 he or she could effectively destroy the Maastricht treaty that that fox has now been shot?
Mr. Hurd: The effect of the amendment would not be negligible. On that score the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) was wrong. It would be that the protocol would not be incorporated in domestic law. It would not have any wider reach than that.
Mr. Peter Shore: Is not this entire business a shambles and a farce that sheds great discredit upon Foreign Office Ministers and the Law Officers? The House is entitled to have proper and up-to-date legal advice. That is something for which we have asked and which we have been denied on several occasions during our consideration of the Bill.
What is the consequence of what the Foreign Secretary has discovered? A few days ago he gave the clear impression during an interview on the radio that there would be serious trouble if amendment No. 27 was agreed to. He gave the impression that he was prepared to use the prerogative power to prevent that. The storm that followed has led the right hon. Gentleman to have an emergency meeting with the Law Officers and others. The fifth cavalry has come to the rescue with a new version of the meaning that would follow from the passage of amendment No. 27. Are we not in the most ridiculous position of having, late in the day, one Law Officer's explanation when we could easily get other explanations at later stages of the Bill?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is not being fair. I shall send him the transcript of what I said in the broadcast. Although I was tempted to do so, I deliberately and specifically did not enter into the legal thicket because I had not received my right hon. and learned Friend's advice. I spoke on matters of substance, which I have repeated today. I stated our objections to the social chapter and our intention to ratify the treaty as we signed it. It would not have been right to have given the particulars of my right hon. and learned Friend's advice to any of the media before informing the House today, which we have done. I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for his advice substantially before last week.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for again reiterating the primordial sovereignty of the House in making such decisions. In relation to the question of the my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who suggested that the Maastricht treaty should be consigned to the dustbin of history, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that 10 countries have ratified the treaty and that Denmark is about to do so with a significant majority? Should not the House proceed with the Bill as quickly as possible?
Mr. Hurd: I agree that that is the position, and that it is for this House to decide such matters. We have made a mistake, which I have acknowledged. However, the Labour party has also made a mistake in tabling an amendment that it supposed would put us in the predicament that has been described. It does not.
Mr. Denzil Davies: The Foreign Secretary said that the present legal opinion is that the protocol on the social chapter does not create rights or impose obligations on the United Kingdom and its domestic law, and that therefore it does not have to be incorporated into domestic law. Surely there must be other articles, protocols and declarations of the Maastricht treaty which are in exactly the same position. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish a list of those in Hansard so that we may know what they are? In particular, will he confirm that all articles and so on leading to stage 3 of economic and monetary union are in exactly that category?
Mr. Hurd: The Committee will come to those matters point by point. I said—and the right hon. Gentleman was listening—that there are two sorts of amendment to the Bill. The Government have, of necessity, to defeat one sort if we are to ratify the treaty, because they affect the treaty. The other sort does not affect the treaty, but we may still wish to resist such amendments on grounds that are discussed and debated in the House. I gave as an example the composition of the Committee of the Regions. On the question of stage 3, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the protocol involved is quite different and, unless it is accepted and incorporated, the opt-out negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not have effect and the obligations of stage 3 would be imposed upon us. That protocol is in a different position from that pertaining to amendment No. 27.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the Opposition are playing ducks and drakes with the Bill, large and small businesses throughout the country are having to make commercial judgments that will affect both employment opportunities and the prosperity of the United Kingdom? Businesses wishing to come to this country to invest are also affected. My right hon. Friend's announcement today will be most welcome to the business sector.
Mr. Hurd: There is a strong feeling that we need to get on with the Bill. The House has quite rightly been given —indeed, it has taken—substantial time to consider the Bill. At the end of a very detailed and long consideration the House will make a decision on Third Reading whether to pass the Bill and thus enable the Government to ratify the treaty. It is very much in the national interest that that should happen.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of the opponents of closer European union argue very much about the democratic deficit between the institutions of Europe and this place? Does he not accept that his Government have today exposed a democratic deficit between the Executive and the legislature? Even if we voted in favour of the principle of the social chapter, the Government would still say no. Does not that mean that the concept of parliamentary sovereignty has been undermined once and for all? Would it not be better, therefore, to accept the Scottish constitutional legal position and to put the whole issue to the people in a referendum, with the option of including the social chapter?
Mr. Hurd: The Committee may have an opportunity to consider the hon. Lady's suggestion before long. That is another example of a matter that must be debated in its own terms. The hon. Lady's premise is wrong, however: if carried, amendment No. 27 would not impose the social chapter on the country, and she does the cause of democracy and orderly debate no good by claiming that it would.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: In view of the various strands that the Foreign Secretary seems to have identified in terms of legal advice, how can we be certain of any of the legal advice given to the Government in respect of any of the clauses and other provisions that we have discussed?
Mr. Hurd: That question has already been asked, and I have already answered it. I have mentioned the willingness of Law Officers to be present in Committee to answer points of legal importance that are addressed to them.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Foreign Secretary admit that, in the course of the past few days, the Government have been scared in losing a very important vote inside Parliament, which has debated the Bill line by line and clause by clause? Over the years, most of us have been told that, when a Government debating an issue are defeated on an amendment, they must accept it in principle. If the amendment has not been worded correctly, it is the Government's job to ensure that it is.
The Foreign Secretary is now saying, "We do not like the idea of losing in Parliament, so we are going to move the goalposts and rig the system. We are going to tell the British people that Parliament does not matter as far as we are concerned, and that we are going to go to higher authorities"—a gang of lawyers who can give the Government advice, provided that they have enough money to hand out. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. His is artificial indignation, as the whole House can tell. He knows what the amendment says and what it does not say. He knows that, if the amendment is carried, it will not impose the social chapter on this country; and he knows that, at the end of the day—although he will be in the minority—it will be for the House to decide whether to approve the Bill and ratify the treaty. That is the essence of parliamentary sovereignty.
In this country, we have a more detailed system of examination. By the time that we reach Third Reading, the House—or, at any rate, those who, like the hon. Gentleman, are particularly interested—will have spent day after day weighing up the matter. Ultimately, however, Parliament will decide—not the royal prerogative, the Executive or the lawyers.
Mr. Roger Gale: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the country's European and social policy should be determined on sound principles such as those employed by Baroness Thatcher when she introduced the Single European Act—the Government have followed them ever since—rather than on technical manoeuvring of the kind employed by the Opposition and a few little Englanders on the Conservative Benches?
Mr. Hurd: I agree. We accept that there is a social dimension to the life of the Community, and we have a better record than most in going along with what has already been agreed. We believe, however, that the extension of that dimension that is implied in the social chapter is harmful—or, rather, would be harmful—to growth and jobs in this country. That is why we shall continue with our policy of resisting it.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Is the Secretary of State aware that a very worrying air of incompetence is emanating from the Treasury Bench over this whole affair? Does he agree that that incompetence is causing a very worrying threat to the passage of the Bill and the ratification of the treaty, something about which some of us, who have spent many hours on the Bill, feel very concerned? In addition, some of us, who have spent a lot of time on the clauses, and in particular on

37
amendment No. 27, feel very annoyed that we seem to have been wasting our time because of the Government's inability to get their act together. Why were not the Law Officers called in to make a statement to the House before now?
Mr. Hurd: This debate arises not from a Government amendment but from one tabled by the official Opposition, on a basis clearly set out by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) at the beginning but which has proved to be, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, incompetent. I am not resiling from the regret that I have already expressed; I am willing to repeat it. I am also willing to repeat my wish that the Law Officers had been invoked earlier. But that is the position, and the position is now clear.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend note that those who asked for legal advice, having got it, do not like it? That is because they were hoping to enforce the social chapter on this country through this initiative—if you like, through the back Delors. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Opposition will now withdraw it? Many of those who put their names to this effort, particularly those in the Labour party and the Liberal party, claim to be positive Europeans, whereas those on this side of the House who argued for the amendment are anti-Community through and through.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend makes a fair summary of the political points.
Dr. Cunningham: We tabled amendment No. 27 10 months ago. For 10 months, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Employment, the Minister of State—the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones)—and the Home Secretary—indeed, almost every member of the Cabinet—accepted our interpretation of the amendment, yet suddenly, when the Government apparently face defeat after so many Ministers so frequently have been so wrong, a new legal opinion appears. Is not that very convenient for the right hon. Gentleman? Outside this House, however, people will conclude yet again that, when this Government govern, expediency is the rule of the day and priniple is nowhere to be seen.
Mr. Hurd: The hon Gentleman is understandably nettled because the amendment that he tabled is—and I use the phrase in its legal sense—incompetent. I have explained the background and the sequence of events. I have also explained that, some time ago, but after 27 January, it seemed to me to be necessary to ask for the advice of the Law Officers. That has recently arrived and I have immediately communicated it to the House. The result of that advice is perfectly clear: that the amendment, if carried, would prevent the incorporation of the protocol in the domestic legislation of the House, and that would be its full scope.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the beginning of the statement you drew a distinction between the proceedings in a Committee of the whole House and the proceedings of the House. Obviously the House appreciated your advice. While it is perfectly true that the matter that we have been discussing in the House is being considered in a Committee of the whole House, would you care to reflect upon the fact that the House, in another shape, has been given conflicting advice? In those circumstances, I suggest that there is a need for the Attorney-General, as the senior Law Officer, to come before the House, not the Committee, and make a statement.
I would simply say in passing, and in conclusion, that this is a matter of significant importance to Parliament, to our rights and to our sovereignty. I do not believe that it is sufficient simply to say, as may well be said, that there will be a statement in Committee. This is a matter for the whole House sitting as a House, and not as a Committee. I invite you, Madam Speaker, to reflect on that with the advice of the Clerks. We should, at the first opportunity, have a statement from the Attorney-General.
Madam Speaker: As the House knows, and as the hon. Gentleman appreciates, that is not a point of order for the Chair. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. All I can say to the House is that the Treasury Bench has heard the hon. Gentleman's request. We must leave it at that for the time being.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further points of order on that matter because I have just dealt with it. If there are different points of order, of course I must take them.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a different point of order, although on a similar argument, there is a Scottish situation—
Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat? What he is saying is that his point of order is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Salmond: It is a point of order for the Chair.
Madam Speaker: If it is a point of order for the Chair, I will hear the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Salmond: I know that you, Madam Speaker, are anxious to protect the rights of Scottish Members and will be aware of the Scottish aspect, which the Government should also hear.
Madam Speaker: I am sorry?
Mr. Salmond: There are different Law Officers for Scotland.
Madam Speaker: Of course. I recognise that and that is why I was so concerned to ensure that a member of the Scottish National party was called during today's statement.

Housing
4.40 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: I beg to move,
That this House is alarmed by reports from all areas of the United Kingdom regarding the acute shortage of low cost housing available for rent or for purchase under all systems of tenure or ownership; calls on the Government to provide urgently for the release of capital receipts derived from the sale of council property from all previous financial years for housing investment both directly by local authorities and by partnership schemes and for links to be established between agencies providing housing, health and social care to ensure that provision is made for all people in need; and further calls on the Government to ensure that people have the right to decent and appropriate conditions including facilities for the disabled.
It is perhaps a pity that such an important debate on matters relating to housing has been delayed due to the farce that we have just seen. If the Government had got their act together, we would have had another 45 minutes to deal with this very important subject.
It is easy to fall into the trap of suggesting that problems in one's own constituency are unique. I had no idea of the scale of the housing crisis facing this country outside my area of the north-west of England until I compared notes with my colleagues. If we want to begin to tackle the problems, we do not need the Government's laid back approach of "It'll be all right on the night"; we need radical action from the Government. I will refer in detail to my constituency to give the House a flavour of the problems in one constituency which is by no means the worst off in the land, but by no means the best off.
My constituency comprises part of the borough of Ellesmere Port and Neston and part of the council area of the city of Chester. Some 10,000 electors live in the latter part. There are 4,500 people on the housing waiting list in the borough of Ellesmere Port and Neston and 5,000 in the city of Chester area.
I want to examine the facts in some detail and I hope that that will demonstrate to the House that the problem lies not with local authorities, private landlords, housing associations or the owner-occupied sector, but right here with the Government. The problem is their failure to recognise the importance of the links between the breakdown in the economy generally and the growing crisis in housing.
In the rural Chester area, the council has undertaken a major survey to determine the extent of rural housing need. The results of two pilot surveys show an under-estimation of need in respect of the housing waiting list. There is a substantial level of requests for rented accommodation in preference to owner-occupation.
In its 1992 report, the Rural Development Commission highlighted the problems and cited Chester as a case study. The report refers to the low average wage of often less than £3 an hour—against a background of the Government wanting to abolish the wages councils—and the average private rent of £63 a week. The report also refers to other difficulties in respect of trying to resolve the problem in rural areas. Thirty seven per cent. of Chester's rural council housing stock has been sold off. With a rural turnover of 6 per cent., which is substantially less than the urban area, there is a real problem.
Since April 1989, there has been a 25 per cent. increase in the housing waiting list in the borough of Ellesmere Port
40
and Neston, from 3,276 to 4,492. As bad as that figure is, it hides the real problem which is the time that people have to wait in order to be housed. I will refer to harsh statistics to illustrate my points and I ask hon. Members, many of whom on the Conservative Benches live in relative opulence, to think carefully about what the figures mean.
With regard to the increase in the housing waiting list from 3,276 to 4,492, in April 1987, a family with one child had to wait just one month in Ellesmere Port and Neston on average to obtain council accommodation. That reflects a well-run Labour-controlled authority of which there are many up and down the land. Regrettably, as a result of the Government's policies, that waiting time has increased to 42 months—
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Well run?
Mr. Miller: The Government Whip may criticise that point from a sedentary position, but I challenge anyone to criticise the authority which has managed its housing stock extremely well. The Government are responsible for the increase in waiting time to 42 months.
The main contributory factors to the increase in waiting lists are constraints on new build, the effects of the poll tax, stress related to family breakdown, unemployment and repossessions. After.14 years of Tory trial and error, one would have thought that the Tories would have got it right; but no, the problems continue. It is the public's trial based on Tory errors.
In this month's House Builder magazine, the Chancellor of the Exchequer displays an awe-inspiring ignorance. Under the headline, which I found difficult to believe,
"The Government's done its bit",
the Chancellor argues that the housing market can look after itself after his autumn statement. What complacent drivel. Having set out what is so obviously a flawed argument, he concludes:
"the Government cannot underwrite the housing market; nor can it insulate the building and construction trades from the economic cycle."
When the Prime Minister eventually realises that the Chancellor just is not up to the job, I suggest that he looks at the cartoon linked to that article in which the Chancellor is pointing to building workers saying, "Gentlemen, over to you." Yes, any one of them could do a better job than the present incumbent. Any one of them could demonstrate the clear links between the state of the economy and the construction industry. Any one of them could tell the Chancellor that his autumn statement was just a drop in the ocean. Any one of them would have more concern for the needs of the homeless and people living in inadequate accommodation than the Chancellor.
Mr. Charles Hendry: As the hon. Gentleman referred to the autumn statement, is he aware that the £577 million allocated to housing associations has already led to 11,000 houses being brought back into use by housing associations?
Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman is somewhat premature: that has not happened. If he waits a little longer, he will hear my economic analysis and I hope that he will then appreciate that the scale of the problem is much greater than has been suggested. If the Chancellor spent less time evicting his own tenants and more time thinking about the nation's economic plight, perhaps he would really start to understand what is happening.

41
In the House Builder, under the byline "Absent jury", the president of the House-Builders Federation, Mr. Tony Hillier, states:
"Clearly, the economy dominates all. The slump in the housing market is inextricably linked to the continued failure of the general economy to move out of recession. The jury is still out on whether the Chancellor's Autumn Statement was sufficient to stimulate the economy into decisive action. The Government clearly does not believe that a recovery in housing is a pre-condition for recovery in the wider economy, and we at the HBF have suspended judgment to see who is right."
People at the HBF obviously believe one thing and the Government believe another. He went on to say:
"When I took chemistry 'A' level, many years ago, I grappled with molecular theory"—
I was attracted by that statement, because I grappled with molecular theory as well—
"which taught me that life was made up of various sub-atomic particles—protons, electrons and neutrons. In my journey through life I have since discovered a further particle, which seems to be the main building block of life: that is, of course, the moron.
It seems to me that it is this particular particle which generates much of the housing policy of the DOE and other Government departments."
I could not put it better myself. Mr. Hillier's knighthood obviously goes down the Swanee.
My staff have been talking to local estate agents. I thank the estate agents who took part in my little survey. It was particularly important because it was an attempt to put into perspective some parts of the problem that we face. I shall describe to the House some of the anecdotal comments that came from estate agents. The first said:
"Not wonderful—not very good at all!"
She said that things picked up after the new year but fell again and that if interest rates stayed down they would improve. According to that estate agent, it is basically supply and demand. She has many properties on her books without chains but they are not moving either. Property prices are down by 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. in the past two years. The second estate agent said:
"There are positive signs of improvement this year, busier than last year."
Although there are more properties on the market, they are not selling any more. Lots of people appear to be waiting for interest rates to fall again. When the market picks up and house prices are realistic, they should sell. Another estate agent said that last year was the worst year on record. Prices dropped by 10 per cent. That estate agent was a little more encouraged by the beginning of 1993, but he said that that
"could be wiped out by a rise in interest rates and local employment setbacks."
The importance of that for the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Gedling) is that, according to the estate agents to whom I have spoken, there are direct links between the general economic situation and the needs of the housing industry. Another estate agent said that redundancy worries and possible job loss are more important than keeping the brake on interest rates. The general links are clearly seen by estate agents.
As the House can see, estate agents' views are not all necessarily bleak in respect of the owner-occupied sector. But, even if one were to take the most optimistic of those comments, unless the supply side is addressed in terms of the low-cost end of the market, there can be no solution. We simply have too few houses to meet the nation's need for housing of a decent standard. Add to that the problems of negative equity and the problems in the private sector
42
start to become even more clear. Negative equity more than doubled last year to £2·68 billion. Also, 27 per cent. of people buying the cheapest property have negative equity. If this year's fall in house prices continues, by the end of the year negative equity will double.
A resolution of the issue of confidence raised by the agents to whom I referred will occur only when the economy gets back on the move. Of course, most people bar the Chancellor think that a house-building programme that targets the low-cost sector would have an early impact on confidence. In turn, that would provide an incentive to the marketplace and take pressure off local authorities by increasing interest elsewhere in the spectrum, and remove or at least reduce the number of repossessions. In turn, the chain reaction would release precious resources which could be used to address many other pressing social problems. The formula is quite straightforward and simple.
Examples of how the system has gone wrong can be seen throughout the country. The Minister for Housing and Planning recently suggested that mandatory renovation grants might be abandoned entirely due to the financial pressures that they are placing on local authorities. Although financial pressures on councils are undoubtedly increasing, such a step would be extremely short-sighted. It would accelerate deterioration of the housing stock, affect the most vulnerable groups in society and reduce the supply of housing.
As hon. Members know, housing capital finance is an extremely complex subject. Capital expenditure can be derived from three sources: first, permission to borrow money; secondly, housing capital receipts; and, thirdly, rent income. The Government issue a basic credit approval which covers all council activity, not just housing. However, they do that in stages to make it appear that capital allocation is being made specifically for housing. The first stage is the announcement of the housing investment programme allocation. That in itself does not confer permission to borrow, but it is the Government's assessment of what a council needs to spend on its capital works.
I shall set out in careful detail the next part of my argument because it shows the anomaly between the way the Government manipulate the figures and the real facts facing local authorities. In the case of my local authority, the "receipts taken into account" figure significantly increased in 1993–94. That represents central Government's assessment of the council's ability to finance capital expenditure from usable capital receipts. The figure is based on actual usable capital receipts as at 31 March 1992, plus an estimate of the likely usable receipts that will be generated in 1992–93. However, the latter figure is modified as though the relaxation on capital receipts rules that was announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement had applied from 1 April, which of course it did not.
For Ellesmere Port and Neston, matters have been made worse by the fact that the council received a one-off windfall capital receipt of more than £3 million before 13 November 1992. Therefore, although it was able to use only 50 per cent. of that money, the Government treated it as 100 per cent. usable. That was a general fund capital receipt, not a housing capital receipt. Moreover, the Government have made the assumption that that represents the typical usable capital receipts during the year and therefore the figure has been projected to 1993–94. The effects of that perverse methodology in

43
calculating receipts taken into account is that in 1993–94 the housing capital programme will lose credit approvals amounting to £793,000, which actually relates to general fund capital receipts, half of which the council is not allowed to use anyway.
By comparison, it is estimated that additional usable housing capital receipts released as a result of the Chancellor's autumn statement are £280,000 in 1992–93 and £572,250 in 1993–94. Against that, the amount of set-aside capital receipts—the amount of capital receipts which the council owns but is not allowed to spend—is approximately £11·5 million. That logic is perverse and must be changed.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the perverse logic of the Government in their attitude to capital receipts. Is my hon. Friend aware of the even more perverse position of the Minister of Housing ten years ago—he was a junior housing Minister at that time—when he was advocating the use of all accumulated capital receipts as absolutely essential for the housing programme? That is an extraordinary inconsistency on the part of the Government who now claim that they cannot release the £5 billion which is available and would make such an enormous difference in meeting housing needs.
Mr. Miller: I bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge and expertise in the field of housing. I agree with him wholeheartedly that not only my small detailed example but the whole logic of the Government's position is perverse.
This morning, I received a letter from the Maritime Housing Association which set out the difficulties that the association faces. Maritime housing is an area supposedly being helped by the current Administration. The association wrote to me on behalf of all members of the committee of management to express concern about the level of average housing association grants for rental schemes which is projected for 1994–95 and 1995–96. A small housing association is expressing that view. It has written to all Members of Parliament in the greater Merseyside area. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points which have been made. We face serious issues.
The House Builder is not a left-wing tract as far as I am aware. In that magazine, the Minister for Housing and Planning takes a marginally more enlightened view on which I congratulate him. He says,
"There can be no doubt that the issues surrounding Housing are among the most important facing us today."
When I first read that statement I thought that the Minister had seen the light and was on his way to Damascus. He continued by saying—[Horn. MEMBERS: "He does not know where it is."] He does not know where the article is, either. He continued by saying, and I think that it is a quote from the Department of the Environment's annual report:
"The Government's aim is to ensure that a decent home is within the reach of every family whether it is owned by them, rented from private or social landlords or part owned and part rented."
He then goes on to promote a series of solutions, some of which I would go along with. However, the problem is his
44
failure to distance himself from that wretched Chancellor and recognise the scale of the problem facing the country.
He said that his package is
"to provide a kick start"—
Labour Members were criticised for using "kick start" during the election—
"to the depressed housing market, while at the same time providing some additional 20,000 social homes this year."
I have to say to the Minister that that simply is not enough. His logic and financial methodology are suspect in the extreme.
Earlier, I accused the Minister of underestimating the scale. Why did he do that? He did it simply because, with all the expertise at his fingertips, he is satisfied with a target figure of 20,000. The Institute of Housing says that the target should be 100,000. Shelter agrees with that view, as do the Housing Corporation and that other well-known left-wing think tank, the Audit Commission.
In considering action for the Budget, the Chancellor would do well to examine the arguments of the Institute of Housing. The institute says,
"House building is one of the most effective ways to create new employment because it is labour intensive. Every £1 million invested in new houses or renovation creates as many as 50 new jobs. If 100,000 new jobs can be created overall, something over £750 million would be gained by the Exchequer. Most construction products are produced from United Kingdom sources so the import bill for expanded house building will be modest. House building primarily stimulated United Kingdom materials suppliers. Part of the cost of the investment programme would be offset by savings in benefits and recovered tax income."
On the same theme, Shelter says,
"In 1990 nearly 5,000 building firms became insolvent, followed by 7,000 in 1991. The building employers estimate that an average of 600 jobs—about 300,000 in total—will have been lost each working day in the past two years to the end of 1992. Another 100,000 could be lost by the end of 1993.
Each unemployed person costs the state, on average, £8,900 in benefits and lost tax. In just two years the collapse of the construction industry may well have cost the Exchequer £2,700 million, and much more if unemployment in related trades is considered … If lost corporation tax and stamp duty are included, the recession in the construction industry has probably already cost over £4,000 million."
Later, I will set out arguments as to why that figure is larger.
The motion talks about links between different agencies and appropriate housing for people with disabililities. What do I mean by that? One of the most frustrating aspects of public administration in the United Kingdom is the way in which everything works in little boxes. Departments and, indeed, empires build up in splendid isolation with no knowledge or even a care about the rest of the world. In addressing the problem which we face in that area, we can examine the health links. Shelter argues that
"meeting the needs of homeless people costs more per person than meeting the needs of the rest of the population."
That is fairly obvious. It says that the issue is causing considerable concern to health authorities—we have not seen any action on that—but, as yet, there are no estimates of cost. Similarly, few studies have estimated the costs of bad housing. The Department of Health has recently estimated that the cost to the NHS of treating illnesses created through condensation runs at £800 million per year. We must add that to the figure of £4,000 million and all the other health cost implications.
Likewise, much of what happens on the ground with regard to social services relies on the good will of local authority officers trying desperately to solve the

45
housing-related issues which stem from, for example, care in the community. We need a lead from the top to resolve some of the housing-associated problems.
My final illustration of the need for greater cross departmental links relates to people with disabilities. Is there not a basic human right for people to be housed in appropriate conditions or are the Government happy to see people such as the young man I saw a fortnight ago whose mother is becoming more and more ill coping with his disability? The Government are not allowing the local authority to spend money which is available to provide that man with proper ramps or a stair lift. Not only should existing moneys be released: we should have a long hard look at the method of delivery.
Even the Department of the Environment recognises that people with disabilities are discriminated against, although it does not seem to do much about it. In early 1992, data showed that only 30 accessible homes were being built for every 100,000 disabled people and that there were 1,170,000 outstanding requests for adaptations to existing homes. I doubt whether there is a better example of discrimination anywhere in the United Kingdom.
I shall now turn to the economic issues and the solutions to the problems with which I have been dealing. I know that my hon. Friends intend to expand some of the arguments that I have set out. Many of the necessary solutions are well described in a document published by Shelter last year called "Moving Forward. A Programme to Meet Housing Need." On council and housing association empty homes it says:
"These would be brought back into use through rehabilitation and improvement work. Councils could also fund housing association repairs in return for nomination rights for homeless households currently in temporary housing. The programme envisages that 30,000 empty homes would be repaired and brought back into use over a five year period."
The programme also deals with private sector leasing and purchase. It says:
"Councils should be allowed to offer owners of homes, used on a lease, a cash sum to buy the home when the lease expires. There are currently an estimated 17,500 homes used on lease by councils in England, with the majority in London."
The programme makes recommendations about private purchase. It says:
"This would involve the purchase of private unsold and repossessed homes by local authorities and housing associations from developers, lenders and private owners. Advantage could be taken of the current state of the private housing market."
The programme also deals with private and Government empty homes. We often hear comments from Conservative Members about the number of empty local authority homes. The number of empty homes is very large. Throughout the land a total of 640,000 houses are vacant, many of which are in the private sector and require finance in the ways that were described earlier. Some empty homes are in local authority hands and 31,000 are in Government hands.
The Government could take a lead in making empty homes available through an expansion of shared and low-cost home ownership. An expansion of the existing programme of shared and do-it-yourself ownership through housing associations would meet the needs of many households. Of course, it is also necessary to expand new build. I refer hon. Members back to my earlier
46
comments about the House-Builders Federation. That new build clearly needs to be demonstrably targeted towards the homeless.
Mr. Barry Porter: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's detailed knowledge of the housing market. It is so detailed that I sometimes think that he misses the wood for the trees. If the ideas that he sets out are so obvious and straightforward and have no effect on the public sector borrowing requirement, why does no other western industrialised country follow those policies?
Mr. Miller: The answer to that is yes, of course they do. There are plenty of examples. Clearly, the one difference between other countries and Britain is that we have a different pattern of ownership. But the methodology that I have described for solving some housing problems has been applied elsewhere in Europe.
Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Miller: No. I shall finish now. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity shortly, if Mr. Deputy Speaker allows.
My motion refers to the release of capital receipts. The pace of that release should not be determined by the Department of the Environment on its own. It is time that the Department got together with the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and the Treasury and conducted an analysis of the overall cost to the economy in the way that I have described. It could then launch a crusade aimed at attacking the terrible evil of the current housing shortage in our society. Such an approach would produce huge social advantages but would also have enormous economic benefit.
Vision and original thought have not been the hallmarks of this Administration, so I shall not be greedy and ask for the impossible. But the real work has been done and Opposition Members will have no objection if the Government pinch our ideas and those of some of the organisations that have advised them. For the homeless, for those living in inadequate conditions, for those in financial difficulty and for the unemployed, we need action and we need it now.
5.14 pm
Mr. David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on his success in winning the ballot. I have listened carefully to the comments that he has made on housing. It will probably not come as any surprise if I say that I do not agree with them. However, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak on housing. First, it gives me an opportunity to talk about my constituency of Basildon. Secondly, it gives me an opportunity to talk about the reports in my local newspaper of the visit to my constituency last week of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).
Before I deal with those points, I pay tribute to our Front-Bench team on housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) has great expertise on housing. I do not think that there is anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) does not know about housing: he is a superb Minister and I pay tribute to his many initiatives.
Hon. Members: Where is he?
Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend may have heard Opposition Members ask from a sedentary position where my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is. My hon. Friend may be aware that this afternoon our hon. Friend the Minister is visiting a hostel in London, examining the needs of homeless people.
Mr. Amess: I thank my hon. Friend for that remark; sadly, good manners do not appear to be so highly regarded as they once were.
My hon. Friends and I have absolutely no idea what the Labour party stands for these days. Socialism appears to have been dumped, although very quietly. The Labour party does not say publicly that clause 4 has been abandoned. It is all about winning elections. Nowhere can one see the Labour party's hypocrisy more clearly than on housing. What does the Labour party stand for?
Mr. Miller: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he agrees with the programme that I have just set out, we welcome that.
Mr. Amess: I thought that I had started by saying that I did not agree with the content of the speech of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I wish to talk briefly about the Labour party's policy on housing. Nowhere can one see its hypocrisy more clearly. The Government introduced the right to buy. The two socialist parties—Labour and the alliance—fought that Bill word for word and line by line. They did not want council tenants and new town commission tenants to have the right to buy.
However, when the policy proved popular, Labour and the alliance changed their view. There was no longer talk of buying back the properties. All of a sudden that was quietly dumped, although Labour was in difficulty with its left-wing councils throughout the country. Lambeth is not an isolated case. Socialist-controlled Basildon district council is one reason why the Conservative party is in the majority and the Labour party in opposition. When the market got into difficulty and interest rates rose, the Labour party decided that it was not such a good idea for people to own their own house.
The Conservative party has a consistent policy on housing. We want to give people the opportunity to live in decent property.
Mr. Raynsford: Cardboard boxes?
Mr. Amess: We want people to be able to own their property, if they want to do so. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is talking about cardboard boxes from a sedentary position. I shall deal with that point.
It does not matter who is the Member of Parliament, the No. 1 subject about which people come to constituency surgeries is always housing. It is not what the Opposition parties think.
Mr. Raynsford: Yes, it is.
Mr. Amess: As far as I am concerned it is not. The problem is caused by the popularity of transient relationships—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members listen, they will learn what I mean. Conservative Members are not frightened to stand for something. We understand that Opposition Members are frightened to enunciate their policies, but I am glad about that.
48
I was talking about the popularity of transient relationships. Men walk in and out of relationships; they produce children with one woman, abandon her, go on to another woman, produce more children, and so on. Those women and children are the victims of many of the policies supported by Opposition Members, who should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr. Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend touched on a fundamental question—the instance of family breakdown in our society—in an interesting and pertinent way. Does he agree that we hear precious little about that from Labour party Members, who have no idea how to deal with that central question?
Mr. Amess: How right my hon. Friend is. Labour Members have no interest in family life and do not want families to stay together. They are interested only in designer socialism. The hypocrisy is that Labour Members, who always pretend to support the working class, come to areas such as Basildon, thinking that they know best how ordinary men and women should live their lives, but my constituents do not want to be told what to do by socialists—
Mr. Clive Soley: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a well-known prejudice of Conservative Members. The number of broken relationships has decreased and is not significantly different from the number 15 or 20 years ago. The big difference is that, according to the Duke of Edinburgh's report on housing, there are 2 million fewer homes available for rent than there were in 1980. Does the hon. Gentleman want to comment on that? The lack of homes in the rented sector, rather than marital breakdowns, is to blame for our housing difficulties.
Mr. Amess: I have no idea where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures, but he is wrong about both issues.
I was talking about the breakdown of settled relationships. It is no good people coming to our surgeries because they think that the council or the state can be a substitute family. That is not good enough. I want men to be responsible for their offspring. The Conservatives will be dealing with that problem from 1 April.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I was fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's definition. He mentioned transient relationships and settled families, but it has to be one or the other. I remind him that only he, or someone like him, could make such statements about women. I assure him that none of the women with young children who have come to my surgery have done so to get council housing.
Mr. Amess: That is less than generous of the hon. Lady. She knows perfectly well that that is not what I said.
My experiences in Basildon are not very different from those elsewhere in the country. Fathers of children should take some responsibility for their accommodation. I do not want the women or children to be punished, but I want there to be some responsibility—
Mr. John Battle: Tell that to Cecil Parkinson.
Mr. Amess: If the hon. Member for Leeds, West will calm down, I shall come to his remarks and his visit to Basildon shortly.

49
I am talking not merely about the popularity of transient relationships, but about my experience of families in the east end of London, who stayed together and helped one another out. It is sad that 16, 17 and 18-year-olds leave home and have to live in cardboard boxes—as the hon. Member for Greenwich saidx2014;but in this day and age there is no need for anyone to live in a cardboard box.
Under this Government, this is a free country, and any hon. Member can travel anywhere and can visit other Members' constituencies. If the press reports are accurate, the hon. Member for Leeds, West—who is more than able to intervene if reports are not accurate—visited my constituency last week and advised my constituents at a meeting on how to vote in a ballot on the transfer of housing. I find that extremely interesting. I do not know how many times he has been to Basildon. My home is there, I have represented the town for more than 10 years and I know the people only too well.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: It is nine and three quarters.
Mr. Amess: Does the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) want to intervene? It appears not.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West advised my constituents how to vote. As the House knows, Basildon is the finest town in the country—probably the finest town in the whole world—so it is not surprising that people wish to come and see how we do things. One thing that my constituents do not like is socialism. My constituents threw out the rotten socialist council, which I had had to deal with for the past nine and three quarter years, last May—if the hon. Member for Burnley wishes to quibble about the difference between nine and three quarters and 10 years. Fifteen Conservatives stood and 15 won the election, with swings of between 20 and 50 per cent. from the socialists to the Conservatives.
It is amazing for the hon. Member for Leeds, West to visit Basildon. In all the years I have represented the town, the Opposition Front Bench has known that Basildon Labour party is crazy and that its policies are bringing the Labour party into disrepute as it tries to fool the electorate so as to gain power at the next general election in four or five years' time. The Opposition Front Bench have distanced themselves from Basildon, but the hon. Member for Leeds, West seeks wisdom and has visited Basildon.
Since 1960, succeeding Labour councils have promised Commission for the New Towns tenants that they would take over their properties. Socialist councils have said that they would be happy to take over the properties. Under the Labour Government in 1977, the council could have done so, as Labour-controlled Harlow did.
Mr. Barry Porter: My hon. Friend's description of the joys of Basildon almost brought tears to my eyes. I have never had the privilege of being there and I am not sure that I shall be putting that situation right either. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned capital receipts, and I understand that my hon. Friend intends to come to that subject. Is it not the case that there would not have been any capital receipts to argue about if it had not been for a Conservative Government?
Mr. Amess: How right my hon. Friend is. I will tell the House how much the stupidity of the socialist-controlled council has lost my community charge payers.
In 1977, the council had the opportunity to take over the housing, as Labour-controlled Harlow did, but said that it was too expensive. In 1976–77 the council was in deep consultation with the Department of the Environment and got to the point of taking over the property. At the last minute, it phoned the Department and the deal was called off. Goodness knows how much that cost us.
The council could have taken over CNT housing stock, which then comprised 15,000 properties, at any time during the next eight or nine years. The Conservative Government even shortened the time required under the transfer scheme from six to three months, but nothing happened until 1985, when socialist-controlled Basildon district council put in an offer. It offered £500,000 for those properties, although the current value of the remaining 12,000 properties is £113 million. Since that time, the dear socialist council has spent more than £300,000 of ratepayers' and community charge payers' money on propaganda to kid the people that it wanted to take over those properties. That is the nonsense with which my constituents have lived year in, year out, month in, month out. Yet the hon. Member for Leeds, West went to Basildon to advise my constituents about housing transfer.
Mr. Battle: I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman. I was invited to Basildon because tenants have particular questions that they want answered. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to tell me the answers that he will give to his constituents, because he knows that CNT tenants will be transferred to a new housing association. That association claims in its propaganda that it will give rent guarantees, but those guarantees can only apply to those tenants when their rents go through the roof as a result of his Government changing the grant rates in the next two years.
Mr. Amess: I shall refer to those issues later. The hon. Member for Leeds, West may then feel that he would like to apologise—
Mr. Battle: Answer the question.
Mr. Amess: I will. I do not need to be told my duties by the hon. Gentleman. I fulfil those duties; that is why I was elected in 1983, in 1987 and in 1992, and that is why I shall run for office again in 1997. I take no lectures from Opposition spokesmen who know nothing about local issues.
The Labour council has spent more than £300,000 on propaganda. It has wasted that money on broadcasting a message that had nothing to do with housing need. That message was simple, "The wicked Conservatives are awful —vote Labour." The cost of the current advertising to CNT tenants about the transfer to the council is being borne by the Government.
The previous socialist council even spent money producing a video to put its message across. There was one famous occasion when I led a delegation of joint estate management representatives, together with a tenant representative—he later became deputy leader of the socialist council—to the Minister then responsible for new towns, Lord Skelmersdale. We played that video in front of that tenant representative after he had told the Minister

51
how fair the council had been in putting its argument. It was the equivalent of a video nasty. A little old lady was shown coming into an office with a letter some 8 ft long which was supposed to demonstrate the size of the rent increases that the wicked Conservative Government and the wicked housing association had set. Such is the irresponsible frightening nonsense that we have had to put up with from the socialist council.
Mr. Battle: That is not true.
Mr. Amess: Yes, it is. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman does not know the issues and he does not know what he is talking about.
Mr. Raynsford: Would the hon. Gentleman like to confirm to the House that in the past four years the average rents of housing associations have risen by 107 per cent.—that is according to the core monitoring figures produced by the National Federation of Housing Associations—while the income of housing association tenants has increased by 25 per cent? Would he recognise that council rents have also been pushed up, ahead of the rate of inflation, as a direct result of Government policy? Does he accept that his remarks are inappropriate, bearing in mind the Government's responsibility for forcing up the rents of those who are tenants of councils and housing associations?
Mr. Amess: I do not accept that; presumably that was also the feeling of the electors in 1987 in Fulham.
The socialist council wreaked havoc, worry and fear, particularly among elderly tenants, for purely political reasons. It should be absolutely ashamed of itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) mentioned capital receipts and it is worth noting that that socialist council, through its disgraceful behaviour, lost for the residents of Basildon between £80 million and £100 million in capital receipts by not taking over dwellings and leaving them with the CNT.
The Basildon Community Housing Association is a home-grown one whose members are non-political. The BCHA also handles the Siporex estate, which is home to 830 low-quality properties. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that that housing association is planning to do everything possible to bring that estate and the Cosmos housing in Vange up to standard.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West met a number of individuals in Basildon and put his argument, but he should note that the rent of the CNT tenant who opts to transfer to the BCHA will not increase until October 1994. It will then only rise by the rate of inflation until October 1997. After that, the association aims to set a rent increase of not more than 2.5 per cent. above inflation. Under the Government I have no doubt that the inflation rate will be extremely low. That is a cast-iron guarantee and it will be part of a legal agreement between BCHA and the CNT. That will ensure its delivery.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West has said in the House today and to my constituents that they should look for a copper-bottomed guarantee on rent. I understand that, but as BCHA is the only body able to offer such a guarantee, one would have expected the hon. Gentleman to advise my constituents to vote for transfer to that
52
association. The council cannot give a rent guarantee as its finances are decided year by year. One could speculate about possible rent increases for council tenants.
I know that the hon. Member for Leeds, West also had something to say to my constituents about repairs, but BCHA has guaranteed that it will deal with all major repairs within five years. Again, that guarantee will be subject to a legal agreement with the CNT. The association will also employ local contractors and will seek to create employment and training opportunities for local residents through such work. It will maintain, inside and out, the homes of those who opt to transfer to it.
One need only look at Basildon council estates—for example, Craylands—and talk to the tenants to see that the council, when it was socialist, had a shameful record of neglect. Those socialists who ran the council chamber misled and confused people about the difference between commission and council houses. If the hon. Member for Leeds, West had been better briefed he would have known about that.
When in Basildon, the hon. Member for Leeds, West talked about tenants' rights, as is the socialist way. Apparently he talked about the benefits of protected assured tenancies as opposed to secure tenancies, but tenancies will be no less secure under the BHCA and tenants will certainly not lose their rights.
The local Labour party and its friends in the tenants action group are now putting considerable effort into the ballot. I understand that they are saying that when they regain control of the council everything will go back to how it used to be. God help my constituents if everything goes back to how it used to be. My constituents certainly do not want things to go back to how they used to be, which is why the socialist council was thrown out last year.
There is to be a by-election in five weeks' time, not for a Conservative seat, but for a Labour seat. There are only 13 socialists left on Basildon council. The socialist councillor who came in with bright ideas has thrown in the towel as he cannot take the fight any more. He has emigrated to New Zealand, and rumours abound that the leader of the Labour group, who works at the treasury department in Walworth road, has decided that he will no longer stand. One by one, the socialists responsible for destroying community life—they tried to do so, but were unsuccessful in Basildon—are throwing in the towel and running off.
When the Conservatives took control of the council last May, they we are left with hardly enough money to collect the refuse, let alone concentrate on housing. The socialists appointed a number of politically motivated council employees, which was an absolute disgrace. Officers should always be politically neutral and independent. It is not for officers to make political decisions, but for the elected representatives. It is quite wrong for local government officers to become party political. If they do not like what the Conservative council is currently doing, they should leave with good grace.
When I hear interventions from Opposition Members trying to laugh at housing associations—[interruption] If they are laughing at me, I am delighted. Their arrogance in laughing at me shows that they have learnt absolutely nothing from their defeat in the last general election, which is good news for my hon. Members.
Mr. Battle: Hon. Members?
Mr. Amess: My hon. Friends. I know that the hon. Member for Leeds, West is starting to become uncomfortable. That is entirely understandable after the things that I have said today.
When the Conservatives took over the council, they found themselves in a difficult position as there were a number of politically motivated local government officers. Such officers should be entirely neutral and should not make political decisions. It is quite wrong for them to do so.
At present, the Conservative-controlled council is doing a magnificent job in difficult circumstances. As the present chairman of housing has said, it is extraordinary that the Labour council, as it was until last May, promised for years to take over the CNT properties, but did not. It has taken a Conservative council to do so—and it has taken a socialist Member of Parliament to visit my constituency and advise my constituents to vote in favour of a Conservative council.
I shall not give my constituents any advice about how they should vote in the ballot as that is entirely a matter for them. They will not take lectures from any hon. Members, whatever their political party. My colleagues and I will be vigilant to see whether any intimidation takes place during the ballot. If any socialists visit elderly people's homes, as they have done over the past 10 years, to collect ballot papers and mislead people, I shall ensure that the severest action is taken against those socialists.
5.45 pm
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: How does one follow the speech of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess)'? It will be quite difficult. I shall begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on securing the debate on an important subject that involves one of the most dreadful problems facing any individual or family in this country: the prospect of not having a decent home in which to live.
There are some things in life that we should be able to take for granted, and having a roof over our heads is one of them. I am sure that many hon. Members can recite many examples of the tragedies facing constituents who come to their advice surgeries, hoping that their Member of Parliament can help them to find a decent home. The people that I meet in Lewisham, East are not asking for very much. They simply want a decent home, with space for their children to grow and play, where they can feel secure and get on with the rest of their lives. That is something that we would all expect for ourselves and we all hope to try to achieve for our constituents. However, too many people spend years on waiting lists. They live in overcrowded and sub-standard accommodation with little prospect of anything better. If they are young and single, their chances are even less.
I shall concentrate on the position in London and the horrendous housing crisis in the nation's capital. There are more than 40,000 families in temporary accommodation in London. That probably means that about 100,000 children have no permanent home. That number has been steadily increasing every year for the past 11 years. It may surprise Conservative Members to learn that two-thirds of all temporary accommodation in this country used for homeless families is here in London.
Those figures, enormous as they are, do not tell the whole story. They do not include the single homeless who
54
are not counted in the statistics because, under the Housing Act 1985, their need is not considered a priority. I—and I dare say many of my colleagues—have to tell young people who visit the surgeries that they have little chance of being housed. Therefore, we now have on the streets of our capital city 2,000 people sleeping rough.
Mr. Streeter: The right hon. Lady, sorry, the hon. Lady —I am sure that that was a premonition on my part—mentioned people coming to her surgery asking for advice. Does she ever recommend that they approach housing associations or seek accommodation in the private sector, or does she—like many, if not all, of her colleagues—think only of council houses and believe that nothing else will do?
Mrs. Prentice: I certainly advise those people who come to my surgery of the realities of life and the housing problems that they face under the Conservative Government. I advise them to seek housing association nominations. Lewisham council and its local housing associations work closely together, and the council nominates people to housing association lists. I advise people to seek accommodation in the private rented sector, but they tell me that it is difficult because of the amount of money initially required. People have to pay lump sums that they simply do not have in their pockets, so it is nonsense to suggest that they should use the private rented sector.
Some 5,000 people are in bed and breakfast accommodation which is often poor quality. There are 15,000 people in short-life property and 17,000 in hostels. There are 80,000 people in London in overcrowded households. For any nation to admit to such figures is surely, at the very least, embarrassing. For Britain to do so, with 500,000 construction workers on the dole, is a national disgrace.
Homelessness is only the most obvious expression of the housing crisis in London. We should never forget the thousands of people living in poor and deteriorating housing—the overcrowded families, the people with disabilities trapped in their homes because access is poor or impossible, and the growing numbers of home owners facing mounting debt and repossession.
Let us examine what is happening here in our capital city. More than 1·1 million of London's homes are either unfit for human habitation or are fit but in need of serious renovation; 79 per cent. of the unfit houses—four out of five—are in the private sector. A quarter of a million households are on council waiting lists. Many of them are families with children, elderly people or people with disabilities who need specialist accommodation. More than 60,000 households in London are defined as seriously overcrowded, and about 110,000 council tenants are on council transfer lists.
These are staggering figures, yet in 1991–92 only 500 new homes were built by councils and a further 1,800 were made available through conversion and renovation. To call that a drop in the ocean is an understatement.
London's councils could house only 9,000 families and enable another 17,000 to move. At that rate it will take 25 years to house the people already on waiting lists and another six and a half years to transfer existing council tenants. The fact is, however, that these people will not be

55
rehoused, because others with more pressing needs will join them, every day of every week of every year, in every London borough.
I have already said that the numbers of families in temporary accommodation continue to rise. That is because London's councils are accepting about 38,000 families—as they did in 1991–92—but can provide accommodation for only about 25,000 of them.
We tend to think of the housing crisis as affecting only those who want to rent. That is simply untrue. Although repossessions have slowed a little in the past year, the number of people in arrears has markedly increased. According to some figures, about £169 million is owed to building societies in mortgage arrears. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston spoke about negative equity. Four out of 10 of the people in London who bought their homes between 1988 and 1991 have an average negative equity of £5,500—yet prices continue to fall, and although building societies are beginning to accept lower repayments, I fear that as unemployment relentlessly rises their goodwill will soon disappear and people will be out on the streets.
So what is to be done? Clearly, the Government do not know, and the hon. Member for Basildon has even less understanding of the housing crisis.
Mr. Miller: He has left.
Mrs. Prentice: Having delivered his polemic, the hon. Gentleman has indeed disappeared from the debate.
The Government have made no plans to deal with the problems of homelessness in London. They have not even conducted a survey of London's housing needs. Instead, we have been showered with publicity about two initiatives which do no more than recycle existing public spending. I agree that they have been worthwhile initiatives, but they can hardly be considered adequate. They have had only a marginal impact on the situation in the capital.
First, there was the two-year £300 million homelessness programme, which at least recognised that there was a problem that needed dealing with. When it began, 31,485 families were in temporary accommodation. When it finished, 37,058 households were in temporary accommodation—hardly a startling success. It is tragic that nothing has replaced that programme. Despite the best efforts of the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association, the Department of the Environment has resisted any increase in the share of resources to councils and housing associations in line with levels of homelessness.
Then there was the rough sleepers initiative, with £96 million provided over three years, followed by another £60 million. I agree that the initiative reduced the numbers of people on the streets in central areas of London, but it did not solve the problem. About 1,500 permanent places were found, together with some temporary beds in hostels. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), a recognised expert on this subject, will probably say if he has the opportunity to speak, we need about 10,000 permanent places for single homeless people to stop the hostels being clogged up with people who cannot move to more permanent accommodation.
Another aspect affecting particularly London, and perhaps other areas too, is that of refugees. The
56
Government have done nothing to help councils in this respect. My constituency contains about 41 households with refugee status and recognised as homeless, but the Government have offered no help to councils with refugees on their lists.
The same questions can be asked about the Government's help for homeless former home owners, and the same reply will be heard. The Government have done little or nothing for them. London has been the scene of the greatest number of repossessions, and the mortgage rescue schemes, which have flopped, have done nothing to help these people, who bought their homes during the 1980s and earlier. The Government refused to talk to councils or lenders about resolving the problem.
The autumn statement, which concluded the housing market package of about £570 million for housing associations, would provide in London only about 3,500 houses—less than a year's increase in the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation. Because of the tight rules, the associations have found it very difficult to buy enough cheap properties in high-cost areas—the very ones in which there is the most acute need of affordable rented accommodation.
The London boroughs have tried hard to come to terms with the problem, co-operating with one another in trying to deal with homelessness. They have cut down on the use of bed and breakfast; Lewisham borough council does not use it at all. They have expanded private sector leasing schemes—from fewer than 3,000 in 1988 to about 24,000 today. They have tried to cut the costs of bed-and-breakfast accommodation by implementing a pricing policy and an hotels inspection and grading system. And they have made new arrangements with the housing associations so that they have many more nominations. They also provide hostel and winter shelters for single homeless people and fund voluntary sector homelessness projects.
What the councils need—like the homeless of London—is just a little help and support from the Government. The Government will reply, "We are letting councils use their capital receipts until December of this year," but that is no great shakes when we remember that, because of the recession, sales of land and homes have declined and prices are depressed. Much of what councils can sell has already been sold at discounts to housing associations and tenants. The Government are clawing back the receipts in any case through the estate action schemes and urban programmes. If they really wanted to give a serious boost to the economy they would free up the £5·1 billion of accumulated receipts.
Even the distribution of receipts that we have will not be equal across the nation, and efforts will have to be made to target the areas in greatest need. London needs an agreed plan to reduce homelessness, drawn up by the Department of the Environment, local councils and others concerned about the crisis in the capital, and, after proper consultation, to set out precise targets and time scales.
Local councils and the voluntary sector should be given responsibility for implementing an expanded single homelessness programme to cover the capital. The Government should increase the priority attached to homelessness and temporary accommodation levels in allocating capital resources to councils and housing associations. They can do that simply by adopting the ALA—LBA proposal of a comprehensive homelessness indicator.

57
It is high time that the Government started talking sensibly with the London associations and revising arrangements for the winter shelter programme by allowing shelters in outer London boroughs such as Croydon and Newham, where there was clearly a need in the past year but no funding. They should change the private sector leasing scheme to allow councils to take up to 20-year leases instead of phasing out the grant that meets a portion of the cost of those leases. They should work jointly with councils and lenders to plan a range of initiatives to support home owners. There must be a specific grant to assist in rehousing refugees.
I said that it was rather tragic that we should have to have a debate on housing in a society where having a roof over one's head is something that we all take for granted. I repeat my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston on raising the subject, and I am only sorry that such a tale of neglect and dereliction of duty must be laid squarely at the Government's door.
6.1 pm
Mr. Hartley Booth: My name appears on the Order Paper under a different topic—victims support. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on being lucky enough to win the draw, in which I came second.
We are debating an issue of multiple sadness and deprivation. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) spoke of the problems of splitting relationships and how marriages break down so often. We are talking about the victims of crime and the victims of housing. I shall talk about the problems experienced by victims of crime because they relate directly to the issue of housing. Hon. Members will be glad to hear that 1 have torn up my speech on the victims of crime.
It should be the first duty of every criminal court to consider victims before passing sentence. At present, it is the last duty of a criminal court to consider victims, who are very much an afterthought. I want offenders to be brought directly into the system to pay for—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying very hard to steer a thin line, but he is straying from the subject of housing. If he can keep his remarks to that he will be in order.
Mr. Booth: I am grateful for your correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Reference has been made to the 80,000 void properties under local authority control and the 400,000 private sector void properties, rather than the 600,000 quoted by Opposition Members. Those properties offer scope to deal with housing and social problems. Crime and housing need are linked evils of society. It is one of life's ironies that the criminal often targets the weakest members of society, and often those who already have housing problems. Under an advanced criminal justice system, and in a civilised nation, with the right housing priorities, we must put the interests of the victim first. That is why I rise to add my contribution, and I am grateful for being allowed to make this intervention on behalf of such sufferers.
6.4 pm
Mr. Nigel Jones: I shall be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the housing crisis and congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on securing the debate. I am in two minds about whether I should have preferred a debate on victims of crime as my constituency office was broken into over the weekend.
Hon. Members will remember that our last opportunity to debate the housing crisis was on a Liberal Democrat Opposition day on 16 November.
Mr. Hendry: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since that date the Committee considering the Housing and Urban Development Bill has sat for many weeks? Will he explain why he, as his party's spokesman, has not bothered to turn up?
Mr. Jones: Yes, I am happy to explain my actions to the hon. Member. He will remember that on Second Reading my party voted for the Bill because of a conversation that I had with a Minister, whom I shall not name as he is not present. He asked for our support to send a strong message to the Dukes, who opposed leasehold reform. I told the Minister that I was not in favour of the Bill and that most of it was bad, with one or two good bits. The Minister told me that he would be prepared to consider amendments in Committee. I put that to my colleagues, and my Scottish colleagues in particular were dead against believing anything that Ministers said. I, being a new Member, told them that as it was only Second Reading I was prepared to recommend that they vote for the Bill in the hope that some amendments would be passed. In the first five sittings of the Committee, I attempted to pass some amendments, including some to make the Scottish aspects of the Bill separate from its other provisions. I also attempted to amend its leasehold provisions. The Minister declined to accept those amendments.
Mr. Banks: He stitched you up.
Mr. Jones: I felt stitched up—
Mr. Banks: Never trust a Tory.
Mr. Jones: —and decided to concentrate on other duties. In future, I shall never trust a Tory.
Mr. Tony Banks: That's the stuff. It was a good lesson.
Mr. Jones: Our housing problems are entirely of the Government's own making. Their obsession with home ownership, their neglect of other tenures and their assault on local authorities have compounded the problems caused by the recession, which the Government created through their economic incompetence. They have caused a dangerous imbalance of tenure in the housing market. In 1992, repossessions fell from 75,000 to 68,000. That was a welcome improvement, but it was still 68,000 human disasters. However, mortgage arrears increased and, according to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, 205,000 households were six to 12 months behind in their mortgages in the second part of 1992 and 147,000 were over one year in arrears.
Negative equity, when houses are worth less than the mortgage on them, is also spiralling, with an estimated 1·5 million households stuck in that trap. Hon. Members will

59
have seen the report in last Friday's issue of "Mortgage Weekly", of the paper that Daniel Dorling of the housing and society research group at Newcastle university presented to the European housing finance seminar at Bristol university on 4 February. Mr. Dorling said:
"The rise of negative equity is now preventing individuals from spending, and reducing the mobility of skilled labour. It has halted the widespread use of homes as assets upon which capital can be raised for investment. It is preventing people from moving house when they need to. Freedom of movement—freedom to choose where to live—is being eroded by the inefficient operation of the supposedly free market."
He also said about the way people look at housing:
"Many now see it neither as a worthwhile gamble nor a secure investment, despite most houses being much less expensive now than a few years ago and the overall cost of home buying being at its lowest level in real terms since 1971."
Public housing has been hit by the Government's inept housing policy. Public spending on housing has been cut by 62 per cent. since 1979 from £11·5 billion to under £6 billion. It is no wonder that fewer than 170,000 new homes are being completed a year—an all-time low. With massive repossessions and a huge homelessness problem, local authorities have to pick up the pieces, but they no longer have the ability to do so. Some 150,000 people were accepted as homeless in 1991 and 8,000 people sleep rough every night. The Government's response is to encourage further reductions in public housing stock.
The Government must allow local authorities to spend their accrued capital receipts, so that they can start building homes for the homeless. In the autumn statement, the Government tried to boost the housing market by giving money to housing associations to buy repossessed properties. This has not happened. Out of 13,169 properties purchased up to 29 January, only 5,000 have been repossessed properties. The rest have been new build. In my constituency, only three properties have been purchased. I spoke to a senior estate agent this weekend and asked him what he thought about that. He said, "Three hundred might put a bottom in the market, but three is useless."
What is needed is not piecemeal panic projects but a coherent housing strategy. We need a sector—in between renting and owner-occupation—of shared ownership, to encourage flexibility in the market. We need new co-operation between local authorities, Government and housing associations to tackle the appalling problem of homelessness. Capital receipts must be released. Most of all, we need a Government with a coherent economic policy to encourage recovery and invest in infrastructure and housing projects. Until that happens, we shall still have a massive housing problem, and an economy in slump with hundreds of thousands of building workers on the dole—
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No. I am just about to finish my speech. Building homes is the key to recovery and it is about time that the Government got on with that job.
6.13 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: I had hoped to come to the debate to make common cause with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller)
60
because I appreciate that there are Opposition Members, as there are Government Members, who are genuinely concerned about housing issues. I was looking forward to hearing some suggestions as to what we can do, in addition to the many things that the Government are already doing, to meet those needs; I was looking forward to hearing new ideas that would help to solve the problems. Having listened intently to two hours of the debate, I remain disappointed in what I have heard from the Opposition.
We never hear any solutions from the Opposition. All that we get are moans, gripes and complaints. There is never a single costing to be had. They talk about policies and the need for more public housing and more council houses, but they do not speak of the cost of such housing. The only constructive suggestion from the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Prentice) was that we should set up a talking shop to allow various bodies to discuss what should be done. The Government are already seeking and finding solutions to meeting housing needs in 1993.
The Labour party does not know what it wants. All that it knows is that it is in favour of more but it has no idea how much more will cost. That can be demonstrated better than in any other way by taking the example of the endless calls for the release of the £5 billion worth of capital receipts. Has the Labour party explained to community charge payers the extra cost that they will have to bear when the interest on capital receipts that rolls into local authorities year after year is no longer there? There is never a word about that.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston dismissed quickly, in half a sentence, the massive contribution made to social housing problems by Labour-controlled local authorities. Everything is the Government's fault, he said. I am afraid that it is not as simple as that. We cannot write off millions of pounds of rent arrears that Labour-controlled authorities have clocked up. We cannot disregard the countless thousands of void properties, even those in London about which the hon. Member for Lewisham, East was concerned. Many of those empty properties are controlled by Labour local authorities. What solutions do Labour Members have? What pressure are they bringing to bear on those authorities to cause them to get their act together?
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: While the hon. Gentleman is having a go at Labour local authorities in London, will he remind himself of Government Departments that have massive numbers of empty properties in London, particularly in areas such as Hammersmith and Fulham, where both Defence and Home Office properties are lying empty, and have been for as many years as I can remember?
Mr. Streeter: Once again, the Labour party will not accept responsibility. It will not go to Labour-controlled local authorities with solutions to the problems of the homeless. They always want to throw mud at the Government when they must accept responsibility for their part in housing problems.
The truth is that 4·2 million properties are still in local authority ownership and until Labour-controlled authorities get their act together, many of the problems suffered by homeless people will continue to be the result of the actions of Labour-controlled authorities. They do not come to the debate with clean hands.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree, given all that is said by Opposition Members about homelessness, that if they were to come to the north-west, which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) knows well, and to once-proud cities such as Liverpool and Manchester, they would see that we are talking not merely about hundreds of houses but about thousands of houses boarded up? Does he also agree that those houses could be used for the homeless if only the uncollected rents in those cities, together with the revenue from the sale of council properties this year, were diverted into improving them?
Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Furthermore, if Labour authorities collected their rents and used that money to do their repairs, the lot of many council tenants would be far better. We recognise that we are talking not just about statistics. We do not want merely to rattle off the number of empty properties and the millions of pounds worth of rent arrears. We know that behind each of those situations is a human tragedy. It is a pity that Opposition Members do not also recognise that.
We have heard no solution, no new ideas and no new thoughts. No questions have been answered. It is clear that the intellectual agenda on housing is still being set by the Conservative party. After 14 years of head scratching. the Labour party has failed to produce a new agenda. It has produced no exciting new ideas. Instead, we have been told this afternoon that it wants to return to local authority domination. In other words, Labour Members want to return power to Labour-controlled authorities. It is no solution to throw more money at the problem.
Those of us who have some local authority experience know that local authority housing has inherent weaknesses and few incentives for excellence. Traditionally, there has been no competition in that sector. Similarly, there has been virtually no accountability and regulation. Those are features that the Conservative party is seeking to build into the system. It is these principles that will cause standards to rise. That is what my right hon. and hon. Friends want. It is only a pity that Opposition Members cannot agree.
Mr. Raynsford: It is fascinating to hear the hon. Gentleman talking about competition, regulation and other such factors. The Opposition believe that there is a simpler solution to the problem, and that is to build more houses. When will the hon. Gentleman talk about providing enough houses to meet the present need? My right hon. and hon. Friends know that that is what is required if the homeless are to be put into homes.
Mr. Streeter: It is disappointing to hear the hon. Gentleman banging the same drum day after day. Has not he yet heard that through public sector investment this year the Government have ensured that more than 55,000 new homes will be provided for people to rent? That is a colossal achievement. Why do not Labour Members congratulate the Government on that achievement? Instead, they continue to gripe and ask for more.
Interest rates now stand at 6 per cent. For many mortgage holders the benefit of that low rate is yet to come through the system. In my discussions with estate agents in Plymouth—
Mr. Tony Banks: Ho!
Mr. Streeter: I wonder why the hon. Member, who seems to be responsible for causing trouble, scoffs. It is important to understand that estate agents in Plymouth
62
have a vital voice and one that should be echoed in the debate. They have told me that since Christmas there has been much activity in the housing market. It appears that first-time buyers are viewing properties and making offers. Contracts are being exchanged and the housing market is beginning to recover. It is fair to say that the recovery began before the full benefit of recent interest rate cuts started to manifest itself to many mortgage holders. We can look forward with confidence to the market recovering in the spring.
We all agree that the housing market is an essential ingredient in the economy. It is a pity that the only contribution that Labour Members can make is to talk the market down. They spend day after day and week after week talking it down. Instead, let us talk up the market. As I have said, it is recovering. There is every reason why it should be because mortgage rates are at an all-time low. Since October 1990, the repayments of the average mortgage holder have been reduced by more than £150 a month. That is a success story. People have been enabled to put money in their pockets and to go out and spend.
What about the autumn statement, which contained an extra package for social housing? That was designed to get the market moving again. It was a package of £750 million, and 20,000 properties were purchased by housing associations throughout the country to rent. Have we heard Labour Members welcome that? Have they offered the Government any congratulations? We have heard not a word. They are always sneering and never congratulating.
The Conservative party has been setting the housing agenda for the past 14 years. We have seen the right to buy, right to manage, right to repair, compulsory competitive tendering, rents to mortgages and the boost that was given to housing associations by the autumn statement. All of those initiatives have been taken at the behest of the Conservative Government. In contrast, the Labour party looks barren and sterile as it presents its old ideas.
I rarely agree with the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) but on one point—it is a serious one—I must do so. In a recent article that was written for the Fabian Society, the hon. Gentleman stated that the Labour party was "sleep-walking into oblivion." On that note of agreement, I resume my place.
6.24 pm
Mr. John Battle: Many outside the House will not know or understand the internal lottery system which enables Back-Bench Members to win space in the parliamentary timetable to debate a topic of their choice on the Floor of the House. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on choosing to debate the housing crisis. In so doing, he has ensured that housing and homelessness in his constituency and throughout the country are firmly on our agenda. In his thorough approach he underlined the need to consider need, health and disability under the heading of housing. He stressed that such issues should be taken seriously and echoed on the floor of the House more regularly. I am sure that he will continue ensuring that that happens on the basis of his contribution today. We are indebted to him for the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) expressed passionate concern and a deep knowledge of housing in London. She spelled out the

63
bleak prospects which face her constituents and many thousands of others in London unless the Government are jolted out of their rather complacent approach to the housing crisis.
It is almost a year since we were presented with the Tories' election promises. We heard tear-jerking threats as soundbites were issued. On 23 March, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—he is now the President of the Board of Trade—said:
"House sales under the Conservatives are picking up. All this would change on 10th April if there were a Labour Government. The recovery in the housing market would be devastated just as it gets under way."
Of course, that was not true. The market was not picking up, and the recovery is still not under way a year later. On 31 March, the Prime Minister echoed the right hon. Gentleman when he said:
"We're going to make life easier for people buying their home and our policies will mean a stronger housing market."
We all know something of the Prime Minister's ability to turn language inside out and to turn meanings on their head. Government policies in the past 12 months have resulted in a weaker housing market.
It seems that the stark reality is obvious to everyone except Conservative Members. Only this month, the former head of Wimpeys commented:
"It is the worst recession I have experienced in my 42 years in the construction industry."
There is a crisis in the housing market, and it has been manufactured by escalating unemployment. Last year, 68,000 families had their homes repossessed., According to the latest figures presented by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, 147,000 families are more than 12 months in mortgage arrears and are staring eviction in the face. We are already hearing of people losing their homes because of secondary mortgages. Double glazing companies are causing people to lose their homes by calling in debts of as little as £500.
Over 1 million people cannot afford to move because their homes are worth less than the prices that they paid for them. They are caught in the negative equity trap described by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. In response, the Prime Minister talks about cash incentives in the Budget for first-time buyers to revive the housing market. Even today, however, there are printed leaks from the Treasury informing us that there may be a 5 per cent. increase in VAT on new home sales in next month's Budget. It seems that everyone except the Government acknowledges that escalating unemployment is undermining the housing market. The fear of redundancy holds families back from extending mortgage commitments. Millions are terrified that they may be just one payslip from redundancy. Faced with that economic insecurity, they dare not risk extending their long-term financial commitments.
Escalating unemployment—the figures this week will show another rise—is the primary cause of the crisis in the housing market and the homelessness in our society. What do we need? Although the Government's position is not clear, it is evident to everyone that there is a desperate shortage of rented housing, so the response to the crisis must be the right to rent. However, under Conservative Governments the only policy offered by one Housing Minister after another—there have been many in the past 14 years — has been the discounted right to buy.
64
That single policy instrument has dismantled any post-war consensus on housing. That deep-seated Tory obsession with tenure has led to almost 2 million rented homes disappearing since 1987. Over the same period, there has been a fall in the number of houses built by local authorities and housing associations. The result is a massive imbalance in tenure. At 69 per cent. of the stock, home ownership is proving difficult to sustain. In other words, there is a desperate shortage of decent, affordable and secure housing to rent.
There are 1·5 million families stuck on local authority housing waiting lists. We must not forget the hidden homeless who share sofas and floors while they wait for their own space. The Institute of Housing, Shelter and the Audit Commission have spelt out the fact that each year there is a shortfall of 100,000 homes to rent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, on the best estimates, the Government are providing only slightly more than half that number this year. Local councils have been sidelined, undermined and prevented from providing homes.
In the latest Department of the Environment annual report, published only last week, the projections for housing under the housing investment programme capital provisions show a decline of £325 million between 1992–93 and 1995–96. That is an actual cut in housing budgets, taken out of housing programmes, of £100 million a year.
Housing associations still have only 3 per cent. of Britain's housing stock, yet they have been given the task, practically on their own, of filling the enormous gap of need. Despite that, day by day they are being undermined by Government changes in the rate of grant. This year it is down from 73 per cent. to 67 per cent. and it appears that next year it will go down further to 60 per cent. and the year after to 55 per cent. What will be the result of that cut in grants? Housing associations will have to borrow more money from the private finance sector, so rents will have to rise beyond the incomes of those not receiving full housing benefit.
By those reductions in the rate of grant, the Government are ensuring that housing associations will be turned into providers of welfare housing with a vengeance. They will soon be putting signs in windows saying, "Rooms to let: DSS only—apply within." Some 70 per cent. of housing association tenants are on housing benefit, yet rents are still rising. It is tragic. The Government are also building in a work disincentive. They are saying to those on housing benefit, "You can afford to rent a housing association property, but don't get a job because that will take you out of full housing benefit, you will not be able to afford the rent and you will lose your flat."
The Government must deal with the problem of housing benefit. The latest Department of Social Security report, also published last week, shows that the amount spent on rent in the housing association and private rented sector has doubled. A real poverty trap is built into the system for those who are not on housing benefit. Their homes are at risk because they have to spend more than their incomes to meet the rent demanded. I hope that the Government will begin to deal with the problem of affordability. A report from the Housing Corporation was discreetly placed in the Library. I hope that the Government will provide a full debate on affordability because under their policies housing association houses are becoming beyond most people's means.

65
Homelessness has more than doubled since 1979. A record number of 65,000 families are now in temporary accommodation. They are wondering whether "temporary" actually means for the rest of their lives. I recently met a young woman called Michelle who had been moved across London, away from her family and friends, when she was taken out of bed and breakfast. She lost her daughter's creche place and she lost access to her training course. She said that she felt like an exile from her community. She wants to get out of temporary and into permanent accommodation among her family and friends so that she can rebuild her life and find a job.
The crisis in temporary accommodation is tragic. I accept that the number of people in bed and breakfast is falling, which is welcome, but the problem cannot be solved simply by putting people into temporary accommodation. They need permanent secure housing where they can build basic communities with their friends and their families.
I remind the Minister for Housing and Planning that at the launch of the rough sleepers initiative he said that people sleeping on the streets of London would disappear by February 1992. It is now February 1993. If, when we leave the House tonight, we walked the streets of London, we would still meet many homeless people. Just before Christmas, late one night, I left the House and I spoke to some homeless youngsters. I was shocked because when I asked them how old they were, those who were confident enough to answer did not say that they were in their 20s or 30s—certainly they were not, as in the past, older people broken by war or alcohol—they said that they were 16. That suggests that many of them were not 16, but younger. I was shocked that youngsters of 16 were on the streets of London.
Another factor was important. When I asked them where they last lived, most of them said that they had been in local authority care. That care runs out at 16 and those youngsters have to fend for themselves. The Government have a responsibility to deal with the problems of youngsters of 16 who come out of local authority care but are then left to fend for themselves and so end up on the streets. I shall return to that point later.
Mr. Hendry: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when children come out of care at the age of 16, local authorities have an obligation to keep any eye on them until they are 21? In addition, 16 and 17-year-olds coming out of care are entitled to income support.
Mr. Battle: I accept and welcome the fact that the Government included that provision in the Children Act 1989. However, we raised a problem in Committee on that Bill which was not resolved by the Government and which is now manifesting itself on the streets. How does a local authority keep track of those youngsters if they move to another borough, town or city? That is causing a real problem with the operation of the Act. Local authorities cannot comb other boroughs looking for homeless youngsters.
There have been changes in the benefit rules which I believe have been the cause of some of the homelessness among young people.
Mr. David Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 100,000 local authority
66
dwellings empty, of which 18,000 are in London? Is it not political dogma which keeps those dwellings empty deliberately to cause hardship to the homeless?
Mr. Battle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking such an interest in that matter. I urge him to investigate it in more detail and to check the facts and figures. More than half the empty properties in London have been listed as defective by the Government and are therefore included in demolition programmes. Nevertheless, those properties appear in the figures for empty properties. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we put homeless families into properties which are unfit to live in and due for demolition.
Several hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Battle: No, I must move on. I want to give the Minister time to reply.
In our society there are 80,000 single homeless people. We now face the introduction of care in the community, without the proper backing. The Minister should remember the line in the White Paper:
"Housing is the key to independent living."
Unless the resources to provide such housing are passed on to local authorities, we shall face increasing homelessness among the most marginalised members of our society—those who may be discharged from hospitals. It will stare us in the face from 1 April this year.
I could echo some of the local comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. In Yorkshire, homelessness has risen by 60 per cent. in the past six years; in Leeds, there has been a 34 per cent. increase in homelessness inquiries between 1988–89 and 1991–92. Last year, there were 10,000 inquiries; 10,000 people applied for housing, and were registered as homeless. A total of 24,000 households are on waiting lists; the figure is up 30 per cent. since 1983–84.
In 1980–81, Leeds city council built 1,200 homes; in 1991–92, it could build only 18. That is a telling figure. There is not enough housing to rent. The council was not even able to replace the housing that it had lost through sales, including housing association accommodation. Although homes are now coming from housing associations in partnership with the local authority, the authority is not being allowed to use capital receipts to replace the rented housing that has been lost. It is no wonder that people are homeless. One third of the homeless people in Leeds have been in care, and those people are vulnerable.
The Government should examine, across Departments, the desperate need for supported accommodation for young people. The private market is not providing it, and housing associations have been priced out of special needs. Who will provide those homes? The Government's cool complacency reflects a chillingly barren policy, and an absence of real, co-ordinated housing action. The housing crisis is frozen in the permafrost of the economic recession which is gripping the country.
The real dereliction, as will be revealed when the English house conditions survey is published later this year, is the dereliction of duty by a Government and a Minister attempting to sustain an image of competence from day to day, floated on daily departmental press releases as one phoney piecemeal initiative after another is launched, sinks and is launched again. Two weeks ago, for instance, we received a press release telling us of the virtues

67
of the "flats over shops" initiative. Last week, the annual report of the Department of the Environment told us that there would be nothing in the 1995–96 budget programme. We are told that the capital partnership initiative has a future, but the annual report provides nothing in the 1994–95 budget.
Action could be taken, however. I will put a five-point action plan to the Minister. First, more rented housing should be provided. On every working day since June 1979, 600 building workers have lost their jobs; they have continued to do so, yet there are fields full of bricks in Bedfordshire. The need is there, the skills are there, the materials are there and the resources are there; yet £5–7 billion is locked up in capital receipts. That money could be used to provide housing. The Government refuse to link jobs and housing, which flies in the face of ordinary common sense. The Government can and must provide more rented housing. What is needed is a housing need package, not a housing market package.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to extend the rough sleepers initiative beyond London. Sixty per cent. of those sleeping rough are on the streets of Brighton, Bristol and other towns and cities throughout the land. Thirdly, the Government should immediately restore income support for 16 and 17-year-olds, which was removed by the present Prime Minister in 1988. The removal of that benefit is increasingly seen as a cause of homelessness among young people.
Fourthly, the Government should publish and use the English house conditions survey, which will s how that nearly 1.5 million properties are now in serious disrepair. They should use it as a renovation and renewal charter, change the failed means-tested improvement grant system and ensure that the construction industry is free of the increases in value-added tax on building repairs that we are told the Budget may contain. Such increases would drive the construction industry even further back.
Fifthly, the Government could support and publicise a real mortgage rescue scheme. I suggest that the Minister take a look at the Bradford and Bingley building society, and support fully mutual housing associations which allow families to remain in their own homes and be charged rent. The Government should support mortgage-to-rent schemes rather than rent-to-mortgage schemes.
To sum up my five points for action, I suggest more rented housing, an extension of the rough sleepers scheme, the restoration of income support for youngsters, the use of the English house conditions survey for renewal and improvement, and support for real mortgage rescue schemes. Too many people are being denied the basic right to a decent, affordable and secure home.
The current housing crisis is the most vivid symbol of the failure of the free market myth. What is needed is real choice, not just abuse of the word. Without real choice between tenures, which must include the right to rent, millions will remain locked out of decent housing that they can call a home of their own.
6.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has done his party
68
a favour. He has done something that his Front Bench has not seemed willing to do since the general election: he has initiated a debate on housing.
The hon. Gentleman's initiative stands in stark contrast to the utterances of hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, who seem more concerned with attacking the royal family than with debating housing. I am not surprised about that, because Opposition Front-Bench Members never seem to mention housing. A recent speech by the Leader of the Opposition, supposedly outlining Labour's agenda for the next decade, completely failed to mention housing. As for the recent interview in Tribune with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who graced us with a fleeting appearance a moment ago, he told us last week that the entire interview was tape recorded by the author. He then told the House that the direct quotation of any words was correct; the only problem was that the article made no mention of housing.
Why, then, is housing off Labour's agenda? Simply because Labour has no policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) made clear in his excellent speech, little by little over the past decade Labour has come to accept, and then to endorse, our policies. That applies to the right to buy, housing action trusts and the ability of councils to transfer their stock to housing associations. All those policies were once bitterly opposed by Labour authorities; all are now embraced by them. Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets, Hull, Birmingham and Liverpool—all those councils, Labour and Liberal, are now promoting housing action trusts in their areas. The Opposition would have denied those opportunities to thousands of tenants.
The hon. Member for Blackburn boasted to Tribune, "We run urban Britain." Perhaps that is another reason why Labour says nothing about housing: the nation will look at Labour's housing record, which is lousy, as tellingly illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). He described how ill served Basildon's housing interests were under a Labour council.
We, by contrast, have much to offer when it comes to housing. Therefore, I welcome the debate. It enables the Government to reinforce their determination that a decent home should be within the reach of every family and our determination to promote owner-occupation, to widen choice for tenants, to encourage further private investment in the rented sector and to increase the supply of decent homes for rent.
Mr. Miller: The Minister keeps criticising Labour authorities. I gave him a specific example and was very careful about the language that I used. Can the Minister spell out precisely, here and now, what my local authority of Ellesmere Port and Neston should do and where it has gone wrong?
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman might reflect upon the fact that, at the end of 1990–91, Ellesmere Port's accumulated debt in rent arrears amounted to nearly £500,000—£474,000, to be precise. I suspect that if the local authority had been more effective in collecting its rents, it would have been able to invest that money in local authority stock.
The opportunity to own a home and to pass it on is one of the most important rights that an individual has in a free society. We have extended that right. Home ownership lies at the heart of our philosophy. We want to see wealth and

69
security being passed down from generation to generation. Surveys show that owner-occupation is the preferred tenure of every age group from every background in every part of the country. Some 4 million more householders now own their own home compared with 1979. The number of former council tenants who have bought their homes has risen to nearly 1·5 million.
Recent house price reports show that encouraging signs of stability may now be returning to the housing market. At 6 per cent., interest rates are at their lowest for 15 years. Average mortgage rates are now 7 percentage points below their peak. Indeed, average mortgage rates are now at their lowest level since March 1969. With the latest cut in mortgage rates, reductions over the past two years have saved a family with a typical mortgage £160 a month. Home purchase is now more affordable and more attractive. The ratio of mortgage payments to income is at its most advantageous level for a quarter of a century. That must be good news for buyers and builders alike.
We are committed to making the aspiration o f home ownership a reality for as many households as possible. The right to buy for council tenants has become a resounding success. We are determined to continue to respond to people's aspiration to own their own home. Thousands of tenants have been able to take advantage of cash incentive payments that enable housing associations and local councils to help existing tenants to move into home ownership and free their current home for new tenants. All around the country, successful shared ownership schemes, supported by the Government, have enabled many more people to become home owners. We are determined to make it easier for those council tenants living in high cost areas or on low incomes to move gradually into home ownership without taking on too heavy a financial burden at any one time.
Our rent-to-mortgage scheme will give tenants a further route to home ownership. We care about council tenants who want to buy but who cannot afford to do so outright. We shall continue to drive for home ownership and make sure that tenants are aware of their new rights. Many tenants will consider that now is the time to take advantage of low prices, low interest rates and substantial discounts.
Of course we recognise that not everybody can or will want to buy their own home. Our aim is to ensure that a decent home is available to every family, whether it be owned, rented from a private landlord, or rented in the public sector. That means that encouraging and supporting home ownership is complemented by measures to increase availability and choice in rented housing, to target investment and support to those areas and to those people most in need and to ensure that the billions of pounds of taxpayers' money that we are investing and continue to invest in housing is put to the best possible use by improving the performance and value for money achieved by those who spend it.
Mr. Raynsford: On the Minister's point about the provision of affordable housing, he will be aware of the concern expressed about the grant rates for housing associations. He will also be aware that officials, giving evidence last Wednesday to the Select Committee, said that no decision had yet been taken about a reduction in grant rates. Bearing in mind that concern, will the Minister give the House an assurance tonight that there will not be
70
a reduction in grant rates that would lead to great increases in rents and serious affordability problems for housing association tenants?
Mr. Baldry: I thought that the hon. Gentleman intended in his intervention to explain why it was that at the end of 1991 Greenwich had rent arrears of £13 million. He will have seen from evidence of the Housing Corporation that there is no generic affordability problem for housing associations. Last week I was in the area of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston where concern was raised by a housing association about housing association grants and housing association rents. That same afternoon I visited a scheme in Manchester where six housing associations are providing good, affordable houses at housing association grant rates of 50 per cent. They are providing houses at rents which everybody recognises are affordable.
We are investing billions of pounds in housing. This year alone, more than £8 billion will be spent on social housing, most by local authorities but some £2.3 billion of it by the Housing Corporation, in providing new, affordable social housing through housing associations. New investment in housing received a significant boost in the autumn statement with the housing market package and the ability of local authorities to spend 100 per cent. of their capital receipts raised before the end of this year. That ability could, we believe, generate some £1–75 billion for local authorities. That is in addition to the money that will be given to them through the housing investment programme. Those figures are based on local authorities' own estimates of what they have raised and are likely to raise from capital receipts in 1992–93. All hon. Members should, therefore, ensure that their local authorities are seeking properly to maximise their capital receipts this year and putting them to good use.
The housing market package has been a great success. The Housing Corporation now estimates that the money for housing associations in England to buy new, empty and repossessed homes, announced as part of the overall £750 million housing market package, will allow the purchase of over 17,000 properties in England by the end of March. Nearly 15,000 purchases have already been approved. More than 90 per cent. of the original target of 16,000 houses has been achieved, using just over 80 per cent. of the available funds. Another 3,500 homes will be bought with the help of cash grants to existing tenants moving into ower-occupation. Taken together with the substantial fall in interest rates, the housing market package is having a positive impact on the housing market. The Housing Corporation and the housing associations involved are to be congratulated on their excellent performance in translating these substantial sums made available into new homes.
This financial year, and over the next three years, housing associations should have some £10.5 billion to invest in new social housing—£7.5 billion from the Treasury to the Housing Corporation, and £3 billion of private finance. In our manifesto we promised to provide 153,000 new affordable homes over three years to 1994–95. The Housing Corporation now estimates that it will be able substantially to improve upon that figure and to fund some 170,000 new homes over the same period.
Those new homes will go a long way towards improving matters for households accepted as homeless by local

71
authorities and currently living in temporary accommodation. Even before the autumn statement, the number of families housed in bed and breakfast accommodation was falling. It is down now to just over 11,000. I hope that local authorities, working with the housing associations, will now be able to bring these figures down even further. For those most visibly in housing need, we have extended the rough sleepers initiative, with a further £86 million being made available to the voluntary organisations which are managing the programme.
While housing associations are the main providers of new social housing, it is also important that we continue to invest in council housing as effectively as possible. This we are doing through the housing investment programme and large-scale schemes such as estate action and housing action trusts, which help to tackle some of our more difficult estates. Up and down the country this year we are spending £330 million on 360 estate action schemes. Next year the budget of £350 million will enable another 160 new schemes to start.
Estate action schemes enable money to be invested to turn rundown housing into areas where people can again be proud to live: where appropriate, tower blocks are pulled down and new family-designed homes are built; unpopular deck access blocks are converted into popular family homes; the quality of homes is improved with, where appropriate, new roofs, new wiring and new PVC windows; and areas of sterile public space in which no one has a sense of ownership are turned into gardens. The planners call that "defensible space". To all of us, and to the people who live in the area, that means gardens. Crime is designed out. There is better security—
It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).

Orders of the Day

  Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Clause 2

  APPOINTMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF INTERIM TRUSTEE
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 38, leave out from ("shall") to ("appoint") in line 40.
  7.1 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7.
  Mr. Stewart: This group of amendments was tabled in another place in response to concerns expressed by involvency practitioners that the Bill as it stood could create problems for some business debtors. The practitioners feared that such debtors would be unable to secure the immediate appointment of an interim trustee to manage the business while the sequestration process was proceeding.
  In the light of those concerns, amendment No. 5 restores the position to that which presently applies under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 and allows the court to appoint an interim trustee without delay after the presentation of a debtor's petition. While amendment No. 6 retains the opportunity for the Accountant in Bankruptcy to make an early application for a certificate of summary administration, the other amendments make consequential drafting changes.
  I acknowledge that a number of amendments were tabled by the Opposition in another place. I hope that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) will agree that the Opposition amendments were designed to achieve the same purpose as the Government amendments before the House. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Opposition amendments were withdrawn in favour of the Government amendments simply because the latter were technically accurate. I pay tribute to Opposition Members in another place for tabling their amendments.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank the Minister for his comments. In particular, I thank my colleagues in another place, particularly Lord Macaulay and Lord Carmichael, who were very vigilant when the legislation was last considered there.
  I welcome the Minister's endorsement of the role of the Opposition in another place. However, will he explain the qualifications that the courts will consider necessary for the interim trustee? Are those qualifications consistent with the views of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland which sought, I thought successfully, to persuade the Minister to ensure that sequestration may be awarded forthwith after the presentation of a debtor's petition? No doubt the institute had in mind the role relevant to that of an interim trustee. Before we make a judgment on the package that the Minister has brought back from another place, I should be grateful if he would explain the role and qualifications of the interim trustee.
  Mr. Stewart: I am happy to respond to the perfectly fair point made by the hon. Gentleman. I can confirm that the
  74
  Government have discussed with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland the arrangements for implementing the Bill. I assure the hon. Gentleman that an interim trustee, other than the Accountant in Bankruptcy himself or herself, must be an insolvency practitioner, as is the case under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.
  We intend to introduce the provisions of the Bill so that the Accountant in Bankruptcy would be appointed the trustee in most small asset cases. The accountant would then retain a proportion of cases in-house, but allocate the remainder to insolvency practitioners on the same basis as under the 1985 Act.
  Those cases would be allocated on a fixed-price basis. That would allow all concerned—the Accountant in Bankruptcy and the insolvency practitioners to whom the hon. Member for Monklands, West referred—the opportunity to gain experience under the new regime. That should permit a fairer comparison to be made between public sector and private sector provision when full market testing is undertaken.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has distinguished herself in written parliamentary questions —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to see the unanimity between the Labour party and the Scottish National party. The Scottish Liberals are not present and I do not see them rushing into the Chamber to take part in this very important debate. However, at least we have agreement—almost uniquely these days—between the Labour party and the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Moray played a major part in our considerations during the proceedings on the Bill.
  Dr. John Reid: With due deference to the Minister, and although I do not want to correct his grammar, something cannot be "almost unique". It is either unique, or it is not. I hope that that will help with future speeches.
  Mr. Stewart: I have received linguistic advice from the Government Whip, but I believe that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is correct, and I stand corrected.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: It is good to hear that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is a bit better on his English than he was on his arithmetic in another place the other day.
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend expresses himself with his customary robustness. However, I do not intend in this debate to arouse the hon. Member for Motherwell, North excessively. However, the hon. Member for Moray played a major and constructive part in our consideration of the subject in Committee. I believe that it would be generally agreed that the Committee stage was constructive.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am sorry that I missed the Minister's earlier exchanges with the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). Am Ito understand from the Minister's remarks that the Accountant in Bankruptcy will now almost put bankruptcy cases out to private tender? Will the top sum allocated be £600 or less?
  Mr. Stewart: I am happy to respond to the hon. Lady and to confirm the exact position which follows the consultations over the summer between the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Accountant in Bankruptcy and the Scottish Office.

  75
  There will be an interim stage in 1993–94—let us take, for the sake of argument, the assumption that the Bill is implemented from the beginning of April—when experience can be gained of operating under the procedures in the Bill before proceeding to a full-blown market testing exercise. The intention is to bring in the provisions of the Bill so that the Accountant in Bankruptcy would be appointed trustee in most small asset cases. The accountant would then retain a proportion of such cases in-house, but allocate the remainder to insolvency practitioners on a fixed-price basis.
  That procedure will allow all concerned to gain experience under the new regime and should permit a fairer comparison to be made between public and private sector provision when full market testing is undertaken. I am delighted that we have been joined by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), of the Liberal Democrats, in order to express his knowledge and experience of and interest in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill.
  I assure the hon. Member for Moray that the accountant has recently circulated his proposals to all insolvency practitioners. As I have said, I hope that we can have such arrangements in place.
  Mrs. Ewing: Has the Accountant in Bankruptcy given any indication of the basis on which he will deal with market testing? Last year, the Minister told me that he was working on anticipated bankruptcies of about 20,000 per annum. Is it not the case that the Accountant in Bankruptcy is now looking at a much smaller number of annual bankruptcies on which to base his market testing?
  Mr. Stewart: I am unable to give the hon. Lady an exact estimate. With her expertise, she will know that there is great uncertainty about such matters, but the number will be below the original estimate.
  The hon. Member for Moray asked about fees. I can confirm the figure that she suggested. The Accountant in Bankruptcy has offered the professionally standard fee of £600 plus VAT—that is, £705 gross—to handle a summary case. Work over and above that would be paid at a set fee or an hourly rate as appropriate in accordance with the tariff set by the accountant. I hope that, with that explanation, the amendments will commend themselves to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

  PETITIONS FOR SEQUESTRATION
  Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 7, line 8, leave out from first ("a") to ("and") in line 10 and insert ("statement of assets and liabilities")
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 3 and 4, 12 to 17 and 20.
  Mr. Stewart: The amendments might look substantial, but in fact they are technical. The main point of significance in them is the new definition of the statement of assets and liabilities which appears in amendment No. 20. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for
  76
  Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), with cross-party support, raised in Committee. It was a seemingly simple change but, as my hon. Friend will see, it has given rise to several amendments. The amendments should make the legislation easier to understand by debtors and advisers and therefore make the legislation easier to operate in future.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I am delighted to be able to speak for a few minutes.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, amendment No. 20 relates to a matter that I raised upstairs in Committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the noble Lords on arriving at a form of words that achieves exactly what I failed to achieve in Committee. My hon. Friend will agree that the amendments that I spoke to in Committee were quite properly technically unsound. There was cross-party support in Committee for what I was trying to achieve. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spoke at length in Committee. I am very happy, therefore, that the amendments should become part of the Bill.
  7.15 pm
  Mrs. Ewing: Several of the amendments relate to clause 3, which is a particularly significant part of the legislation. The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
  "Clause 3 amends Section 5 of the 1985 Act to extend the grounds on which a debtor may petition for his own sequestration".
  The only aspect of the amendments that concerns me is that it could be interpreted that there is a reduction in access to bankruptcy. It was never the intention of my parliamentary questions nor indeed the intention of any hon. Member in Committee that there should be any restriction in access to sequestration, which all hon. Members accept is often the best way forward for an individual who faces severe financial pressures. The context of the Bill was to reduce the costs involved in sequestration. I seek an assurance from the Minister that none of the amendments restricts access to sequestration.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for his kind comments about the proceedings in another place, where the purpose of his original amendments was met. They certainly had all-party support.
  I reassure the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on the point that she raised. The purpose of the amendments is to assist debtors and those who advise them fully to understand the scope of their obigations and the related offence provisions. No reduction in access is implied in the amendments.
  Mrs. Ewing: In the past few days, it has come to my notice that the Accountant in Bankruptcy is downgrading to 3,000 the anticipated number of annual bankruptcies in Scotland from the 20,000 that the Minister referred to in Committee last year. That is a huge drop. Most Members of Parliament know that many people, particularly those in small business, face bankruptcy. I seek an assurance from the Minister that severe restrictions will not be placed on those who seek sequestration.
  Mr. Stewart: I can reassure the hon. Lady. She will agree that it is difficult to estimate the volume of sequestrations which might arise if the Bill is enacted. The amendments stand against the general background of the

  77
  routes by which a debtor can obtain access to sequestration. Those routes are increased by the Bill. I assure the hon. Lady that none of the amendments restricts access to sequestration.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 11

  AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
  Lords amendment: No. 8 in page 14, line 6, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 9 to 11 and 18 and 19.
  Mr. Stewart: These drafting amendments correct various provisions in the 1985 Act. I draw the attention of the House especially to amendment No. 11, which was tabled by the Labour party in another place. The amendment makes a useful and technical change to the 1985 Act which will benefit anyone who requires to petition for the recall of a sequestration.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I too especially welcome amendment No. 11. As the Minister said, my colleagues in another place, especially Lord Macaulay, helped with the drafting of the Bill. We give our thanks to them and welcome the amendment, which improves the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair.]

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [Lords]
  Clause 3

    THE APPROPRIATE ANNUAL RATE
    7.23 pm
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 5, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert—

    '(1) In the case of—

    (a) a person who, at the time of his retirement from qualifying judicial office is not either a circuit judge or a high court judge, and has completed in the aggregate, at least 20 years' service in such office, or

    (b) a person who at the time of his retirement from qualifying judicial office is either a circuit judge or a high court judge, and has completed, in the aggregate, at least 15 years' service in qualifying judicial office,

    the "appropriate annual rate" for the purposes of this Act is an annual rate equal to one-half his pensionable pay.'.

    The purpose of the amendment is to give half pay on retirement to a circuit or High Court judge when he has served 15 years as a judge. The Government's proposal to extend the length of time which a High Court or circuit judge must serve by five years before he qualifies for his full pension is unfair, unreasonable and will cause serious problems for the working of the system.
    In clause 2 of the Bill, the retirement age of judges has been reduced by five years. If, as the Government propose, the retirement age of judges is reduced in that way and the period which a judge must serve is increased from 15 to 20 years before he receives full pension, it follows that any judge who is appointed after the age of 50 will not be able to receive a full pension.
    What does that mean for judges? It means that few judges will be able to receive a full pension. That will have ramifications for judges' wives—and widows—and children. Other amendments will address that matter. The effect is a reduction in pension for judges which is totally unfair. That is not the way to treat such an important and vital part of our community as the judiciary.
    What effect does it have on the system? It means that those with less experience will become judges in order to serve the 20 years before qualifying for a pension and having to retire at the age of 70. Younger judges will have to be appointed, which will mean that they have had fewer years of experience at the Bar.
    At present, the appointment of judgeship comes at the end of an experienced and successful period in the practitioner's life. Those who are successful at the Bar will not want to become judges. If they are earning about £200,000 a year with a successful practice at the Bar, why on earth should they take the appointment of a judgeship with a substantial reduction to about £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 a year which will bring with it a reduction in pension? Do we want less successful practitioners to become judges—those who have not had the experience or the success at the Bar which comes from ability?
    Those who have burnt themselves out after 15 years will have a reason for wanting to hang on for another five years to collect their full pension. There is such a factor as the burnt-out judge. Work at the Bar is intensive and demanding. The more successful the practitioner, the more

    79
    demanding the work becomes. When one becomes a judge, one must apply one's mind with no let-up. It is relentless: day after day, one case follows another. When a practitioner at the Bar gets tired he can say, "No more work for a week or two while I take a holiday and recoup some of my strength." When one sits as a judge, effectively as a civil servant, one must maintain the days, weeks, months and hours of sitting.
    There is absolutely no doubt, and it is obvious to those of us who practise at the Bar, that there are burnt-out judges—judges who should have retired some years ago but are hanging on for their pension. This measure may well cause a lot more burnt-out judges to hang on for another five years to qualify for a full pension. Do we really want extinct volcanoes gracing our benches?
    There is a worrying aspect to the matter. If we do not get enough judges because successful and experienced practitioners do not want the massive drop in income and the resulting fall in their pensions and the money available to their widows, or if they do not want to be appointed at an early age before they have reached their apogee of earnings at the Bar, in the fullness of time there may well be a shortage of judges.
    How will judges be recruited if there are so few coming forward due to the total lack of attractiveness of the pay, the terms of work, and the pension that they receive at the end? The answer is simple. We do what every other country in the European Community does: we appoint career judges, who will leave school and university and immediately become judges. That practice takes place elsewhere. Now that we are part of a federal super-state and all of the trading, industrial, social and other activities are standardised, there is a level playing field throughout the Community. Why should we not appoint our judges as career judges from the moment they leave university, as happens in all the other countries? I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not suggest that, when that happens, it will be the result of a deliberate act of harmonising our system with that of our European partners, but if we cannot get enough judges because the attractions to a judge both in payment and pension are so diminished, it is inevitable that we shall have a career judiciary, which no one in the United Kingdom regards as remotely desirable.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I wish to take up my hon. and learned Friend's point about the attraction or otherwise of the package. I must ask him to accept that the Bill is not a cost-cutting exercise. The cost of both schemes —if I may put it in the vernacular, "before" and "after" —has been actuarially assessed, on the basis of detailed calculations, at 28 per cent. of pay. The cost and attraction of the package is the same before as after.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: It sounds as though my hon. Friend has a guilty conscience. He is over-sensitive. I did not suggest that the reason for the proposal was cost cutting. I would not have been so presumptuous as to make that allegation about my hon. Friend.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend's suggestion might have taken a different form of words, but the meaning is scarcely different. He suggested that on the far side of the changes the package was less attractive. I addressed that suggestion by saying that the package was
    80
    just as expensive to the taxpayer. The total package of receipts in the hands of the pension holder is of the same value and worth after as before.
    7.30 pm
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I did not make the allegation, but if I had been able to do so because I felt justified in making it there would at least have been an explanation for the appalling treatment that the Government are meting out to judges. It would have been logical to say, "We are overspending on the legal system; we must reduce the amount of money that goes into it, so let us shorten the years in which a judge sits and lengthen the time they have to serve before they receive their pension."
    As I am concerned about the need to reduce the enormous expenditure on our legal system and elsewhere, I am not sure that I would not have seen some justification in that argument. I am astonished to hear that that is not the justification for the measure—that it is not a cost-cutting exercise.
    One is driven to ask why on earth we are taking action in the Bill which will have the bad effects that I have suggested. It will discourage the best practitioners from becoming judges, and make those who are not the best practitioners soldier on long beyond their sell-by date. Why on earth are the Government taking that position if it is not to save money, unless it is as a result of a misunderstanding of the effect that the measure will have on the judicial system? I have some reason for thinking that other misjudgments may have been made of the judicial and legal system in recent years. Perhaps the measure is just another in a line of misjudgments about how the legal system should work.
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I declare an interest as a practising barrister. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, whichever way one looks at the package which has just been outlined to us, it does not deal with the heart of the matter, which is how do we attract the best people to become judges so that we can have the best judicial system? To go backwards does not seem to be a way of going forwards.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: It is not just going backwards—it is going a long way backwards. We are not talking about tinkering for a few months or a year. We are talking about a five-year extension in the accrual rate. Judges will have to be appointed after fewer years of service to the profession than hitherto in order to receive a full pension, so looking ahead the position will be markedly worse. It is difficult to see how any possible improvement in the legal system can be achieved as a result of the proposals on pensions in the Bill.
    When I am told by my hon. Friend the Minister that the measure has not been taken for reasons of cost cutting, it becomes all the more incomprehensible. I have moved the amendment so that the matter can be properly ventilated in the Chamber and so that those who are involved in the legal profession and other professions and, indeed, the public can see how the future of our proud judiciary may be undermined to a marked extent by the proposals.
    Mr. Roger Evans: I rise to support the amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister repeated what appears to have been the Government's position throughout the proceedings on the Bill. Their position is that the Bill is not intended to be anything other than

    81
    fiscally neutral. In the present circumstances for Government expenditure, I appreciate and accept the force of that. If that is the case, so be it. My hon. Friend the Minister's difficulty, and the reason why the amendment has been moved, is that so far he has not succeeded in removing, especially from the mind of many of the judiciary, the perception that the Bill is a cost-cutting exercise.
    There are above all two reasons for that perception. First, the scheme as a whole may well be neutral in terms of public expenditure but certain sections of the wide series of judicial appointments will benefit considerably from improvements under the arrangements in the Bill. However, the circuit bench and the High Court bench see not that; they see only things which point to severe detriment for future appointees to those positions. That is the importance of the increase from 15 to 20 years, which will have incalculable—although difficult to predict in detail—consequences on the character of the next generation of the judiciary.
    My hon. Friend the Minister has not persuaded the judiciary because there are different types of judges among whom there are losers and gainers. I respectfully suggest that time is still left for him to persuade us all that there is fiscal neutrality. The mystery of this controversy is that the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges still has hot had supplied to its actuary detailed calculations in answer to questions which he has put.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: There has been plenty of opportunity for members of the judiciary or their representatives to raise questions on cost. There have been exchanges of correspondence since last summer. Meetings have taken place between various parties and there have been discussions on the telephone. In response to questions put to me in Committee, I facilitated the holding of a meeting between the actuarial advisor representing the circuit judges and a senior official of the Government Actuary's department. A meeting was arranged but it was cancelled at the last minute by the judiciary's advisor. I can assume only that the advisor was satisfied with the information that he already had.
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has the advantage over me as to the detail of the cancellation of that meeting. However, the arguments which have been put me, and which I put to the House and invite my hon. Friend the Minister to answer, are as follows. First, the assumption has been made in the actuarial calculations of the Government Actuary that under the old and new schemes judges will retire at the same time evenly throughout the relevant years. That is an implausible assumption.
    Under the existing arrangements, whereby pension is linked to pay, there is a built-in incentive for judges to retire shortly after their pay has increased. In other words, there will be a distinct difference between the patterns of retirement throughout the year before and after the proposals are implemented. That has a significant consequence of about 1.1 per cent. on the figures.
    The second factor which has been challenged but has not been answered is that the real rate of discount assumed by the Government Actuary is 3.5 per cent. whereas 4 per cent. or more would be realistic over the longer period.
    The third and perhaps most startling of the Government Actuary's assumptions is that the age and sex composition of the population of judges under the new
    82
    system—I use the bizarre technical term "population" beloved of statisticians—will not change in the next 20 years. I have no doubt that if that were the case it would create utter amazement, if not criticism, among hon. Members on both sides of the House. We appreciate that one of the factors about the present judiciary is the age at which they join the bench and the time that they were in private professional practice. With the advent of larger numbers of women at the Bar and becoming judges, it is inevitable that the composition of the judiciary—as regards both age and sex—will change during the next 20 years.
    The actuary advising the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges has said that for those three reasons—which the Government Actuary has never dealt with as far as I am aware—there is more slack in the measure and, in some regards at least, my hon. Friend has the opportunity to be slightly more generous. I urge him to consider the amendment and to decide what response he can make.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Taking the last point first, the actuarial adviser to judges assumes that there is some slack in the equation because the significance of the move to pensionable pay has been underestimated. He says that this hypothesis would be confirmed by evidence of a bunching of retirements after the judges' April salary increases. The information on judicial requirements, however, shows that that is not the case.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) expressed his arguments with his customary urgent lucidity. I urge him to accept that, for months, every effort has been made to answer all the questions and to make information available. All the information specifically requested by the judiciary or the actuarial advisers has been provided. As I said, the circuit bench actuary met the Government Actuary last October and was offered another meeting last Friday, which was secured last Tuesday. I am advised that he telephoned to decline that meeting last Thursday. It is not for me to account for that but, whatever differences may still lie between my hon. Friend and myself, the Government extended themselves comprehensively to ensure that the information was available for discussion with anyone with whom he wanted.
    In answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who tabled amendment No. 21, the Government do not accept the argument that the combination of the 20-year accrual period and the new retirement age of 70 will discourage suitable candidates from accepting appointment to the bench. Under the existing arrangements, a number of candidates are appointed at an age which will not permit them to earn full pension. Others continue in full-time service after they have completed the years required to earn a full pension. The special position of judges, who come to their careers relatively late in life, is recognised in the scheme by the tax concession of retained benefits. That is a most significant privilege for the judges, but the Government do not justify their opposition to a 15-year accural period on that ground alone. There are more telling reasons why the 15-year accural period, and the amendment, should be rejected.
    The amendment would shatter the uniformity of treatment of the judiciary, which it is one purpose of the Bill to create. Where the Government are seeking to establish a common accrual period for all judicial officers, the amendment would create a two-tier pension regime, in

    83
    which circuit judges and High Court judges alone would have to work for 15 years before earning maximum benefits, while all other judicial officers would have to work for 20 years. In doing so, it would perpetuate—perhaps even accentuate—the inequities of the existing judicial pension arrangements.
    7.45 pm
    At present, different judicial officers have to work for different periods to earn a full pension. There are 15, 20 and even 40-year schemes. Those differences are not based on logic; they are the product of historical decisions, the reasons for which are no longer evident. The Government seek to remove the inherent unfairness in the arrangements by establishing a uniform accrual period of 20 years for all salaried judicial officers in the United Kingdom. The amendment, however, would enshrine the present unfairness in the new arrangements.
    Let me give two examples. First, what possible justification remains for circuit judges in England and Wales to work for 15 years in order to earn a full pension, while their counterparts in Scotland, the sheriffs, have to work for 20 years as they would under the amendment? If the work of circuit judges is such that they should retire after 15 years, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton suggests, why should the same not hold for Scottish sheriffs who perform similar duties north of the border? And what about their Northern Ireland counterparts, the county court judges? They too already have a 20-year accrual period. Is their work less demanding than that of English and Welsh circuit judges? No, it is not. So why does the amendment omit to mention them? The amendment is illogical and plainly unfair.
    A second example of the unfairness of the amendment is what is it about the offices of circuit judge and High Court judge that singles them out to remain in a 15-year scheme? There are other offices which presently have 15-year accrual periods, but the amendment does not seek to preserve their positions. For instance, the amendment does not extend to others in 15-year schemes, such as the heads of division, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary or the Lords Justices of Appeal, or to the senior judiciary in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Is it suggested that the work of a Lord Justice of Appeal is that much less onerous than that of a High Court judge or that of the Lord Chief Justice much less burdensome than that of a circuit judge? If this amendment were passed, there would be cause for resentment indeed.
    There is no evidence that being members of a 20-year pension scheme has led to Scottish sheriffs or Northern Ireland county court judges becoming stale in the latter years of their service. I do not accept that judges who sit for more than 15 years on the bench are thereby less fit to perform their judicial functions, or to adapt to change, than those who do not. In fact, under the present arrangments, the average length of service of a circuit judge is not 15 years but about 18, and the average length of service of a High Court judge is about 19 years. So, the suggestion that the Government will be forcing judges to work longer than 15 years, against their better judgment, does not appear to hold water. I can do no better than quote my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when he said in another place:
    84
    "I do not believe there is any real basis on which 15 years can be selected as self-evidently the right time at which to ask judges to retire. If it were so, it should apply to all judges." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 October 1992, c. 1066.]
    There is another reason why the amendment would be deeply unfair. I have spoken about it before. The occasion of this Bill was the change to the general tax law introduced by the Finance Acts of 1987 and 1989. The judicial pension schemes are now the only occupational pension schemes in the United Kingdom which have not been obliged to comply with the standards that the Inland Revenue lay down before they will grant tax relief on contributions and lump sums on retirement. One of those requirements is that occupational pension schemes must have a minimum accrual period of 20 years. If the amendment were passed, circuit judges and High Court judges would be the only members of occupational pension schemes in the kingdom to whom that rule would not apply. What justification for that can there be? I would be the first to accept that the work of circuit judges and High Court judges is of the highest importance and often extremely onerous. I cannot accept that it is uniquely so, to the exclusion of all other professions and all other judicial offices. Should not High Court and circuit judges be subject to the same general tax law as the citizens whose case they hear?
    The Government's other concern with the amendment is, of course, the cost. The new pension arrangements have been designed to be as close as possible to the cost of the existing arrangements. Were we to keep the accrual period of the nearly 600 circuit and High Court Judges at 15 years, this would increase the cost of providing judicial pensions by 4 per cent. of pay.
    I respectfully give the House one note of warning. If the amendment is passed, the judicial pension scheme will, as I have explained, no longer appear to meet the criteria set down by general tax law for tax approval. In such circumstances, the Government would have to consider very carefully whether it could continue to allow the judicial pension scheme to enjoy tax-approved status, and whether judges could continue to benefit from the tax privilege of retained benefits. I must ask the House, in the interests of fairness to all concerned, to reject the amendment.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I notice that my hon. Friend has not addressed my important objection to the extension of the accrual time—the adverse effect that it would have upon the future of the judicial and legal professions—other than to mention some statistic about the length of time that judges are currently sitting. I should have liked my hon. Friend to address the concern expressed by those who understand and know best the consequences of this action —the judges themselves.
    Judges represent a most reasonable section of society. They are not given to taking arms against any Government who check their privileges or the benefits that they may receive. However, they have sat down and, with great concern as well as understanding about the future of the system, highlighted the inevitable failures which will result from the Government's proposals.
    My hon. Friend said that if the amendment were accepted it would lead to a 4 per cent. increase in costs. That may well be so; I am not in a position to dispute it. He said that it may lead to some kind of reconsideration of the tax status currently enjoyed by judges. I do not challenge that. My hon. Friend also said that uniformity of

    85
    treatment was necessary and referred to the creation of a two-tier system. Such a system already exists; all that my hon. Friend is advocating is its continuation. That argument cannot be considered satisfactory by any fair-minded, objective person.
    I see the logic behind my hon. Friend's argument and 1 accept that there may be a perceived unfairness about any distinction which now exists between the accrual time of 15 years and 20 years. That unfairness should not be removed by creating a greater unfairness, with the likely consequences that I have suggested, particularly when those consequences are as harmful to the future of our judicial system as the judges and those who have thought about the matter seem to think.
    It may be that, to be fair, my hon. Friend and the Government should reduce the time served for the approval of full pension for the Lord Chief Justice, judges of the Court of Appeal, sheriffs and judges in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Government should look forward to a time when they can proceed with such fairness. However, that argument is not an answer to the case that I have made in support of the amendment. It cannot be right that we should introduce a far greater unfairness, which will seriously harm the future of the legal profession and the legal system.
    I note the less than full attendance in the House and I realise that when we come to discuss matters of pay, income and terms of service of lawyers or the judiciary it is an occasion for intense boredom and lack of interest by others in our society who think that lawyers earn enough, gain enough, do not contribute enough and should be hanged. Therefore, it would be impracticable and unrealistic for me to press the amendment to a Division, particularly since we have heard no word of support from those on the Opposition Benches. In those circumstances, I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 5

    SURVIVING SPOUSE'S PENSION
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 7, line 14, leave out 'one-half' and insert 'two-thirds'.
    The amendment deals with a matter that is more serious than that addressed in the previous amendment, because it will have an immediate effect upon the widows and, perhaps in due course, the children of judges who die in harness.
    Under the Government's proposals, widows will be hurt greatly. To prevent that hurt from occurring, the amendment would increase from one half to two thirds the sum of money which accrues at the death of a judge.
    Under the new scheme, pensions are to be calculated on the basis of pensionable pay rather than on the basis of pay currently received. Pensionable pay is the amount of pay received in the past year—last year's pay. Under the present scheme, a judge who has reached retirement, age can usually wait until the next pay increase on 1 April and retire on the basis of that increase, which is next year's pay.
    The Government produced a set of figures for the debate in another place which compared the benefits payable under the old and new schemes. In my submission, those figures are unintentionally misleading because the
    86
    calculations were made for 31 March—the only day in the year when the two figures are the same. If the figures are calculated for 30 September 1992 or 1 April 1993, the results are quite different.
    Under the new scheme, on 30 September 1992 the sum of £62,549 would accrue, but £64,064 would accrue under the old scheme. Under the old and new schemes, as at 31 March, the sum accrued would be the same, £64,064. Under the new scheme, on 1 April 1993 the sum of £64,069 would accrue, but £65,912 would accrue under the old scheme. In the first case, the judge and his wife will lose £1,133 a year, and when the judge dies his widow will lose £567 a year. In the second case, the judge and his wife will lose £933 and his widow will lose £467.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Is my hon. and learned Friend referring to someone who is currently the holder of a judicial appointment and is looking beyond to the effect of the proposed changes? Such a person does not have to enter the new scheme. If he so wishes, he may keep to his existing arrangements.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not challenge my hon. Friend's point, but what about future appointees? If they compare what they will get under the present scheme with what they would get under the new scheme, there is a marked difference in the sums payable not just to a judge, but to his widow. The new system is based on last year's pay rather than on the pay currently receivable. Under that system everyone loses—the judges, the widow and, in clue course, the children. The Government, of course, make savings.
    In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), my hon. Friend the Minister said that the Bill was financially neutral and that the Government made no gains from it. That matter has been intensely disputed by the actuary for the judges and the Government's actuaries. A request has been made for figures and meetings, and there have been telephone conversations. I do not know whether the last such meeting scheduled for this weekend was cancelled for any reason, but I know that, until recently, the judges' actuary did not consider that he had been given the figures for which the Government were asked when the Bill was being considered in their Lordships' House. There has obviously been a misunderstanding. If the figures were as the judges' actuary calculated, there would be some leeway within the system to make the increase to protect the widows in the way suggested.
    8 pm
    One feature of the new legislation is that many judges will be unable or unwilling to complete their 20 years to qualify for a full pension. Under the old scheme, after 10 years the pension is three quarters earned while under the new scheme it will be only half earned. If we take a salary of £64,064, the full pension will be £32,032 for a judge, and £16,016 for his widow, which is not a large sum in current circumstances—certainly not when compared with the sort of earnings and pensions that can be gained in the private sector. If that figure is to be reduced by a quarter, the judge and his wife on his retirement will lose £8,000, and when the judge dies his widow will lose £4,000. The cumulative loss to the widow is enormous. It depends on the date of retirement, but unless the judge has been foolish enough to

    87
    retire on 31 March, the figure of £8,000 will increase because of the difference between actual pay and pensionable pay.
    There are some cases where the new legislation will work to the widow's benefit—for instance, if her husband dies early in service—but there will not be a large number of such cases. In nearly every case, the judges' pension will be less under the new scheme, so the widow should be given compensation by means of a pension that is two-thirds of one half, not half of one half.
    The new scheme provides for the lump sum to be two and a quarter times the pension based on the lower figure for pensionable pay, rather than twice the pension based on current pay. That is inadequate compensation for the lost pension. Independent actuaries have informed the judges that it compares badly with the amount given in the private sector. Under a typical private pension scheme for senior employees, the spouse's pension could well be two-thirds, not one half. Even if it were set at a half, the pension would have been at a higher maximum rate than 50 per cent. of the salary. In any scheme which introduces changes such as those proposed by the Government, there are likely to be gainers as well as losers, but it is impossible to believe that there will be many gainers under the Government's proposals, and the widows will be among the losers.
    When the subject of the arrangements between the actuaries arose, the actuary for the judges, Mr. Wynne-Griffiths, suggested to the Government's actuaries that there should be some flexibility and some leeway in the system to enable the Government to make a concession to the widows. That was denied at an early stage and then, after the Government actuaries had considered the matter further, they conceded that there was some leeway. Perfectly properly, as one would expect from honourable people—and no doubt on the initiative of the Government, who are totally honourable, if misguided, in such matters—it was agreed that the sum of money seen to be available after a closer consideration of the statistics would enable the Government to give more help to the children. Now, my hon. Friend the Minister says that the package is fiscally neutral. He said that last time, but it was not. How can we be sure that he is any more correct this time than he was last time?
    In the past few days, Mr. Wynne-Griffiths has been able to discuss the matter again with the Government's actuaries. It seems that there has been no detailed calculation to prove financial neutrality. All that has happened is that the Government's actuaries have made some computer predictions and Mr. Wynne-Griffiths has produced a further report. I shall not labour the details of that report, which has been sent to my hon. Friend the Minister and will no doubt be studied, if it has not been already, by the Government's actuaries, who will behave with as much honour as they have done in the past. No doubt, when the Government find that they have made an error, they will behave with the same degree of honour as they did over the concession for children.
    I am told that amendment No. 22, which we hope will restore the widows to their former position by raising from one half to two-thirds the amount of the widows' pension, would produce about 0.8 per cent. to 1 per cent. of salary. I believe that there would be sufficient leeway in the system to afford the change that I am proposing without breaching the principle of financial neutrality.
    88
    It has been said that it has taken the judges' actuary quite some time to obtain the information, but now that the information has been vouchsafed and it is possible to work on the figures, we can see that the injustice to widows which would result from the proposals in the Bill can be corrected. We are talking not about the pension—my hon. Friend has dealt with that matter, which I was unable to press to a Division—but about how the pension will affect the widow. Of the wives of practitioners at the Bar and of judges, most of those whom I have known have been neglected by their husbands, who have been totally preoccupied with their work and service to the community for many years of their life.
    If I am right—I have it on the best advice that I am —that a closer analysis of the statistics between the actuaries reveals a sufficient leeway, it follows that, to make the Bill truly fiscally financially neutral, it will be possible to increase the widows' pension. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give an undertaking that he will take a closer look at the subject to see whether the widows can be helped as a result of the new analysis of the figures?
    Mr. Roger Evans: This is the one area where the Minister can make a concession in a way that will be appreciated.
    We have talked about fiscal neutrality. Usually, when public expenditure proposals are discussed in these terms, we can work out what we are paying and what the proposals are and say that they balance, so they are neutral. This, however, is not such a simple case. It is not a straightforward public expenditure proposal.
    We are discussing two potential arrangements for the future: one under existing premises, and a new system under new premises. It is not for us or for the Minister to decide, in that context, what is fiscally neutral. It is a matter of expert actuarial advice; we need the professional expertise to determine what is likely to happen. That sort of professional prediction is not so nice or accurate as not to allow, within the broad contention that this is fiscally neutral, this concession. It is not so expensive as to alter or detract from the essential proposition, which inevitably contains a degree of built-in inaccuracy; it is only an estimate.
    Furthermore, the Minister did not answer on the previous amendment the three actuarial criticisms of the calculations, each one of which is worth a great deal more, I am advised, than the sum we are discussing here.
    I support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has said, and I urge the Minister to undertake to investigate this actuarial aspect further to see whether he can make some concession on this limited aspect.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Once again, I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) for their skilful presentation of a case on which they have worked with considerable care.
    At the risk of saying it three times, I must repeat that all the information requested by the judiciary or its actuarial advisers has been provided. The circuit bench's actuary had a meeting with the Government Actuary last October. If there were queries about the cost, surely that was the time to raise them—or if not, then at last Friday's

    89
    meeting, when the gentleman by the name of Mr. Wynne-Griffiths cried off. None of us seems to know why, but I am sure that he did.
    I am reluctant to say this but I must: the paper prepared by Mr. Wynne-Griffiths contained a number of factual inaccuracies. For instance, the detailed calculations have not been made; it contains flawed logic in its actuarial approach—for instance, that a change in the financial assumptions would have a significant effect in releasing a margin for further benefit improvements. The judiciary's actuarial adviser also assumed that there was a bunching of retirements in April under the present arrangements. The information on retirements shows that that is not so.
    Mr. Wynne-Griffiths' paper also contained an apparent error in the actuarial costings. For example, the cost of improving the spouse's benefit from a half to two thirds appears to have underestimated the true cost by a margin of 50 per cent. The actuarial adviser to the circuit judges has acknowledged that he has not made any detailed calculations, but the Government Actuary has assessed the cost at just over 2 per cent. of pay.
    Given the number of errors and flaws in Mr. Wynne-Griffiths' paper, the Government do not place too much reliance on the validity of the circuit judges' actuarial advisers. In short, the paper fails to impress.
    8.15 pm
    As for the selected date, I should point out to the House—it was also pointed out to Mr. Wynne-Griffiths—that the comparative tables that we have provided are not, as he suggested, misleading. The footnotes make quite clear the assumptions on which they are based, and the covering letter from the Lord Chancellor specifically drew attention to them. Some date for comparison had to be chosen, and 31 March was chosen precisely because it is the only date when the starting point for the remuneration part of the pension calculation under the various schemes is the same.
    The point of introducing the concept of pensionable pay is not to make savings for the Treasury but, as is accepted elsewhere, to iron out an injustice. As I have already said, there is no evidence of any bunching of retirements on or around 1 April.
    My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend have assumed that we have created some headroom in the system. If there were any headroom, I can assure them that it would have been amply absorbed by the nine changes under the scheme which involve an increase in value to the beneficiaries. Lump sum retirement benefits are increased from twice to two and a quarter times pension. Lump sum death benefit in service is increased from once to twice pay. Service enhancements applying to death in service or on ill health retirement are introduced, to reckon one-half of potential service to age 65. As the pension comparison tables show, that is better at most durations than the position under current schemes.
    Maximum pension age is reduced to 70 and opportunities to retire on pension aged 65, or with actuarially reduced pension from the age of 60, are introduced. Contributions from members of the higher judiciary are reduced from 4 per cent. of pay to 3 per cent. of pay. No deductions from lump sum benefits in respect of outstanding contributions for spouses' benefits are to be made. There will be an integrated pension scheme for the whole judiciary, with no loss of benefit expectations on promotion. The list continues with the improvement of
    90
    eligibility for children's benefits and the lump sum death benefit after retirement improved to a balance of five times pension.
    I did not embark on this litany inadvertently. I thought that this Report stage of an extremely important Bill was a crucial moment to put some of these matters on record. Although not many hon. Members are in the Chamber now, this debate will have, if not a wide, then a learned readership tomorrow morning, and the Government are entitled to put the basis of their case on record even if that involves slightly delaying the House.
    I should like strongly to rebut the idea that the Government are seeking to do judges or their spouses out of part of their pensions. No husband or wife of a serving judge will lose out as a result of the Bill, because membership of the new pension arrangements is entirely voluntary. No serving judge will be forced to join the scheme.
    The spouse's pension is half the deceased scheme member's pension under both the existing and the new arrangements; the Bill, therefore, makes no change to the method by which the surviving spouse's pension is to be calculated, save to provide for its enhancement in the event of a judge's death in service. Many Members will have seen the tables prepared by the Government Actuary's department comparing the level of benefits which can be obtained from the existing and proposed arrangements. These demonstrate that there are circumstances when one arrangement provides a higher level of benefit than the other arrangement, and vice versa. This should come as no surprise to anyone; it is the inevitable result of making changes to a pension scheme while keeping the overall cost the same. No savings whatever are expected to be made by the Exchequer as a result of these changes.
    It has always been the Government's intention that the changes to the judicial pension arrangements should have no effect on their overall cost. If we are to keep to this aim, then this amendment could be accepted only if corresponding reductions were made to the level of benefits elsewhere in the scheme to offset the increased cost of providing spouses' pensions. The cost of this amendment would be slightly over 2 per cent. of the judicial payroll, so the adjustments to other benefit levels would be severe. I do not believe that my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend would win much support from members of the judiciary who will become members of this scheme if they forced us to travel that road.
    We should be considering the value of the surviving spouse's pension to the surviving spouse, and how it compares with that provided by other schemes. It has been argued that a spouse's pension of two thirds of the scheme member's pension is common in the private sector. I am informed by the Government Actuary's department that that is not true. It is most unusual for any pension scheme to provide a spouse's pension at that level. The typical private sector occupational pension scheme provides a spouse's pension of about only 17 per cent. of a member's pensionable pay after 20 years' service, compared with 25 per cent. of pensionable pay provided by the new judicial pension arrangements after the same period of service. That, incidentally, is identical to the level of spouse's pension, expressed as a percentage of pensionable pay, payable to the widow or widower of an hon. Member after the same period of service. I am mildly surprised that it

    91
    should be implied that benefits that the House considers good enough for the spouses of Members are less than sufficient for the spouse of a deceased judge.
    When one considers other public service pension schemes, one finds that the attractiveness of the benefits offered by the new judicial pension arrangements becomes more apparent. The usual benefit payable to the surviving spouse of a member of a typical public service pension scheme after 20 years is only 12.5 per cent. of pensionable pay—half the value of the Members' and judges' scheme. This disparity is justified by the unusual career patterns of the judiciary and Members of Parliament, and the Government believe that that treatment is generous enough.
    The new judicial pension arrangements provide for a fair and attractive level of surviving spouse's pension, and I must ask the House to reject the amendment.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sorry that under our system Mr. Wynne-Griffiths, a senior partner in a well-established and successful firm of actuaries, is not able to defend himself here from the critical comments of my hon. Friend the Minister.
    I am not able to go into the details of conversations, letters and telephone calls between the Government's actuaries and the actuary acting on behalf of the judges, but when it was said that the Bill was financially neutral Mr. Wynne-Griffiths corrected that assertion, having presented his own figures without—I do not go into the reasons—being able to see all the conclusions on which the Government based their statistics. He drew to the Government's attention the fact that the Bill was not financially neutral and that there was some leeway. Having considered the point, the Government's actuaries agreed that Mr. Wynne-Griffiths was right. A small concession was given to children, for which the judges are extremely grateful. I understand that that resulted from Mr. Wynne-Griffiths's skill, knowledge and wisdom, and if my hon. Friend the Minister is not able to give credit where it is due I am sorry.
    I am sorry, too, that my hon. Friend the Minister did not feel that it was appropriate to say, "We are in the world of mystery of the actuary". I suppose that actuaries are much like economists. About 360 economists wrote to say that some aspect of Government economic policy was wrong, but they did not apologise when it was discovered that they were all wrong. I suppose that, like economists, actuaries are capable of error in the conclusions that they draw from statistics. They are probably no different from anybody else, and I hope that they are not. I hope that they are human and that they understand these matters.
    It is not for my hon. Friend the Minister or me—we are not actuaries and we do not understand their world—to join the detailed argument, but I have quoted some alarming figures showing how much a widow may lose. I hoped that my hon. Friend might find it—I hesitate to say in his heart, as Ministers are not supposed to have hearts—within his generous personality and capability to say, "We shall look at these figures again. We shall arrange a meeting between Mr. Wynne-Griffiths, the actuaries and the Government Actuary and if, after a closer look, it appears that what was unthinkable last time but which proved to be so and what is unthinkable now turns out so, we shall, because we wish to do no harm to widows, see whether an improvement can be made in the provision for widows."
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I should like to say, for the sake of the record, that the improvements made to benefits and designs, to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, were made by the Government in response not, I am afraid, to arguments advanced by the gentleman whose name has been referred to more than once this evening but to representations in the other place.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am instructed that those improvements were possible only because leeway was discovered in the financial arrangements. That was discovered not by politicians or lawyers but by actuaries on the prompting of Mr. Wynne-Griffiths. All I am saying is that if there is a conflict between the actuaries it should be thoroughly considered to ensure that a widow, or perhaps a substantial number of widows, does not suffer loss because of the Government's proposals for equalising the law of pensions for judges.
    Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister, once he has read this interesting debate, will think again before their Lordships consider our amendments, which I shall not oppose, to see whether widows can be helped. I am sure that it is the wish of the entire House that they should be helped. I see no response from my hon. Friend the Minister, and in the absence, again, of support from the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and the serried ranks of Opposition Members, who I would have thought, on a matter of widows if not judges, would have had some reason for saying, "Yes, we support the case that you are advancing", I face up to reality and realise that this is not a matter to be pressed to a vote. One is never too surprised at things that happen in this place. I hope that the biggest surprise will be when my hon. Friend the Minister causes some change to be considered for the future. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 10

    ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FROM VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS
    Amendments made: No. 1, in page 13, line 36, at end insert
    'or, in relation to Northern Ireland, Article 2(2) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1975;'.
    No. 2, in page 13, line 38, at end insert
    'or, in relation to Northern Ireland, Article 2(2) of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;'.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

  Clause 26

    RETIREMENT DATE FOR HOLDERS OF CERTAIN JUDICIAL OFFICES ETC
    8.30 pm
    Amendments made: No. 3, in page 24, line 41, after 'order' insert `(a)'.
    No. 4, in page 24, line 42, at end insert
    '; or
    (b) amend subsection (8) above by adding offices to those for the time being specified in that subsection.'.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

  Schedule 2

    TRANSFER OF ACCRUED BENEFITS
    Amendment made: No. 5 in page 32, line 40, at end insert—
    '"occupational pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 66(1) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 or, in relation to Northern Ireland, Article 2(2) of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975;
    "personal pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 84(1) of the Social Security Act 1986 or, in relation to Northern Ireland, Article 2(2) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;'.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

  Schedule 3

    CORRESPONDING MINOR AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PENSIONS ENACTMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 6, in page 41, line 14, at end insert
    'or, in relation to Northern Ireland, Article 2(2) of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975;'.
    No. 7, in page 41, line 16, at end insert
    'or, in relation to Northern Ireland, Article 2(2) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;'.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

  Schedule 4

    PENSIONS FOR SENIOR PUBLIC INVESTIGATIVE OFFICERS
    Amendments made: No. 8, in page 49, line 29, leave out 'and'.
    No. 9, in page 49, line 32, at end insert
    'and
    (d) for the purpose of determining, in the event of his death, the rate of any surviving spouse's or children's pension payable under sections 5 to 8 of that Act in respect of his service as Comptroller, as if references in those sections to the annual rate of the deceased's judicial pension were references—

    (i) where a pension had commenced to be paid to him by virtue of subsection (5) above, to the appropriate annual rate of that pension; or

    (ii) where no such pension had commenced to be paid to him, to the rate that would have been the appropriate annual rate of the pension payable to him by virtue of subsection (5)(b) above, had he not died, but been disabled by permanent infirmity for the performance of the duties of his office on and after the date of death;'.

    No. 10, in page 49, line 35, leave out from 'sections' to end of line 36.
    No. 11, in page 52, line 31, leave out 'and'.
    No. 12 in page 52, line 34, at end insert
    'and
    (d) for the purpose of determining, in the event of his death, the rate of any surviving spouse's or children's pension payable under sections 5 to 8 of that Act in respect of his service as Commissioner, as if references in those sections to the annual rate of the deceased's judicial pension were references—

    (i) where a pension had commenced to be paid to him by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, to the appropriate annual rate of that pension; or

    (ii) where no such pension had commenced to be paid to him, to the rate that would have been the appropriate annual rate of the pension payable to him by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, had he not died, but been disabled by permanent infirmity for the performance of the duties of his office on and after the date of death;'.

    No. 13, in page 52, line 37, leave out from 'sections' to '13' in line 38.
    No. 14, in page 56, line 43, leave out 'and'.
    No. 15, in page 56, line 46, at end insert
    'and
    (d) for the purpose of determining, in the event of his death, the rate of any surviving spouse's or children's pension payable under sections 5 to 8 of that Act in respect of his service as Comptroller and Auditor General, as if references in those sections to the annual rate of the deceased's judicial pension were references—

    (i) where a pension had commenced to be paid to him by virtue of paragraph (4), to the appropriate annual rate of that pension; or

    (ii) where no such pension had commenced to be paid to him, to the rate that would have been the appropriate annual rate of the pension payable to him by virtue of paragraph (4)(b), had he not died, but been disabled by permanent infirmity for the performance of the duties of his office on and after the date of death;'.

    No. 16, in page 56, line 49, leave out from 'sections' to '13' in line 50.
    No. 17, in page 59, line 40, leave out 'and'.
    No. 18, in page 59, line 43, at end insert
    'and
    (d) for the purpose of determining, in the event of his death, the rate of any surviving spouse's or children's pension payable under sections 5 to 8 of that Act in respect of his service as Commissioner, as if references in those sections to the annual rate of the deceased's judicial pension were references—

    (i) where a pension had commenced to be paid to him by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), to the appropriate annual rate of that pension; or

    (ii) where no such pension had commenced to be paid to him, to the rate that would have been the appropriate annual rate of the pension payable to him by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b), had he not died, but been disabled by permanent infirmity for the performance of the duties of his office on and after the date of death;'.

    No. 19, in page 59, line 46, leave out from 'sections' to '13' in line 47.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

  Schedule 8

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Amendment made: No. 20, in page 91, line 31, leave out from 'words' to end of line 33 and insert
    "'qualifying judicial office, within the meaning of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.".'.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I beg to move, That the Bill now be read the Third time.
    I do not wish to speak at any great length at this point in the proceedings, but would like to comment on one or two matters before we bring our consideration of the Bill to a close.
    The occasion for the Bill was the change in the tax treatment of pension schemes introduced by the Finance Acts of 1987 and 1989. That legislation provided the means by which the Revenue applied common standards to all modern occupational pension schemes. Those standards were not applied to the judicial pension schemes. However, there was a thorough-going review of those schemes and consultation with the judiciary on the design of improved pension arrangements. The Bill is the product of that review and consultation. Its provisions

    95
    apply the same standards to judicial pension arrangements as the Revenue applies to all other public service and private sector occupational pension schemes. It brings judicial pension arrangements more into line with modern tax law.
    The Government have also taken this opportunity to make a number of other significant changes to the judicial pension arrangements. In place of a plethora of judicial pension schemes with different accrual periods, contribution rates and benefit levels, they have created a unified scheme embracing all salaried judicial officers in the United Kingdom. As well as being inherently fairer than the existing position, this will remove the barriers which the current arrangements place in the way of judges moving between the different levels of the judiciary on promotion. Following representations, the Bill was amended by the Government in several important respects in the other place further to improve the level of benefits it provides. The judicial pension arrangements provided by the Bill now constitute an attractive package which compares favourably with other public service and private sector occupational pension schemes.
    The Bill also makes provision, following consultation, for setting a new general retirement age of 70 for all judicial officers first appointed after the Bill comes into force. That uniform arrangement will replace the present variety of retirement ages. The choice of the age of 70 instead of another age has not been without its critics. The right retirement age for the judiciary is clearly a matter of judgment. It is the Government's view, however, that 70 is the appropriate age; it takes account both of the need for experience and maturity of judgment and the fact that the burdens of office can be onerous.
    I think that it is right at this stage of the Bill to say a quick word about commencement. If the Bill is given a Third Reading, completes its final stage in the other place and goes on to receive Royal Assent, there will still be a considerable amount of work to be done in the form of regulations—many of an actuarial nature—before it can be fully implemented. It is my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor's present intention that both the pensions and retirement provisions of the Bill be commenced simultaneously. However, in view of the work I have just mentioned, it is unlikely that the Bill can be brought into force much before the end of 1993.
    Finally, I would like to thank all those on both sides of the House who have contributed to our debates on this Bill. It has provided an opportunity for hon. and right hon. Members to raise a wide range of issues relating to the judiciary, many of which have proved of great interest. I commend the Bill to the House.
    8.34 pm
    Mr. Paul Boateng: Having given such detailed and lengthy consideration—for which we are indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir. I. Lawrence)—to the special interests of the judges, it is right that we should spend at least some time considering what is perhaps the most important interest of all in judicial and legal services, the public and consumer interest. I shall address myself to those matters.
    The Government have missed an opportunity. We hoped that they would go much further than they did and
    96
    that the House would consider the subject of judicial services. The quality of those services remains high and the intellect of those who work in them is, in the main, without parallel in the jurisdiction of the EEC and further still. We could have examined how judicial services might be improved and enhanced in the interests of the consumer. We hoped that we would address the issue of a younger judiciary and the means by which we could encourage the appointment, at an earlier age, of suitably qualified practitioners, be they barristers, solicitors or academics drawn from either branch, and how we might so arrange pensions to enable that to happen.
    The Government missed the opportunity but at the same time increased the required length of service to qualify for a judicial pension and reduced the age of retirement to 70. They failed to incorporate into the Bill any positive measures to encourage the appointment of younger people to the bench. They failed to respond to the desirability of reducing the retirement age still further and making it, as both the Bar and the Law Society and a broad cross-section of consumer interests have suggested, 65 rather than 70. We regret the missed opportunity.
    In Committee, we tried to persuade the Government of the wisdom of our case to reduce the retirement age. They failed to be persuaded, and the Bill is flawed. It will remain flawed as a recipe for a judiciary in tune with the times and capable of meeting their challenges. The important issue must be addressed, together with another issue touched on by the hon. and learned Member for Burton, but then drawn away from as if one had spoken of an unpleasant heresy, and that is the notion that it might just be possible to conceive of a judiciary in which there were opportunities for the development of a career. I have in mind a judicial service in which it might be possible to appoint practitioners in their late thirties, or in their forties, to the junior ranks of the judiciary, and then see them advance up the scale to the highest judicial offices. The Bill recognises the importance and possibility of the portability of pensions, and that is to be supported and commended, but it does nothing to recognise and encourage the desirability of appointing practitioners to the bench at a younger age and providing a career structure that will enable them to advance within it.
    I do not see why we should accept as holy writ the notion propounded by the hon. and learned Member for Burton that someone at the Bar is automatically qualified for the judiciary when he or she is earning about £200,000 a year. He seemed to suggest that a practitioner should be earning that sort of sum before he or she could be considered qualified for judicial appointment. The hon. and learned Gentleman clearly practises in a different world from that occupied by myself and other humble practitioners. The notion that only when a practitioner earns £200,000 a year is he or she qualified to make the supreme sacrifice of entering the judiciary is palpably absurd. It does not bear examination.
    I wish to do nothing at this late stage of our consideration of the Bill to excite the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope in due course to be able to make much more common cause with him on the issue of legal aid.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: If there is a difference between my earnings at the bar and those of the hon. Gentleman, it is because I have been at it, as it were, a bit longer than he. I have no doubt that in due course he will earn the highest amounts possible under the legal aid system. I can assure

    97
    him that they will not come to anything like £200,000 a year. I quoted that figure as an example of what some of the best practitioners—the most experienced and successful—earn in some branches of the law.
    The hon. Gentleman might agree with me that many of those who are appointed to the circuit beench have not been privileged to earn £200,000 a year. Their earnings before appointment have been substantially lower. They have been unable to accumulate a pension outside the judiciary that would enable them to make a substantial enough contribution to make becoming a judge worth while.
    Mr. Boateng: Quite so. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman read the reports of our Committee proceedings. I made that point about earnings then.
    It would be dangerous for those who take an interest in our proceedings outside the House and who are not lawyers to gain the impression that only practitioners who earn the sort of sum that the hon. and learned Gentleman has seen fit to quote would be qualified for entry to the judiciary. A progressive approach to judicial appointments must be one that seeks to encourage the broadest possible cross-section of practitioners, people with different skills and experience but suitably qualified. There must be the broadest ranges of ages and gender. In that regard, we cannot afford any complacency.
    At a time when there is considerable public interest in the judiciary and legal services generally, it is right that there should be a public debate about the composition of the judiciary, how training might be enhanced and how appointments might be made more transparent. We examined those issues in Committee. We pressed—we shall continue to do so—the value of a lay element. It is a matter of deep regret to Opposition Members that in Committee—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. A debate on Third Reading must be confined to what is in the Bill. It is not the time to talk about what is not in it or what should be in it.
    Mr. Boateng: Quite so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I invite the attention of the House to clause 11.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Must the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Gentleman has every reason to be tired, given the events of recent months. I have in mind especially his recent exposure to lawyers over international treaty organisations. I well understand why he is reluctant to embark upon a detailed study of the Bill. I must, however, tax him just a little and add to the woes that befall him.
    When we consider the clauses that relate to the entitlement to a pension of holders of judicial office, it is interesting to reflect on their impact on the opportunities and entitlements of women who, against the odds, achieve judicial office. There is still an imbalance against women in the appointment of and to the judiciary. The relevant clauses will still further disadvantage women who rise to judicial appointments unless there is a policy that positively seeks out women entrants. I have in mind a policy that encourages practitioners to enter the judiciary at an earlier age, and one that will have more women members. Such a judiciary would be better qualified to
    98
    command the wholehearted confidence of the public. I say that from the point of view of the Lord Chancellor's Department and of those responsible for appointing judges.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to know that the Lord Chancellor has stated his policy on judicial appointments in these terms—that while it must be the best who are appointed, none the less he wants more women and representatives of ethnic minorities to be appointed. Optimistically, as more women and people from ethnic minorities are recruited into the legal profession, it will not be long before they are at an age in the recruiting grounds when they can be promoted. I think that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that, as I do.
    Mr. Boateng: It is always encouraging to hear such sentiments being expressed by the Minister, echoing what I know to be the Lord Chancellor's sincerely held belief, to which he has sought ably to give effect during recent years. However, there is no room for complacency, which is why we have been concerned to ensure that that matter is taken on board.
    It is possible and desirable to have a more ethnic and gender-varied bench which in every way represents the community that it serves not only through talent and intellectual achievement, but through race and gender make-up. It is eminently desirable that we take that into account during our consideration of the Bill.
    We doubt that the Bill would have come before the House in its present form had it been the subject of consultation with and input from a far broader range of interests. That is why it is so important to take account of consumer interests. Time and again we have spoken about the deficiencies in policy making within the Lord Chancellor's Department—the shapers of the Bill—when there is no involvement, as of right, for the consumers of legal services. The judiciary provides a valuable public service. Although standards of integrity and intellect are of the highest, we shall continue to press for judicial services that are more shaped by lay involvement through appointments, that are enhanced by training opportunities linked to a career structure, and that are underpinned by pension arrangements of the sort outlined in the Bill. At the same time, we want a judiciary that is more diverse and whose members retire earlier than at present.
    We will not divide the House on Third Reading. We want to extend our thanks to the Minister and those hon. Members on both sides of the House who served on the Committee. We also thank the Chairman and the Officers of the House. We owe them a debt of thanks for a course of deliberation that has been enlightening and entertaining and whose ultimate conclusion, while by no means perfect, is livable with.
    8.54 pm
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Unusually, I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said. There is obviously a high degree of cross-party unity on the Bill. The fact that we have concentrated on the Bill's drawbacks should not hide from the public the fact that, in general, the Bill has been widely welcomed for its important provisions, which will improve the system.
    It is only right to point out—it may not have been apparent from anything said this evening—that some very distinguished and eminent people have opposed certain

    99
    elements of the Bill. The Lord Chief Justice made his maiden speech opposing elements of the Bill. A former Lord Chancellor, some Law Lords and a former Master of the Rolls all made speeches opposing certain elements of the Bill. It has not been widely welcomed in all its features.
    The circuit judges have done a great deal to advance the argument for widows' and other pensions, although they were not alone in that. When we stand back and look at the current position it is obvious that the major vice of the Bill is, as was said in another place, the combination of reducing the retiring age for judges and increasing the accrual rate for earning a pension.
    The Bill was summed up in the other place by, I think, the Lord Chief Justice—although it may have been one of the other judges—as something that would produce serious problems of recruitment, judicial staleness and injustice, and not a Bill that should command, in all its aspects, universal support—not only among lawyers but among all who consider the logical and reasonable criticisms that have been levelled against it.
    It is obvious that young people in their early years of practice at the Bar, who are trying to pay off a mortgage and who have substantial expenses if they are educating their children, cannot build up private pensions that are adequate to supplement the pension that a judge will earn at the end of his long period of accrual. There are distinctive features of practice at the Bar and on the bench that are not wholly comparable with life outside. For someone who becomes a judge, it is a whole new profession begun in late middle age. That is the real anomaly about the judiciary, not the fact that the accrual rates vary from one sort of judge to another.
    I do not believe that the Government have given enough attention to the judiciary's concern about the future of the judicial profession, and about how much more difficult it will be in the new, hectic litigious world to find judges of calibre and to attract them. If they are of great calibre and are attracted, the calibre of the Bar will be depleted; if they are of calibre and lose their calibre, they will be encouraged to stay on past their sell-by date—their date of efficiency—to qualify for a pension.
    Let me make a point that I did not make in my earlier speech, when I was trying to speak as briefly as possible in order not to weary the House. I was stunned by both the comments of the hon. Member for Brent, South and those of my hon. Friend the Minister about women. How on earth can we pretend that we are creating a system in which women will find it more attractive to be judges, while ensuring that, by the time they get on to the bench and have served a period as judge, they will not be able to earn a full pension unless they stay on for much longer than they need or ought to? In the early stages of their lives, such women may have raised families. They may have been out of Bar practice for years, while others will have been accruing private pensions to be added to the pensions that they will receive as judges.
    100
    What on earth will be the temptation for those women to follow the judicial path later in life, knowing that they will be so much worse off finanically at the end? It is all very well having pious ideas about how, in the future, there will be more women barristers—if they can find chambers and stay at the Bar, and if they have not been channelled into some other occupation, such as the Crown prosecution service or the solicitors' profession, because it is no longer particularly attractive to stay at the Bar—if they are then given a disincentive to follow a judicial career because their incomes will be reduced from the moment that they take a pension.
    Actuaries may look at their figures; Governments, with the help of the Treasury, may examine their financial disbursements. Ultimately, however, we must have a judicial system that contains the best people. We want a judicial system with women—and women will not be encouraged to become judges as a result of proposals such as this.
    I wish the Bill godspeed, but I wish that my hon. Friend and the Lord Chancellor had given more serious consideration to the criticisms levelled against it by the most senior judges in the land. They were not talking nonsense. I hope that, when we look back on the legislation in a few years' time, we shall have no cause to regret the decisions that my hon. Friend and the Government have made—quite stubbornly—to proceed with their original plan.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

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

    RISK PREVENTION OFFICERS IN THE TRANSPORT INDUSTRY
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8642/92, relating to risk prevention officers in the transport industry; notes that the proposed draft Directive conflicts with existing national and international legislation in the field of health and safety at work; and endorses the Government's intention to seek substantial amendments to the wording of the draft Directive with the aim of maintaining existing health and safety levels.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European Community documents),

    RESTRUCTURING OF THE SPANISH STEEL INDUSTRY
    That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9766/92, relating to the restructuring of the Spanish integrated steel company CorporaciOn de la Siderurgia Integral (CSI), and 10341/92, relating to the restructuring of the Spanish steel company Sidenor; and supports the Government's view that the Spanish proposals are inappropriate given the scale and timing of the capacity reductions proposed, the amount of state aid involved and the problems of over-capacity and depressed prices facing the Community steel industry.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
    Question agreed to.

Drancy Concentration Camp
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
9.2 pm
Mr. David Alton: I thank the Minister of State for being present. I think that he, like me, will be relieved that the debate is starting an hour earlier than the scheduled time for its commencement; he is probably also relieved to know that neither the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth)—who hopes to speak in the debate—nor I intend to detain the House until its possible rising time of 10.30 pm.
It is worth reflecting that, even if the powers of Back Benchers are limited, we at least have the opportunity to be bloody minded and persistent in pursuing issues when we believe that a grave injustice, or even a miscarriage of justice, has been perpetrated. For close on 50 years, the issue that I raise tonight has eaten away at the men whose cases I shall cite. Although they are in no way bitter, they have never accepted, and will never accept, decisions that have compounded their burning sense of injustice and grievance.
Appropriately, the debate comes as we prepare to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic, and the deaths of some 39,000 merchant seamen, whose sacrifice in the service of this nation has so often been overlooked. The debate also presents an opportunity for Ministers to conclude, properly and honourably, what I regard as unfinished business.
It was the late Airey Neave, so cruelly assassinated on the day after I was elected to the House in 1979, who on 15 July 1963 raised the treatment of merchant seamen on the Adjournment of the House. He said that the Foreign Office had been dilatory in dealing with these cases. His complaint was that, having raised the issue in 1956, it had taken until July 1963 to get adequate responses out of the Foreign Office. He said:
"I know he is undertaking delicate and difficult negotiations,"—
he was talking about the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—
"but I should like to know how he is getting on with them, because I feel that this really is a deserving case, and one in which people really have received very inadequate treatment from the Foreign Office and who deserve indemnity or compensation for the indignities which they suffered. This is not entirely a question of money. It is also a question of loss of prestige and dignity as a result of being placed in these concentration camps."
Those are sentiments that my constituents whose cases I am raising tonight share, but for them it is not simply a question of money. It is a question of dignity and prestige. During that debate Airey Neave said:
"A number of prisoners-of-war—merchant seamen and others—were moved to concentration camps quite illegally, and it is my view—and, I believe, the view of the Foreign Office—that they should be compensated for what they have suffered."—[Official Report, 15 July 1963; Vol. 681, c. 297–99.]
During that debate in the 1960s, Airey Neave protested vigorously at that 20-year delay in establishing a compensation fund for victims of Nazi persecution.
It was to take another 12 months before the then Foreign Secretary, R. A. Butler, told the House on 9 June 1964 that a £1 million compensation fund had been established. In answer to the Member of Parliament for
102
Huyton—the hon. Member for Knowsley, North now represents much of what was then the constituency of Lord Wilson—he said:
"The term 'Nazi persecution' is taken to cover any area in which Nazi persecution took place."
In that debate, many hon. Members queried the sum of money made available as inadequate. They said that it was unlikely that it would be sufficient to meet the likely claims. The Foreign Secretary demurred but agreed that
"Reopening the matter is for the House".—[Official Report, 9 July 1964; Vol. 696, c. 244–46.]
On 15 June 1964 he added that
"Claims arising out of contravention of the Geneva Convention as such are not included, and remain for consideration only in the context of a final peace settlement." —[Official Report, 15 June 1964; Vol. 696, c. 123.]
Any hopes of that happening were dashed, as was explained to me in a letter from the Minister of State on 4 June 1992. He said:
"The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, signed at Moscow on 12 September 1990, by the four Wartime Allies and Germany, definitively settled matters arising out the Second World War. There will be no separate peace treaty. I am afraid we see no possibility of a case such as Mr. Roberts' now forming the basis of a successful claim for compensation. Servicemen were, and are, entitled to disability pensions for any illness or disability they suffered as a result of serving with the Forces, and many receive such pensions. It would appear Mr. Roberts' claim for compensation as a victim of Nazi persecution was considered in 1964 and the request turned down, presumably on the grounds that Drancy was not a concentration camp."
As that quotation from the Minister of State's letter reveals, one of those who applied for compensation under the scheme which R. A. Butler revealed to the House in 1964 was Mr. Ted Roberts of Aigburth, Liverpool. His compatriots, Mr. Arthur Thomas, also a constituent of mine, of Edge Hill, Liverpool, and Mr. Thomas Roscoe of Allerton, Liverpool, were never even informed of their right to reply, although both Mr. Thomas and Mr. Roscoe have been given small disability entitlements, due to the adverse effects on their health, which doctors confirm are directly attributable to the privations that they suffered during captivity. I know that it is the intention of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North—if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—also to raise the case of Stanley Cruces, one of his constituents, who was in the same position as Mr. Roscoe and Mr. Thomas in not knowing of his right to make an application for compensation.
However, Mr. Ted Roberts did apply for compensation and he was refused because, he was told at the time, Drancy was not regarded as a concentration camp. It would be useful for the House to hear directly from Mr. Roberts with whom I have shared the correspondence that I have received and I am grateful to the Minister of State for the trouble that he has taken in respect of the replies that he has sent to me. He certainly cannot be regarded as dilatory in replying to correspondence that I have raised with him over the past several months.
In a letter to me, Mr. Roberts stated:
"Mr. Garel-Jones should realise that we—the merchant seamen—had been up to five months at sea as German prisoners, the conditions were appalling—lack of water, food, air and light. We were lousy with sores, exhausted and knowing that our very existence could end suddenly, not having a chance to fight the enemy, but entombed in quarters that could be described as a steel coffin that could be pierced by a shell or torpedo, engulfed in fire or flooded with water at any time. In this torrid atmosphere, we had no books or any kind of recreation, anticipating in a state of utter despair the manner of our final exit. I can understand the fear and the

103
hopelessness of the Jews, Russians, Poles and others in camps such as those in Poland particularly. The difference between us was that we did survive, to land on terra firma.
We were dumped without ceremony in Drancy in late December 1940. We had air, we saw the sun, we had water (of doubtful purity), but we had no contact with the Red Cross. We never received, nor were we allowed, to send letters to anyone, including parents. The Geneva Convention was not upheld. We were not prisoners of war, but civilian internees. In this camp we were simply scavengers living somehow from day to day, wondering about the next bite, like dogs with a bone. We hid or carried our life sustenance in our pockets."
Mr. Roberts continues:
"Drancy was an unfinished housing complex, no windows were installed and floors were of concrete. Our quarters were on the upper floors. We had straw mattresses on the concrete, few clothes and one thin blanket. On one of the floors above we came across some old French army coats which relieved the cold somewhat. The toilets were in the middle of the square. Behind the toilet seats excrement was piled high to the roof.
We left Drancy for Sandbostel. We travelled in cattle trucks; food was very short and water was not available. Our latrine bucket was filled once (at Aachen) during our three day journey. Five months in Drancy! Five months at sea, which was worst of all, and then Sandbostel to watch the dying, the dead, the arrogance and the cruelty of our keepers —barracks alive with bugs. Typhus broke out in the Russian section where the French kitchens were. We collected our soap in the Russian sector and the British walked through this sector daily to work near the Russians digging peat. We arrived at Milag Nord, 20 km away, in early 1942. This was a recognised camp."
In 1965, Mr. Roberts saw his then Member of Parliament, Mr. Richard Bingham, the then Member for Garston, who received a reply from the then Foreign Office Minister, Walter Padley, who repeated that Drancy was not a concentration camp. He said:
"the question of compensation for internment could be raised only in the context of an eventual Peace Treaty with a united Germany."
Reunification in 1990 and the continued failure to address their burning sense of grievance brought Mr. Roberts, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Roscoe to see me last summer. In several exchanges of letters since then, Ministers have doggedly refused to reopen the files or to agree to an independent arbiter to examine the case. Therefore, I tabled a series of questions and sought leave to raise them here tonight.
Initially, Ministers refused to accept that Drancy had ever been a concentration camp, saying that it was just a transit camp. It is worth recalling that Belsen was simply described as an infirmary. In setting out tonight a personal and full account of what Mr. Roberts and others experienced at Drancy, I hope that it will lay to rest once and for all the idea that Drancy was anything other than the worst kind of camp that the SS ran.
I wrote to the German Government and received a very interesting reply. Despite all that the British Government had said in maintaining that Drancy was not at any time a concentration camp, in reply to me on 13 August 1992, Helmut Wegner, the Minister Plenipotentiary at the German embassy in London, wrote to me stating that his Government confirmed that in the "Bundegesetzblatt"— the official gazette—Drancy is listed in the published list of concentration camps. The Israeli Government, at the Yad Yashem memorial in Jerusalem, which I visited at the end of last year—the memorial to holocaust victims—also list
104
Drancy as a concentration camp. In 1952, President de Gaulle unveiled a plaque commemorating the victims of the Drancy concentration camp.
The Foreign Office, in disputing the classification of Drancy, also says that it consulted the Weiner office library which specialises in the subject of the holocaust and that it claimed that the Weiner library did not classify Drancy as a concentration camp. However, I contacted the library and it denied that. It said that it most certainly did classify it as a concentration camp. Her Majesty's Government alone have never accepted the classification Of Drancy as a concentration camp.
By the autumn of last year, the line of argument had begun to change, with Ministers stating that, even if Drancy had been a camp, my constituents had been there several weeks too early. Although that might be the case with Mr. Roberts and with Mr. Thomas, it certainly does not appear to be the case with Mr. Roscoe, who was detained there at a later period. By the winter, in a letter of 22 December last, the Minister of State was adamant that
"severe hardship did not ipso facto qualify. The only tribunal competent to examine such claims was set up between 1964–66, the one which considered Mr. Roberts' case. It no longer exists; the lists are closed, the money is gone. Cases cannot be re-considered, nor new cases admitted at this late stage."
But surely it is a matter not of late stages but of honour. If there has been an injustice, Ministers have a duty to reconsider that matter at whatever stage it may come. Whatever Drancy's status, the guidance notes issued to claimants said that those detained in concentration camps
"or in any institution where the conditions were comparable with those in a concentration camp"
would qualify.
All the theological arguments about how many angels there might be on the top of a pin are pretty irrelevant when it comes to whether Drancy was a concentration camp during the period when my constituents were there, even though the accounts that I have given the House tonight and the accounts that I have sent to Ministers certainly seem to dispute the advice that Ministers now give and that their predecessors gave. They were victims of Nazi persecution and they clearly languished in the most terrible conditions imaginable.
Let me conclude by reminding the House of precisely what happened to those men. Two of them were in their teens and one was in his early 20s when they were taken to Drancy. Mr. Roberts and Mr. Thomas were blown out of the sea in July 1940. They were kept for five months, confined below decks on a German raider ship and on a prison ship, the Rio Grande. They were never allowed on deck. They were kept virtually naked. Their bodies were covererd in sores as they suffered acute hardship and privation. They were then taken in cattle trucks to Drancy with Jewish prisoners destined for the gas chambers. They were given little food, water was polluted, work was arduous and beatings of prisoners were regular. They were then moved to Sandbostel in Germany, where the daily ration of one small loaf was shared between six men and where the death rate was exceptionally high—again, equally terrible conditions.
It is worth drawing to the attention of the Minister of State an obituary of Cary Younghusband in The Daily Telegraph on 5 December 1992. The obituary stated that he

105
"died aged 68, won a Military Cross near the notorious Nazi concentration camp of Sandbostel in April 1945. Although the camp guards had fled, experienced and fanatical units of the Waffen SS were deployed in strength along the bank of the River Oster, barring the way with infantry and anti-tank guns."
Again, that demonstrates that, at every stage of their captivity, those men suffered the most terrible gruelling conditions imaginable.
Only in 1942, when they were taken to Meelag Nord, were they given the full protection of the Geneva convention, although, even here, the prisoners went through the terrifying ordeal of being rounded up and threatened with execution. In those far off days, it is easy to say that the events were all too long ago. That does not remove our responsibility to recognise the suffering and sacrifice of men who served their country with bravery and distinction.
The Minister has the power to appoint a judge to re-examine such cases. I hope that the Minister will use that power shortly before commemorating the contribu-tion which merchant seamen made to the battle of the Atlantic. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has drawn my attention to the fact that the matter was raised in the House on 5 February 1968. The Sachsenhausen case having been referred to the ombudsman after the then Foreign Secretary, George Brown, refused a similar case, the ombudsman found in favour of those claimants.
If the Minister feels unable at least to appoint an independent arbiter to re-examine the injustice which these men believe they have endured and suffered, I intend to refer the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for investigation.
9.22 pm
Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), first, on his good fortune in having this debate tonight, secondly—we do not always agree on everything —on the diligence with which he has pursued this issue for longer than I have and, thirdly, on the way in which he has presented the case to the House and to the Minister.
I came to the issue somewhat later than the hon. Member for Mossley Hill when my constituent, Mr. Cruces, came to see me in the middle of November 1992. Originally, I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence which wound up on the desk of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). I quote briefly from the letter, dated 17 November 1992:
"Mr. Cruces served as a merchant seaman during World War II and was a prisoner of war from 7th July 1940 to May 1945, following the sinking of his vessel, the S.S. Delambre. He was originally imprisoned at a concentration camp at Drancy in France and later at Stalag XB.
During this period, Mr. Cruces was forced to carry out 'slave labour', suffered continual privations, hardship, cruelty and illness, including, at one stage, typhoid. At his liberation in 1945, he weighed only six stone in weight and it was only after 12 months of recuperation that his health was sufficiently restored to enable him to return to his occupation."
The letter then describes the Granada television programme to which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred and the issue of the £1 million fund which was set up in 1964.
When Mr. Cruces came to see me he recalled the events of all those years ago with a great deal of strain and upset. It was clear to me that it was not an ordinary gripe against
106
the Government; it was a deeply held feeling, not that he wanted some money out of it but that his experience and that of his comrades had not been properly recognised.
We should be aware that the issue for those people is not money, although money will possibly be the reflection of how society cares about what happened to them. It is the emotional and physical stress that Mr. Cruces went through. Even to this day he finds it difficult to describe exactly what happened to him and the results of it. We should never underestimate the effect which such events have on people like Mr. Cruces and the debt that we all owe them. I shall refer to that later.
The Minister replied to me in a letter dated 9 December. He said:
"The Government, however, pressed the German Government to compensate victims of Nazi persecution who had been held in concentration camps. In 1964 the two governments agreed that Germany would pay Britain a £1 million fund, which was disbursed to those who were held in a concentration camp or 'comparable place for the purpose of inflicting deliberate and organised suffering torture and death in furtherance of Nazi ideology'. The qualifying criteria were tightly drawn to ensure maximum benefit would be paid to those who suffered most. Many prisoners who were held in unpleasant or harsh conditions in detention camps, including Drancy, were turned down when cases were considered."
My argument is that, on the basis of the information available, that paragraph of the Minister's letter is manifestly an unfair reflection of what went on in that camp during that period. I shall quote two sources, one of which is the result of work carried out by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill.
Mr. Roberts, to whom the hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred, is quoted heavily in an article which appeared last year in the Liverpool Daily Post. It said:
"There, Mr. Roberts was interned under the regime of the fanatical Nazi guards for more than two years, before being transferred to another camp where—for the first time—he was afforded the protection of the Geneva Convention. At Drancy, prisoners were given little food and had to work long hours to avoid beatings from guards."
So clearly that was the experience which Mr. Roberts and my constituent suffered.
Yet as recently as August 1992, the Minister of State, Foreign Office said in a letter to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill:
"All concur that Drancy was not a recognised concentration camp during the Second World War, but an assembly/transit camp whence prisoners were transferred to work and concentration camps."
He went on to cite the sources which supported those findings. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has demonstrated adequately that, whatever definition is used, the conditions which prevailed at Drancy were almost entirely comparable with those at a concentration camp.
A book has been written by Jeremy Josephs about the period entitled, "Swastika over Paris. The Fate of the French Jews". It describes not the fate of prisoners of war, but the conditions at Drancy. Chapter 8 is headed "Drancy: The Anteroom of Death". It opens:
"For many the internment camp of Drancy was not the anteroom of death but the very room of death itself … The diet was a soup composed of cabbage supplied by the local markets, with virtually no nutritional value. Internees were soon afflicted with lice and skin disease. Inside, vermin roamed freely. At night, screams could be heard reverberating around the walls of the buildings. Dysentery and diarrhoea were common. Many of the more fragile internees began to succumb to the strain."
It goes on to quote from a letter.
On page 105 the book says:

107
"By July 2, 1943 Brunner was ready to take control of Drancy. On that day the SS man with the perpetual half-smile arrived armed with a small team of four permanent assistants, fellow Austrians belonging to the Sicherheitsdienst, the Security Service. Together they would introduce an unprecedented reign of terror and tyranny, making life at the camp still more intolerable. Brunner had already decided that to carry out Eichmann's brief properly, full and effective personal control of Drancy was essential. The entire French administration was relieved of its functions. Only the gendarmerie were accorded continued trust in being allowed to guard the exterior of the camp and to retain the right to escort deportees to the trains."
That was written about the fate of the French Jews who were detained in Drancy. Our constituents found themselves in the same circumstances during that period.
Earlier tonight I came across the section of Hansard of 9 June 1964 that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill quoted.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Could the hon. Member kindly remind me of the dates his constituent was at Drancy?
Mr. Howarth: I shall do so before I conclude.
From my reading of columns 243 and 244 of Hansard on 9 June 1964, it is clear that the House intended on that occasion for there to be some flexibility and that if issues were not resolved by the tribunal which was set up there would be future opportunities to deal with them. Sadly, many years later, the commitments made then still need to be honoured by the House, and more specifically by the Government.
The Minister asked me to remind him of the dates. Mr. Cruces was a prisoner of war from the day his vessel was sunk on 7 July 1940 until May 1945. For much of that time he was in Drancy, although I am not clear about the exact dates. The only payment that he received was £340 from the shipping line, which was subject to income tax.
The noble Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, my predecessor, was one of the contributors to the debate in 1964. It seems to me that obligations arise from that discussion which ought now to be honoured. Until the recent Granada television programme, Mr. Cruces was unaware that he may well have been eligible for some compensation. However that was advertised, the message clearly did not reach Mr. Cruces. Unlike Mr. Roberts, he did not even make an application. I know that the fund is closed, but frankly that raises issues which ought to concern the House.
Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned an important question. When the House debated the matter, a clear undertaking was given that, even if the funds were inadequate, that would not debar people from applying subsequently. There are recorded cases of people being able to apply even after the funds were closed, and of Ministers being prepared to reply compassionately in those exceptional circumstances.
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Member for strengthening my argument. I do not want to detain the House. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has said much of what needs to be said and I have added briefly to his remarks on behalf of my constituent.
I did some brief mathematics on the Minister's age before the debate. He, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill
108
and I were either not yet born or very young when the events that we have described occurred, but that should not lessen our commitment. We are able to stand in this House, in a free and democratic society, because people like my constituent, the constituents of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and others made sacrifices as merchant seamen or members of the armed services. We still owe them a debt of honour, which has certainly not been satisfied in the cases that we have described.
I give the Minister notice that if he cannot satisfy us in our belief that justice has not been done, I shall support the hon. Member for Mossley Hill in raising the matter with the Parliamentary Commissioner. The cases should be dealt with honourably and in a way that will make those people feel that their sacrifices have finally been recognised by this country. That is long overdue—in some cases, it may be too late—but compensation is not the important thing for the people who have survived, although it may help them in their old age: what is important is recognition of what they sacrificed for this country, at a time when such sacrifices were absolutely essential.
9.34 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I congratulate the hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on the way in which they have raised this important and delicate matter. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill and I have corresponded and spoken about it, and I shall try to sketch the historical background to the case. The hon. Member referred to the bloody-mindedness and persistence of hon. Members, and that is a quality that all hon. Members should be willing to show on behalf of their constituents when they think that that is right.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North was right to remind the House that we are able to debate such matters in the House thanks to the sacrifices made by the men and women in our armed services, the Merchant Navy and civilians during the second world war.
I should like to outline the historical background to these cases. The story begins with the last war, in which many millions of British and allied soldiers, sailors and airmen fought not only to relax but eventually to break the grip of Hitler's tyranny over western Europe. I am a little older than the two hon. Members who have spoken and at least I have a dim memory of the war. I agree with them that it is important that none of us should forget the bravery and distinction of our merchant fleet and our merchant seamen. A number of them, as serving officers, and indeed other men in the three armed services, were captured.
Hundreds of thousands of British prisoners were held by the Germans during the war. Their experiences varied widely. Most prisoners of war were treated correctly according to the Geneva convention, although their detention was unpleasant and painful, even for those who were treated within the terms of that convention. Some were treated with varying degrees of brutality, in some cases amounting to war crimes. A few suffered truly horrifying abuses in the concentration camps.
In seeking to categorise the suffering of the many hundreds of thousands who were held during the war, I am not seeking to minimise in any way the suffering even of those who came within the lowest category of pain. The

109
hon. Member for Knowsley, North has described to the House how, even after many years, his constituent finds it difficult even to address this issue.I hope that the House will not feel that in making such categories I am seeking to minimise the suffering of the constituents of whom the hon. Members have spoken.
Once our people had returned after the war, we had to decide in the United Kingdom how to respond to their experiences. As a starting point, prisoners were not entitled to any special compensation—though their pay continued—for being locked up or, within limits, put to work. Such treatment was correct under the Geneva convention. Prisoners who suffered disability, however, because of their treatment became eligible for disability pensions. Those who alleged mistreatment had their allegations investigated and if they could be made to stick, the perpetrators were tried as war criminals before the allied war crimes courts, but no compensation was paid.
The Government, however, pressed the German Government to compensate British victims of Nazi persecution, recognising that foreign nationals who had suffered the horrors of detention in places like Dachau, Belsen and Ravensbruck—to mention a few—should receive no less special consideration than Germans themselves. For German citizens, such provision had been embodied in German law from an early stage under allied supervision; and it seemed to us unjustly discriminatory that it should remain exclusively so. That had never been part of the original allied intention. In the end, in 1964, and after many years of negotiation, the two Governments were able to agree that Federal Germany should pay the sum of £1 million in full and final settlement of the claims of United Kingdom citizens in that category. Similar agreements were reached with all German-occupied countries of western Europe at about that time. The British Government had discretion in deciding how the money should be distributed and, within the prescribed limits of the agreement, in setting the governing criteria. The Foreign Office was charged with responsibility for administering the fund and bringing it to public attention.
As the agreement offered the only opportunity to obtain compensation for those who deserved it, the Government of the day did everything that they could to encourage applications. I say that as I believe that the constituents of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and two constituents of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill did not make applications during that period. It is important to set out the efforts that the Government of the day took.
The agreement was given wide publicity. A one-year period for the registration of claims–24 July 1964 to 31 July 1965—was announced by notices in all the national and leading provincial newspapers. Publicity was also given by many specialised journals and interested organisations. Circulars were sent to all Foreign Office, Commonwealth Relations Office and colonial posts overseas requesting them to obtain publicity. In addition, application forms were sent direct to all who had communicated with the Foreign Office. Later, reminders were sent to individuals and in February 1965 further notices were inserted in the press. There were frequent advertisements on radio and television. Posters were displayed at all 2,700 post offices, Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance offices and in all local government offices down to rural councils. Later still, again to try to make sure that everyone who might have a claim was given
110
an opportunity to lodge one, the registration period was extended to February 1966 and there was yet more publicity.
Mr. George Howarth: I hope that the Minister will accept that a central part of our case is that, at that time, Drancy would not have been considered eligible for payment out of that fund. A strong part of our case is that it has since come to light that Drancy was in exactly the same category as places that were, at the time, considered appropriate.
Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall come to the question whether Drancy is or is not—was or was not—a concentration camp—
Mr. Howarth: It will have a bearing on the case.
Mr. Garel-Jones: It might have a bearing on it—I shall come to that later. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that one constituent of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill applied in the due period.
In the end the lists closed and the tribunal formed to distribute the funds got down to work. It set very tightly drawn criteria to ensure that those who suffered most would get the maximum benefit. I remind the House that the total sum negotiated with Federal Germany was £1 million. Because of our wish to ensure that the money was distributed in the fairest possible way, the criteria were tightly drawn so that those who had suffered most would receive the most compensation.
To quote from the criteria applied by the tribunal, in order to qualify a claimant had to have been incarcerated in a concentration camp or
"comparable place for the purpose of inflicting deliberate and organised suffering, torture and death in furtherance of Nazi ideology".
It was found that 1,015 claimants met this criteria and their claims succeeded; 3,046 other claims were turned down on various grounds, including the grounds that their place of imprisonment had not been a concentration camp or a "comparable place" meeting the rest of the terms that I quoted a moment ago. The tribunal decided that the camp at Drancy did not fit this criteria.
So if Drancy was not a concentration camp, what was it? As far as we can judge now, reading the accounts and history published since the war, Drancy was an unpleasant place to be. We have heard graphic accounts of that this evening. People were taken to Drancy after their capture, held for varying periods and shipped off to other camps, mostly German concentration camps. Few returned, but so far as we can tell, Drancy was a transit camp. Conditions were harsh, but there were no gas chambers and inmates were not worked to death as forced labour. Some 70,000 detainees passed through the camp in the three years between August 1941 and 1944. Of these, all but a few thousand were Jews. Most were French, but more than 20,000 were of other nationalities, mainly Polish. Their destination was usually the same—Auschwitz.
Drancy was for most of the time under French administrative authority, but for a period it was not, at least for practical purposes. That was when the notorious Alois Brunner took over as the SS camp commandant from mid-1943 to mid-1944, when the camp was liberated. He dismissed the French guards and ran the camp with the help of a handful of SS officers. Brunner's aim was to

111
expedite the Auschwitz transports. Conditions deteriorate-ed during this period. They may even have been comparable to those in a concentration camp. But that is not at issue here.
I should like to make this quite clear. In delivering the judgment on Drancy, to which I earlier referred, the tribunal had before it not the history of Drancy to consider, but a case—that of Mr. Roberts—of detention there in early 1941. That was over two years before the advent of Brunner, for instance; and the camp was then very different from what it later became. Drancy served as a place of ad hoc internment, from late 1940 to the summer of 1941, of mainly alien nationals, including for a few months British civilian internees, under the protective aegis of the Geneva conventions.
I should like to say a brief word about the definition of a concentration camp. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill made the perfectly fair point that for the German Government, probably for most Jewish organisations and according to the camp's commemorative plaque, Drancy is reckoned to have been a concentration camp from its date of official origin. The leading international authority, however, the international tracing service run by the Red Cross, does not include Drancy as a recognised concentration camp, and that is generally thought to be a good example to follow.
The possible explanation of Germany's different definition of a concentration camp is that detention in a concentration camp has never been a matter of legal significance in Germany. In the United Kingdom, it automatically triggered a valid claim to compensation, which is why the definition has a legal significance in the United Kingdom that it does not have in Germany. It is perfectly understandable that any camp in Federal Germany where harsh treatment had been meted out might, in a looser sense, be referred to as a concentration camp. Although some authorities say that Drancy later became a concentration camp when the notorious SS officer took over, I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill is alone in claiming that it was a concentration camp when it was used for the detention of our merchant seamen in early 1941.
Mr. Alton: I think that the Minister is falling into the trap of semantics. He will accept, as I suggested earlier, that the German Government have a different definition of a concentration camp from that which the Government decided on. That was not the issue that determined whether compensation would be payable. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the 1968 decision, which was reached long after the tribunal had been closed, when the Parliamentary Commissioner was called in to the Session house and, despite the views of Ministers, found in favour of claimants. Mr. George Brown said:
"However, all the Ministers who have looked at this quite separately have come to one conclusion and the Parliamentary Commissioner has come to another."—Official Report, 5 February 1968; Vol. 758, c.115]
The same information that was given to Ministers for tonight's debate was being given to the Ministers who replied in 1968, when the Parliamentary Commissioner found in favour of claimants.
Mr. Garel-Jones: I accept, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman does too, that the definition of a concentration
112
camp is not a materially central issue. Nevertheless, we, unlike Germany, have been careful to define a concentration camp because it has a legal implication here. It is probably fair to say that in Federal Germany it was able to place a looser meaning on the word because it had no legal significance. In the United Kingdom, because it triggered automatic compensation, it was important to define a concentration camp. By that definition, we would not agree that Drancy was a concentration camp.
Mr. Alton: I am grateful for that clarification because it is right that hon. Members should get this point right in their minds before proceeding. In a letter dated 4 June, the Minister told me that Drancy "was not"—and "not" was underlined—"a concentration camp". He accepted tonight that, even by his definition, later on in the life of that camp —when at least we know that Mr. Roscoe, for example, was still detained, and weeks after other prisoners were removed—the definition changed. Is he not now at least accepting that?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened because I have obviously not been clear enough. We do not accept that Drancy was a concentration camp—full stop. We accept that, with the arrival of SS officer Brunner, conditions at Drancy deteriorated, but, under the legal definition that we apply in the United Kingdom, we do not accept that Drancy was a concentration camp. However, the hon. Gentleman has accepted that that is not the central issue. I would not wish the definition to be misunderstod, either by the House or by the hon. Gentleman's constituents, or for it to be felt that we were being cheeseparing. We have a definition because it automatically triggers compensation. Therefore, it is important that it is not a loose and general description, but one that is closely defined.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the ex gratia payment made by Her Majesty's Government to a number of RAF service men held at Sachsenhausen, following a vigorous campaign by the late Airey Neave. There were special considerations in that case, not least that those service men were held at a concentration camp but happened to have been held, for some reason about which I am not advised, just outside the camp perimeter. In that case, the Government made a judgment, and an ex gratia payment was made.
The hon. Members for Mossley Hill and for Knowsley, North have, in the proper traditions of the House, vented the feeling of—abandonment was what I sensed from what they were saying—their constituents. Let me make it clear that I doubt whether any hon. Member would not wish to place on record the debt that we all owe to a group of people who have sometimes been ignored—the Merchant Navy and merchant seamen—and the sacrifices and sufferings that they made for us during the second world war.
I have tried to explain to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, and I have repeated it again tonight, that, in spite of our respect for their contributions to the war effort and the sympathy that we feel for the hardships that they endured, there is no reason to believe that they were treated with injustice by the British Government. The scheme under which the money was distributed closed in 1966. It is now nearly 30 years after the decision in question and some 50 years after the events. I am sorry not to be able to give hon. Members a more forthcoming reply. It is not easy to reject

113
such a strongly felt claim by three constituents who represent a group to which, as hon. Members have reminded us, we all owe a great debt. I am afraid I have to say that it is not now possible for new claims to be raised or, where necessary, for old claims to be considered.
114
Question put and agreed to
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT'

  Legal Aid
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to maintain the existing eligibility levels in respect of legal aid in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The financial eligibility criteria for civil legal aid have generally been set and maintained at the same levels in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for a considerable number of years. The Lord Chancellor is satisfied that as far as possible this policy of maintaining parity should be continued. He therefore proposes to introduce the same changes to the civil legal aid eligibility criteria in Northern Ireland as those announced for England and Wales. As to the timing of the changes, it will be possible for some of the proposals to be effected in April 1993, as in England and Wales.

  It is intended to bring forward regulations which will enable the following changes to eligibility limits to be made in respect of civil legal aid, legal advice and assistance and advice by way of representation:

  (a) lowering of the "free limit" for civil legal aid to income support levels;

  (b) reduction of dependants allowances to income support level;

  (c) additional provision to be made for the disregard of benefits;

  (d) to increase in civil legal aid and advice by way of representation cases the maximum contribution from one-quarter to one-third of excess disposable income.

  It is not possible, under current regulation-making powers, for the Lord Chancellor to bring forward regulations immediately to give effect to two other aspects of the proposals—namely, the extension of the payment of contributions over the lifetime of the case and the abolition of the contributory part of the legal advice and assistance scheme. Nevertheless, the Lord Chancellor intends, as soon as an opportunity arises, to bring forward legislation to enable the Northern Ireland eligibility criteria to be more full aligned with those in England and Wales.

  Courthouse, Derry
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will make a statement on the feasibility of providing accessible court facilities for Derry city while work is carried out on the courthouse; and what representations he has received from the legal profession in Derry, elected representatives and the community about the proposed transfer of sittings to Coleraine.

  (2) if the director of the Northern Ireland Court Service will meet the Derry Solicitors Association for further discussion on the effect of the service's decision to relocate Derry's court proceedings in Coleraine for three years;
  2
  (3) what consideration he has given to using the large rooms available in the administration block adjacent to the courthouse in Derry city to accommodate proceedings while the courthouse undergoes refurbishment.

  Mr. John. M. Taylor
  Representations were received from elected representatives, the Derry city council and the Londonderry City Solicitors Association about the decision to transfer Crown court sittings to Coleraine during the period when the main courthouse at Londonderry is being refurbished and improved. I am pleased to say that the director of the Northern Ireland court service met with representatives of the Londonderry City Solicitors Association on 4 February 1993 when an agreement was reached which will ensure that the court facilities available in Londonderry will be used to full capacity during the period of refurbishment of the main courthouse building. One of the two large rooms in the administration block has been fitted out as a courtroom which can be used for civil proceedings. The second room can be used as either a tribunal room or a barristers' solicitors room as need arises.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the arrangements for deciding where a court sits, including who makes the effective decision and the account taken of the views and preferences of the recorder.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, under section 47(3) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act, 1978, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, to decide the venues for the Crown court. Under the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 it is for the Lord Chancellor to decide and give directions as to the places of sittings of the county court and as to the nature of the business to be transacted by any county court at any place. It is standard practice for the county court judge for the division concerned to be consulted before a final decision is taken and directions issued.

TRANSPORT

  Railway Equipment
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the current level of orders for rolling stock for British Rail relative to trends in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has on order 583 diesel and electric multiple unit vehicles and 441 power cars, locomotives, trailer units and coaches for channel tunnel services.

  Locomotive and passenger rolling stock deliveries in the last 10 years were as follows:

  Calendar year

  Number of new vehicles delivered

  1983

  93

  1984

  220

  1985

  364

  1986

  331

  1987

  397

  1988

  519

  1989

  648

  1990

  751

  3

  Calendar year

  Number of new vehicles delivered

  1991

  236

  1992

  365

  Rail Services
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement outlining which functions under the railway proposals will control the means of production and delivery of rail services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under our proposals the responsibility for the track and infrastructure will be for Railtrack, the new national track authority. Existing passenger services will be franchised to private sector operators who will bid competitively to run services. Freight services will be provided by private sector operators. On the question of vertical integration, I refer my hon. Friend to the statement which my right hon. Friend made in his speech on 2 February on Second Reading of the Railways Bill,Official Report, column 163.

  Rail Investment
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 420, what is his forecast for capital investment by British Rail in 1993–1994, excluding spending associated with the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  In his appearance in front of the Transport Select Committee on 27 January this year, the chief executive of British Rail, Mr. John Welsby, estimated that investment in the existing railway would be some £550 million in 1993–94. British Rail is currently refining its plans further in producing its budget for 1993–94.

  Rail Freight
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has been able to take since his recent announcements on the future arrangements for the carriage of freight by rail to enable private operators to have the opportunity of carrying rail freight which British Rail have declined to carry.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Railways Bill is needed in order to establish a proper framework for access to the railway network by private train operators. Meanwhile the British Railways Board has undertaken to respond positively to private sector initiatives which help to increase the amount of freight on rail, within the existing statutory framework, and British Rail managers have discussed several proposals with private firms. I have agreed with the chairman that we shall discuss whether anything more can be done to facilitate voluntary access for private train services in the run-up to freight privatisation.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from Manchester TUC pensioners in regard to concessionary fares; what reply he is sending; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.
  4
  Mr. Freeman
  We have recently received a letter from Manchester TUC pensioners as well as several representations by Manchester Members of Parliament on their behalf. Responsibility for concessionary fares in Greater Manchester rests with the passenger transport authority and the district councils. It is for those authorities to decide what level of concessions is appropriate, taking account of their other local spending priorities.

  Road Construction Materials
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the quantity and type of aggregate that have been used in(a) the construction of new roads and (b) the maintenance of existing roads in each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Westway
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether a date has been set for the demolition of houses on the Westway to facilitate the road widening scheme at the junction of Westway and Old Oak.

  Mr. Norris
  It is planned to take possession of all the properties required for this scheme by February 1995. A few of them will, however, be required by August 1994 for advance works to divert public utility services. Formal notices will soon be given to owners and occupiers of these properties. The houses will be demolished as soon as possible after they are vacated to reduce risk of squatting.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which Thames bridges are proposed to come under the responsibility of the director of traffic for London under the red routes scheme.

  Mr. Norris
  Twickenham, Kew, Chiswick, Battersea, Vauxhall, London and Tower bridges are included in the priority red route network on which the traffic director for London has responsibilities under the Road Traffic Act 1991.

  Shipping Accidents
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the shipping casualties or accidents since 1 July 1983 in respect of which a formal investigation by a wreck commissioner or sheriff has been held under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: The information is as follows:

  Date of accident

  Name of vessel

  3 June 1984

  Marques

  6 March 1987

  Herald of Free Enterprise

  13 January 1989

  Boy Andrew

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances he will require a formal investigation into a shipping accident by a sheriff or wreck
  5
  commissioner in terms of section 56(1) of the Merchant Shipping act 1970, as amended; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: The Secretary of State would be likely to order a formal investigation where an investigation under the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989 cannot fully determine the cause of the accident and where there is a reasonable prospect that a formal investigation will do so. A formal investigation might also be called if, for any reason, the Secretary of State considered that it would lead to the circumstances of the accident and the lessons to be learnt becoming better and more widely known.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Debt (Developing Countries)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been(a) the level of debt repayments to United Kingdom banks from developing countries and (b) the level of new United Kingdom bank lending to developing countries in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  United Kingdom banks are required to report details of loans outstanding to developing countries, but not to show separately flows of new lending, repayments and reschedulings. It is therefore only possible to provide the net flows. These show net repayments to United Kingdom banks from developing countries over the last five years:

  Gross bilateral United Kingdom expenditure on aid per capita1

  1988 £ actual

  1989 £ actual

  1990 £ actual

  1991–92 £ actual

  Afghanistan

  0·07

  0·13

  0·07

  n/a

  Algeria

  0·02

  0·02

  0·02

  0·01

  Angola

  0·05

  0·14

  0 12

  0·13

  Anguilla

  199·88

  249·61

  162·82

  n/a

  Antigua and Barbuda

  14·20

  9 01

  12·63

  22·89

  Bahamas

  0·02

  0·12

  0·33

  0 31

  Bangladesh

  0·40

  0·50

  0·50

  0·51

  Barbados

  1·99

  1·12

  17·23

  9·38

  Belize

  18·15

  20·80

  29·68

  19·07

  Benin

  0·08

  0·07

  0·07

  0·04

  Bermuda

  0·42

  0·69

  0·08

  0·03

  Bhutan

  0·31

  0·30

  0·31

  0·54

  Bolivia

  0·43

  0·58

  0·57

  0·54

  Botswana

  7·20

  6·68

  6·84

  9·25

  Brazil

  0·01

  0 31

  0·01

  0·02

  British Virgin Islands

  193·68

  317·73

  184·96

  16·88

  Brunei

  0·01

  0·04

  0·03

  0·03

  Burkina Faso

  0·04

  0·03

  0·03

  0·04

  Burma2

  0·06

  0·02

  —

  —

  Burundi

  0·02

  0·03

  0·03

  0·03

  Cambodia

  0·02

  0·04

  0·01

  n/a

  Cameroon

  0·49

  0·45

  0·24

  0·26

  Cape Verde Islands

  0·15

  0·18

  0·13

  0·30

  Cayman Islands

  76·19

  62·14

  146·64

  n/a

  Central African Republic

  0·01

  0·02

  0·02

  0·02

  Chad

  0·05

  0·04

  0·03

  0·04

  Chile

  0·02

  0·02

  0·03

  0·05

  China

  0·03

  0·02

  0·02

  0·02

  Colombia

  0·06

  0·07

  0·06

  0·12

  Comoros

  0·00

  0·02

  —

  0·04

  6

  Repayments (net) £ million

  1987

  1,500

  1988

  800

  1989

  850

  1990

  1,010

  1991

  680

  Positive net financial transfers from banks to developing countries are not necessarily desirable. For example, if debtors were to receive new market rate loans to cover interest payments on old debt, this would show up as a positive transfer, but it would also increase the debt burden. The purpose of commercial bank lending is, rather, for loans to be invested on a productive basis, so as to finance interest and repayments when the time comes.

  Aid Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the average value of United Kingdom aid to each recipient country per head of population in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is in the table.

  The levels of our development assistance to individual countries are based on a number of factors, of which population is only one. The cash levels of our assistance are given in "British Aid Statistics 1987–88–1991–92", which is available in the Libraries of the House.
  7

  1988 £ actual

  1989 £ actual

  1990 £ actual

  1991–92 £ actual

  Congo

  0·15

  0·13

  0·10

  0·16

  Cook Islands

  4·55

  —

  0·20

  n/a

  Costa Rica

  0·57

  2·18

  1·80

  3·62

  Cyprus

  1·09

  1·01

  1·66

  0·71

  Djibouti

  0·34

  0·20

  0·16

  0·30

  Dominica

  24·67

  30·77

  16·14

  24·22

  Dominican Republic

  0·02

  —

  —

  —

  Ecuador

  0·15

  0·12

  0·54

  0·12

  Egypt

  0·37

  0·21

  0·17

  0·26

  El Salvador

  0·03

  0·03

  0·02

  0·01

  Equatorial Guinea

  0·04

  0·21

  0·15

  —

  Ethiopia

  0·43

  0·25

  0·41

  0·37

  Falkland Islands

  2,133·33

  1,853·29

  513·96

  n/a

  Fiji

  1·67

  6·32

  5·96

  3·09

  Gabon

  0·01

  0·03

  0·02

  0·06

  Gambia

  8·19

  6·14

  8·61

  6·64

  Ghana

  2·42

  3·58

  1·38

  3·01

  Gibraltar

  317·40

  13·96

  13·60

  n/a

  Grenada

  12·25

  13·25

  11·81

  26·50

  Guatemala

  —

  —

  0·01

  0·01

  Guinea

  0·10

  0·07

  0·08

  0·17

  Guinea-Bissau

  0·06

  0·04

  0·04

  0·03

  Guyana

  0·65

  8·21

  19·13

  7·28

  Haiti

  —

  —

  —

  0·01

  Honduras

  0·26

  0·14

  0·17

  0·29

  Hong Kong

  0·03

  0·04

  0·05

  0·07

  India

  0·13

  0·12

  O·1l

  0·16

  Indonesia

  0·10

  0·12

  0·13

  0·19

  Iran

  —

  —

  0·01

  0·05

  Iraq2

  —

  —

  —

  1·08

  Israel

  —

  —

  0·01

  —

  Ivory Coast

  0·65

  0·76

  0·90

  0·44

  Jamaica

  8·51

  8·36

  6·17

  2·51

  Jordan

  1·09

  1·31

  2·58

  0·99

  Kenya

  2·24

  2·34

  1·91

  1·56

  Kiribati

  28·57

  24·97

  24·09

  23·24

  Laos

  0·03

  —

  0·01

  0·01

  Lebanon

  0·01

  —

  0·05

  —

  Lesotho

  3·01

  3·59

  3·37

  3·64

  Liberia

  0·37

  0·26

  0·23

  0·19

  Madagascar

  0·04

  0·03

  0·05

  0·06

  Malawi

  6·09

  5·29

  4·52

  2·72

  Malaysia

  0·61

  0·51

  1·21

  0·89

  Maldive Republic

  4·44

  2·95

  3·79

  2·98

  Mali

  0·15

  0·14

  0·12

  0·16

  Malta

  0·27

  0·47

  0·34

  0·79

  Mauritania

  0·10

  0·08

  0·03

  0·15

  Mauritius

  6·12

  11·67

  4·70

  2·86

  Mexico

  0·02

  0·02

  0·01

  0·02

  Mongolia

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0·01

  Montserrat

  190·48

  337·02

  354·64

  n/a

  Morocco

  0·03

  0·02

  0·43

  0·08

  Mozambique

  2·09

  1·50

  1·66

  1·15

  Namibia

  1·67

  1·22

  1·17

  1·33

  Nepal

  0·62

  0·96

  0·82

  0·87

  Nicaragua

  0·05

  0·02

  0·12

  0·05

  Niger

  0·05

  0·04

  0·04

  0·05

  Nigeria

  0·07

  0·57

  0·12

  0·12

  Oman

  0·72

  0·65

  0·44

  0·67

  Pakistan

  0·23

  0·29

  0·43

  0·33

  Panama

  0·43

  0·31

  0·31

  0·35

  Papua New Guinea

  4·19

  3·01

  2·36

  1·30

  Paraguay

  0·13

  0·09

  0·12

  0·11

  Peru

  0·07

  0·05

  0·06

  0·07

  89

  1988 £actual

  1989 £actual

  1990 £actual

  1991–92 £actual

  Philippines

  0·02

  0·20

  0·18

  0·12

  Pitcairn Island

  1,625·00

  —

  —

  n/a

  Rwanda

  0·05

  0·05

  0·07

  0·03

  Sao Tome and Principe

  0·14

  —

  —

  n/a

  Senegal

  0·14

  0·43

  0·13

  0·21

  Seychelles

  25·99

  16·72

  13·77

  22·84

  Sierra Leone

  0·96

  0·71

  0·63

  0·55

  Singapore

  0·05

  0·14

  0·11

  0·09

  Solomon Islands

  17·72

  18·44

  16·88

  16·72

  Somalia

  1·17

  0·90

  0·28

  0·47

  South Africa3

  —

  —

  0·18

  —

  Sri Lanka

  1 33

  1·42

  1·02

  0·66

  St· Helena and Dependencies

  3,036·40

  4,777·83

  2,173·50

  n/a

  St· Kitts-Nevis

  44·57

  16·52

  22·77

  25·93

  St· Lucia

  19·91

  61·19

  16·14

  12·13

  St· Vincent

  7·76

  8·95

  11·72

  8·58

  Sudan

  1·11

  1·32

  0·88

  0·71

  Surinam

  0·03

  0·01

  —

  —

  Swaziland

  7·09

  8·29

  6·49

  4·43

  Tanzania

  1·40

  1·54

  0·91

  1·32

  Thailand

  0·43

  0·19

  0·20

  0·07

  Togo

  0·09

  0·08

  0·09

  0·13

  Tonga

  2·84

  3·68

  2·30

  2·40

  Trinidad and Tobago

  0·12

  0·52

  0·58

  4·14

  Tunisia

  0·06

  0·11

  0·05

  0·03

  Turkey

  0·05

  0·07

  —

  0·30

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  604·72

  748·51

  702·02

  n/a

  Tuvalu

  628·95

  39·17

  55·36

  n/a

  Uganda

  1·83

  1·75

  1·43

  1·55

  Uruguay

  0·01

  —

  0·02

  0·05

  Vanuatu

  40·45

  38·35

  39·98

  35·97

  Venezuela

  —

  —

  —

  0·01

  Vietnam

  —

  —

  —

  0·01

  Western Samoa

  0·30

  0·25

  0·98

  0·49

  Yemen (Republic of)

  0·66

  0·58

  0·49

  0·43

  Yugoslavia

  —

  —

  —

  0·01

  Zaire

  0·02

  0·20

  0·06

  0·04

  Zambia

  2·32

  2·63

  3·13

  4·24

  Zimbabwe

  2·68

  2·31

  2·16

  4·86

  1 Figures are only provided for those countries and dependencies for which population figures are available and aid per capita is greater than £0·005 in one or more years.

  "n/a" indicates that population figures are not available in that year.

  "—" indicates that aid per capita is less than £0·005 in that year.

  2 Aid provided to these countries is for the purpose of humanitarian assistance only.

  3 No aid to South Africa is channelled through the South African Government.

  Aid Programme
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters his Department has received from the public about the current level of the British aid programme since June 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We receive regular correspondence on the level of the aid programme and related aid questions. There has been no central record kept of the numbers of letters received from the public which are concerned principally with aid volume.

  Angola
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Angola.
  10
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We welcome the meeting between the Government of Angola and UNITA last month in Addis Ababa, but regret that UNITA did not return to talks on 10 February as agreed. We have strongly urged UNITA to do so. Dialogue is crucial if a ceasefire is to be agreed and the peace process resumed.

  Peru
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid was given by the EC to Peru over the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Commitments of Community aid to Peru were as follows: 1990, 31 mecu (£22 million); 1991, 36 mecu (£25 million); 1992, 49.·5 mecu (£36 million). This included funding for rural development projects,
  11
  emergency aid, food aid, co-financing with non-governmental organisations and assistance with drugs control.

  New Community initiatives, with the exception of increased humanitarian assistance and support for NGOs, were suspended following the coup last April. In the light of recent progress towards restoration of democracy in Peru, the position is being kept under close review.

  World Summit for Children
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the financial implications of the agreement made at the world summit for children, for all donor countries to re-examine their development assistance budgets, to ensure that programmes aimed at the achievement of the goals for the survival, protection and development of children will have a priority when resources are allocated.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The world summit for children was not planned as a pledging conference and no new programme was launched. The summit's goals are fully consistent with the priority areas for the British aid programme, which are explained in the departmental report published on 10 February (Cm 2202).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Extradition
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons living in the United Kingdom the Indian authorities have applied to extradite in each of the last 10 years; in how many cases such applications have been(a) accepted and (b) refused; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have received one such application, which was subsequently withdrawn.

  Police Restructuring
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has given to police authorities regarding their possible re-organisation; and what plans he has for primary legislation to restructure the constabularies of England and Wales.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have not given advice to police authorities on this matter. We are considering a range of issues relating to the future structure, organisation and funding of the police service.

  When we have firm proposals for change we shall consult interested parties.

  Foreign Enlistment Act 1870
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870.

  Mr. Jack
  The Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 was reviewed by the Diplock committee in 1976 (Cmnd. 6569). We have no current plans for a further review of the Act.

  Cycle Lights
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of cyclists in the Greater London area who have(a) been
  12
  prosecuted and (b) been warned by a police officer for riding a cycle without lights during each of the last three years.

  Mr. Jack
  Information for the Metropolitan police district (including the City of London) is given in the table.

  Number of persons cautioned and prosecuted for pedal cycle lighting and reflector offences in the Metropolitan Police District (including the City of London) 1989, 1990 and 19911

  Year

  Cautions

  Prosecutions

  1989

  —

  —

  1990

  7

  5

  11991

  —

  7

  1 Provisional.

  Prison Department
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have agreed redundancy payment in the supply and transport branch of the warehousing and distribution branch of the prison department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  All the staff employed in the warehousing and distribution function to whom redundancy notices have been issued have been advised of the amount of redundancy payment to which they will be entitled. As the period of redundancy notice does not expire until 31 March 1993 and, as my right hon. and learned Friend said on 4 February at columns 285–86, while the implication of advice received on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE) is being considered no payments have yet been made.

  Manchester Prison
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the provision of welfare and probation services to HM prison Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Bidders for the management of HM prison Manchester are free to work up their own proposals for the provision of welfare services at the prison. They must do so in accordance with the standards laid down in section 0 of the "Manchester Operational Specification," a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the fire service pay agreement will be implemented this year; and if he will make it his policy that the cost of meeting the agreement is fully funded.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government's policy that pay settlements in the public sector this year should be restricted to between zero and 1·5 per cent. applies to the fire service as to other public sector groups. Pay and conditions of service in the fire service are matters for negotiation in the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades on which the Government are not represented. My right hon. and learned Friend has written to the chairman of the fire service employers' representative organisation to make it clear that he expects
  13
  the employers to comply with the Government's public sector pay policy when they come to settle any pay increases in 1993. The increase in the fire service's share of local authority total standard spending for 1993–94 has been based on the assumption that any pay increases during 1993 will not exceed 1·5 per cent.

  Deaths of prisoners in Her Majesty's prison service establishments between 1 January 1991 and 11 February 1993

  Establishment

  Status

  Age

  Sex

  Ethnicity of death

  Cause verdict

  Inquest

  1991

  Gloucester

  S

  42

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  The Mount

  S

  19

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Norwich

  S

  36

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Wandsworth

  S

  29

  M

  2

  Cut throat

  Suicide while balance of mind disturbed and aggravated by lack of care

  Full Sutton

  S

  35

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Blundeston

  S

  34

  M

  1

  Myocardial dysplasia

  Natural

  Lincoln

  S

  62

  M

  1

  Uraemia necrosis

  Natural

  Maidstone

  S

  61

  M

  1

  Heart failure

  Natural

  Manchester

  U

  22

  M

  9

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Stafford

  S

  40

  M

  1

  —

  Unlawfully killed

  Cardiff

  U

  23

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Brixton

  U

  37

  M

  8

  Heart failure

  Accidental

  Liverpool

  U

  22

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide aggravated by lack of care

  Bristol

  S

  32

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide aggravated by lack of care

  Wakefield

  S

  59

  M

  1

  Cardiac arrest

  Natural

  Wormwood Scrubs

  S

  56

  M

  1

  Myocardial infarction

  Natural

  Oxford

  U

  29

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Accidental

  Manchester

  U

  31

  M

  1

  Overdose

  Misadventure

  Wandsworth

  S

  25

  M

  1

  Cerebral infarction

  Natural

  Garth

  S

  38

  M

  1

  Cut wrists

  Suicide

  Leeds

  U

  31

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Open

  Camp Hill

  S

  51

  M

  1

  Heart attack

  Natural

  Liverpool

  S

  30

  M

  1

  Heart-lung failure

  Suicide

  Durham

  U

  33

  M

  1

  Possible dystonic reaction to haloperidol

  Open

  Wakefield

  S

  49

  M

  8

  Myocardial infarction

  Natural

  Littlehey

  S

  46

  M

  1

  Cardiac arrest

  Natural

  Brixton

  U

  24

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide aggravated by lack of care

  Featherstone

  S

  34

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide aggravated by lack of care

  Wandsworth

  S

  64

  M

  1

  Myocardial infarction

  Natural

  Wormwood Scrubs

  S

  21

  M

  2

  Hanging

  Open

  Haverigg

  S

  31

  M

  1

  Sclerosis of liver

  Natural

  Blantyre House

  S

  27

  M

  1

  Overdose

  Accidental

  Durham

  S

  27

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Pentonville

  S

  54

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide while balance of mind disturbed

  Wakefield

  S

  37

  M

  1

  Stabbed

  Not held

  Parkhurst

  S

  29

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide brought about by lack of care

  Full Sutton

  S

  34

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Misadventure

  Liverpool

  S

  41

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Grendon

  S

  30

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Durham

  S

  63

  M

  1

  Acute myocardial infarction

  Natural

  Manchester

  S

  21

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Birmingham

  S

  25

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Preston

  S

  45

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Dorchester

  U

  45

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Open

  Wakefield

  S

  31

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Birmingham

  S

  23

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Feltham

  S

  18

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Wakefield

  S

  65

  M

  1

  Myocardial infarction

  Natural

  Nottingham

  S

  45

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Winchester

  U

  42

  M

  1

  Drug poisoning

  Misadventure

  Glen Parve

  U

  20

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Feltham

  S

  15

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Accidental

  Deaths in Custody
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all deaths since 1 January 1991 of persons detained in prison service custody stating in each case the age, sex and ethnic background of the deceased, the cause of death, the inquest verdict, whether the person was on remand or sentenced and the establishment concerned.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is given in the table.
  15

  Establishment

  Status

  Age

  Sex

  Ethnicity of death

  Cause verdict

  Inquest

  Norwich

  S

  30

  M

  2

  Asthma attack

  Open

  Kirkham

  S

  54

  M

  No trace

  Heart attack

  No inquest1

  Grendon

  S

  37

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Pentonville

  IA

  32

  M

  7

  Acute cardiac failure2

  Not yet held

  Cardiff

  U

  33

  M

  1

  Overdose

  Suicide whilst balance of mind disturbed

  Winchester

  U

  40

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Haverigg

  S

  25

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Open

  Leicester

  S

  65

  M

  1

  Lung cancer

  Natural

  Stafford

  S

  29

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Open

  Usk

  S

  52

  M

  1

  Heart attack

  Natural

  Maidstone

  S

  64

  M

  1

  Cerebral haemorrhage

  Natural

  Birmingham

  U

  41

  M

  1

  Overdose

  Suicide

  Norwich

  U

  49

  M

  1

  Overdose

  Misadventure

  Swaleside

  S

  41

  M

  2

  Pulmonary aneurysm

  Natural

  Garth

  S

  49

  M

  1

  Heart attack

  Natural

  Stoke Heath

  U

  19

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Long Lartin

  S

  52

  M

  1

  Overdose

  Suicide

  Leeds

  U

  30

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  1992

  Risley

  U

  24

  F

  2

  Drug poisoning

  Misadventure

  Hull

  U

  30

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Moorland

  S

  19

  M

  1

  Hanging3

  Not held

  Winchester

  S

  72

  M

  1

  Prostatic cancer

  Natural

  Bristol

  U

  40

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Dorchester

  S

  31

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Open

  Durham

  U

  21

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Lincoln

  S

  44

  M

  1

  Cardiac arrest

  Natural

  Feltham

  U

  18

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Open

  Liverpool

  S

  53

  M

  1

  Meningitis

  Natural

  Glen Parva

  U

  20

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Pentonville

  U

  36

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Open

  Wakefield

  S

  67

  M

  1

  Cerebral infarction

  Natural

  Feltham

  U

  20

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide due to abnormality of the mind

  Pentonville

  U

  25

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide while balance of mind disturbed

  Wayland

  S

  46

  M

  1

  Stabbed

  Not held

  Norwich

  U

  24

  M

  2

  Hanging

  Suicide while suffering from psychotic illness

  Stafford

  S

  23

  M

  3

  Hanging

  Open

  Wakefield

  S

  45

  M

  1

  Brain haemorrhage

  Natural

  Norwich

  S

  25

  M

  1

  Brain abscess

  Natural

  Cardiff

  U

  40

  M

  1

  Overdose

  Death by drug dependency

  Wakefield

  S

  38

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide while in a depressed state

  Lincoln

  S

  65

  M

  1

  Myocardial infarction

  Natural

  Deerbolt

  S

  16

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Long Lartin

  S

  59

  M

  1

  Respiratory failure

  Natural

  Liverpol

  U

  22

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Pentonville

  U

  33

  M

  7

  Overdose

  Suicide

  Hull

  U

  23

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  Manchester

  U

  53

  M

  1

  Myocardial ischaemia

  Natural

  Highpoint

  S

  54

  M

  1

  Acute myocardial ischaemia

  Natural

  Leeds

  U

  21

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Accidental

  Lewes

  U

  23

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Misadventure

  Swaleside

  S

  30

  M

  2

  Hanging

  Misadventure aggrevated by lack of care

  Wandsworth

  S

  68

  M

  no trace

  Occlusive coronary atheroma

  Natural

  Styal

  S

  20

  F

  1

  Hanging

  Misadventure

  Highpoint

  S

  28

  M

  7

  Cardiac arrythmia

  Natural

  Birmingham

  U

  24

  M

  2

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Brinsford

  U

  19

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Open

  Manchester

  U

  31

  M

  1

  Ischaemic heart disease

  Natural

  Wandsworth

  S

  39

  M

  1

  Carcinoma of small intestine

  Natural

  Wellingborough

  S

  47

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Kingston

  S

  45

  M

  1

  Epileptic fit

  Natural

  Wakefield

  S

  69

  M

  1

  Broncho-pneumonia

  Natural

  Ashwell

  S

  21

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Bullingdon

  S

  61

  M

  1

  Carcinoma tosis

  Natural

  Hindley

  S

  18

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  Parkhurst

  S

  51

  M

  1

  Epileptic fit

  Accidental

  Leyhill

  S

  49

  M

  1

  Cardiac camponade

  Natural

  16 17

  Establishment

  Status

  Age

  Sex

  Ethnicity of death

  Cause verdict

  Inquest

  Maidstone

  S

  37

  M

  1

  Asphyxia

  Suicide

  Send

  S

  27

  M

  2

  Haemolytic streptoccal septicaemia

  Natural

  Elmley

  U

  40

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  Belmarsh

  S

  40

  M

  1

  Pneumocystis carinii

  Natural

  Wakefield

  S

  60

  M

  1

  Myocardial infarction

  Natural

  Stocken

  S

  50

  M

  4

  Myocardial infarction

  No Inquest4

  Liverpool

  S

  39

  M

  1

  Coronary occlusion

  Not yet held

  Holloway

  S

  30

  F

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  Maidstone

  S

  69

  M

  1

  Carcinomatosis

  Natural

  Wakefield

  S

  47

  M

  1

  Myocardial Insufficiency

  Natural

  Pentonville

  U

  21

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  Leyhill

  S

  52

  M

  1

  Gastro-intestinal haemorrhage

  Natural

  Norwich

  S

  32

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  The Verne

  S

  54

  M

  7

  Pulmonary embolism

  Natural

  Durham

  U

  25

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Gartree

  S

  51

  M

  1

  Asphyxiation

  Suicide

  Parkhurst

  S

  43

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Open

  Belmarsh

  S

  26

  M

  1

  Brain haemorrhage

  Not yet held

  Parkhurst

  S

  56

  M

  1

  Acute myocardial infarction

  Not yet held

  Ashwell

  S

  30

  M

  4

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  Littlehey

  S

  21

  M

  1

  Overdose

  Not yet held

  Cardiff

  U

  30

  M

  1

  Not held5

  Long Lartin

  S

  35

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Leeds

  U

  22

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Suicide

  Leicester

  U

  28

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  Brixton

  U

  27

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  Ashwell

  S

  28

  M

  1

  Heart attack

  Not yet held

  Wormwood Scrubs

  U

  40

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  Bullingdon

  U

  28

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  1993

  Highdown

  U

  27

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  Leicester

  U

  26

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  Canterbury

  U

  36

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  Lancaster

  S

  32

  M

  Not held6

  Risley

  S

  44

  M

  1

  Heart attack

  Not yet held

  Durham

  S

  27

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  North Sea Camp

  S

  48

  M

  1

  Peripheral neuropathy

  Not yet held

  Norwich

  S

  65

  M

  1

  Hypertensive heart disease

  Not yet held

  Wetherby

  S

  20

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  Belmarsh

  U

  29

  M

  1

  Awaiting post mortem result

  Not yet held

  Hollesley Bay

  S

  21

  M

  No trace

  Brain haemorrhage

  Not yet held

  Hull

  S

  44

  M

  1

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  1 Prisoner died in outside hospital where he had been for three weeks prior to his death.

  2 Post mortem failed to reveal the exact cause of death, but concluded there was a 'strong possibility of acute cardiac failure' and a more remote possibility of asphyxia.

  3 Cell mate charged with murder. Trial yet to be held.

  4 Died in outside hospital.

  5 Cell mate charged with murder.

  6 Two prisoners charged with murder.

  Notes:

  (1) Status:

  S—Sentenced

  U—Unsentenced, including convicted prisoners who have not yet been sentenced

  IA—Detained under the Immigration Act

  (2) Ethnicity:

  1—White

  2—West Indian or Guyanese

  3—Indian

  4—Pakistani

  5—Bangladeshi

  6—Chinese

  7—African

  8—Arab

  9—Mixed Origin
  18 19
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all deaths of people who have died in police custody or otherwise with the police since 1989 to include the age, sex and ethnic background of the deceased, the cause of death, offence charged with if relevant, and the inquest verdict.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Details of deaths in police custody during 1989 for all forces except the Metropolitan police were published in the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary. Those for 1990 and 1991 were published in Home Office "Statistical Bulletins" 12/91 and 4/92 respectively. Figures for 1992 are currently being collated and will appear in a further bulletin.

  Deaths which occurred in the Metropolitan police district are published in the Commissioner's annual report. Details of the ethnic background of the deceased are not recorded.

  Carl Bridgewater Murder Trial
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps were taken to inform the prisoners, their families, and their solicitors of his decision not to refer the Carl Bridgewater murder trial back to the Court of Appeal; when this information was given to radio broadcasters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend made his decision known publicly at 10 am on 3 February. The solicitor representing Messrs. Michael and Vincent Hickey and Mr. Robinson was informed of that decision by telephone and letter. Letters were also sent to each of the three convicted men.

  Immigration
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total numbers(a) applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, (b) being accepted for immigration in the United Kingdom and (c) emigrating from the United Kingdom, in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 12 February 1993]: Information on applications for asylum in the United Kingdom is given in table A. The fall in 1992 follows measures introduced in late 1991 to deter multiple and other fraudulent applications.

  Information on persons accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom is published in table 3 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin Issue 29/92 "Control of Immigration: Statistics—First and Second Quarters 1992". Information for the second half of 1992 is not yet available.

  The available information on emigration from the United Kingdom is produced by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys from the international passenger survey, which defines a migrant as a person leaving one country where he/she has been a resident for a year or more, with the intention of residing in another country for a year or more. This information includes British and other EC citizens, but excludes migration between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom. Data for 1990 are given in table 2·1 of the 1990 issues of the OPCS publication "International Migration". Corresponding data for 1991 are given in table B; data for 1992 are not yet available.

  Copies of both the publications are in the Library of the House.
  20

  Table A

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants

  Number

  1990

  22,000

  1991

  44,800

  1992

  24,600

  Table B

  Migration to and from the United Kingdom1 in 1991

  Number of persons, in thousands

  Inflow

  Outflow

  Net balance2

  All citizenships

  267

  239

  28

  British citizens

  117

  137

  -20

  Other EC citizens

  31

  32

  -1

  Non-EC citizens

  119

  70

  49

  1 Excluding migration between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom.

  2 A positive figure represents a net inflow, a negative figure a net outflow.

  EC Visas
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which immigration category the format of the common EC visa will apply; and whether it will supersede the current formats of visas, entry clearances and letters of consent in those categories.

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

  Under the terms of the Treaty on European Union the Council shall, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, adopt measures relating to a uniform format for visas. The treaty is not yet in force and no proposal has been put forward by the Commission.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General 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.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service has assigned two staff (with support from other staff as required) to its market testing programme. The Treasury Solicitor's Department has assigned five staff, part-time, to its programme. No staff have been assigned specifically in the Serious Fraud Office or the legal secretariat to the Law Officers. The programme has cost £56,300 since November 1991.

  Mr McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General 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.
  21
  The Attorney-General
  Since November 1991 the Crown prosecution service has market tested its HQ reprographics service which was contracted out to Williams Lea F.M.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much advance corporation tax was collected in 1991–92.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Advance corporation tax receipts in 1991–92 were £7,936 million.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the level of unrelieved advance corporation tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Unrelieved advance corporation tax carried forward is provisionally estimated to be about £5 billion.

  Snack Foods
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many requests were received by Customs and Excise in their review of the savoury snack food market asking for different classification for VAT on products; and what similar products are taxed at zero and at standard rate of VAT in different outlets.

  Sir John Cope
  No requests have been received for reclassification of individual products to either the standard or the zero rate. The main thrust of the arguments advanced on the industry's behalf, mainly by the Snack, Nuts and Crisps Manufacturers Association (SNACMA) was for the introduction of a reduced rate of VAT for all savoury snack products. There are a number of snack products which are eligible for zero-rating under the provisions for food generally. Examples are tortilla chips, twiglets, corn chips, mini garlic breads and bagel chips. All food is standard-rated when supplied by way of catering, ie through outlets such as snack bars or public houses, hotels and restaurants.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people between the ages of 16 and 60 years began employment in Government Departments in 1992.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Some 28,000 people aged between 16 and 59 years began employment in the non-industrial home civil service during the period 1 January to 30 September 1992. Information for the final quarter of the year is not yet available.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures for the reduction in numbers of posts as a result of contracting out since 1979 in his Department and agencies for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Nelson
  Readily accessible records do not exist as far back as 1979. Detailed records cover only the past two years. During that time there has been no reduction in the 22
  number of Treasury posts as a result of contracting out. Nevertheless, it is estimated that since 1979 there has been a reduction of eight Treasury posts as a result of contracting out.

  Taxation
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make it his policy to provide in answer to parliamentary questions figures relating to tax paid by classes of taxpayers sufficiently large to preserve confidentiality with particular reference to businesses now privatised; and if he will publish his correspondence with the hon. Member for Eltham on the subject.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Published statistics about taxation are limited to aggregates which preserve the confidentiality of taxpayers' affairs.

  Discount Rates
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on discount rates.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are no plans for changes in public sector discount rates.

  British Assets Abroad
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total size of British assets abroad; and what were the figures in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Mr. Lamont
  The estimates of identified United Kingdom external assets as shown are based on recording direct investments at book values, and other assets at estimated market values. To the extent that the valuation basis for direct investment reflects values in earlier periods, an up-to-date valuation is likely to be higher. These figures do not cover United Kingdom liabilities to overseas residents.

  £ billion

  end-year 1975

  98·5

  end-year 1985

  593·2

  September 1992

  1,065·0

  Sources: United Kingdom Balance of Payments, 1992; CSC, Databank.

  EC Budgets
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions the European Council has established a budget in which the resources ceiling has been less than the declared commitments; by what percentage in each case the commitments have exceeded the resources ceiling; and what were the comparable percentages in respect of the resources ceiling and commitments agreed at the Edinburgh Council meeting.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]: The 1988 own resources decision (88/376/EEC, Euratom) sets separate ceilings on the own resources available to finance payments from the Community budget, and on total commitments. The ceiling on commitments is set at 1.30 per cent. of Community GNP, which is higher than

  23
  the 1.20 per cent. own resources ceiling specified for 1992. The difference reflects the fact that some commitments will in practice not be taken up and so will not result in payments being made. There is, also in some cases, a considerable time lag between commitments and payments. As long as the Community economy continues to grow such expenditure commitments will represent a smaller proportion of Community GNP when the payments are made than when the commitments were given. However, article 3 of the own resources decision also requires the Community to maintain a compatible relationship between commitment appropriations and payment appropriations to enable the own resources ceiling to be maintained.

  The European Council held at Brussels in February 1988 agreed the figures shown in table 1.

  The corresponding figures agreed by the Edinburgh European Council in 1992 are given in table 2. (In addition to agreeing to increase the own resources ceiling from 1.20 per cent. of GNP to 1.27 per cent. by 1999, the European Council also agreed to increase the limit on commitments from 1.30 per cent. to 1.335 per cent. of GNP).

  Table 1

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  (1)

  Own resources ceiling (per cent, of GNP)

  1·15

  1·17

  1·18

  1·19

  1·20

  (2)

  Payment appropriations as per cent, of GNP

  1·12

  1·14

  1·15

  1·16

  1·17

  (3)

  Commitment appropriations as per cent, of GNP

  1·160

  1·180

  1·200

  1·215

  1·235

  Table 2

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  (1) Own resources ceiling (percentage of GNP)

  1·20

  1·20

  1·21

  1·22

  1·24

  1·26

  1·27

  (2) Payment appropriations as percentage of GNP

  1·20

  1·19

  1·20

  1·21

  1·23

  1·25

  1·26

  (3) Commitment appropriations as percentage of GNP

  1·260

  1·250

  1·260

  1·275

  1·290

  1·310

  1·325

  (3)-(l) Extent to which commitments exceed own resources ceiling (percentage of GNP)

  0·060

  0·050

  0·050

  0·055

  0·050

  0·050

  0·055

  (3)-(2) Extent to which commitments exceed payments (percentage of GNP)

  0·060

  0·060

  0·060

  0·065

  0·060

  0·060

  0·065

  Rugby Football
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements he makes for the taxation of income on benefits arising from the playing of Rugby Union football.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 12 February 1993]: Under Rugby Union rules players are forbidden to receive payment for playing. If they were to do so they would be taxed in the same way as other professional sports men and women.

  Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the amount and share of income going to(a) the top 1 per cent., (b) the next 2 to
  24

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  (3)-(1)Extent to which commitments exceed own resources ceiling (per cent, of GNP)

  0·010

  0·010

  0·020

  0·025

  0·035

  (3)-(2)Extent to which commitments exceed payments (per cent, of GNP)

  0·040

  0·040

  0·050

  0·055

  0·065

  Notes:

  1. The figures for payment and commitment appropriations are based on the financial perspective set out in the Inter Institutional agreement which was agreed between the European Commission, Council and European Parliament following the Brussels European Council. They are expressed here as percentages of Community GNP on the basis of the GNP forecasts which were available to the European Council at the time.

  2. In practice, the annual budgets agreed over the period 1988–1992 had payment and commitment appropriations which were considerably lower, as a percentage of GNP, than the European Council envisaged. This was mainly because the Community economy grew more strongly over the period in question than the European Council had assumed. The actual figures as budgeted were as follows.

  Payment appropriations as per cent, of GNP

  Commitment appropriations as per cent, of GNP

  1989

  1·08

  1·12

  1990

  1·00

  1·04

  1991

  1·10

  1·16

  1992

  1·11

  1·16

  5 per cent., (c) the next 6 to 10 per cent. and (d) the next 10 to 20 per cent. and subsequent deciles of tax units for each year since 1978–79, revalued at 1978–79 prices;

  (2) if he will list the tax take for (a) the top 1 per cent., (b) the next 2 to 5 per cent., (c) the next 6 to 10 per cent. and (d) the next 10 to 20 per cent. and subsequent deciles of income groups for each year since 1978–79, revalued at 1978–79 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 February col. 741–42]: Unfortunately there were two typographical errors in the table, which has now been corrected. Readily available estimates are in the table. For 1978–79 and 1989–90, married couples are counted as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation, for 1990–91 onwards, husband and wives are counted separately. The estimates of total income relates to income subject to income tax and excludes non-taxable income such as certain social security benefits.
  25

  1Quantile group of taxpayers

  1978–79

  21989–90

  21990–91

  Tax liability

  Total income

  Percentage of total income

  Tax liability

  Total income

  Percentage of total income

  Tax liability

  Total income

  Percentage of total income

  Per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Top 1

  2,300

  5,000

  5

  3,400

  10,500

  8

  3,700

  11,300

  8

  1 to 5

  2,600

  9,900

  10

  3,800

  16,300

  12

  3,800

  16,000

  11

  5 to 10

  2,100

  9,300

  9

  2,600

  13,800

  9

  2,600

  13,500

  10

  10 to 20

  3,200

  15,000

  15

  3,600

  20,900

  15

  3,800

  20,900

  15

  20 to 30

  2,500

  12,600

  12

  2,600

  16,000

  11

  2,700

  16,500

  12

  30 to 40

  2,100

  11,000

  11

  2,000

  13,700

  10

  2,100

  14,100

  10

  40 to 50

  1,700

  9,600

  9

  1,600

  11,800

  8

  1,700

  12,000

  9

  50 to 60

  1,400

  8,500

  8

  1,300

  10,200

  7

  1,300

  10,400

  7

  60 to 70

  1,100

  7,300

  7

  1,000

  8,800

  6

  1,000

  9,000

  6

  70 to 80

  780

  6,000

  6

  760

  7,700

  5

  710

  7,600

  5

  80 to 90

  430

  4,900

  5

  470

  6,200

  4

  410

  6,100

  4

  Bottom 10

  130

  3,700

  4

  170

  4,800

  3

  130

  4,800

  3

  All taxpayers

  20,300

  102,800

  100·0

  23,300

  140,800

  100·0

  24,000

  142,300

  100·0

  1991–922

  1992–932

  Quantile group of taxpayers1

  Tax liability

  Total income

  Percentage of total income

  Tax liability

  Total income

  Percentage of total income

  Per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Top 1

  3,600

  11,100

  8

  3,400

  10,500

  8

  1–5

  3,900

  15,900

  11

  3,700

  15,200

  11

  5–10

  2,600

  13,400

  10

  2,500

  12,900

  10

  10–20

  3,700

  20,600

  15

  3,600

  20,000

  15

  20–30

  2,700

  16,500

  12

  2,600

  16,000

  12

  30–40

  2,100

  13,900

  10

  2,000

  13,500

  10

  40–50

  1,700

  11,800

  9

  1,500

  11,400

  9

  50–60

  1,300

  10,200

  7

  1,200

  9,800

  7

  60–70

  1,000

  8,700

  6

  870

  8,400

  6

  70–80

  700

  7,300

  5

  580

  7,000

  5

  80–90

  400

  5,900

  4

  300

  5,600

  4

  Bottom 10

  130

  4,700

  3

  100

  4,500

  3

  All taxpayers

  23,900

  140,000

  100

  22,200

  134,800

  100

  1 Tax units for years prior to 1990–91.

  2 In 1978–79 prices.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Press Regulations
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the statutory and other restraints on publication by the press.

  Mr. Brooke
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Disabled Employees
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of employees in his Department are registered disabled.

  Mr. Key
  The Department of National Heritage is still in the process of setting up its personnel and other central management information systems and the information to answer this question is not yet centrally available.

  Football Trust
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the value of grants to football clubs made by the Football Trust in the last three years.

  Mr. Brooke
  The value of grants offered to football clubs by the Football Trust in the last three years is £75.5 million.

  Art Collections
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the most recent estimate of the value of the Government's art collection; how many paintings are owned by the Government; and in which public buildings they are located.

  Mr. Key
  No market valuation of the Government art collection exists, because the art collection is not actively traded.

  The Government art collection owns 2,464 paintings, as well as a number of other works of art located in approximately 600 United Kingdom Government buildings throughout the world.

  Rugby League
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will introduce legislation to stop other sports preventing the participation of players who have played Rugby League football.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 12 February 1993]: I have no plans to do so. It is for the individual governing bodies of sport to determine their own rules and regulations.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Television Service
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 4 June,Official Report, column 636, what further developments have taken place regarding the provision of a live television feed of the Chamber of the House to hon. Members' offices.

  Mr. Newton
  As I indicated in my previous reply to the hon. Member, the Broadcasting Committee has agreed in principle to the supply of a television feed to Members' offices within the parliamentary estate. If the House approves this recommendation, the pace at which it can be implemented throughout the House and its outbuildings will depend on progress with proposals currently under consideration by the Information Committee for the establishment of a parliamentary data and video network, on which the television feed from the Chamber would be carried. These proposals will, of course, also require the approval of the House. For its part, the Broadcasting Committee will continue to keep the matter under review.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards a united China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In 1950 the British Government recognised the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. There is no change in that position.

  Mr. Raja Ibrar Hussain
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer at 5 February,Official Report, column 394, concerning Mr. Raja Ibrar Hussain, whether Mr. Hussain has lodged an appeal against the refusal of entry clearance to allow him to join his wife in the United Kingdom; whether an explanatory statement has been sent to the appellate authorities in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Mr. Raja Ibrar Hussain lodged an appeal with the British High Commission in Islamabad on 22 November 1992 against the refusal of entry clearance to allow him to join his wife in the United Kingdom.

  The entry clearance officer's explanatory statement of the refusal is in the course of preparation.

  I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive notification from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when the entry clearance officer's explanatory statement has been sent to the appellate authorites in London.

  Belgium (Foreign Residents)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the letter of 4 February from the migration and visa correspondence unit to the hon. Member for Ilford, South, what evidence he has of repeated applications for asylum and social security 28
  benefits by non-EC nationals resident in Belgium; how many such cases there have been in 1992 and 1993; what were the nationalities of those involved; identifying Commonwealth and community citizens separately; what length of visits had been applied for; how many had visited the United Kingdom in the previous year; how many non-EC nationals resident in Belgium have been refused visitors' visas in 1992 and 1993; what new practices have been put in place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Applications for asylum in the United Kingdom are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Social Security benefits are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  I understand that in 1992 a number of illgal immigrants were arrested and convicted in the United Kingdom. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  The numbers of non-EC nationals refused visas by the British embassy in Belgium in 1992 and 1993 were:

  1992–126

  1993 (January only)–12

  No new practices have been put in place by the embassy. All visa applications are scrutinised to establish that they meet the requirements of the immigration rules.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the use of the Green Island reception centre in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement on the comparison of conditions with those in the Tai A Chan detention centre.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Green Island detention centre was originally used exclusively as a reception facility for Vietnamese migrants arriving in Hong Kong. It is now used principally for holding those who are scheduled for repatriation to Vietnam. The centre has a capacity of about 500. It has dormitory huts like all other detention centres but it does not have kitchen facilities; meals are provided by an outside caterer. The recreational area is limited. Non-government organisations provide services in the centre which is also visited daily by a medical team.

  The Tai A Chau detention centre has a capacity of about 10,000. It is on a remote island and, because of both size and location, it is self-contained. Unlike other detention centres, the Vietnamese migrants are allowed out of the centre during the day and engage in a range of activities which include farming, poultry raising and fish breeding.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total number of immigrants from Vietnam arriving in Hong Kong between 1975 and the end of 1992; how many of these were resettled in third countries; how many of them were returned to Vietnam(a) voluntarily and (b) compulsorily; and how many remained in Hong Kong on 31 December 1992.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A total of 183,542 Vietnamese migrants arrived in Hong Kong between 1975 and the end of 1992. According to figures from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as at 31 December 1992, taking account of children born in the camps in Hong Kong, 138,023 had been resettled in third countries, 26,729 had been repatriated and 45,317 remained in Hong Kong.
  29
  A total of 418 were returned to Vietnam under the orderly repatriation programme or other bilateral arrangements.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the total numbers on 1 February in Hong Kong for(a) Vietnamese refugees, (b) Vietnamese immigrants awaiting screening and (c) Vietnamese determined to be illegal immigrants.

  Mr. Goodlad
  On I February the total number of Vietnamese migrants in Hong Kong was 44,803. Of these 2,495 were refugees, 19,869 were awaiting screening or its results and 22,439 had been determined to be illegal immigrants.

  Disabled Employees
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of employees in his Department is registered disabled.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Some 0.4 per cent. of employees in the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are registered disabled and 1.49 per cent. in the Overseas Development Administration.

  British Mercenaries
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is provided by the consular department to British nationals in difficulty as a result of acting as mercenaries abroad.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Mercenaries are treated in the same way as any other British citizen requiring assistance from our consular offices abroad. Assistance would usually be limited to helping them to return to the United Kingdom at their own expense.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the instances and countries in which consular advice or assistance has been given to mercenary soldiers.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Mercenaries are not specifically identified in Foreign and Commonwealth Office records of consular assistance given to British nationals.

  In seeking consular assistance mercenaries do not necessarily identify themselves as such.

  Peru
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Council of Ministers has taken to encourage the restoration of human rights and democracy in Peru.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  In response to President Fujimori's suspension of constitutional government in April 1992. the United Kingdom with its EC partners called on the Peruvian authorities to re-establish democratic institutions with the full participation of political parties and respect for human rights. Most aid to Peru was suspended. We continue to review with our European Community partners the measures taken last year in the light of progress towards the restoration of democracy.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the Greek Cypriot and (b) the Turkish
  30
  Cypriot communities about progress made by the United Nations on Cyprus; and at what levels within the leadership of each community he is in contact.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last discussed these matters directly with President Vassiliou of Cyprus at the EC-Cyprus Association Council on 21 December 1992. We are in continual touch with the leadership of both Cypriot communities at the highest level through our high commissioner in Nicosia.

  Visas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer at 5 February,Official Report, column 394, concerning the children Shenaz Begum, Afsar Khan and Shaira Begum, what account was taken of doubts about their mother's relationship with their father when the mother, Mrs. Zartaj Begum, was issued with a visa to enter the United Kingdom; when the British High Commission in Islamabad requested the Home Office to make inquiries of her husband in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Ms. Martaj Bibi (Begum) applied for entry clearance at the British High Commission in Islamabad on 7 October 1991, accompanied by her daughters Bibi Nargas and Rehana Begum, on the basis of her marriage in Pakistan to Mr. Mohammed Gham Gharti on 18 April 1969.

  Once the entry clearance officer (ECO) was satisfied that the relationships were as claimed, and that there was adequate support and accommodation available for the family in the United Kingdom without recourse to public funds, the ECO issued visas to Zartaj Bibi and Bibi Nargas, and a certificate of entitlement to Rehana Begum on 1 October 1992.

  I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive notification from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth office of the date on which the high commission in Islamabad requested the Home Office to make inquiries of Ms Bibi's husband in the United Kingdom. This information is not currently available.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new practice has been followed by the visa section of the British embassy in Belgium in scrutinising applications for visit visas by non-EC nationals living in Belgium in 1992 and 1993; what is the reason for the new procedure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No new practice has been followed by the British embassy in Belgium.

  All applications for visit visas by non-EC nationals are scrutinised as the entry clearance officer is obliged to be satisfied that applications meet the requirements of the immigration rules before visas may be granted.

  Maritime Zones
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the maritime zones for(a) dependent territories and (b) other territories.
  31
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Territorial sea

  Fisheries zone

  Exclusive economic zone

  (Distances are in nautical miles)

  (a) Dependent territories

  Anguilla

  3

  200

  —

  Bermuda

  12

  200

  —

  British Antartic Territory

  3

  3

  —

  British Indian Ocean Territory

  3

  200

  —

  British Virgin Islands

  3

  200

  —

  Cayman Islands

  12

  200

  —

  Falkland Islands

  12

  200

  —

  Gibraltar

  3

  3

  —

  Hong Kong

  3

  —

  —

  Montserrat

  3

  200

  —

  Pitcairn Islands

  3

  —

  200

  St. Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha

  12

  200 each

  —

  South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands

  12

  12 each

  —

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  12

  200

  —

  (b) Crown dependencies

  Isle of Man

  12

  12

  —

  Bailiwick of Guernsey

  3

  12

  —

  Jersey

  3

  3

  —

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest report of the United Nations special commission investigating the Iraqi programmes of weapons of mass destruction, received by Her Majesty's Government; and when it was received.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We work closely with the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). It is not our practice to comment in detail on the information given to us by UNSCOM.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide figures for the reduction in numbers of posts as a result of contracting out since 1979 in his Department and agencies for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There has been a reduction of some 60 posts in the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office since 1984 as a result of contracting out. To check the position back to 1979 would involve disproportionate cost.

  Wilton Park has reduced its number of posts by six as a result of contracting out. Neither the Overseas Development Administration nor the Natural Resources Institute have reduced their number of posts as a result of contracting out.

  UNESCO
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the incoming administration in the United States of America regarding membership of UNESCO; and if he will make a statement.
  32
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have frequent contacts with the United States authorities on many aspects of UNESCO. My information is that, like us, they have reached no decision on membership of the organisation.

  EC Association Agreements
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the European Community's association agreements with Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland to come into effect.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The trade provisions of the association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia came into effect on 1 March 1992 under interim agreements. The main agreements with Poland and Hungary, to which the European Parliament has already given its assent, will come into effect when national Parliaments in all EC member states have authorised their ratification. The presidency is pressing member states to do so rapidly. As well as the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark have completed their ratification procedures. Following the dissolution of the Czechoslovak Federation on 31 December 1992, the Community has moved to begin negotiations on new association agreements with the successor Czech and Slovak Republics.

  Bulgaria and Romania
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the European Community's association agreements with Bulgaria and Romania have yet been finalised.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The European Community concluded negotiations on association agreements with Romania and Bulgaria under the United Kingdom Presidency. The agreements were initialled on 17 November and 22 December 1992 respectively. EC Foreign Ministers signed the agreement with Romania in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council on 1 February 1993. It is hoped the agreement with Bulgaria can be signed in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council on 8 March.

  Whaling
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to resist any attempt by Norway to negotiate a change in the current EC ban on whaling within EC waters as part of its application for full membership of the EC.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made our views on whaling clear to Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland when she delivered Norway's application to join the EC. We would expect Norway to apply existing Community legislation on whaling and trade in whale products on accession to the Community.

  Bhutan
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the situtation in Bhutan and on arrangements for refugees from Bhutan in neighbouring countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following the implementation of Bhutanese citizenship laws there are estimated to be about 72,000 refugees from Bhutan in camps in eastern Nepal. A
  33
  further 10,000 refugees are in India. We are providing financial help for the refugees in Nepal through the Save the Children fund.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with non-governmental organisations concerning the first preparatory committee meeting of the non-proliferation treaty; what plans his Department has to involve non-governmental organisations in his Department's activities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our Department has regular contacts with organisations which have an interest in the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and intends to continue doing so.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 355, if he will place in the Library copies of the letters sent to Senators Hatfield, Mitchell and Exon.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  A copy of the text of the letter sent to Senators Hatfield, Mitchell and Exon in August 1992 will be placed in the Library today.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affiars, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1992,Official Report, column 355, if he will list the senior members of the Democratic party contacted by Her Majesty's Government in connection with the nuclear testing programme; and what concerns they expressed about United Kingdom policy.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have had many such contacts, but are now pursuing those with members of the new Administration. So far there have been only general exchanges about considerations bearing on the policies of both Governments.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Potatoes
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he will take to ensure that the stock feed scheme is introduced for potatoes this year and that it will be uprated in line with the current rage of inflation.

  Mr. Hanley
  Under current arrangements Government may intervene in the potato market by way of a stock feed scheme if it appears that the average price for potatoes sold for human consumption over the marketing year will be less than the target price. The cumulative average price to date is significantly higher than the target price, consequently I have no plans to introduce a stock feed scheme. The target price is not linked to the rate of inflation.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  There are two full-time and one part-time members of staff in a small central unit within the Department of Finance and Personnel assigned to the Northern Ireland market testing programme. Otherwise staff in this unit and in other Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office contribute to the market testing process as part of wider responsibilities. Under present arrangements, therefore, information on the cost of the programme cannot be accurately determined across the seven Departments Covered by the Northern Ireland market testing programme, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office have set themselves challenging targets for market testing since the publication of the White Paper, "Competing for Quality", in November 1991, and will continue to play a full part in this initiative.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Eighteen tests have been completed in Northern Ireland Departments and the NI() since November 1991—of these seven were won by the in-house providers, five tests by outside contractors and six by a combination of both, as follows:

  Transit (computer system)—contracted out

  Sludge disposal (2 tests)—combination

  Building maintenance—contracted out

  Reservoir maintenance—retained in-house

  Roads reinstatement—combination

  Marine disposal of sewage sludge—retained in-house

  Sewer maintenance—combination

  Verge maintenance—combination

  Car park management—retained in-house

  Gully emptying—combination

  Road marking—retained in-house

  Strangford ferry—retained in-house

  Street lighting—retained in-house

  Cleaning—contracted out

  Key holding—contracted out

  Grounds maintenance—retained in-house

  Catering—contracted out

  In the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland I would not wish to disclose the names of successful contractors.

  Market testing is part of the Government's strategy to increase the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the public service. Decisions on whether work continues to be carried out in-house or is contracted out are taken on the basis of value for money.

  Crimes
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy on diverting offenders away from the courts and custodial sentences and towards
  35
  community-based projects; and what assessment he has made of the effect of the use of community-based projects on the level of juvenile crime in Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Cautioning schemes for both adult and juvenile offenders operate in Northern Ireland, aimed at avoiding prosecution where it is not required in the public interest. The courts also have a range of community-based disposals available to them for offenders of all ages.

  We are currently reviewing these and other aspects of Northern Ireland's criminal justice arrangements and hope to announce our conclusions in the coming months.

  Northern Ireland Select Committee
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the oral answer by the Lord President of the Council, 25 June 1992,Official Report, column 395, what is his current policy on the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee is a matter for the House. The Government, however, take the view that while such a Committee may be desirable in principle there remain a number of issues, including the extent of support from elected representatives from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, needing further consideration.

  Sheep Farmers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sheep farmers there are in Northern Ireland; and how many sheep farmers are in receipt of hill livestock compensatory amounts.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the latest agricultural census, sheep were recorded on 11,323 holdings. Hill livestock compensatory allowance in respect of sheep was paid to 9,802 farmers in 1992.

  Water
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the sites proposed to him for classification as sensitive areas under the EC directive on urban waste water treatment, including the proposing body, by reason of(a) eutrophication and (b) inland water with a nitrate concentration greater than 50 mg/l.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive requires member states to identify sensitive areas, in accordance with the criteria set out in the directive, by 21 December this year. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is at present compiling a final list of "candidate" sensitive areas. An announcement about the location of the areas to be formally identified as sensitive will be made before the deadline imposed in the directive.

  Children Act
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many qualified officers are employed in each of the four health and social services boards responsible for registration and inspection of services under the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Children Act 1989 does not apply in Northern Ireland. However, under the Children and 36
  Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, the number of qualified officers in the health and social services boards responsible for registration and inspection of day care services is as follows:

  Health and social services board

  Number of qualified officers (whole-time equivalent)

  Eastern

  13·0

  Western

  1·0

  Northern

  5·5

  Southern

  4·0

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations there have been with child care associations in Northern Ireland in applying the Children Act 1989, with particular reference to the setting of standards and the quality of service under the care of children provisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Children Act 1989 does not apply in Northern Ireland, where child care services are currently governed by the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968. However, a proposal for a draft Children (Northern Ireland) Order to reform the law in Northern Ireland on the care and upbringing of children along the lines of the Children Act 1989 will be issued shortly for widespread public consultation.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out in full the duties of registration officers engaged under the Children Act 1989 within the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Children Act does not apply in Northern Ireland, where day care services in the non-statutory sector are regulated by the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, by regulations issued under this Act and by departmental guidance. These regulations and guidance will be revised as part of the implementation of the proposed Children (Northern Ireland) Order and will take account, as appropriate, of the relevant requirements and advice on day care issued under the Children Act 1989.

  Energy
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the state aid to the energy sector within Northern Ireland as notified to the European Commission.

  Mr. Atkins
  There is no state aid to the energy sector in Northern Ireland.

  General Practitioners
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the general practitioner fund holding practices granted in Northern Ireland in each board area;

  (2) if he will give the number of applications pending for general practitioner fund holding practices in each board area.

  Mr. Hanley
  Fund holding will not commence in Northern Ireland until 1 April 1993. At present, 20
  37
  practices or groups of practices are preparing to become fundholders on that date and are expected to be granted fund holding status shortly. Expressions of interest in joining the second fund holding wave commencing in April 1994 were recently sought. Practices have until the end of February 1993 to register their interest. The practices who are preparing to become fund holders on 1 April 1993 are as follows:

  Eastern Board

  Dr. Brown and partners

  Salisbury Medical Centre

  Antrim Road

  Belfast

  Dr. Donnelly and partners

  Clifton Street Surgery

  Belfast

  Dr. Rowan and partners

  281 Ormeau Road

  Belfast

  Dr. Trimble and partners

  Dunluce Health Centre

  Dunluce Avenue

  Belfast

  Dr. Dick and partners

  Dunmurry

  Belfast

  Dr. Kane and partners

  Brook Street Surgery

  Holywood

  Co. Down

  Dr. Jackson and partners

  Dr. McAughey and partners

  Skegoniel Health Centre

  Belfast

  Dr. Lowry and partners

  Springfield Road

  Belfast

  Dr. Morrison and partners

  Cherryvalley Health Centre

  Belfast

  Dr. Laird and partners

  Bloomfield Road Surgery

  Bangor

  Co. Down

  Dr. Lindsay and partners

  Priory Surgery

  Holywood

  Co. Down

  Western Board

  Dr. Garvey and partners

  Lower Strabane Road

  Castlederg

  Dr. Craig and partners

  Bridge Street Medical Centre

  Londonderry

  and

  Dr. Hetherington and partners

  Eglington Health Centre

  Numbers of courses of national health service dental treatment in Scotland by health board area

  Health board

  1987

  1988

  1989

  19903

  19901 4

  1991–922

  Argyll and Clyde

  258,537

  263,704

  271,769

  197,957

  44,640

  206,277

  Ayrshire and Arran

  250,239

  250,350

  254,617

  186,728

  42,018

  187,757

  Borders

  72,514

  74,807

  78,839

  59,132

  14,646

  65,622

  Dumfries and Galloway

  88,106

  92,049

  94,113

  69,199

  14,491

  71,512

  Fife

  208,259

  213,290

  220,942

  158,218

  38,178

  160,124

  38

  Eglinton

  Co Londonderry

  Dr. Gallagher and partners

  The Health Centre

  Strabane

  Co Tryone

  Northern Board

  Dr. Hegan and partners

  Rosehall Medical

  Centre Glengormley

  Co Antrim

  Dr. Campbell and partners

  The Health Centre

  Greenisland

  Co Antrim

  Dr. McAteer and partners

  The Health Centre

  Ballyclare

  Co Antrim

  Dr. Stevenson and partners

  The Health Centre

  Whiteabbey

  Co Antrim

  Dr. Patterson and partners

  The Health Centre

  Portglenone

  Co Antrim

  Dr. Thompson and partners

  Crumlin

  Co Antrim

  and

  Dr. Gallagher and partner

  Glenavy

  Co Antrim

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of general practitioner practices in Northern Ireland at the latest available date.

  Mr. Hanley
  At February 1993 there were 354 general medical practices in Northern Ireland.

SCOTLAND

  Dental Treatment
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many courses of dental treatment were undertaken in each health board area in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is set out in the table. The figures from 1 October 1990 are for adults only, as under the new dental contract introduced from that date children are now treated under capitation arrangements to provide continuing care, and no longer undergo individual courses of treatment. At 31 March 1992, 622,000 children were registered with dentists in Scotland under capitation arrangements.
  39

  Health board

  1987

  1988

  1989

  19903

  19901 4

  1991–922

  Forth Valley

  150,978

  157,174

  160,965

  117,794

  26,838

  130,389

  Grampian

  292,001

  292,106

  303,233

  218,533

  55,136

  267,042

  Greater Glasgow

  513,945

  527,965

  537,454

  393,481

  93,387

  441,154

  Highland

  101,489

  104,525

  111,009

  82,916

  19,793

  94,050

  Lanarkshire

  300,227

  306,231

  309,381

  224,996

  48,213

  219,558

  Lothian

  458,153

  471,551

  490,115

  355,469

  85,992

  396,777

  Orkney

  8,147

  8,231

  8,598

  6,599

  1,968

  7,438

  Shetland

  5,551

  6,445

  7,604

  5,713

  1,832

  6,589

  Tayside

  268,986

  275,142

  284,822

  210,381

  47,108

  222,697

  Western Isles

  10,029

  9,347

  9,239

  6,116

  1,307

  7,553

  Scotland

  2,987,161

  3,052,917

  3,142,700

  2,293,232

  535,547

  2,484,539

  1 New contract for general dental services introduced on 1 October 1990.

  2 With effect from 1 April 1991 the method of collecting statistical information was changed to reflect financial years.

  3 January to September.

  4 October to December.

  Incomes
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to paragraph 1 of his letter of 20 January to Scottish hon. Members, what assessment he has made of the number of people in Scotland whose income will fall or remain constant in real terms during the coming year; and what proportion of these he classifies as being on a low wage.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has not made any assessment of the number of people in Scotland whose real income will fall or remain unchanged during the coming year. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend has not assessed the proportion on low wages, however defined.

  I note, however, that the independent forecasters, whose projections on the economy are regularly monitored by the Scottish Office Industry Department, expect that Scottish GDP will rise, on average, by 1·3 per cent. in 1993 and 2·3 per cent. in 1994. I am confident that this will be reflected in an overall rise in real incomes for the people of Scotland.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a breakdown of the planned expenditure on(a) new construction and improvement, (b) structural maintenance and (c) current maintenance on trunk roads by his Department for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mainly sheep

  Sheep and cattle

  Cash terms

  Adjusted for inflation

  Indices cash terms

  Adjusted for inflation

  Cash terms

  Adjusted for inflation

  Indices cash terms

  Adjusted for inflation

  Average 1989–90 to 1991–92= 100

  Average 1989–90 to 1991–92=100

  1978–79

  8,100

  21,500

  74

  184

  6,900

  18,400

  48

  120

  1979–80

  5,700

  16,200

  49

  106

  3,500

  8,200

  26

  56

  1980–81

  5,800

  11,300

  52

  97

  3,100

  6,100

  27

  51

  1981–82

  9,700

  17,200

  99

  163

  11,000

  19,400

  87

  144

  1982–83

  7,400

  13,400

  75

  115

  9,500

  15,600

  74

  113

  1983–84

  6,000

  9,400

  72

  106

  7,500

  11,700

  66

  97

  1984–85

  8,400

  12,600

  94

  132

  6,100

  9,100

  60

  84

  1985–86

  13,200

  19,600

  144

  190

  8,400

  11,900

  84

  111

  1986–87

  7,100

  9,700

  79

  101

  3,600

  4,900

  34

  43

  1987–88

  10,200

  13,300

  118

  146

  9,300

  12,000

  102

  125

  1988–89

  10,700

  13,300

  105

  122

  12,500

  15,500

  129

  150

  1989–90

  9,300

  10,800

  97

  105

  9,300

  10,800

  105

  113

  1990–91

  9,300

  9,700

  95

  93

  8,400

  8,800

  92

  91

  40
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: Planned expenditure on trunk roads in Scotland for the forward year 1993–94 in the following categories is as follows:

  1993–94 £ million

  New construction and improvement

  167·2

  Structural maintenance

  33·0

  Current maintenance

  30·6

  Corresponding figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are not yet available. The totals of (a) capital and (b) current planned expenditure on trunk roads in these years is as follows:

  1994–95 £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  Capital

  217

  225

  Current

  33

  34

  Disadvantaged Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the net farm income for sheep and sheep and cattle farms in severely disadvantaged areas, in both nominal and real terms, for each year since 1978.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: Estimates of net farm income based on results of sample surveys are provided in the following table. Indices are shown in the table based on results from constant samples of farms to allow reliable year to year comparisons.
  41

  Mainly sheep

  Sheep and cattle

  Cash terms

  Adjusted for inflation

  Indices cash terms

  Adjusted for inflation

  Cash terms

  Adjusted for inflation

  Indices cash terms

  Adjusted for inflation

  Average 1989–90 to 1991–92= 100

  Average 1989–90 to 1991–92=100

  1991–92

  9,600

  9,600

  108

  102

  10,500

  10,500

  102

  96

  1992–93

  11,600

  11,100

  131

  118

  11,300

  10,900

  111

  100

  1 Forecast.

  Source: Farm Accounts Scheme.

  Notes:

  1. Cash figures deflated by the retail price index, 1991–92 = 100.

  2. The levels of income have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. In 1983–84 the lower size limit for farms in the sample was reduced therefore the figures in 1983–84 and later are not fully comparable with earlier years.

  Lothian Health Board
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of(a) nursing and midwifery staff, (b) managerial staff and (c) clerical and administrative staff in Lothian health board in each year since 1989.

  Staff in Lothian health board at 30 September

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  (a) Headcount

  Nursing and midwifery2

  10,891

  10,577

  10,668

  10,592

  Managerial3 4

  93

  119

  135

  183

  Administrative and clerical

  2,607

  2,652

  2,659

  2,692

  (b) Whole time equivalent

  Nursing and midwifery2

  9,510·0

  9,219·9

  9,152·4

  9,012·9

  Managerial3 4

  93·0

  118·5

  135·0

  180·1

  Administrative and clerical

  2,180·9

  2,221·6

  2,220·2

  2,230·8

  1 Data for September 1992 are provisional.

  2 Nursing and midwifery includes qualified, unqualified and staff in training. The decrease in numbers between 1991 and 1992 are largely accounted for by the Project 2000 student nurses who are excluded from the 1992 figures.

  3 1989 figures include administrative and clerical staff on grade 18 and above. 1990–91 includes grades 7 and above.

  4 The increase in numbers in this group is partially accounted for by the transfer of some professional staff to senior manager grades.

  Red Deer
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which public, voluntary and private sector interests he and his officials have met in order to discuss their responses to the Government's 1991 consultation paper on red deer legislation; when such meetings took place; and what conclusions were drawn from the exercise.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 12 February 1993]: During 1992 my officials held meetings with representatives of the Association of Deer Management Groups, the British Deer Society, the Forestry Commission, the Red Deer Commission, the Scottish Landowners' Federation, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link and the World Wide Fund for Nature to discuss the review of deer legislation in the light of the responses to the consultation paper. I have also had subsequent discussions with the chairman of the Red Deer Commission. In the light of these meetings, and after scrutiny of all responses to the consultation paper, I announced on 21 December 1992 that I had asked the Red Deer Commission to give further consideration to the key points arising from the consultation exercise with a view to making detailed recommendations for possible legislative changes.
  42
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 12 February 1993]: The information requested is as follows:

PRIME MINISTER

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what provisions govern the imposition of no-smoking policies by operators of(a) trains, (b) aeroplanes, (c) buses and (d) taxis.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government believe that decisions on whether or not smoking should be permitted on public transport are a matter for the operators concerned.

  On the railways, British Rail has the power to ban smoking by virtue of British Rail byelaw 20. On the London Underground, smoking is banned under a London Transport byelaw made under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962, as amended by paragraph 5(1) of schedule 3 to the Transport (London) Act 1969 and section 37 of the Transport Act 1981.

  Under article 53 of the Air Navigation Order 1989, the commander of an aircraft is empowered to decide on whether passengers should or should not be allowed to smoke.

  Bus operators are entitled to ban smoking on their vehicles under section 6 of the Passenger Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors and Passengers) Regulations 1990.
  43
  There are no statutory provisions for taxi drivers to ban smoking in their vehicles. In line with their commitment in the "Health of the Nation" White Paper, the Government have undertaken to seek an opportunity to amend the relevant legislation to allow them to do so.

  Mercenaries
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Prime Minister what action the Government take to ensure that individuals known to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to have been mercenary soldiers to whom consular advice or assistance has been given are notified to the Ministry of Defence.

  The Prime Minister
  The Ministry of Defence would not expect the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to notify them routinely of individuals who had sought consular advice or assistance, unless there were reason to believe that the individual concerned might be a serving or former member of the armed forces.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to raise the matters of nuclear weapons testing, nuclear reprocessing and the international trade in nuclear explosive materials during his meeting with President Clinton on 24 February.

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to have wide ranging discussions with President Clinton and members of his Administration.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister how members of the public can contribute to the Scott inquiry.

  The Prime Minister
  Members of the public who have information to contribute to the inquiry may write direct to Lord Justice Scott at 1 Palace street, London, SW1E 5HE.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what resources Her Majesty's Government have made available to the Scott inquiry to pay for travel costs, overnight accommodation and subsistence of witnesses invited from(a) the United Kingdom and (b) abroad.

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Justice Scott will be provided with the resources that he considers necessary to conduct his inquiry.

  World Summit for Children
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Prime Minister what specific targets his Government are setting for itself in terms of allocating resources for clean water, sanitation and basic education, in light of agreements made at the world summit for children.

  The Prime Minister
  In the financial year 1991–92, one quarter of our bilateral aid to developing countries allocatable by sector was spent on clean water, sanitation and education.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Prime Minister what responsibilities the Department of Trade and Industry has for trade and industry in rural areas.
  44
  The Prime Minister
  The Department of Trade and Industry and its regional offices liaise closely in the delivery of services with other Government Departments and agencies where necessary. This includes the Department of the Environment which has responsibility for rural development policy and the Rural Development Commission.

  Coastal and Marine Issues
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will unify departmental responsibility for coastal and marine matters including incidents of oil pollution.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 February 1993]: No. The present division of responsibilities within Government for coastal and marine matters provides a comprehensive system of management. Coastal issues cannot be artificially isolated from the mainstream of policy-making across Government. Responsibility for preventing and responding to marine pollution lies clearly with the Department of Transport, which liaises with other Departments as appropriate.

  EC Regulations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with his EC partners concerning transfer of undertakings and protection of employment regulations.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 February 1993]: The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 implement the EC acquired rights directive 1977. The European Commission is expected to make proposals to revise the directive shortly.

  Departmental Library
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 551, what use has been made of the book by his Office; and what account the Government have taken of the substance of the final chapter of the book in considering possible prosecutions arising out of the case.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 February 1993]The matters discussed in the book are the subject of Lord Justice Scott's inquiry. It is necessary to await the judge's report and recommendations.

WALES

  Quangos
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each body in Wales run by a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation stating in respect of each of them the total budgeted public expenditure for 1992–93 and 1993–94 for which they are responsible.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There are 16 executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Welsh Office. They are listed in the following table which shows original plans for the current year, and planned expenditure for 1993–94 (where appropriate, expenditure is shown in both gross and net terms).
  45

  Welsh Office Executive NDPBs

  £ million

  Non-departmental Public Body (NDPB)

  1992–93 Plans

  1993–94 Plans

  Welsh Development Agency

  Gross

  166·8

  171·4

  Net

  75·7

  61·6

  Development Board for Rural

  Gross

  23·6

  25·4

  Wales

  Net

  15·8

  16·3

  Cardiff Bay Development

  Gross

  40·0

  53·0

  Corporation

  Net

  35·1

  45·0

  Wales Tourist Board

  Gross

  15·4

  15·3

  Net

  13·5

  13·7

  National Museum of Wales

  Gross

  15·0

  15·6

  Net

  14·0

  14·1

  National Library of Wales

  Gross

  5·8

  6·4

  Net

  5·7

  6·2

  Sports Council for Wales

  Gross

  8·2

  8·9

  Net

  5·8

  6·4

  Land Authority for Wales

  Gross

  9·5

  13·0

  Net

  1Nil

  1Nil

  Housing for Wales2

  Gross

  132·4

  139·6

  Net

  124·4

  132·1

  Countryside Council for Wales

  Gross

  17·3

  19·9

  Net

  17·3

  19· 8

  Curriculum Council for Wales

  1·6

  1·4

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting3

  Gross

  9·9

  1·6

  Net

  9·8

  1·5

  Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales

  1·2

  1·1

  Further Education Funding Council4

  2·0

  143·3

  Higher Education Funding Counci4

  0·5

  179·0

  Wales Youth Agency

  0·4

  0·4

  1 The Land Authority's activities are funded by self-generated resources, supported by borrowing.

  2 Figures include special needs management allowance, but exclude capitalised interest, tax relief grants and local authority transfers.

  3 The decrease in provision from 1992–93 to 1993–94 reflects that from 1 April 1993, new arrangements for funding education and training will operate as the Welsh National Board ceases to be responsible for funding the salaries of teachers following changes introduced by the

  Facilities registered with Social Services Departments offering treatment and/or rehabilitation care for people who are lcohol and/or drug dependent

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Dyfed

  Place

  —

  —

  23

  23

  29

  29

  Residents

  —

  —

  21

  23

  23

  27

  Gwent

  Place

  —

  —

  19

  19

  19

  19

  Residents

  —

  —

  13

  17

  16

  11

  Gwynedd

  Place

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  7

  Residents

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  6

  Mid Glamorgan

  Place

  12

  12

  12

  12

  12

  12

  Residents

  12

  9

  12

  9

  11

  9

  South Glamorgan

  Place

  24

  40

  40

  24

  24

  24

  Residents

  14

  39

  33

  21

  18

  18

  Wales

  Place

  36

  52

  94

  78

  91

  91

  Residents

  26

  48

  79

  70

  72

  71

  46

  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1992.

  4 The increase in provision from 1992–93 to 1993–94 reflects that from 1 April 1993 the Funding Councils take on their full responsibilities.

  Information and Publicity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of the printing contracts won by the Wilprint Group in each financial year since 1988–89.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The value of all contracts awarded to the Wilprint Group by the Welsh Office for financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90 can be supplied only at disproportionate cost. The figures for succeeding years are:

  £

  1990–91

  255,266

  1991–92

  157,356

  1992–93

  46,470

  Drug and Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many residential places have been made available within specialist residential units for drug and alcohol abusers in Wales, as a whole and according to each local authority area, during each of the last 10 years;

  (2) how many patients have been treated at residential specialist units for drug and alcohol abusers in Wales in each of the last 10 years, according to each local authority areas.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available in the form requested. The following table gives details of places, and patients present on 31 March, in each year for which the information is available, in residential facilities registered with county social service departments offering places specifically for the treatment and/or rehabilitation of drug and alcohol misusers. It does not include in-patient facilities at medical establishments.
  47
  Note:

  There were no facilities registered with Social Services Departments offering treatment and/or rehabilitation for people who are alcohol and/or drug dependent in Clwyd, Powys and West Glamorgan.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of the Welsh Development Agency's annual gross budget met by grant-in-aid in each year since 1986, as to(a) planned budget and (b) outturn.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Year

  Percentage of WDA 's planned gross budget met by grant-in-aid

  Percentage of WDA's gross outturn met by grant-in-aid

  1986–87

  41·3

  44·0

  1987–88

  60·5

  53·0

  1988–89

  54·8

  53·8

  1989–90

  53·5

  52·3

  1990–91

  54·1

  54·4

  1991–92

  54·5

  55·1

  1992–93

  44·9

  144·9

  1 Figure based on forecast outturn.

  M4 (Bypass)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of the completion date of the M4 Brynglas tunnels bypass schemes; and what provision has been made for penalty payments if the contracts are not completed on time.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The current contract completion date is August 1994. The conditions of contract for this scheme contain the normal provision for financial payments to the Department for late completion.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to make a statement on the Welsh Economic Council consequent upon his receipt of the formal response from the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 11 February 1993, at column 731.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been employed in public transport in Wales in each year since 1979 by(a) bus services, (b) train services and (c) other.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Levels of employment in public transport' in Wales are given in the following table. Figures are available only for years when a census of employment was carried out and the results prior to 1981 are not comparable with later years. Separate figures for road and rail services are not available.
  48

  September

  Employees in employment

  1981

  16,700

  1984

  13,800

  1987

  12,400

  1989

  13,100

  Source: Employment Department

  1 Scheduled road passenger transport, urban railways, freight and passenger railways. (Standard Industrial Classifications) (Revised) 1989: 7100 and 7210)

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of(a) bus services and (b) train services in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on the numbers of bus and train services in Wales is not available. The numbers of vehicle kilometres covered by local (stage) bus services for each year since 1982 are given in the following table:

  Local (Stage) Bus Services1

  Year

  Local (stage) bus services (million vehicle kilometres)

  1982

  106

  1983

  106

  1984

  105

  1985–86

  95

  1986–87

  94

  1987–88

  105

  1988–89

  118

  1989–90

  119

  1990–91

  123

  1991–92

  120

  Source: Department of Transport.

  1 Estimates for 1982 to 1984 are derived from various sources and may be less reliable than those for later years. Figures are based on sample surveys and are approximate. Data refer to the year end up to 1984 and to the annual average from 1985–86.

  Water
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the sites proposed to him for classification as sensitive areas under the EC directive on urban waste water treatment, including the proposing body, by reason of(a) eutrophication and (b) inland water with a nitrate concentration greater than 50 mg/l.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The urban waste water treatment directive requires member states to identify sensitive areas, in accordance with the criteria set out in the directive, by 31 December this year. The National Rivers Authority is at present compiling final lists of possible sensitive areas which it will submit to the Welsh Office for consideration. An announcement about the location of the areas to be formally identified as sensitive will be made before the deadline imposed in the directive.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about his monitoring of the effectiveness of the citizens charters issued to date.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Each public sector organisation publishes information about its performance against its charter standards. A full account of overall progress was given in the "Citizen's Charter First Report" (Cm. 2101).

  Market Testing
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the savings resulting from the Government's market testing programme will be made available for reinvestment in the public services.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  All of the savings can be ploughed back. This means more public services, at no extra cost. This is very good news for the taxpayer; and for the economy as a whole.

  Open Government
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he has made towards more open government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made progress on many fronts, and will follow up with further proposals in a White Paper later this year.

EDUCATION

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the further education colleges in England which run special transition courses for school leavers with learning difficulties; and what plans his Department has to promote the establishing of more of these courses.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government recognise the part which link courses play in the transition from school to further education for pupils with learning difficulties. There is no central list of transition arrangements. We have promoted, through guidance to schools and further education colleges, the importance of transition arrangements, including link courses.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many nursery places have been lost through school closures in the primary sector in 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the effects of school closures on nursery places is not collected centrally in the form requested. The number of full-time and part-time pupils attending maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in England increased from 318,000 in January 1991 to 330,000 in January 1992.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines are issued to local education 50
  authorities in connection with reducing surplus places in the primary sector to protect (a) nursery places and (b) purpose-built nursery resources.

  Mr. Forth
  No specific guidelines have been issued. It is initially for LEAs to decide in the light of local circumstances the most appropriate means of rationalising school provision. We would expect LEAs to consult all interested parties before deciding on such action.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the total number of(a) full-time nursery teachers and (b) part-time nursery teachers in state schools for each year since 1982.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the numbers of qualified nursery teachers in nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in England in January of each year from 1982 to 1992 are shown in the table.

  Qualified teachers in nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools

  Full-time teachers

  Full-time equivalent of part-time teachers

  1992

  6,815

  492·1

  1991

  6,851

  434·5

  1990

  6,784

  364·8

  1989

  6,674

  291·1

  1988

  6,687

  240·5

  1987

  6,460

  259·3

  1986

  6,333

  220·0

  1985

  6,205

  186·6

  1984

  6,094

  167·1

  1983

  6,113

  152·8

  1982

  5,989

  150·3

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the names of schools in each local education authority which have opted out of local education authorities and have not repaid debts to their local education authorities; and what estimate he has made of the total amount of unpaid debts.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not keep the information centrally. It is the duty of the Education Assets Board to identify the liabilities which transfer to grant-maintained schools and such matters need to be looked at on a case by case basis. All schools, including grant-maintained schools, should keep within their budgets.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) when he will announce his decision on the application by Grays school, Essex, for grant-maintained status;

  (2) when he will announce his decision on the application by William Edwards school, Grays, Essex, for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has today announced that he has approved the applications of both Grays school and William Edwards school, with minor modifications to their admission arrangements. They will become self-governing state schools (grant-maintained) on 1 April 1993.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide figures for the reduction in numbers of posts as a result of contracting out since 1979 in his Department and agencies for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Boswell
  Since 1979 the reduction in the number of posts in the Department as a result of contracting out is some 28.

  Statutory Instruments
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by his Department in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of statutory instruments laid before Parliament by the Department for the years 1980 to 1992 are as follows:

  Number

  1980

  23

  1981

  24

  1982

  15

  1983

  24

  1984

  12

  1985

  16

  1986

  12

  1987

  23

  1988

  38

  1989

  67

  1990

  50

  1991

  53

  1992

  49

  Special Needs Education
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines are issued to local education authorities in connection with reducing surplus places in schools to protect integrated special needs facilities.

  Mr. Forth
  Circular 3/87, "Providing for Quality", reminded LEAs of the considerations in relation to special needs that they would need to take into account when considering the rationalisation of school provision. Copies of circular 3/87 are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pre-school and nursery school children are undergoing formal assessments for special educational needs in each local education authority area.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Business Names
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those business names, including either of the words university or polytechnic, on the use of which his opinion has been sought under the Business Names Act 1985, with an indication where possible of whether approval has been given.

  Mr. Boswell
  The following business names which include either "university" or "polytechnic" have been approved under the Business Names Act 1985 following the consent of the Secretary of State:52

  University Holidays

  Liverpool University China Business Consultancy

  Somerset University

  Eula Wesley University USA

  Records of other names on which the Secretary of State's opinion has been sought under the Business Names Act 1985 could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Research Units
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he had recently had with directors of university-based research units on the current status of advanced research in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Boswell
  Ministers have had no such discussions recently. The assessment of the quality of research in universities has been the responsibility of the Universities Funding Council (UFC). the UFC's 1992 assessment exercise shows that the average rating of UFC-funded universities has increased since the last assessment in 1989.

  Cash Limits
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes he plans to announce to cash limits on votes within his responsibility for 1992–93.

  Mr. Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 February 1993, columns 275–76]: The revised cash limit for my Department's administration vote, class XI, vote 4, for 1992–93 is –109,994,000, not –110,994,000.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Statutory Instruments
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by his Department in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  1980

  121

  1981

  102

  1982

  79

  1983

  94

  1984

  70

  198S

  85

  1986

  66

  1987

  76

  1988

  104

  1989

  110

  1990

  114

  1991

  131

  1992

  189

  1 This figure includes SIs relating to the former Department of Energy. Sls laid in earlier years by Department of Energy are not readily available.

  Slovenia
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade why the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology visited Slovenia recently; what contacts he made there; what opportunities for future trade he found; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  I visited Slovenia at the invitation of the Government of Slovenia. I held useful talks with Ministers
  53
  of the new Government of Slovenia on ways to strengthen British Slovenian trade links; I also met representatives of the Slovenian business community. Slovenia is keen to increase trade and commercial links with the United Kingdom. In the first instance the most promising sectors look to be chemicals, information technology and telecommunications.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide figures for the reduction in numbers of posts as a result of contracting out since 1979 in his Department and agencies for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested has not been systematically recorded. Since 1979 the number of staff in the Department of Trade and Industry or its predecessor Departments has fallen from over 18,000 to under 12,000. How much of this reduction came as a result of contracting out is not centrally recorded.

  Electricity
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 568, what arrangements, other than the state aid inherent in the fossil fuel levy, were notified to the European Commission in the course of the electricity privatisation exercise.

  Mr. Eggar
  The other arrangements notified to the European Commission in the course of the eleclricity privatisation exercise in England and Wales were:the Regional Electricity Companies' agreement with Nuclear Electric forming part of the qualifying arrangements to meet the Nuclear Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation;
  the coal purchase contracts between the British Coal Corporation and National Power and PowerGen;
  the qualifying arrangements to meet the renewables Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation, and the arrangements relating to the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency Lid.;
  the Grid and Distribution Codes;
  the arrangements involving Electricité de France;
  the British Grid Systems Agreement;
  the Pooling and Settlement Agreement;
  the Master Connection and Use of System Agreement and the connection and use of system agreements;
  the initial contracts for differences.

  Fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what figure he has agreed with the European Commission on the level of state aid inherent in the fossil fuel levy.

  Mr. Eggar
  In giving state aids clearance to the fossil fuel levy, the Commission took broad account of the premium payments that would be made under the contract between Nuclear Electric and the regional electricity companies.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made in his review of coal and energy policy of the change in value of property bought by British Coal Opencast in the Pw11 Du area.
  54
  Mr. Eggar
  None. Assessment of changes in the value of British Coal properties is not included in the terms of reference of the coal review.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the assessment of the cost of pumping at Westoe, Vane Tempest and Easington collieries.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  EC Funds
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much more sterling is available to the United Kingdom from the European social fund and European regional development fund as a result of the fall in the exchange rate.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Payments in ecu from the funds are received at frequent but irregular intervals. Each is converted to sterling at the exchange rate on the date of receipt. Also, in the case of the European social fund, annual programmes are not finally valued in ecu until the date of submission of the final account of expenditure, some 18 months after the start of the programme. No single figure can therefore be given.

  Radioactive Materials
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now prevent plutonium from being flown out of Carlisle airport by British Nuclear Fuels Limited; and if he will hold a public inquiry into the use of Carlisle airport for the transport of radioactive materials.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: No. In its report on the transport of civil plutonium by air, the independent Advisory Committee on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (November 1988) assessed that, on extremely pessimistic assumptions involving a severe crash in a suburban area, the radiological risks from carrying such material would be less than one fatality in 50 years. This is much lower than the likely casualties arising from the impact of the aircraft itself.

  Post Office (Privatisation)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans he has, as part of his Post Office privatisation proposals, to sell off Parcelforce and Royal Mail as a single unit;

  (2) what plans he has, as part of his Post Office privatisation proposals, to keep the counters business in the public sector.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 12 February 1993]: No decision has been taken to privatise the Post Office. Therefore, I have no such plans.

EMPLOYMENT

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will provide figures for the reduction in numbers of posts as a result of contracting out since 1979 in her Department and agencies for which she has responsibility.
  55
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not retained in a form that would allow such an analysis without disproportionate cost.

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the merchant shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom in(a) 1974, (b) 1979 and (c)

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Merchant shipbuilding forms part of the shipbuilding and repairing industry (activity heading 3610 of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980). Estimates for dates nearest to those specified are as follows:

  Employees in the shipbuilding and repairing industry in Great Britain1

  Thousands

  June 1974

  146

  June 1979

  135

  September 1989

  51

  1 Not seasonally adjusted.

  Figures from the September 1991 census of employment will be available in April.

  Allocations

  1990 £

  1991 £

  1992 £

  1993 £

  Local Authorities

  49,251,200

  60,500,000

  59,000,000

  83,450,000

  Voluntary Sector

  18,897,000

  21,000,000

  21,000,000

  31,800,000

  Higher Education

  14,691,080

  17,000,000

  16,780,000

  22,000,000

  Industry Training Organisations

  6,584,090

  3,000,000

  3,000,000

  6,000,000

  TEC/LEC

  618,330

  4,000,000

  8,000,000

  13,000,000

  Government

  142,500,000

  157,500,000

  150,400,000

  209,800,000

  1990 £

  1991 £

  Claims

  Local Authorities

  —

  55,114,200

  Voluntary Sector

  —

  18,885,400

  Higher Education

  —

  16,247,000

  Industry Training Organisations

  —

  3,104,700

  TEC/LEC

  —

  1,213,000

  Government

  156,700,700

  Total

  209,665,990

  251,265,000

  Information for 1990 broken down by sector could be obtained only by manual analysis and therefore at disproportionate cost.

  Details of final claims for 1992 do not have to be submitted to the Commission until June 1993.

  All moneys allocated in 1990 and 1991 which were not taken up in those years were carried forward for use in 1991 and 1992 respectively.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Croham directive applies to the availability of the report recently commissioned by the Employment Department on the use of technical assistance moneys under the European social fund.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Croham directive is not applicable to the availability of the report mentioned by the hon. Member.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what increase in European social fund moneys is available to the United Kingdom under objectives 2, 3 and 4 as a result of the rise in value of the ecu since 16 September 1992.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Industry.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list(a) the amounts of European social fund allocations to each European social fund sector under each of the objectives 3 and 4 operational programmes, (b) the amounts claimed by each European social fund sector under each of the objectives 3 and 4 operational programmes and (c) what has happened to funds allocated under these programmes but not claimed, for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The amounts of European social fund money initially allocated to and claimed by the organisational sectors covered by objectives 3 and 4 are provided in the following tables.

  Training for Work
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines she has issued, or intends to issue, to training and enterprise councils regarding training for work.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Since the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 12 November 1992 in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth),Official Report, column 903–4, an initial briefing note on training for work, and a further note covering the initiative in more detail have been issued to training and enterprise councils. The planning guidance to TECs for 1993–94 set out the requirements for training for work and a draft version of the TEC operating agreement for 1993–94 has been issued. Regional presentations on the new initiative have been given to TECs. The contractual requirements for running training for work are comprehensively set out in the 1993–94 TEC operating agreement which will be issued shortly.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish a table showing the destination of leavers from youth training schemes in London, giving the most recent figures, and figures for each earlier period since the scheme began to operate.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is given in the following table.
  57

  Youth training outcomes in London Leavers during April 1986 to March 1992

  per cent.

  April 1986 to March 1987

  April 1987 to March 1988

  April 1988 to March 1989

  April 1989 to March 1990

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Total in a job

  58

  66

  71

  66

  52

  39

  (same employer)

  (10)

  (21)

  (32)

  (31)

  (24)

  (21)

  (different employer)

  (44)

  (40)

  (35)

  (31)

  (23)

  (13)

  (self-employed)

  (2)

  (2)

  (2)

  (2)

  (4)

  (1)

  (part-time up to 30 hours)

  (3)

  (3)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (3)

  On another training programme

  10

  8

  6

  6

  7

  7

  On a full-time course

  4

  4

  4

  5

  8

  9

  Doing something else

  4

  3

  3

  4

  7

  7

  Unemployed

  23

  18

  14

  16

  25

  34

  Not answered

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  Notes: Percentage may not total 100 due to independent rounding

  Figures in brackets may not equal 'Total in a job' due to independent rounding

  Percentages shown as a proportion of total number of questionnaire responses

  Source: YT Follow-up Servey

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish a table showing for Greater London the numbers of people employed in September of each year since 1988 in the retail and distribution sector; and what separate figures she has for the numbers employed in retailing, wholesaling, and transport, and other distributive services.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Estimates for the retail distribution sector and wholesaling for September 1988 and all the industries specified for September 1989 are available from the NOMIS database in the Library. For later dates the estimates are aggregated with other industries and cannot be provided separately. Figures for the industries specified will be available when the September 1991 census of employment results are published in April.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish a table showing, for Greater London, the numbers of people employed in September of each year since 1988 in the finance and business services sector; and what separate figures she has for the numbers employed in banking, credit granting institutions, insurance, accountancy and management consultancy, legal services, software services, property services, and international and equity markets.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Estimates for the finance and business services sector for all the dates specified are available from the NOMIS database in the Library. Estimates for software services and international and equity markets are not available. The other industries listed are available from NOMIS, for September 1988 and September 1989. Figures for all the industries specified will be available when the September 1991 census of employment results are published in April.

  Biofuel Industry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the United Kingdom are currently employed in the biofuel industry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are no figures available. The biofuel industry has been interpreted to mean the production of liquid transport fuels from biomass crops —such as rapeseed oil.

DEFENCE

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implication of the START II treaty on the price and specifications of Trident missiles purchased from the United States of America.

  Mr. Aitken
  The START II treaty has no such implications.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether Trident missile service units are designed for removing nuclear warheads from missiles on board Trident submarines;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the function of Trident missile service units;

  (3) how many Trident missile service units have been ordered from Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. for service at RNAD Coulport.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Trident missile service unit is designed to provide an environmentally controlled working area for the removal and installation of nuclear warheads from Trident missiles on-board Vanguard class submarines. Three missile service units have been ordered.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether it is intended to remove nuclear warheads from Trident missiles on land or while on board Trident submarines;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the procedures to be used for loading and unloading nuclear warheads on to and from Trident missiles and the hazards associated with these procedures.

  Mr. Aitken
  Installation and removal of United Kingdom nuclear warheads is planned to take place only when Trident missiles are on-board Vanguard class submarines. We envisage that United Kingdom procedures to install and remove warheads will mirror approved United States practice; the United Kingdom safety assessment is expected to endorse these procedures.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to include within the terms of reference of the new examination of the bids by Rosyth and Devonport for repair and refitting of Trident
  59
  submarines the matters of direct revenue and capital costs, and local social and economic factors in each area as well as technical capability; if he will arrange for an element of scrutiny independent from the officers of his Department directly involved; and if he will publish the detailed assessment and report on the comparative bids.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All relevant factors will be taken into account in our considerations, which continue to draw on a wide range of expertise including that of specialist consultants. Once we have formulated proposals these will be announced to the House, and we will release as much information as possible, subject to the constraints of commercial confidentiality and security.

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many technical projects at his Department's chemical and biological establishment at Porton Down have been funded by the United States Department of Defence since 1963; what has been the total worth of these projects; and what were the aims of these projects;

  (2) how many personnel from the United States Department of Defence have been stationed on a permanent basis at the Ministry of Defence's chemical and biological warfare establishment since 1963; and for what purpose and under which specific defence agreement these postings were arranged.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  These are matters for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993:
  Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many technical projects at his Department's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have been funded by the United States Department of Defense since 1963; what has been the total worth of these projects; and what were the aims of these projects (Question 8, Order Paper 5 February 1993) and what funding the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment will receive from the United States Department of Defense for research in the near future (Question 24, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  I would refer you to my letter of 16 July 1992 in reply to your Parliamentary Question asking how many research projects at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down have been funded by the United States Department of Defense since 1979 and their total worth (Question 24, Order Paper 15 July 1992) in which I said that there have been no research projects at CDDE Porton Down directly funded by the United States Department of Defense. I also said that CBDE had recently been tasked to carry out work under the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Strategic Defence Initiative which is being funded by the US Department of Defense through the SDI Participation Office in London. The value of that work at CBDE in the current financial year is £1·59M.
  Since my letter to you of 16 July 1992, we have been awarded a contract from the United States Department of Defense to support the UK programme in aid of a NATO Project Group tasked with selecting a commercially available anti-emetic drug to protect servicemen against nuclear radiation induced nausea and vomiting. The value of this work is £250K.
  60
  The aims of these projects are as follows:

  (a) The work in support of the Strategic Defence Initiative is to improve the effectiveness of such defences against the threat of chemical or biological weapons.

  (b) The anti-emetic work is to improve the protection of servicemen against nuclear radiation induced nausea and vomiting.

  Insofar as the future is concerned, it is not possible to estimate what future funding this Establishment will receive from the US Department of Defense as the annual defence budget in the United States is subject to extensive review and the outcome depends on the US Government and Congressional reviews of the budget.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) under which defence agreement information from the defence microbiology division of the chemical and biological defence establishment has been exchanged with the United States of America; to which United States governmental establishments this information has been passed; when this information was first exchanged; and with which other countries information from the defence microbiology division has been exchanged;

  (2) what is the primary purpose of the Defence Microbiology Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; when it was set up; how many staff are in the division; and in which publications and on what dates scientists in the Defence Microbiology Division published their research findings during 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  These are matters for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993:

  1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what is the primary purpose of the Defence Microbiology Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; when it was set up; how many staff are in the Division; and in which publications and on what date scientists in the Defence Microbiology Division published their research findings during 1991 (Question 26 Order Paper 5 February 1993) and under which defence agreement information from the Defence Microbiology Division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has been exchanged with the United States of America; to which United States governmental establishments this information has been passed; when this information was first exchanged and with which other countries information from the Defence Microbiology Division has been exchanged (Question 10, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The primary purpose of the Defence Microbiology Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down is to carry out work on defence against pathogenic micro-organisms and toxins that are assessed to present a threat to the United Kingdom Armed Forces. The work of this Division contributes to the United Kingdom programme on chemical and biological defence which is aimed at ensuring that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. The Defence Microbiology Division was set up in 1979 when the Microbiological Research Establishment was transferred to the Public Health Laboratory Service and became the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. At that date, the then Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down took on the responsibility for biological

  61
  defence. Currently, the Division has 44 staff. A list of the research publications for scientists in the Defence Microbiology Division in 1991 is as follows:

  The monitoring and detection of Bacillus anthracis in the environment. J. Appl. Bacteriol., Special Supplement, 1991 20:9S-18S.

  Toxicity of Clostridium perfringens alpha-toxin is dependent on a domain homologous to an enzyme from the human arachidonic acid pathway. Infect. Immun. 1991 59:1872–1874.

  Development of a detection test for Herpesvirus simiae (B virus) using the polymerase chain reaction, patent application GB 9102157·6 1991.

  Epitope mapping of the alpha-toxin of Clostridium perfringens. Infect. Immun. 1991. 59:4338–4342.

  Quantitative and qual-itative analysis of airborne spora. Grana. 1991. 30:407–408.

  Microorganisms in Aerobiology. Grana. 1991. 30:17. Roles of Maillard Reactions in Diseases. 1991. HMSO Publications.

  Evaluation of a small-scale method for the extraction of the K88 antigen from Escherichia coll. FEMS Microbiol. Letts. 1991. 78:81–84.

  Production and characterisation of monoclonal antibodies directed against the lipopolysaccharide of Francisella tularensis. J.Clin. Microbiol. 29:1407–1412.

  4. Insofar as the exchange of information with the United States of America is concerned, I would refer you to my letter of 10 August 1992 in response to your Parliamentary Question asking under what defence agreement information from the Defence Microbiology Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, is passed to the United States Department of Defence (Question 9, Order Paper 16 July 1992). In that response I referred you to the reply of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the Right Honourable Archie Hamilton, MP, of 21 May 1992, Official Report, Columns 255–256 which indicated that there are a number of agreements with NATO allies covering research, development, deployment and standardisation of chemical and biological defence equipment. The purpose of these agreements is to exchange information and to promote co-operation and collaboration with our allies in the field of chemical and biological defence. The work of the Defence Microbiological Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down contributes to the United Kingdom programme on chemical and biological defence and such information is exchanged with the United States Department of Defence under the agreements listed in the reply of 21 May 1992.

  5. The United States Governmental Establishments to which this information has been passed include the following:

  a. The United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseas, Fort Detrick, Maryland.

  b. The US Army Chemical Research Development and Engineering Center at Edgewood, Maryland (now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defence Agency and the US Edgewood Development and Engineering Center).

  c. The US Army Chemical School at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

  In addition, information has been exchanged from time to time with the appropriate US Navy and US Air Force establishments as well as with the Department of Defence in Washington DC. Most of the collaboration and information exchange has taken place with the US Army as they have the lead US responsibility for chemical and biological defence.
  The information from the Defence Microbiology Division has been exchanged since its establishment in [979. Information from the Defence Microbiology Division has also been exchanged with the other allied nations identified in the reply of 21 May 1992, Official Report, Columns 255–256.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests and studies his Department has conducted on the chemical agents bromacil, monuron and 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid; when these tests and studies were carried out; whether they were carried out on 62
  humans; and whether the results of these tests and studies have been passed on to the United States Department of Defence.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The substances bromacil, monuron and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic are commercially available herbicides and not chemical agents. Our records indicate that no work has been carried out on bromacil or monuron; 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid was, however, used operationally in Malaya in the 1950s. Details are available on files held by the Public Records Office.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department produced the nerve agent VX; where it was produced; for what purpose; and in what quantity;

  (2) how the results of the collaborative programme between his Department and the United States Department of Defence on the thermal stability and analytical research of VX nerve gas were used by the United States Department of Defence; in what year these collaborative programmes ended; and what United States military establishments took part in these programmes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  These matters are for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993:

  1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him when his Department produced the nerve agent VX; where it was produced; for what purpose; and in what quantity (Question 14, Order Paper 5 February 1993) and how the results of the collaborative programmes between his Department and the United States Department of Defense on the thermal stability and analytical research of VX nerve gas were used by the United States Department of Defense; in what year these collaborative programmes ended; and what United States military establishments took part in these programmes (Question 28, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to have available small quantities of the materials which may be used as chemical or biological warfare agents by a potential aggressor.

  3. VX was first synthesised on a laboratory scale in the early 1950s and subsequently produced in appropriate quantities for the research carried out into its toxicological characteristics, thermal stability and analytical research. Synthesis has been carried out at the then Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down and at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Nancekuke, Cornwall.

  4. The purpose of producing VX was stated in my letter to you of 10 August 1992 replying to your Parliamentary Question asking in which years the Department of Defence's scientists carried out studies and tests on quantities of VX nerve gas prepared by the United States of America, what was the purpose of these tests and studies and how many British Service personnel have been subjected to tests involving VX nerve gas (Question 26, Order Paper 14 July 1992). As I indicated in that letter, the purpose of the tests and studies of VX, although initially to assist the UK programme into producing nerve agents, was subsequently to evaluate the potential threat to the UK Armed Forces should an aggressor produce and use the nerve agent VX. The UK programme into offensive CW was abandoned in the late 1950s and since

  63
  then our work has been wholly concerned with the provision of effective protective measures. No studies involving British Service personnel have been carried out using VX nerve agent.

  5. In respect of the quantity of the nerve agent VX, I would refer you to my letter of 10 August 1992 in answer to your parliamentary question asking what quantity of VX nerve gas is currently stocked by his Department (Question 12, Order Paper 14 July 1992). In that I stated that small quantities of the nerve agent, VX, are held at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment in order to enable us to carry out our work to ensure that the protective measures for the UK Armed Forces are effective. It would not be in the national interest to disclose the precise quantity of VX nerve gas; it is, however, a small quantity and is very much less than the aggregate quantity of chemical warfare agents that will be permitted to be held for protective purposes under the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention that opened for signature in Paris on 13–15 January 1993.

  6. The way in which the results of the collaborative programmes and information exchnage between the Ministry of Defence and the United States Department of Defence on the thermal stability and analytical research of VX nerve gas were used by the United States Department of Defence is a matter for the United States Government. Insofar as the duration of these collaborative programmes and information exchange is concerned, I would refer you to the reply given by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, MP of 16 July 1992, Official Report, Column 936, which stated that research information had been exchanged on a continuing basis on the potential hazard from chemical and biological agents including VX nerve gas under the agreements listed in the reply of 21 May 1992, Official Repot, Columns 255–256 concerning international agreements on chemical and biological defence.

  7. The United States military establishments that took part in this information exchange and collaboration were primarily the US Army Chemical Research Development and Engineering Center At Edgewood Arsenal, now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defence Agency and the Edgewood Research Development and Engineering Center, and the US Army Medical Research Institute for Chemical Defence also located at Edgewood, Maryland. Most collaboration has taken place with the US Army as they are the US lead agency for chemical and biological defence.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the lodger units at the chemical defence and biological defence establishment referred to on page 11 of the establishment's latest annual report.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livinstone, dated 15 February 1993.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking which are the lodger units at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, referred to on page II of the Establishment's latest Annual Report (Question 15, Order Paper 5 February 1993) has been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The lodger units at CBDE referred to on page 11 of the 1991/92 Annual Reports and Accounts were:

  a. Hunting Engineering Ltd

  b. Royal Ordnance Plc who have now left the site

  In addition, receipts are received for services provided to two colocated units at Porton Down.

  c. The Department of Health

  d. The Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many staff from his Department's chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down have been stationed on a permanent basis at United 64
  States Department of Defence establishments and for what purpose; and at which United States Department of Defence establishments they were;

  (2) under which defence agreements the chemical and biological defence establishment arranged the current visit of the United States Navy scientist for a collaborative project to improve detection capabilities; and from which United States defence establishment this scientist came;

  (3) what funding the chemical and biological defence establishment will receive from the United States Department of Defence for research in the near future.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  These matters are for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993:

  1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many staff from his Department's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have been stationed on a permanent basis at United States Department of Defense Establishments and for what purpose; and at which United States Department of Defense Establishments they were (Question 16, Order Paper, 5 February 1993), how many personnel from the United States Department of Defense have been stationed on a permanent basis at the Ministry of Defence's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1963; and for what purpose and under which specific defence agreements these posting were arranged (Question 31, Order Paper 5 February 1993) and under which defence agreements the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment arranged the current visit of the Unites States Navy scientist for collaborative project to improve detection capabilities; and from which United States Defense Establishment this came (Question 23, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. Our records do not allow us to readily determine the numbers of staff stationed in the United States or at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment over an extended period. During the past nine years, three members of staff from the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have been stationed for an extended period at United States Department of Defense Establishments to carry out collaborative work in the field of chemical and biological defence. The United States Department of Defense Establishments were the US Army Chemical Research, Development and Engineering Center located at Edgewood, Maryland (now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defense Agency and the US Army Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Centre) and the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

  3. Over the same period four United States Department of Defense personnel have been stationed for extended periods at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. These attachments have been to carry out collaborative research in chemical and biological defence under the defence agreements identified in the reply by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the Rt. Hon. Archie Hamilton, MP of 21 May 1992, Official Report, columns 255–256.

  4. The current visit of the United States Navy scientist for a collaborative project to improve the detection capabilities was arranged under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence between the UK, US and Canada pending agreement of a bilateral arrangement with the US Navy. This scientist came from the United States Navy Medical Research and Development Command in Bethesda, Maryland.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which United States Department of Defence establishments have sent staff on visits to his Department's
  65
  chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down in each year since 1979; under which specific defence agreements these visits have been organised; and which other United States Government departments and agencies have visited Porton Down during this period;

  (2) how many staff from the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down have visited United States Department of Defence establishments in each year since 1979; what was the purpose of these visits; which United States Department of Defence establishments they visited; which grade were the staff; and whether the visits included academic working for his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  These are matters for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993:

  1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking which United States Department of Defense Establishments have sent staff on visits to his Department's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down in each year since 1979; under which specific defence agreements these visits have been organised; and which other United States Government Departments and Agencies have visited Porton Down during this period (Question 20, Order Paper 5 February 1993) and how many staff from the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton have visited United States Department of Defense Establishments in each year since 1979; what was the purpose of these visits; which United States Department of Defense Establishments they visited; which grade were the staff; and whether the visits included academics working for his Department (Question 37, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The principal United States Department of Defense Establishments which have sent staff on visits to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down are:

  a. The US Army Chemical Research, Development and Engineering Center at Edgewood, Maryland (now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defense Agency and the Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Center).

  b. The US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

  c. The US Army Medical Research Institute for Chemical Defense at Edgewood, Maryland.

  d. The US Army Chemical School at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

  e. The Department of Defense at the Pentagon.

  3. In addition, representatives occasionally visit the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment from the US Navy, US Air Force and other Defense Establishments. Most visits are made by representatives fro the Department of Defense in Washington DC and from the US Army Establishments as the US Army have the lead responsibility in the US for chemical and biological defense.

  4. The specific defence agreements under which these visits have been organised are those referred to in the reply by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, The Rt. Hon. Archie Hamilton, MP, of 21 May 1992, Official Report, Columns 255–256. Occasionally visits are made to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment by other representatives of the United States Government from time to time. These include the State Department and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

  5. In respect of visits by staff from the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down to the United States Department of Defence Establishments, we do not maintain records in a way that enables us to identify how many staff have visited United States Department of Defence
  66
  Establishments in each year since 1979. In the last five years the following are the number of CBDE personnel who have visited the United States of America on official duty:

  Number

  1988–89

  36

  1989–90

  35

  1990–91

  40

  1991–92

  56

  1992–93

  56

  6. The purpose of these visits was to promote information exchange and collaboration between the United Kingdom and the United States and on occasion to attend international conferences held in the United States. The principal United States Department of Defence Establishments visited are the following:

  a. The US Army Chemial Research, Development and Engineering Center at Edgewood, Maryland (now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defence Agency and the Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Center).

  b. The US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick.

  c. The US Army Medical Research Institute for Chemical Defence at Edgewood, Maryland.

  d. The US Army Chemical School at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

  e. The Department of Defence at the Pentagon, Washington DC.

  In addition other US Navy, US Air Force, US Army and Department of Defence Establishments are visited. Most visits are to US Army Establishments as the US Army has lead responsibility in the US for chemical and biological defence. The grade of staff ranged from Senior Scientific Officer up to Grade 3. Visits very occasionally have included academics working for the Department but this is exceptional.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests and studies his Department has carried out with the United States of America with regard to(a) the incapacitating agent BZ and (b) binary nerve gases; what was the aim of these tests and studies; and when these tests and studies were carried out.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what tests and studies his Department has carried out with the United States of America with regard to (a) the incapacitating agent BZ and (b) binary nerve gases; what was the aim of these tests and studies; and when these tests and studies were carried out (Question 22, Order Paper, 5 February 1993) has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. I would refer you to my letter to you of 10 August 1992 in answer to your Parliamentary Question asking how many tests had been carried out since 1967 involving the incapacitating agent BZ and British Service personnel, when these tests were carried out, whether all the personnel were volunteers and whether BZ is currently stocked by any of his Departments, Establishments (Question 32, Order Paper, 14 July 1992). In that reply I said that the role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton down is to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. This work involved the evaluation of the potential hazard of possible agents such as the incapacitating agent BZ. No tests and studies have been carried out with the United States of America with regard to the incapacitating agent BZ.

  67

  3. In respect of binary nerve gases, I would refer you to the answer by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, MP of 16 July 1992, Official Report column 936 which indicated that research information had been changed on a continuing basis on the potential hazard from chemical and biological agents including VX nerve gas and possible binary gases with the aim of ensuring that the protective measures for the United Kingdom Armed Forces are as effective as possible. No tests and studies have been carried out on binary nerve gases with the United States of America.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the United Kingdom exchanged information about its research into CR gas with the United States of America.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him when the United Kingdom exchanged information about its research into CR gas with the United States of America (Question 29, Order Paper 5 February 1993) has been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. I would refer you to my letter to you of 10 August 1992 in answer to your Parliamentary Question asking what information about defence research into CR gas the United Kingdom has passed to the United States of America, under which defence agreement this information was exchanged and when the information was transferred (Question 36, Order Paper 14 July 1992). In my letter of 10 August 1992, I stated that research into CR commenced in 1962 at the then Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down. The information gained in the research programme during the subsequent years has formed part of the chemical and biological defence programme and has been the subject of information exchange and collaboration with the United States Department of Defence on a continuing basis.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many patents the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down has filed since 1962; and what are the numbers of each of these patents.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him how many patents the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has filed since 1962 and what are the numbers of each of these patents (Question 32, Order Paper 5 February 1993) has been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The number of patents filed by this Establishment and its precursors, the Chemical Defence Establishment and the Microbiological Research Establishment, since 1962 is 63 and their numbers are as follows:

  Number

  Number

  Number

  1173142

  1538056

  2081744

  1206581

  1512536

  2072873

  1571799

  1558183

  2074995

  1149042

  1571799

  2103564

  1310011

  1530714

  2113672

  68

  Number

  Number

  Number

  1301101

  1567606

  2164327

  1341550

  4228598

  2187725

  1206340

  1487612

  2183207

  1376888

  1558153

  2223411

  1340343

  1588442

  2203543

  1360277

  1588441

  2212149

  1429476

  2014452

  2229527

  1415664

  2015531

  2229526

  1605289

  2021594

  2231404

  1478463

  2042099

  2239740

  1605296

  2042100

  2224114

  1438651

  2025006

  2222370

  1456231

  2048052

  2225251

  1464368

  2062929

  2257017

  1476761

  2134228

  US 5082540

  1487611

  2059677

  2252323

  Several other patent applications are still being processed.

  Arms Transfers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's staff have been allocated to prepare the United Kingdom submission to the United Nations register of arms transfers; what additional costs have been incurred in preparing the submission; and by what date Her Majesty's Government intend to submit the report to the United Nations.

  Mr. Aitken
  No staff have been specifically allocated to the preparation of the British contribution to the United Nations register; the work will be accommodated within existing responsibilities and budgets. On the third point, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 5 February at column 373.

  Challanger Tanks
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many powerpacks had to be changed in Challenger I tanks during the Gulf operation; who that powerpack differs from the one in Challenger II; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  A total of 279 powerpacks were changed during the deployment of Challenger I to the Gulf. The majority of engine failures were caused by dust ingestion.

  The Challenger II powerpack comprises of CV12 engine coupled to a TN54 gearbox which has six instead of the four forward ratios of the Challenger I gearbox. The powerpack, which is controlled by a new digital automotive system control unit, represents a significant improvement in reliability. In addition to a totally new main engine cleaner design, numerous reliability modifications have been embodied in the engine and the gearbox.

  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response he made to the request of the manufacturers for the release of a Challenger II battle tank in order to seek to win the Swedish Army order.

  Mr. Aitken
  Vickers Defence Systems made no request for the release of a Challenger II prototype in order to participate in the Swedish competition.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been achieved in the plans announced in June 1991 for an upgrade programme on the Challenger 1 fleet.
  69
  Mr. Aitken
  A detailed study has been undertaken by Vickers Defence Systems and this is now under evaluation by the Department. A range of options is being considered.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Aitken
  Market testing is being handled as part of the Department's devolved management strategy. Its central market testing service, which offers advice and assistance to managers, currently comprises nine officials

  Activity

  Result In-house/Contractorized

  Successful contractor

  RN Simulator helicopter control operations Royal Naval Air Station Portland

  Contract

  Hunting Aircraft Ltd.

  Works Services Management, Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose

  Contract

  PSA Building Management, South, West

  Food Distribution in BAOR

  Contract

  NAAFI

  Freight Services BAOR

  Contract

  Edmond Depaire

  Air Weapon Ranges, RAF Cowden

  Retained in house

  RAF Holbeach

  Contract

  Assessment Services Ltd.

  Engineering and Supply/Multi-activity RAF Scampton

  Contract

  Hunting Aircraft Ltd.

  Recruitment exhibition production, RAF Henlow

  Contract

  Serco Ltd.

  Elementary Flying Training School, RAF Topcliffe

  Contract

  Hunting Aircraft Ltd.

  Aircraft Support Services—A&AEE, Boscombe Down

  Retained in house

  Catering Royal Naval Air Station, Yeovilton

  Contract

  ARA Services Plc

  HMS Drake, Devonport

  Contract

  RCO Support Services Ltd.

  Engineering and other activities Ground radio/radar maintenance, Royal Naval Air Station, Portland

  Contract

  Hunting Aircraft Ltd.

  Parachute servicing

  Contract

  Irvin G.B.

  Andover aircraft maintenance

  Contract

  FLS Aerospace (Lovaux)

  Wessex helicopter maintenance, RAF Shawbury

  Contract

  Serco Ltd.

  Engineering support No. 60 Squadron RAF

  Contract

  FLS Aerospace (Lovaux)

  Printing services BAOR

  Contract

  HMSO

  Helicopter maintenance and engineering at Royal Naval Air Stations Yeovilton, Culdrose and Portland

  Contract

  Hunting Aircraft Ltd.

  70
  at an annual cost in salaries and ERNIC of about £260,000. Conduct of the market testing programme is the responsibility of the management areas themselves: sonic staff are dedicated to market testing but most carry out this function as part of their normal duties. It is not practicable to identify staff numbers or costs without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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 succesful contractor where appropriate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested is as follows:
  71

  Activity

  Result In-house/Contractorized

  Successful contractor

  Aircraft maintenance Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton

  Contract

  Hunting Aircraft Ltd.

  Guarding at Abbey Wood site Bristol

  Contract

  Chubb Wardens Ltd.

  Reconnaissance Visits to Bristol new site

  Contracts

  Property Spectrum

  Peter Carol Coaches

  Bristol Moat House

  Bristol Hilton

  Swallow Royal Hotel

  British Rail

  Property Management Central London

  Contract

  Planned Maintenance Engineering Ltd.

  Escorts for School Children's Visits

  Contract

  Universal Aunts Ltd.

  Invergordon Depot
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards the disposal of his Department's fuel depot and pier facilities at Invergordon, with particular reference to the likely time scale involved.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Bids for the surplus oil fuel depot Invergordon complex are under consideration following competitive tender action in October 1992 and in the light of subsequent negotiations. We hope to be able to announce a decision soon.

  Submarines
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects each of the Upholder class of submarines to enter service with the Royal Navy; what is the final cost estimate for each Upholder class submarine; what general plans he has for deployment of the submarines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Upholder was accepted by the Royal Navy in December 1990 and re-entered service, following completion of modifications to her weapon handling and discharge systems (WHDS), last month. HMS Unseen and HMS Ursula were accepted by the Royal Navy in July 1991 and June 1992, respectively and are due to have their WHDS modifications carried out later this year, allowing them to re-enter service in early 1994. Unicorn is planned to enter service, with WHDS modifications already incorported, this summer. For commercial reasons, it is not our practice to disclose the cost of individual warships. The overall programme cost is however, expected to be similar in real terms to that shown in table 3–2 volume 2 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991." It is not our practice to disclose details of the operational deployment of Royal Navy submarines.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for sale of Upholder class submarines; and what discussions he has had with the Government of Canada about such sales.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No decisions affecting Upholder class submarines have been taken.

  Wizard Generator
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to upgrade the Wizard generator at RAF Edzell; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A contract has been placed to refurbish power generation at RAF Edzell and work will begin on the site on I March 1993.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the total expenditure on drug abuse prevention programmes for the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force in each year since 1985, in constant 1992 prices; and how many people were employed to administer these programmes, in each year since 1985;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 5 February, Official Report, columns 373–74, how many service personnel dismissed from the services for drug-related offences were stationed overseas at the time; and in what countries.

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

  Ministry Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom Ministry land at Berry Head, Brixham, has been sold; and if conditions were attached to the sale to ensure that the land will continue to be a refuge for wildlife.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The sale has not yet been completed and the name of the potential purchaser, therefore, remains commercial in confidence. No conditions on future use have been attached by the Ministry of Defence; however, consultations with the local planning authority clearly indicate that it will strenuously resist development for use other than for agriculture, leisure/amenity or open space.

  Composite Signals Organisation Station
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the tendering arrangements for the contract to build an antenna at CSOS Morwenstow.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have been asked to reply.
  73
  The competitive tender exercise for the procurement of an antenna for the composite signals organisation station Morwenstow was carried out in accordance with the standard Government procurement guidelines. Companies with the relevant capabilities were invited to submit tenders by the end of December 1992.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the winner of the contract to build an antenna at CSOS Morwenstow.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The contract should be awarded before the end of February.

HEALTH

  District Health Authorities, Manchester
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy with regard to the merger of district health authorities within Greater Manchester; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are prepared to consider mergers where they are clearly in the interests of patients.

  North Western regional health authority ha; encouraged district health authorities to form purchasing consortia. From 1 April 1993, the following consortia will operate within Greater Manchester:

  North, Central and South Manchester and Salford DHAs;

  Oldham and Tameside and Glossop DHAs;

  Bolton and Wigan DflAs;

  Bury and Rochdale DHAs.

  Any proposals to merge these, or any, DHAs would be subject to full public consultation.

  High Blood Pressure
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service prescriptions were written for products used in the treatment of high blood pressure in each year since 1987; and what assessment has been made of the effects of her Department's initiative in encouraging doctors to screen more patients on the number of prescriptions written for these products.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is not possible to calculate to what extent any increase is due to doctors carrying out screening programmes. The remaining information is given in the table.

  Products used in the treatment of high blood pressure England (as defined by British National Formulary chapters 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6)

  Thousands

  Year

  Prescriptions

  1987

  51,088·8

  1988

  51,860·1

  1989

  53,247·0

  1990

  54,308·6

  1991

  59,626·3

  Notes:

  1. The data for 1991 is not directly comparable to those for earlier years because of a change in the way in which these data are collected.

  2. From January 1991, the data are based on:

  (a) items. Previously they were based on prescription fees and some items may attract more than one fee.

  74

  (b) prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and personal administration by doctors. Previously they only covered prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors.

  3. Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the extent any increase in the number of NHS prescriptions written so far this year has resulted from her Department's policy of(a) encouraging doctors to carry out screening programmes for certain detectable conditions and (b) requiring doctors to achieve target levels for patients needing vaccination against a variety of various diseases.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is not possible to calculate to what extent any increase is due to these policies.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are her Department's plans for doctors to indicate on a prescription form, FP10, the diagnosis for which a medicine is being prescribed, other than for a licensed indication; and how she will be able to protect patient confidentiality;

  (2) what consultations she has held with consumer and patient organisations over her plans for requiring doctors to indicate on the FP 10 prescription form the diagnosis for which a particular medicine is being prescribed, in order to meet the requirement of the new terms of reference for the Advisory Committee on NHS drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are no such plans.

  London School of Hygiene
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the publications and research projects funded by her Department at the small area statistics unit of the London School of Hygiene.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The small area health statistics unit is funded jointly by the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment, the Health and Safety Executive, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland. A list of the unit's publications and of the research projects completed and in progress will be placed in the Library.

  Oral Health
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the national public expenditure on oral health promotion in the last five years; and what are the projected figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94;

  (2) how much money in real terms was spent in each of the last five years on oral health promotion in each district.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Responsibility for arranging for the provision of dental health education and preventive programmes is for district health authorities. Information on the total cost of such programmes is not available centrally.

  Since the publication of the 1987 White Paper "Promoting Better Health", more than £1·8 million has been provided from central funds to support innovative

  75
  local projects. This includes £265,000 in 1992–93. Final decisions about any central funding for 1993–94 have not yet been made.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what total allocation of additional resources she has made to implement the oral health strategy targets in the "Health of the Nation" White Paper in the coming five years; and when she will publish details of the implementation plan for the strategy.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The "Health of the Nation" White Paper does not include oral health strategy targets.

  Dentists
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have deregistered, or have refused to accept for NHS treatment(a) adults, (b) children under 18 years, (c) families with a certificate for full help with cost of NHS services, (d) those in full-time education under 19 years, (e) expectant mothers, (f) mothers with babies up to the age of 12 months and (g) anyone receiving income support or family credit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Between 3 July 1992 and 5 February 1993, 1,586 dentists (of a total of 15,433 at 30 September 1992) gave notice to family health services authorities of their intention to deregister 358,300 (1·74 per cent.) adult patients and 182 dentists gave notice of their intention to deregister 1,196 (less than 1 per cent.) child patients. During this same period there was a net increase of 600,000 in the number of adult registrations. Dentists are independent contractors and are free to accept or refuse patients for national health service treatment. The remaining information requested is not held centrally.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints are received, per year, about alleged breaches of the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of alleged breaches referred to the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship since its inception is set out in the table.

  Number of alleged breaches of voluntary agreements

  Year

  Number

  1987–88

  462

  1988–89

  65

  1989–90

  168

  1990–91

  120

  1991–92

  119

  Further information is set out in the annual reports of the committee, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Number of blood donations

  Population eligible to give blood1 2

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Northern

  122,267

  127,275

  124,332

  133,756

  1,887,820

  Yorkshire

  133,088

  139,147

  144,189

  146,926

  1,949,900

  Trent

  197,746

  207,713

  189,554

  207,508

  3,097,330

  East Anglia

  92,195

  91,920

  96,454

  97,758

  1,248,000

  North West Thames

  192,004

  187,832

  195,357

  214,953

  2,350,220

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. Sackville
  A market testing unit of two people has been set up to co-ordinate the Department's programme. A number of other staff working within the functional areas affected are spending part of their time on work associated with market testing.

  Between November 1991 and the end of March 1993 it is estimated that the programme will have cost in the region of £830,000. This includes consultancy costs, staff costs and associated overheads.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. Sackville
  Since November 1991, the market testing of office and building services for the new buildings of Skipton house in London and Quarry house in Leeds (a joint DH/DSS building) has been completed. It has resulted in the award of the following service level agreements or contracts for services which had previously been provided wholly or mainly in-house in the Department's other buildings:

  For Skipton house

  Facilities management—Procord Ltd

  Reception and conference room booking—In-house team

  Office support services—In-house team

  For Quarry house

  Facilities management—P and O TFM Ltd

  Office support services—Manpower UK

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of blood donor donations in each national health service region since 1988; and if he will express this figure as a percentage of the population in each region.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table gives the numberof donations collected in each region from 1988 to 1991 together with the populations which fell into the age band eligible to give blood. The numbers of donors making these donations are not known centrally and so cannot be expressed as a percentage of each region's eligible population.
  77

  Number of blood donations

  Population eligible to give blood1 2

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  North East Thames

  142,716

  151,786

  118,155

  159,950

  2,215,160

  South Thames

  282,188

  296,158

  276,028

  306,402

  4,189,360

  Wessex

  95,484

  104,751

  100,405

  109,169

  1,406,540

  Oxford

  107,805

  114,415

  122,717

  123,304

  1,709,810

  South Western

  182,000

  184,195

  177,798

  187,818

  2,205,170

  West Midlands

  216,485

  231,075

  242,077

  250,688

  3,264,500

  Mersey

  108,387

  110,931

  109,116

  124,123

  1,698,120

  North Western

  176,328

  177,200

  183,421

  200,922

  2,824,200

  Notes:

  1 The eligible age band for blood donors is 18 to 65 inclusive.

  2 The eligible donor population figures are for 1988, the latest year available.

  Limited List
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what studies she has commissioned among practising clinicians to look into the clinical implications of extending the limited list to include 10 additional therapeutic categories; and if she will publish the results;

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies she commissioned among practising clinicians to look into the clinical implications of extending the limited list proposals to 10 additional therapeutic categories; and whether she intends to publish the results of those studies.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No such studies were commissioned. The changes do not affect the basic structure of the selected list scheme which has been in operation since 1985. It will be for the advisory committee on national health service drugs, when it considers individual drugs in the new categories, to ensure that the clinical needs of patients continue to be met.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what stage in the regulatory process involving the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, and the relevant expert advisory committees on(a) the existing categories and (b) the 10 new proposed categories of the limited list prescribing system for pharmaceutical products, a new product for which a product licence was being sought would be considered for inclusion in the limited list; what timetable would be followed for such consideration; and whether such consideration would be automatic.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The advisory committee on national health service drugs would only consider a new product which had been licensed and was available for prescription. New products in the specified categories are normally drawn to the committee's attention by its secretariat and the committee is asked whether it wishes to review them.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment has been made in respect of(a) the existing categories and (b) the 10 new proposed categories of the limited list prescribing system for pharmaceutical products, of the impact of the deterrent effect of a possible limited list inclusion upon the decision of companies considering whether or not to incur the costs of bringing forward a product licence application;
  78
  (2) what specific steps are being taken by her Department to ensure that pharmaceutical companies are not deterred from bringing forward applications for new product licences by uncertainty about the possibility of a subsequent inclusion in the limited list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The advisory committee on national health service drugs is required to ensure that drugs to meet all clinical need in the specified categories can be provided as economically as possible. There is nothing in the provisions of the selected list scheme which need deter companies from bringing forward applications for new product licences.

  Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has invited the Royal College of General Practitioners to make nominations for membership of the advisory committee on NHS drugs.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has invited the Royal College of General Practitioners to make nominations for membership of the newly constituted advisory committee on national health service drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Royal College of General Practitioners was one of the professional bodies which we consulted before appointing the new members of the committee whose names I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) on 10 February at column 697.

  Disabled Employees
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of employees in her Department is registered disabled.

  Mr. Sackville
  At 11 February 1993 1.3 per cent. of the Department's employees were registered disabled. In addition, a number of staff have a disability but are not registered disabled.

  Advisory Group on Rehabilitation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current membership of the advisory group on rehabilitation; what are its revised terms of reference; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The current membership of the advisory group on rehabilitation is: Lord Holderness(Chairman),

  79
  Mrs. Mary Baker, Professor Anne Chamberlain, Mrs. Anne Davies, Miss Nadia Deadman, Dr. Pamela Enderby, Mr. Stuart Fletcher, Lord McColl, Professor Lindsey McLellan, Miss Carol Underwood, Miss Anne Walker and Dr. Karen Waters.

  The task of the advisory group on rehabilitation is to advise the Department of Health on the most effective means of promoting the development of rehabilitation in England and achieving its recognition as a key area in the strategy for health. This will cover topics such as collaboration between statutory and voluntary bodies; the tasks which fall to health authorities in their purchasing role; research; specialised education and training of rehabilitation professionals and the conduct of a programme of collaborative development work with the national health service.

  HELIOS Programme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has made to the EC Social Affairs Committee concerning the reduction in funding of the HELIOS programme.

  Mr. Yeo
  There has been no reduction. The first HELIOS programme finished in December 1991 and discussions on the second programme, including its overall budget, are continuing. The European Commission originally requested 5.6 million ecus for the second HELIOS programme in 1993. The Council has put that sum in reserve, at the request of the European Parliament.

  Medical Confidentiality
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce regulations or produce guidelines on medical confidentiality covering the subject matter of the draft National Health Service Functions (Preservation of Confidentiality) Regulations 1987; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on Thursday 29 October at column 841.

  Doctors
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the number and percentage of doctors who drink alcohol while on duty; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of(a) the ethics and (b) the virological dangers of xenotransplantation;

  (2) what research has been undertaken into xenotransplantation and the breeding of baboons; and if she will place copies in the Library.

  Mr. Sackville
  Transplanting organs from animals into human beings has been attempted in some countries but not in the United Kingdom. In 1992 two attempts were made in the United States to transplant organs from baboons into human beings, but both human patients died following immunological rejection.
  80
  The Department of Health and the Medical Royal Colleges are watching developments and will scrutinise closely any proposed research of this subject. Additionally any proposed research involving national health service patients would have to be referred to the appropriate local research ethics committee.

  Neither the Department of Health nor the Medical Research Council has any reports or published evidence of research into xenotransplantation and the breeding of baboons.

  Organ transplantation has developed cautiously and responsibly in the United Kingdom. I am confident that this will continue.

  Viruses
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what study she has made of(a) Lassa fever, (b) Marbury disease and (c) other illnesses with respect to their possible causation by viruses from a different species.

  Mr. Sackville
  Many viruses that affect humans have an animal host and are termed zoonoses. Information on the host range comes from regular monitoring of journals and discussions with scientific and medical experts. The results of studies into the causes of Lassa fever and Marburg disease have been published. The Medical Research Council also has a simian virus committee which is attended by a Department of Health observer.

  Vitamin Supplements
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the vitamin supplements which are currently widely used to supplement the diets of young babies are available over the counter; and what steps are being taken by her Department to ensure the continued availability of such products in the event of the introduction in the future by the European Commission of a directive on dietary supplements.

  Mr. Sackville
  Vitamin preparations suitable to supplement the diets of young babies are available over the counter. The Government continue to safeguard the nutritional status of young children in income support families by making supplementary vitamins available free under the welfare foods scheme. The EC Commission is now reviewing its work programme and the future of any initiative on dietary supplements will be dependent on that review. The Government's policy remains to strike a balance between ensuring public health and maintaining the availability of safe products for which there is clearly a strong public demand.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given by her Department to mothers with young babies about the advisability or otherwise of vitamin supplementation, the range of vitamins which should be used, and the age of the children for whom such supplementation is appropriate.

  Mr. Sackville
  Expert advice from the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy is that vitamin supplementation of Vitamins A, C. D should be given to infants and young children aged from six months to at least two years and preferably up to five years.
  81
  The guidance has been promulaged to health professionals and incorporated in the Health Education Authority booklet "Birth to Five" which is given free to all first-time mothers.

  West Midlands RHA
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new resources she plans for the west midlands regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1993–94 an additional £53 million has been made available to West Midlands regional health authority in respect of services for its resident population. This is a 1 per cent. increase above inflation once measures on public sector pay restraint have been taken into account. In addition to this amount a further £43 million from centrally held budgets (including AIDS and joint finance) has been issued to West Midlands as part of its initial revenue cash limit. During the course of the year the regional health authority will receive a share of other centrally held budgets including those for general medical services and Project 2000.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the terms of reference for the new chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sir Donald Wilson, in addition to carrying out all the duties of all regional chairmen, has been asked to:

  1. ensure that patients and staff in the West Midlands are properly served by an efficient and effective regional organisation;

  2. oversee important management changes proposed in the West Midlands.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of the terms agreed for the retirement of Sir James Ackers as chairman of the west midlands regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  With the agreement of the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided to make a payment of £10,000 to Sir James Ackers under the provisions of paragraph 9(3) of schedule 5 of the National Health Service Act 1977.

  Health Districts (Boundaries)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 335, what is her policy on making boundaries of district health and local authorities co-terminous; and how this was applied to her decision to approve the merger of the Kingston/Esher and Richmond/Twickenham/ Roehampton health districts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The achievement of common boundaries between local authorities and district health authorities, whilst a highly desirable aid to joint working, is not essential. It is one of the potential benefits which may accrue from DHA mergers, and must be considered in the light of local circumstances.

  The merger of Kingston and Esher with Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton was approved for 1 April 1993 to enable the development of a more effective purchasing agency. Further adjustments to boundaries, in order to achieve co-terminosity at this stage, could have delayed the merger. South West Thames RHA now
  82
  proposes to consult to make the new Kingston and Richmond DHA co-terminous with local authorities by 1 April 1994.

  Walsgrave Hospital
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the results of her public consultation exercise carried out recently regarding the trust status of Walsgrave hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Public consultation on the application for a combined Coventry, Warwickshire and Walsgrave National Health Service Trust was completed on 25 September 1992. Of the 28 responses received, 10 were in support, nine in opposition and nine were neutral. Formal consultation on the dissolution of the Walsgrave NHS Trust involving all staff and staff organisations was completed on 8 January 1993. There was only one response and this expressed satisfaction with the conditions agreed for the transfer.

  Specialised Medical Services
  Dame Angela Rumbold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has for ensuring that changes to specialised medical activity will continue to maintain close links with primary and secondary levels of medical care;

  (2) what steps she has taken to ensure that the special needs of children in hospital who are suffering from an acute illness or requiring a specialised service should be protected; and what plans she has for an investigation prior to changes arising from the Tomlinson report;

  (3) what plans she has to continue funding for the specialised medical services at current levels if they are relocated following the Tomlinson report.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We will take account of all relevant factors and announce our proposals for London's health services in the light of the Tomlinson recommendations shortly.

  State Registered Nurses
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to increase the numbers of conversion courses for state enrolled nurses and what funding will be made available nationally for this; what are the current numbers of SENs for the current and previous five years; and how many conversion courses were available in each of those years.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for regional health authorities, in consultation with employers, to plan for enrolled nurse conversion, now known as level two to level one conversion, as part of their responsibility for identifying the level of demand for qualified nurses and for allocating appropriate budgets.

  In addition, we are committed to increasing the number of places available for second level nurses conversion as part of the Project 2000 reforms. An announcement has recently been made concerning additional funding for Project 2000 in 1993–94.

  The English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting has been encouraged to develop flexible options which have made it possible to reduce both the length and cost of conversion courses.
  83
  Details of the current numbers of second level nurses for the current year are not yet available. The figures for the previous five years are given in the table. The number of conversion courses available in each of these years is not held centrally by the Department of Health.

  Numbers of second level nurses England: at 30 September each year (to the nearest hundred)

  Year

  Number

  1986

  71,930

  1987

  71,050

  1988

  69,430

  1989

  59,270

  1990

  56,200

  1991

  52,100

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  East Cumbria Community Health Authority
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from the East Cumbria community health council about the chairman of the East Cumbria health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have received one letter from the chairman of the East Cumbria community health council. I am satisfied that Mr. Carr should continue to carry out his duties as health authority chairman.

  Operating Theatres
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operating theatres in the north-west of England are not operational.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about operating theatres is published annually by the Department in "NHS Operating Theatres: Availability and Use: England". A copy of the edition for the year ending 31 March 1991 is available in the Library.

  The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Bruce Martin, chairman of North Western regional health authority, for further details.

  Tobacco Consumption
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the fall in tobacco consumption in the United Kingdom since(a) 1975, (b) 1977, (c) 1989 and (d)

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Figures on tobacco products for home consumption with necessary duty paid are given below. Comparable figures are not available for earlier years.
  84

  Tobacco products released for home consumption

  Thousand million

  Million kilogrammes

  Year

  Cigarettes

  Cigars

  Handrolling

  Other

  1979

  124·5

  3·3

  5·7

  4·0

  1989

  96·0

  2·4

  4·4

  2·3

  1990

  97·5

  2·3

  4·1

  2·2

  1991

  95·6

  2·1

  4·2

  2·1

  Source: Customs and Excise.

  Hospitals (Ministerial Visits)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the dates of each ministerial visit to hospitals which has taken place since 25 January or is planned to take place.

  Mr. Sackville
  The following ministerial visits have been made to hospitals since 25 January:

  25 January—Breakspear hospital, Abbots Langley, Herts.

  29 January—East Birmingham hospital (Yardley Green health centre).

  5 February—Hope hospital, Salford.

  11 February—Leicester Royal infirmary.

  Further visits are planned.

  Wessex RHA
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the recommendations in the District Auditor's report on losses on computer contracts by Wessex regional health authority on which no action has been taken.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Wessex regional health authority has taken into account all the recommendations of the district auditor set out in paragraph 93 of the report in the public interest published in July 1992; and has referred to Hampshire fraud squad all material on regional information systems plan, including all the information provided in confidence by the district auditor. The only recommendation which has not been implemented is, after reference to independent legal advice, the one regarding the possibility of taking legal action against Arthur Andersen and IBM.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the total pay bill for(a) managerial staff, (b) administrative and clerical staff, (c) nursing and midwifery staff, (d) medical staff and (e) ancillary staff in each region of the NHS in each year since 1989;

  (2) what is the average cost of employing each managerial staff member in the NHS;

  (3) what was the total pay bill for (a) managerial staff, (b) administrative and clerical staff, (c) nursing and midwifery staff, (d) medical staff and (e) ancillary staff of the NHS in England in each year since 1989.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Analyses of the annual total salaries and wages costs for hospital and community health services (HCHS) in England are shown in the tables. The figures for 1991–92 are provisional.

  The average gross pay costs of employing a whole-time general or senior manager in 1991–92 was approximately £31,000.
  85

  HCHS—Expenditure on salaries and wages 1989–90 £000 (cash)

  Region

  General and Senior Managers

  Administrative and Clerical staff

  Nursing and Midwifery staff

  Medical staff

  Ancillary staff

  All other staff

  Total

  Northern

  9,809

  59,873

  327,831

  93,683

  59,834

  103,285

  654,315

  Yorkshire

  13,035

  68,955

  355,540

  103,543

  58,598

  130,941

  730,611

  Trent

  9,183

  90,140

  451,088

  125,776

  86,490

  156,349

  919,025

  East Anglian

  8,505

  36,648

  193,638

  54,868

  35,166

  71,833

  400,658

  North West Thames

  13,778

  77,690

  350,313

  111,860

  51,511

  154,204

  759,357

  North East Thames

  19,180

  101,809

  431,427

  138,033

  85,665

  203,574

  979,688

  South East Thames

  12,959

  98,880

  381,547

  114,443

  71,195

  157,768

  836,792

  South West Thames

  9,230

  72,451

  304,296

  85,108

  49,876

  153,005

  673,966

  Wessex

  8,648

  52,498

  278,293

  74,506

  46,679

  93,274

  553,899

  Oxford

  5,402

  48,151

  216,270

  65,414

  32,244

  79,021

  446,501

  South Western

  11,573

  59,830

  326,431

  84,687

  51,142

  111,667

  645,330

  West Midlands

  17,007

  110,015

  503,545

  145,171

  92,504

  177,848

  1,046,090

  Mersey

  8,399

  52,959

  258,812

  74,885

  42,625

  87,762

  525,442

  North Western

  9,773

  90,513

  448,128

  129,066

  76,097

  145,171

  898,747

  SHAs

  2,362

  18,245

  66,060

  36,636

  10,426

  50,805

  184,534

  England Totals

  158,844

  1,038,657

  4,893,219

  1,437,676

  850,053

  1,876,506

  10,254,955

  HCHS—Expenditure on salaries and wages 1990–91 £000 (cash)

  Region

  General and Senior Managers

  Administrative and Clerical staff

  Nursing and Midwifery staff

  Medical staff

  Ancillary staff

  All other staff

  Total

  Northern

  15,301

  68,294

  351,182

  103,492

  61,433

  116,663

  716,365

  Yorkshire

  23,502

  76,647

  380,633

  115,336

  59,614

  146,208

  801,940

  Trent

  14,969

  102,750

  484,754

  139,725

  89,687

  175,125

  1,007,009

  East Anglian

  11,232

  43,159

  211,961

  62,127

  37,190

  80,766

  446,435

  North West Thames

  19,568

  94,959

  373,184

  120,722

  50,384

  163,728

  822,545

  North East Thames

  29,011

  116,802

  467,107

  148,854

  85,613

  216,304

  1,063,691

  South East Thames

  19,933

  111,716

  412,477

  127,686

  72,806

  167,778

  912,397

  South West Thames

  16,167

  83,251

  328,232

  93,518

  51,097

  161,443

  733,708

  Wessex

  15,718

  58,770

  299,341

  82,274

  46,918

  103,738

  606,760

  Oxford

  10,123

  55,314

  234,391

  72,106

  32,804

  87,900

  492,638

  South Western

  15,670

  70,223

  353,054

  92,927

  54,289

  125,014

  711,177

  West Midlands

  23,498

  123,706

  543,884

  160,645

  97,803

  204,872

  1,154,408

  Mersey

  13,801

  58,602

  270,931

  83,382

  42,288

  97,028

  566,032

  North Western

  18,870

  100,325

  477,019

  142,292

  71,874

  163,833

  974,213

  SHAs

  4,111

  22,513

  70,730

  40,263

  11,185

  53,927

  202,729

  England Totals

  251,475

  1,187,029

  5,258,882

  1,585,351

  864,985

  2,064,325

  11,212,046

  HCHS—Expenditure on salaries and wages 1991–92

  £000 (cash)

  Region

  General and Senior Managers

  Administrative and Clerical staff

  Nursing and Midwifery staff

  Medical staff

  Ancillary staff

  All other staff

  Total

  Northern

  21,007

  74,453

  357,000

  104,844

  59,979

  121,775

  739,058

  Yorkshire

  27,129

  71,166

  346,178

  93,480

  46,275

  127,696

  711,923

  Trent

  24,547

  110,586

  488,210

  143,992

  84,816

  179,762

  1,031,912

  East Anglian

  14,833

  47,768

  221,075

  69,079

  39,527

  83,692

  475,974

  North West Thames

  25,020

  103,337

  366,548

  117,086

  46,246

  149,101

  807,338

  North East Thames

  33,824

  112,462

  417,118

  126,804

  69,135

  176,245

  935,588

  South East Thames

  27,186

  115,472

  414,065

  125,237

  65,765

  155,083

  902,807

  South West Thames

  19,595

  84,719

  285,757

  80,749

  44,964

  149,365

  665,149

  Wessex

  21,698

  66,360

  309,975

  88,333

  46,354

  111,118

  643,838

  Oxford

  15,622

  62,209

  255,309

  79,346

  32,989

  96,428

  541,903

  South Western

  14,860

  52,830

  243,011

  62,379

  36,749

  90,818

  500,647

  West Midlands

  34,907

  136,390

  567,466

  184,334

  96,743

  230,994

  1,250,833

  Mersey

  12,391

  42,190

  172,056

  57,076

  22,207

  62,420

  368,340

  North Western

  28,864

  106,841

  490,832

  143,869

  67,196

  169,232

  1,006,835

  SHAs

  5,440

  26,702

  84,210

  43,910

  12,950

  56,224

  229,436

  NHS Trusts

  54,538

  168,578

  747,160

  294,836

  129,352

  344,072

  1,738,536

  England Totals

  381,461

  1,382,064

  5,765,968

  1,815,353

  901,248

  2,304,024

  12,550,118

  Sources:

  (a) Annual accounts (1989–90 and 1990–91) and annual financial returns (1991–92) of regional and district health authorities in England and
  86 87
  those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals. (Annual financial returns of the first wave national health service trusts–1991–92.)

  (b) Annual census of manpower as at 30 September 1991 (Department of Health).

  Notes to the tables:

  1. HCHS covers the total expenditure by the health authorities and the national health service trusts including hospital, community health, patient transport (i.e. ambulances), blood transfusion and other services.

  2. The figures are for gross pay costs including employers' national insurance and superannuation contributions. Some columns and rows may not add up precisely because of roundings.

  3. The figures for "all other staff" include dental, ambulance, maintenance and professional and technical staff together with the total costs of all the categories of non-national health service (agency, etc.) staff.

  4. Salaries and wages costs incurred by family health services authorities and special health authorities providing central services to the national health service are excluded.

  5. The decrease in nursing and midwifery pay as a proportion of total is partially attributable to senior nurses being regraded to senior manager pay scales.

  Radiation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to adopt the recommendations of the International Commission of Radiological Protection on the adoption of a gut uptake factor of 0.001 to be used in radiation dose calculations.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Gut uptake factors used by the authorising Departments (the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution) in radiation dose calculations are based on advice from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which in turn takes account of the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Details of NRPB recommended gut uptake factors are published in "Documents of the NRPB" Volume 1, No. 2 (1990), a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to take account of the findings of the radiobiology department of St. Bartholomew's hospital medical school, London in relation to the gut uptake factor levels adopted by her Department to calculate radiation dose levels.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The findings referred to have been submitted to MAFF and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in a response to public consultation on proposed new authorisations for the discharge of radioactive wastes from British Nuclear Fuel's Sellafield plant. They will be considered by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment along with all other responses received in the light of advice from the National Radiological Protection Board.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. Curry
  The number of full-time staff in the market testing unit is currently 15. But a further 175 staff in various other parts of the Department have contributed to the programme, either in the identification of candidates for market testing or in the actual conduct of tests and the 88
  activities associated with them. The total cost of this to date is estimated at some £875,000. including external consultancy support.

  Agricultural Training Board
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he requires the Agricultural Training Board to abide by the procedures set out in general circular 262 of 28 April 1986.

  Mr. Curry
  Yes.

  Mink
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to identify the owners of mink which have escaped from licensed fur farms into the wild.

  Mr. Soames
  If a mink that is believed to have come from a mink farm is captured, inquiries are made to establish its origin. Should evidence be presented that mink are escaping from a particular farm, Agricultural Development Advisory Service officers will be asked to visit the site to ensure security arrangements are satisfactory.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given, following the approval of the Mink Keeping Order 1992, to bring forward proposals requiring animals farmed under licence to be identified by a tattoo or the implanting of a microchip to aid in the identification of animals caught in the wild.

  Mr. Soames
  None. I have no plans to introduce such a requirement.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was(a) the acreage and (b) the percentage of farmland in set-aside in each EC country at 1 January; and what are the estimated equivalent figures for 1 January 1994.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest available information on land set-aside under the five-year set-aside scheme in each EC country is set out in table I. Information on the area of land set aside this year under the new arable area payments scheme will not be available until growers have to declare the area later this year. Table II contains estimates of the area which might be set aside under the new scheme, derived from budgetary estimates of expenditure on the CAP reform package prepared by the Commission last year. There is no reason to expect that the area set aside in 1994 will be significantly different from that in 1993.
  89

  Five-year set-aside scheme

  Country

  Total arable area (thousand ha)

  Five year SA area (ha)3

  Five year SA area (acres)3

  Five year SA area as per cent. of national arable area

  Belgium

  326

  880

  2,170

  0·3

  Denmark

  1,909

  12,810

  31,650

  0·7

  France

  11,859

  235,490

  581,670

  2·0

  Germany1

  8,218

  374,370

  924,700

  4·6

  Greece

  1,523

  710

  1,760

  —

  Ireland

  359

  3,450

  8,530

  1·0

  Italy

  5,429

  721,850

  1,782,960

  13·3

  Luxembourg

  33

  90

  220

  0·3

  Netherlands

  226

  15,370

  37,970

  6·8

  Portugal2

  833

  —

  —

  —

  Spain

  8,978

  103,170

  254,830

  1·1

  United Kingdom

  4,396

  155,120

  383,150

  3·5

  Total

  44,087

  1,623,310

  4,007,440

  3·7

  1 Excludes former GDR.

  2 Portugal was exempt from the requirement to introduce a five year scheme.

  3 The figures for the five year scheme do not take account of withdrawals either after three years or in order to enter the new arable regime.

  New arable support system

  Total estimated SA area

  Country

  Total arable area (thousand ha)

  (thousand ha)

  (thousand acres)

  As a percentage of arable area

  Belgium

  326

  27

  67

  8

  Denmark

  1,909

  226

  558

  12

  France

  11,859

  1,463

  3,614

  12

  Germany1

  8,218

  915

  2,260

  11

  Greece

  1,523

  27

  67

  2

  Ireland

  359

  33

  82

  9

  Italy

  5,429

  236

  583

  4

  Luxembourg

  33

  1

  2

  3

  Netherlands

  226

  22

  54

  10

  Portugal

  833

  34

  84

  4

  Spain

  8,978

  764

  1,887

  9

  United Kingdom

  4,396

  634

  1,566

  14

  Total

  44,087

  4,381

  10,821

  10

  1 Includes former German Democratic Republic.

  Note: Minor discrepancies are due to rounding.

  Source (both tables): Commission statistics.

  Chlorpropham
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what publicly funded toxology tests on CIPC have been carried out in the United Kingdom; and what notification he has had of toxology tests on CIPC carried out in the United Kingdom by companies.

  Mr. Soames
  No publicly funded toxicology tests on CIPC, also known as chlorpropham, have been carried out in the United Kingdom. It is the rule that an applicant for approval of a pesticide product is responsible for carrying out the necessary toxicology tests.

  Reports of toxicity tests performed in the United Kingdom on formulations containing CIPC have been submitted as part of a number of approvals for products containing CIPC. But the majority of studies submitted on the toxicology of CIPC are based on work performed in Europe, north America and Japan.
  90
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of whether the chemical CIPC is suitable for use in crisp manufacturing.

  Mr. Soames
  There is evidence that CIPC, also known as chlorpropham, is effective as a means of preventing sprouting of potatoes in store, and so helping to ensure a year-round supply of potatoes suitable for crisp manufacture. The EC pesticide review programme will in due course consider all aspects of the approval of CIPC, including its effectiveness and its toxicology.

  Following recommendations from the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides, an average daily intake figure of 0·1 mg per kilogram body weight per day for CIPC has provisionally been set for consumer risk assessment purposes. Residues of CIPC found in total diet studies indicate that CIPC presents no risk to health.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council held on 9 and 10 February.
  91
  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Agriculture Council which started on 9 February and, after a suspension, finished in the early hours of Saturday 13 February.

  The most difficult item was concerned with bananas, where the Council had before it a text which put into legal form the political agreement on a Community regime agreed at the December Council. That agreement fully protected United Kingdom interests and our traditional suppliers in the Caribbean and was therefore highly satisfactory for Her Majesty's Government.

  Unfortunately, two delegations refused to confirm their earlier positive votes and opposed the adoption of the legal text. They sustained this position through many difficult hours of negotiation. Eventually matters were resolved, and the text adopted, because two other delegations, which had previously opposed the agreement, including the Danish delegation now in the chair, voted in favour so that the necessary qualified majority could be found. By this means the Danish presidency in particular ensured the maintenance of that integrity of Council decisions without which the Community could not function effectively. It is most unfortunate that two delegations changed their votes in this way. Such an attitude can only make future negotiations in the Council more difficult. However, on the substance, as indicated above, the regulation is a very satisfactory one for the United Kingdom.

  The Council also had a first discussion of the 1993 farm price proposals. I regretted that these do not include reforms of those sectors such as sugar, wine, olive oil and fruit and vegetables where this is still outstanding.

  In conclusion with the Commission in the margins of the Council, I was able to confirm that the supplementary ewe premium for flocks in our less favoured areas should be paid at the green rate applicable on 3 January. This means that this year United Kingdom producers will receive some 10·4 million more than previously expected.

  This was not an easy Council, but the outcome was a good one for the United Kingdom.

  Sheep Dips
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports or information his Department has received concerning links between exposure to organo-phosphate sheep dips and chronic illness.

  Mr. Soames
  The veterinary medicines directorate operates a suspected adverse reaction reporting scheme for all veterinary medicines, including sheep dips. All reports are fully investigated. The results of those involving humans are assessed by an appraisal panel of Government doctors and scientists who evaluate potential links between human health and exposure to organophosphate sheep dips, before consideration by the Veterinary Products Committee, an independent scientific advisory committee.

  In addition, a project to investigate possible chronic effects on farmers of occupational exposure to organophosphate dips is currently being carried out by the institute of occupational health at Birmingham university.

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice is currently given by his Department to people in the use of organo-phosphate sheep dip.
  92
  Mr. Soames
  The manufacturers of all licensed organophosphate sheep dips are required, as a condition of approval, to provide advice to users via product labels and product literature on the safe use of these products, including the need for protective clothing. Further advice is contained in the free leaflet "The Safe Handling and Disposal of Sheep Dips" published by the veterinary medicines directorate which has been distributed to all sheep farmers in England and Wales.

  It is important that this advice is carefully followed by those using these products.

  Young Farmers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of people employed in agriculture are under 30 years of age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The results of the 1990 EC structure survey show that in England about 20 per cent. of people employed in agriculture are under 30 years of age. This includes farmers, working spouses and regularly employed workers. The survey is based on a sample covering approximately one quarter of all main holdings in England and is therefore subject to sampling error.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans there are to increase the number of young people entering farming; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The numbers of those becoming working farmers is entirely a matter for individual choice in response to personal circumstances and market forces.

  Drainage Authorities
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what guidance is given to drainage authorities when they give information on the value for money and economic efficiency of the maintenance works that they carry out to interested parties;

  (2) what rules drainage authorities follow upon the disclosures to interested parties of the investment appraisal submitted to his Department when seeking grant-aid; and if he will extend the depth and quality of information made available to interested parties.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry encourages authorities to make aggregated results of appraisals of grant-aided flood defence works available to interested parties on request. Such works can include not only new construction and improvements, but also major repairs. Guidance on the form in which the information should be presented was set out in a Ministry paper on investment appraisal issued to drainage authorities in 1985, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House at the time. The Ministry plans to publish revised and updated project appraisal guidelines next month. Separately, consideration is being given to whether guidance on the provision of results of appraisals to interested parties should be revised.

  There is no separate Ministry guidance on the economic appraisal by authorities of their own maintenance work.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.(1) if he will list the number of sheep affected by sheep scab, by county and divided into less
  93
  favoured areas and non less favoured areas in each month from October 1991 to the last month for which figures are available;

  (2) if he will list the number of outbreaks of sheep scab, by county, by flock and divided into less favoured areas and non less favoured areas in each month from October 1991 to the last month for which figures are available.

  October

  November

  December (1991)

  January (1992)

  February

  March

  April

  May

  England:

  Avon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Cornwall

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  2

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon

  1

  —

  1

  2

  3

  1

  2

  5

  Dorset

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  4

  6

  —

  1

  2

  3

  1

  —

  Leicestershire

  1

  —

  2

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  Manchester MC

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire MC

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Wales:

  Clwyd

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Dyfed

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Scotland:

  Borders

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galoway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Grampian

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Strathclyde

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9

  9

  12

  27

  29

  8

  12

  17

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if all vehicles used by teams trapping badgers under the bovine tuberculosis control policy carry his Ministry's markings; and whether personnel involved carry identification identifying themselves and giving them authority for their work at all times.

  Mr. Soames
  Ministry vehicles used in bovine TB control operations do not carry Ministry markings. All Ministry personnel are issued with identification cards bearing their photograph and written authority to carry out their official duties.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the culling of badgers under the bovine tuberculosis control policy has been contracted out.

  Mr. Soames
  No.
  94
  Mr. Soames
  The table below lists the number of recorded outbreaks on a flock basis by county for the months October 1991 to May 1992, which is the last month for which figures are available. The remaining information is either unavailable or could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Training Board (Wales)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the future of the Agricultural Training Board in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  In response to the consultation document on the future status and operation of the Agricultural Training Board issued on 25 September 1992, representations were received from 80 organisations and individuals in Wales. Ministers expect to be in a position to make a statement on the future of the board later this month.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels were recorded in International Council for the Exploration of the Seas areas(a) vii(a), (b) vii(f) and (c) vii(g) in each month during each year since 1986.
  95
  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 11 February 1993]: The information requested is set out for numbers of individual vessels recorded during routine fishery surveillance within British fishery limits in the ICES areas stated. Surveillance is not continuous, so the figures do not represent total numbers of boats fishing the areas in question. Over the period, surveillance effort in ICES area VII has increased. This, together with an improvement in the quality of surveillance data, contributes to the increased numbers of vessels reported in more recent years.

  1986

  Vlla

  Vllf

  Vllg

  January

  60

  53

  54

  February

  121

  78

  22

  March

  175

  71

  65

  April

  180

  109

  61

  May

  250

  95

  90

  June

  263

  81

  100

  July

  306

  104

  94

  August

  154

  89

  52

  September

  212

  107

  103

  October

  116

  58

  78

  November

  123

  57

  58

  December

  45

  38

  48

  1987

  Vlla

  Vllf

  Vllg

  January

  48

  16

  1

  February

  234

  35

  34

  March

  215

  93

  54

  April

  270

  127

  66

  May

  318

  104

  90

  June

  311

  85

  40

  July

  327

  116

  121

  August

  198

  79

  121

  September

  269

  78

  117

  October

  205

  89

  130

  November

  152

  46

  87

  December

  173

  54

  72

  1988

  Vlla

  Vllf

  Vllg

  January

  173

  61

  66

  February

  186

  125

  102

  March

  282

  176

  114

  April

  456

  189

  104

  May

  423

  144

  126

  June

  342

  95

  172

  July

  234

  78

  83

  August

  264

  153

  151

  September

  242

  121

  126

  October

  165

  93

  131

  November

  247

  95

  137

  December

  159

  61

  61

  1989

  VIIa

  VIIf

  VIIg

  January

  164

  107

  107

  February

  188

  93

  87

  March

  134

  192

  120

  April

  416

  139

  164

  May

  268

  173

  238

  June

  275

  99

  159

  July

  220

  154

  181

  August

  243

  150

  144

  September

  270

  84

  88

  October

  212

  82

  126

  96

  1989

  VIIa

  VIIf

  VIIg

  November

  242

  71

  107

  December

  113

  23

  90

  1990

  VIIa

  VIIf

  VIIg

  January

  100

  89

  75

  February

  34

  101

  77

  March

  264

  291

  206

  April

  220

  130

  207

  May

  326

  196

  209

  June

  173

  138

  196

  July

  287

  119

  184

  August

  268

  109

  214

  September

  337

  123

  202

  October

  172

  100

  147

  November

  141

  116

  150

  December

  42

  77

  142

  1991

  VIIa

  VIIf

  VIIg

  January

  138

  122

  78

  February

  181

  177

  94

  March

  268

  166

  63

  April

  279

  133

  140

  May

  448

  94

  187

  June

  131

  99

  128

  July

  104

  127

  136

  August

  341

  101

  179

  September

  181

  87

  170

  October

  113

  65

  96

  November

  233

  49

  107

  December

  257

  91

  142

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the administration of claims for disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Introducing disability living allowance at a stroke was always going to be a difficult task. But since April 1992, the Benefits Agency has received over 1·25 million claims to disability living allowance and attendance allowance. Almost 1·2 million of these have been cleared and over 800,000 awards of benefit have been made.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce any initiatives to speed the delivery of the disability living allowance to recipients.

  Mr. Scott
  The Benefits Agency, which is responsible for the administration of disability living allowance, is reviewing the procedures for processing claims, setting up additional processing centres and increasing the training of staff.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to complete the review of the disability living allowance care component for Mr. Trevor Fowler, applied for on 22 October 1992.
  97
  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Bob Cryer, dated 12 February 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, about Mr. Trevor Fowler's application for review of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) care component made on 22 October 1992.
  I am pleased to tell you that the outstanding action was completed on Mr. Fowler's case on 10 February 1993 and the Disability Living Allowance Unit (DLAU) have already written to you separately and in greater detail about this.
  The delay has resulted from the heavy volumes of work following the successful launch of the new benefit. Latterly delays were due to the backlog of reviews which had been building up. You will be aware from my letter of 19 October 1992 to all MPs of the problems the Benefits Agency has faced since the launch of DLA and the positive steps I have taken to improve the situation. Further steps taken to recruit additional, and redeploy existing, staff to clear the backlog of reviews.
  I am sorry for the delay in dealing with Mr. Fowler's case. Mr. Fowler has clearly not received the standard of service to which he is entitled from the Agency. Such matters are not taken lightly when they fail to come up to the standard of service the Benefits Agency is trying to give all its customers and I offer my sincere apologies to Mr. Fowler for any distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  European Court of Justice
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recent cases in the European Court of Justice have been won by his Department.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 23 November 1992, at column 532.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of extending the replacement fund for the independent living fund to cover people over retirement age.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 11 December 1992, at column 153.

  Mortgage Interest
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to a scheme to enable unemployed households in receipt of income support covering mortgage interest payments to take up job opportunities that may be available to them.

  Mr. Burt
  We have considered carefully the proposals which have been made to pay mortgage interest for those in work. We have no plans for such a scheme.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what studies his Department has made of the impact of the present benefit arrangements for 16 and 17-year-olds on homelessness among that age group.

  Mr. Burt
  The benefit arrangements for 16 and 17-year-olds are, like those of other recipients, kept under review. The Department of Employment guarantees a youth training place to all 16 and 17-year-olds who want one. Income support is not generally payable as youth training allowances are usually more generous. Income support is available to others who are vulnerable, either because they fulfil particular criteria, or by way of the severe hardship provision.

  Pension Age
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made on equalising the pension age, and introducing flexible retirement for men and women.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are committed to the equalisation of state pension age. No decisions have been taken as to what option should be adopted but we shall be announcing our proposals for equalisation in due course following full consideration of the views both the public and interested organisations have expressed.

  Housing Benefit (Lodgers)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change housing benefit entitlement to include lodgers who are close relatives.

  Mr. Burt
  Housing benefit is payable only in respect of a commercial rent liability. Most people living with close relatives do not have a rent liability, but instead make contributions to the household's costs. It has never been the Government's intention that housing benefit should be payable for such contributions.

  Pensions
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's policies to encourage personal pensions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The success of the Government's policy in encouraging personal pensions is amply demonstrated by the fact that 5 million people are currently personal pension holders.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department is planning to encourage personal choice in pensions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are committed to encouraging choice and flexibility in pension provision. We have introduced measures to ensure that individuals are able to obtain the information they need to make informed choices, and we are considering whether more can be done in this area. It is clear that individuals wish to take advantage of the choices available to make provision for their own retirement–5 million people have used
  99
  personal pensions to contract out of the state earnings-related pension scheme since we introduced the option in 1988.

  Care Allowances
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women are in receipt of mobility care allowance; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of people in receipt of the carer premium as a percentage of those who are eligible.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the information given in my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 25 January 1993, at columns 585–86.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, how much his Department spends on invalid care allowance and the carer premium; and what percentage of the total social security budget this figure makes up.

  Mr. Scott
  Pursuant to my reply of 25 January at column 583, the percentage of the total social security budget spent on invalid care allowance and the carer premium in 1991–92 was 0·4 per cent.

  Means Testing and Private Pensions
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about proposals to means test universal benefits and about his policies towards private pensions provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  From time to time we receive representations relating to various aspects of the Government's benefits and pensions policies. These cover a wide range of topics and include suggestions for changes in the current schemes.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the percentage of pensioners retiring(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available, who had incomes from savings; and what was the real average level of savings on each of those two dates.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My ministerial colleagues and I receive representations from many people about pensioner issues. I am able to inform them that 68 per cent. of pensioners who had recently retired in 1979 had income from savings, rising to 78 per cent. by 1988. The average

  Month (1992)

  Rent Allowances1 £

  Rent Rebates (Non-HRA)1 £

  Rent Rebates (HRA)2 £

  Total £

  January

  1,450,750

  268,599

  3,688,722

  5,408,071

  February

  2,006,221

  268,599

  3,688,723

  5,963,543

  March

  2,006,221

  268,599

  no payment

  2,274,820

  April

  2,516,687

  330,750

  no payment

  2,847,437

  May

  2,516,687

  330,750

  4,277,595

  7,125,032

  June

  2,516,687

  -786,1903

  4,277,595

  6,008,092

  100
  income from savings of all recently retired pensioners, at 1988 prices, was £12 per week in 1979 and £26.30 in 1988. Reliable information on the level of savings is not available in the form requested.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  Pensions (Married Women)
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which EC countries provide a separate pension to married women who have never made their own contributions towards a pension.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The United Kingdom is the only country in the Community to pay a separate pension to a pensioner's wife in her own right on the strength of her husband's contributions. However, Denmark and the Netherlands also pay a pension to a wife on the basis of residence.

  Disability
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department has taken to maintain support for disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  Since 1979 we have introduced a wide range of improvements, aimed at providing a wide ranging and coherent system of disability benefits. These improvements culminated in the introduction of disability living allowance and disability working allowance in April last year.

  By the end of 1992–93, we expect expenditure on benefit for long-term sick and disabled people to have risen by more than 170 per cent. in real terms to £13·7 billion.

  Income Support
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently estimated to be receiving income support; what is the total cost to the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  It is estimated that for 1992–93 there are 5·3 million claims for income support at a total benefit cost of £14·5 billion. This level of expenditure demonstrates our commitment to protect those on a low income.

  Source: Social Security—Departmental Report—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96 (Cm 2213).

  Housing Benefit, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much refund of housing benefit was paid to Lambeth council in each of the 12 months of 1992.

  Mr. Burt
  Monthly payments on account of housing benefit subsidy made to Lambeth council in 1992 are shown in the table.
  101

  Month (1992)

  Rent Allowances1 £

  Rent Rebates (Non-HRA)1 £

  Rent Rebates (HRA)2 £

  Total £

  July

  2,516,687

  -1,177,1193

  4,277,595

  5,617,163

  August

  2,516,687

  163,209

  4,277,595

  6,957,491

  September

  2,516,687

  330,750

  4,277,595

  7,125,032

  October

  2,516,687

  210,714

  4,730,835

  7,458,236

  November

  2,516,687

  313,602

  3,311,740

  6,142,029

  December

  2,516,687

  313,602

  4,353,135

  7,183,424

  Total

  28,113,375

  835,865

  41,161,130

  70,110,370

  Notes:

  1 paid by the Department of Social Security

  2 paid by the Department of the Environment

  3 negative amounts, due to recovery from 1991–92

  In addition, the Department paid £110,361 to Lambeth council in 1992 in respect of the direct administration subsidy for housing benefit. The monthly profile of this subsidy was as follows:

  £

  January

  36,787

  February

  36,787

  March

  36,787

  April

  79,179

  May

  79,179

  June

  79,179

  July

  79,179

  August

  79,179

  September

  79,179

  October

  79,179

  November

  79,179

  December

  79,179

  Total

  110,361

  The above table shows administration subsidy payments on account made by DSS. Administration subsidy for housing benefit is paid in two parts: 50 per cent. direct grant from DSS and 50 per cent. through the revenue support grant.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to respond to the application by Mr. Stanley Vauvert for mobility allowance, sent on 13 July 1992.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Bob Cryer, dated 12 February 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, about Mr. Stanley Vauvert's application for review made on 13 July 1992 of the decision to disallow his Mobility Allowance claim.
  I am pleased to tell you that a decision was made on Mr. Vauvert's application on the 10 February 1993 and the Disability Living Allowance Unit have already replied to you separately and in greater detail about this.
  I am concerned about the delay in the handling of Mr. Vauvert's review application. You will be aware from my letter of 19 October 1992 to all MPs of the problems the Benefits Agency (BA) has faced since the launch of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and the positive steps I have taken to improve the situation. Since then further steps have been
  102
  taken to recruit additional, of and redeploy existing staff to clear the backlog of reviews by, amongst other things, the setting up of four additional processing units.
  Mr. Vauvert has clearly not received the standard of service which he has every right to expect from the Agency and I offer my sincere apologies to him for any distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful and I thank you for the opportunity to explain this matter. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Energy Policy
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to delay the MPG 3 review until after the House has debated the recommendations in the first report from the Trade arid Industry Select Committee 1992–93 (HC 237) on British energy policy and the market for coal, in so far as they relate to open cast coal mining.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department intends to issue draft revised guidance for public consultation as soon as possible following the outcome of the coal review. We shall give careful consideration to the recommendations of the Trade and Industry Select Committee in preparing the draft guidelines and before the guidelines are finalised we will take into account the outcome of debates and all other representations we receive during the public consultation period.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. Howard
  None of the projects in my Department's market testing programme which involves exposing in-house functions to competition has yet reached the stage where a contract or service level agreement has been awarded.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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.
  103
  Mr. Howard
  There are six staff in my Department directly assigned to the market testing programme.

  From November 1991 to end December 1992, the total cost of the programme amounted to £650,480.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the compliance of the current application by British Nuclear Fuels for a revision of its authorisation to discharge radioactive waste from its Sellafield site with clauses on the justification of the production of radioactive waste within the 1986 White Paper on radioactive waste.

  Mr. Maclean
  This is a matter for the chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who have recently completed the statutory public consultation exercise into BNFL's applications. Following consideration of the numerous responses received by HMIP, they will be submitting their consultation response document to the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for consideration.

  Noise Monitoring
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken by his Department towards developing a co-ordinated noise level monitoring database for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. However, we have recently completed the national noise incidence study which involved noise measurements being made outside 1,000 homes in England and Wales during 1990 and has provided a benchmark on how noisy the country is. The results of the study will be published later this year.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant, Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the consultation exercise conducted by the inspectorate on British Nuclear Fuels' application for discharge authorisations for the thermal oxide reprocessing plant and associated plants.

  Mr. Maclean
  HMIP and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food currently expect to submit their report on the consultation exercise by the beginning of April 1993.

  Landfill Gas Flares
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about air pollution from landfill gas flares; what techniques are available to reduce emissions; and whether he will make gas flares subject to local authority air pollution control.

  Mr. Maclean
  Flaring of landfill gas serves to destroy the flammable components of the inlet landfill gas and reduce the trace components which are responsible for odour problems. Carbon dioxide would constitute the bulk component of flared gas since methane is a flammable gas. However, in order to have a better understanding of emissions from flare systems, my Department has 104
  commissioned the Environmental Safety centre at Harwell laboratory to carry out research on the fate of landfill gas components when flared, to compare the potential environmental impact of both source and flared landfill gas, and provide technical recommendations on the key design factors in flare systems to ensure complete combustion. The final report is expected this year.

  Pollution control legislation applies through the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 under which a landfill site requires to be licensed before operations can commence. The most recent advice on appropriate requirements for flare stacks is contained in chapter 8 of the Department's "Waste Management Paper No. 27". Since emissions are controlled through the waste disposal licence, it is not necessary for flares to be additionally controlled under the air pollution legislation.

  EC Environmental Action Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resource commitment was agreed by the Council of Ministers in support of the European Commission's fifth environmental action programme.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Council has agreed a commitment of 13 million ecu (£10.4 million) to support environmental action including the fifth action programme.

  Methane Emissions
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion, in carbon dioxide equivalent, of the United Kingdom's contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions arises from methane emissions; and whether he plans to introduce a strategy to reduce emissions of methane gas.

  Mr. Maclean
  The most recent edition of the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" estimates United Kingdom methane emissions in 1990 at 4·371 million tonnes. The direct global warming effect of these emissions is estimated at around 7 per cent. of that of United Kingdom emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Indirect effects add to methane's relative contribution; the intergovernmental panel on climate change estimates that these could be of similar magnitude to the direct effect. The estimate of United Kingdom methane emissions is currently under review.

  The UN framework convention on climate change requires developed country parties to draw up a programme of measures aimed at returning emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, including methane, to their 1990 levels by 2000. We are aiming to produce the United Kingdom's first national programme under the convention by the end of this year.

  Emissions
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he expects the introduction of new vehicle emission standards to influence emissions of oxides of nitrogen from road vehicles over the next 30 years; and what projections he has commissioned to demonstrate the possible effects.

  Mr. Maclean
  The introduction of three-way catalytic converters, now required on all new petrol-engined cars, should lead to a significant decrease in NOx emissions over the next 10 years.
  105
  Projections by Warren Spring laboratory to 2010 were published in September 1992 in the report "Pollution in the Atmosphere: Future Emissions from the UK". I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House. They suggest a fall in NOx emissions from road transport of between 30 per cent. and 36 per cent. by 2010 compared with 1991.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the total estimated emissions of oxides of nitrogen in the United Kingdom in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Maclean
  Estimated emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the United Kingdom since 1980, as reported in my Department's 1991 Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics, and are as follows:

  NOx Emission (thousands tonnes)

  1980

  2,312

  1981

  2,242

  1982

  2,221

  1983

  2,234

  1984

  2,216

  1985

  2,327

  1986

  2,416

  1987

  2,544

  1988

  2,626

  1989

  2,717

  1990

  2,729

  Eco-labelling
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those EC member states that have indicated they will continue with national eco-labelling.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that France, Germany and the Netherlands are currently continuing with national eco-labelling schemes.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those environmental organisations that have been involved in eco-labelling consultation;

  (2) what percentage of the market will be required for qualification in each of the markets under consideration by the United Kingdom Eco-Labelling Board; and if he will list them;

  (3) if he will include in the environmental impact statement for eco-labelling of product contents the effect of sourcing of ingredients on third world cultures and ecosystems as well as the presence of volatile organic compounds;

  (4) what studies he has made of the different energy mixes used in manufacturing throughout the European Community when developing eco-label criteria for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom Eco-Labelling Board has been established to administer and promote the European Community eco-labelling scheme nationally and has responsibility for dealing with the operational aspects of the scheme. I have therefore asked the board to reply to my hon. Friend direct.
  106
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps is taking to encourage the European Commission to issue clear guidelines on eco-labelling.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have consistently pressed the European Commission to implement the scheme as quickly as possible and to issue whatever guidance may be required.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has made of the effectiveness of eco-labelling as opposed to fiscal measures on(a) energy use sources, (b) waste disposal, (c) incentives for energy efficiency, (d) tax breaks for recycling or re-use or (e) tax breaks for clean of non-renewable technology.

  Mr. Maclean
  The eco-labelling scheme aims to create a market advantage for manufactures and retailers who make and stock greener products. The scheme is a European Community commitment and it is complementary to any fiscal measures which might be taken in particular sectors.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in order all his Department's press releases since 1 September 1992.

  Mr Howard
  Monthly summaries of this Department's press releases for the period 1 September 1992 to 31 January 1993 have been placed in the Library.

  Housing
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent talks he has had with financial institutions about their potential involvement in the private rented sector in housing.

  Mr. Baldry
  My hon. Friend, the Minister for Housing and Planning, has had a series of meetings with financial institutions to discuss a wide range of issues, including the potential for their involvement in the private rented housing sector to a greater degree than at present. We envisage that these will continue.

  Aggregates
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish in full his Department's revised approach to sand and gravel extraction in England and Wales.

  Sir George Young
  The Department has published revised planning guidelines for aggregates provision in England and Wales for public consultation. The consultation period ends on 31 March and the guidelines will be published once the public response has been assessed.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been carried out by his Department into the use of recycled material as an alternative to aggregate extraction; what other examination his Department has made of ways of reducing the demand for aggregates in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  107
  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has commissioned a number of studies into ways of achieving more efficient use of aggregates, including research into the occurrence and utilisation of mineral and construction wastes. No research has been undertaken into reducing directly the demand for aggregates, which is a reflection of the demands made by society on the construction industry.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigation he plans to carry out into the comparative environmental problems and benefits between developing coastal superquarries and inland sources of aggregates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Regional commentaries produced by the regional aggregates working parties indicate that traditional sources of primary aggregates will not be able to meet all anticipated demand over the next 20 years without some unacceptable environmental implications. My Department is therefore considering a range of options for meeting future demand. Any proposals for the development of coastal superquarries will be assessed on their merits and full regard will be had to their possible environmental impact.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the figures for the consumption of the different types of aggregates including crushed rock, sand and gravel, marine dredged sand and gravel, secondary aggregates and recycled materials, as used by different industries in each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The proportions of the total consumption of primary aggregates (sand and gravel and crushed rock) accounted for by particular sectors of the construction industry in England and Wales in 1990 have been estimated by ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd. as:

  Per cent.

  Housing

  20

  Roads (including Bridges)

  24

  Private Industrial

  11

  Private Commercial

  12

  Other Public

  13

  Road Repair and Maintenance

  8

  Housing Repair and Maintenance

  8

  Other

  3

  No detailed statistics are available on the use of different types of aggregates by these separate sectors.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what expertise exists in the national co-ordinating group and each of the regional aggregates working parties to assess the potential for synthetic and waste materials as alternatives to aggregates; what consultations each of these bodies has with environmental and other interests in carrying out their duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  These groups possess no specific expertise on secondary and waste materials for aggregates use. In addition to these groups, however, the Department also receives advice from consultants and the appropriate trade associations. Consultations have also taken place with environmental and other interests on the regional commentaries produced by the regional aggregates 108
  working parties and my Department has taken the responses into consideration in the revised guidelines for aggregates provision which have been published for consultation.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much(a) crushed rock, (b) sand and gravel, (c) marine dredged sand and gravel, (d) secondary aggregates and (e) recycled materials have been (i) imported into the United Kingdom and (ii) exported from the United Kingdom for 1985 until the latest available date; if he will list the countries involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Very little crushed rock, land-won sand and gravel or secondary and recycled aggregates have been imported or exported to or from the United Kingdom since 1985. Total exports and imports of these aggregates are estimated to account for les than 1 per cent. of total United Kingdom aggregates production and consumption.

  Marine sand and gravel dredged in United Kingdom waters is landed in some other European countries, principally Holland, Belgium and France. Foreign landings of marine dredged sand and gravel since 1985 are:

  Tonnes

  1985

  2,495,000

  1986

  2,317,000

  1987

  2,564,000

  1988

  2,379,000

  1989

  2,590,000

  1990

  3,818,000

  1991

  4,614,000

  Source: Crown Estate.

  FC Initiatives
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further allocations of funding are available to the United Kingdom from the European social fund and the European regional development fund, for initiatives which are the responsibility of his Department, as a result of the fall in the exchange rate.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources are being made available for derelict land reclamation under the derelict land grant programme in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The resources available in 1993–94 for derelict land reclamation under the derelict land grant programme will be £103·5 million.

  The reclamation of derelict and often seriously contaminated land plays a vital role in regenerating run down urban areas and improving the environment. In the last five years DLG has funded the reclamation of more than 6,000 hectares (14,820 acres) of derelict land, and more than, 1,500 hectares of land are now reclaimed annually.

  DLG is available throughout England, but in practice the largest allocations go to the north west and Yorkshire

  109
  and Humberside regions where some of the most extensive dereliction is found; and to the west midlands where funding is needed for continued investigative and remedial work on old limestone workings in the black country.

  A large proportion of the DLG programme will be devoted to 25 rolling programmes of reclamation, which will receive £45 million in 1993–94.

  Reclamation in areas subject to colliery closures is an important priority. DLG is being used in these areas mainly to reclaim collieries closed before March 1990: British Coal has agreed to take financial responsibility for the reclamation of most collieries closing since then. In 1993–94, £19 million of DLG will be devoted to treating dereliction arising from coal mining.

  The Government's continued high level of commitment to the clearance of dereliction will ensure that momentum is not lost in the handover to the urban regeneration agency. The agency will have a wide range of powers to deal with derelict, vacant and underused land either itself or in cooperation with local authorities and the private and voluntary sectors.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether Population Concern, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International have been invited to take part in the discussions on the practical implementation of the Earth Summit agreements at the International Conference for Non-Governmental Organisations in Manchester in September.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have consulted on proposals to hold an international conference in September on the theme of partnerships for change. We are considering responses to our consultation note. When we issue invitations to attend, we shall bear in mind the interest of people engaged in the population issues.

  Urban Waste Water
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sites proposed to him for classification as sensitive areas under the EC directive on urban waste water treatment, including the proposing body, by reason of(a) eutrophication and (b) inland water with a nitrate concentration greater than 50 mg/l.

  Mr. Maclean
  The urban waste water treatment directive requires member states to identify sensitive areas, in accordance with the criteria set out in the directive, by 31 December this year. The National Rivers Authority is at present compiling final lists of "candidate" sensitive areas which it will submit to the Department for consideration. Similar exercises are being carried out in the remainder of the United Kingdom. An announcement about the location of the areas to be formally identified as sensitive will be made before the deadline imposed in the directive.

  Protection Regulations
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the regulations protecting the environment which he proposes to take steps to rescind.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend is currently reviewing all regulations protecting the environment to 110
  ensure that they are necessary, and that they are meeting their objectives in the most efficient way possible with the minimum burden on industry.

  Civil Servants (Bicycles)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current conditions on which civil servants in his Department are granted salary advances to enable the purchase of bicycles for home-to-office travel; if he will make a statement on the current conditions in each agency of his Department; what plans he has to change the conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]Neither my Department not its agencies currently have a scheme for granting salary advances for the purchase of bicycles. However, my Department is currently reviewing the exisitng facilities for staff who cycle to work.

  Abandoned Mines (Water Pollution)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete his consideration of the framework of responsibility for water pollution from abandoned mines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]We aim to reach conclusions later this year.

  Oil Spillages
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take to protect sites of special scientific interest and other environmentally important areas from the effects of oil spillages.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 12 February 1993]In advance of any recommendations arising from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch investigation into the Shetland tanker incident or from the inquiry conducted by Lord Donaldson on the measures necessary to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping, I draw the hon. Member's attention to the agreement reached by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport with tanker operators to avoid a number of sensitive areas.

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances his Department is required to grant permission before sulphur can be added to coal used in coal-fired power stations.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]There is no record of sulphur being added to coal used in power stations. However, in appropriate circumstances, traces of sulphur trioxide may be added to the flue gases to provide a very great improvement in the removal of particulate matter in an electrostatic precipitator. The sulphur trioxide has little environmental significance in the quantities used. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution would require notification before the use of sulphur trioxide began at a power station.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, and to what extent, they are maintaining liaison with the Government of the USA regarding threats to the safety of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, particularly from Iraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are in close touch with the US Administration about all issues of international security, including the Gulf. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be discussing such issues during his forthcoming visit to Washington.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Is she aware that the allies—that is, the Americans, the British and the French—have been compelled yet again to punish Saddam Hussein, as he has completely ignored United Nations resolutions? He has also behaved in an appalling manner to his own people in Iraq. Should we not now seek strong support within the United Nations from other nations as well as the allies to ensure that this dictator does not literally get away with mass murder?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am well aware of the tremendous damage that Saddam Hussein has perpetrated on his own people in Iraq. I should make it clear beyond peradventure that the Iraqi regime could ease the suffering of the Iraqi people by immediately agreeing to implement United Nations Security Council Resolutions Nos. 706 and 712 which specifically permit Iraq to export oil in return for humanitarian supplies. I can only conclude that the Iraqi regime will not do that because it does not care about the Iraqi people.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not a fact that, so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, it will be necessary for ourselves, the United States and others to make it quite clear that any move against either Kuwait or Saudi Arabia will be met with full military resistance?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is exactly what we have sought to show the leaders of Iraq in recent events. The way in which the Iraqis have behaved as regards the Kuwaiti border and the difficulties that they are causing the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south make it clear that we must remain ready and vigilant and that we must ensure that the Government of Iraq comply with United
894
Nations Security Council resolutions. If that does not occur, we must take action to ensure that Iraq complies with those resolutions.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that the previous time Iraq invaded Kuwait the British ambassador was on holiday and the staff in the Foreign Office were asleep, as they were confident that nothing was about to happen? That occurred when Iraq had massed troops on the border some three weeks before and had declared that it was about to invade Kuwait any day. If the staff in the Foreign Office had not been asleep, the whole ghastly matter might have been avoided, for we could have sent troops in time to avoid it, as we did once before when Iraq made similar threats.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hope that it will be rare for me to use my following words in this House. I believe that what the noble Lord has just said is a travesty of the truth. I have known staff in the Foreign Office over many years and they were certainly in no way unprepared for the events that occurred in the Gulf. However, it is not as simple as the noble Lord makes out to react in those circumstances when one needs the full backing of the Security Council to do so.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the Minister accept that more than ever the activities of Saddam Hussein justify this Government being ready and prepared for action and having adequate armed forces?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are and shall be prepared. We have no intention of letting Saddam Hussein get away with any of his exploits.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that when the six-month period concerning the 36th Parallel and the 32nd Parallel is due to be renewed—it is the only protection that the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south have —this Government will renew it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is our intention so to do. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, for all he has done to push the case of the people of Iraq during these difficult years.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that it remains an essential component of United Kingdom policy to enforce Security Council Resolutions 706 and 707, to which she referred, and Resolutions 687 and 688, and also to ensure Security Council support for any other steps which may prove necessary? Can she say when the Security Council is likely to meet next to consider the issue?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have four pages of Security Council resolutions here on the subject of Iraq and Kuwait. We shall continue to work in support of all those resolutions. We have supported them in the past and will do so again. I am told that discussions are held every week, but I cannot tell the

895
noble Lord when the matter may formally arise again on the Security Council agenda. I shall seek to find out and let him know.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the appalling suffering of the Kurds and Shi'ites in Iraq. Is she also aware that Saddam has prevented any form of international aid entering his country? For those reasons alone ought we not to take advantage of United Nations Resolution 668 which provides that, where it is thought that a government are behaving horrendously towards their own people, the UN may order intervention by other countries which may be prepared so to do? We have done that once, and we did a very good job, but in my judgment we failed because we did not go all the way through, see Saddam off and arrest him to stand international trial. Does the noble Baroness not consider that that resolution would help all those involved, both our own allies and the people of Iraq?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord may have twisted the numbers around. He may have meant Resolution 686 or perhaps Resolution 688. That is not important. The point is that we shall do our very best at all times to make sure that the repression of the civilian population is ameliorated by that aid which we continue to get through. I very much hope that the memorandum of understanding, which expires in March, will be renewed, but it can only be renewed provided that reasonable conditions apply.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in the light of her welcome reassurance that we shall not allow Saddam Hussein to get away with anything, will the Minister tell the House what action the Government propose to take against a government which openly use two British citizens held in Iraqi jails as instruments of diplomatic blackmail?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, having met Mrs. Ride and Mrs. Wainwright only last night, I am only too well aware of what they are suffering and the way in which, not for the first time, Saddam Hussein is prepared to treat any foreigner who comes from a country he dislikes and is determined to fight. The situation is difficult. Saddam Hussein has sought to make us provide assistance when, simply by agreeing to the implementation of Resolutions 706 and 712, Iraq could have all the humanitarian supplies it needs in return for permission to export its oil.

NHS Trusts: Financial Problems
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the financial problems currently preventing elective surgery and other treatment in many trust hospitals is due to a failure of management in these hospitals, and how they intend to remedy the situation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, in the new National Health Service more patients are being treated than ever before and long waiting times are falling. That is to the credit of both managers and clinical staff. Some hospitals have, however, completed their elective work earlier than planned. That has left them with spare capacity which they are looking to purchasers to fill. It is an issue we are addressing for future years, but overall the results for patients have been good. Many more have received their treatment earlier than would otherwise have been the case.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. However, is she aware that there is growing concern about the situation, which seems to show that even the very highly paid new executives in trust hospitals cannot sort the system out? Is she further aware that the present situation seems to reveal basic flaws in the mechanism of the internal market and probably at the bottom basic under-funding of the service as a whole?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, never before has the National Health Service received so much funding. The Government have provided more than £1 billion extra for health services in England next year, a real increase of 3 per cent. over our original plans. Spending is at record levels. The noble Baroness suggested that perhaps managers are at fault. Never before have we had such a quiet winter. It is amazing that the health service is seeing more and more patients, waiting lists are going down and productivity is better than ever before.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend let me into a secret and tell me what elective surgery is? Is it a form of democracy, or is one allowed to choose for oneself?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is an element of choice in that one can choose the consultant one wishes to see. Elective surgery is surgery which is not emergency surgery and can be carried out within a period of time.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Baroness comment on the fact that before the election the numbers on the waiting list were consistently falling whereas since the election they have consistently increased and have now reached an all-time record level? Secondly, can she comment on the fact that an additional 18,000 people have been appointed to managerial posts since the reorganisation of the health service and the introduction of trusts?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the waiting lists have never been lower in terms of those who have been waiting for over a year. In 1992 the number of patients waiting over a year fell by a remarkable 45 per cent. The number of patients waiting over a year at the end of December was the lowest figure ever recorded. It is not the number of patients on the waiting list which matters; it is the length of time they have to wait. The Government took the decision to reduce the numbers

897
of people waiting over two years—and now there are none—and to reduce the number waiting over one year. As I have said, the record has never been better.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, since the noble Baroness clearly will not tell us voluntarily, I shall ask the question. How many people are now waiting under a year compared with last year?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the number of people waiting over a year—
Noble Lords: Under a year!
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sorry. The number of people waiting under a year is 904,323.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the impressive fact about the trusts is that they have already treated more patients in this financial year than the hospitals did last year before they became trusts? Does she further agree that as the health service treats more and more patients on an elective basis, the number of people waiting for an appointment for their elective operations will naturally increase? The important factor is that the period that they wait is decreasing; and that is the aim that the Government are achieving currently.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. In the first 12 months of the reforms the number of patients treated in the NHS increased by 7.2 per cent. In NHS trusts the increase was 8.2 per cent. That is a remarkable record.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Baroness consider the efficiency of the management of the West Midlands Regional Health Authority? Reorganisation was planned 10 years ago. Those plans have not yet been put into operation. Will she ensure that the new management which will take over, and others involved, will consult the citizens of Birmingham with the utmost speed on what is required in the area?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am delighted to answer the noble Baroness's first question, yes. In answer to her second question, she will be aware that the plans are being reviewed at present.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us the proportion of total expenditure on management and administrative staff in hospitals before and after trust status?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not have those figures with me. However, NHS management accounts for less than 1.8 per cent. of the NHS workforce. The ratio of clinical to support staff has never been higher. But over a quarter of administrative and clerical staff work in direct support of clinicians. That is a factor of which we are very proud.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that attacks about managements in trust hospitals, or indeed elsewhere in the National Health Service, are grossly misjudged? Any reasonable
898
assessment of their contribution indicates that they ensure a more cost-effective use of the inevitably limited resources available for our health service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. He will be aware that only three or four years ago the Government requested Sir Roy Griffiths, then managing director of Sainsbury's, specifically to review the management of the National Health Service. He was astounded at the lack of management, the poor management and the need to strengthen it. We are determined to get every penny out of every pound spent in the National Health Service. That requires managers to do a good and thorough job.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, will the Minister elucidate on "over-performance on contracts" which seems to be the expression that guides managers at present? Over-performance on contracts seems to be another way of referring to reduction in services or cutbacks.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is not the case. Over-performance is when a trust sees and treats more patients than it is contracted to do. Many trusts are doing that. They are squeezing their budgets as tightly as they can in order to treat more patients. However, we expect every trust and every directly managed unit to live within its means.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the "new National Health Service". Is she aware that according to articles in yesterday's newspapers patients do not have the same confidence in the National Health Service's ability to treat them that they had six months ago? I refer to an article on cancer patients. Is she further aware that fund-holding GPs are not using the full amount of money and are therefore not treating as many patients as they could because there is an incentive for them to save money and to plough it back into the practice? Is that good management?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am surprised at the noble Lord's question. All the surveys that I have seen indicate that the public have greater confidence in the National Health Service. In fact a recent survey by the magazine, Doctor, indicates that the fund-holders reported that they had 70 per cent. cuts in waiting times and over 60 per cent. reported improved services for follow-up appointments. Over 50 per cent. reported improved dealings with consultants and were providing extra services such as physiotherapy. It is hardly surprising that the public are very satisfied with the National Health Service.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, some of us on this side of the House are delighted that the noble Baroness has the courage and the guts to get up and say something nice about the National Health Service.

Armenia: Energy Supplies
2.56 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take to assist in ensuring the supply of energy to Armenia in view of the blowing up of the gas supply line from Russia to Armenia.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we understand that intermittent supplies have been resumed. But we condemn the further sabotage to the pipeline in recent days. Our ambassador to Armenia recently travelled to Yerevan and discussed the situation with President Ter-Petrossian. Both the EC and the UN Security Council have urged all countries in the region, including Turkey, who are in a position to help, to do so.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware of the potentially extremely dangerous situation at Medzamor where a nuclear reactor is earthquake damaged? It has been idle since 1988. Owing to lack of energy, Armenia is now unable to use the monitor or control systems for the reactor. Two-thirds of the fuel elements are still in place. The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and the Russian Nuclear Safety Agency have stated that it is stable at present. But it is a real and increasing danger. That is in spite of the fact that the Armenians have sent six stand-by generators in an attempt to keep the cooling system going.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware of the Medzamor nuclear power station. It lies on a geological fault line and was switched off after the 1988 earthquake. Armenia does not have the expertise to maintain or operate the plant. It is for that reason that the European Community is funding a safety study of the power station. That will shortly be completed. We hope that the Armenian Government will await the outcome of that and other studies before making any decision. That is the way, we believe, that the safest solution to that important nuclear power station can be achieved.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the Armenian people, who over the past decade have suffered appallingly, now face another terrible threat. The Minister has explained the technical aspects. Should we not put pressure on the Security Council to ensure that they are put into operation as swiftly as possible?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are well aware of the suffering of Armenian and Azerbaijani people in that region. My noble friend Lady Cox, who has done much to help the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, supplies me regularly with up-to-date information. I am pleased to confirm a further £200,000 for the ICRC and UN emergency appeals in Armenia.
While we see a process through the UN as being important, I believe that the CSCE process and the efforts of Signor Raffaelli to bring the parties together
900
need greater support. We have urged the parties to agree to a ceasefire to demonstrate their willingness to compromise, which is necessary for a solution. There is, frankly, nothing to be gained from switching talks to another forum.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend regard the sabotage as part of the Azerbaijani blockade of that country? If so, what response have the Azerbaijanis given to the motion of the European Parliament calling on them to raise the blockade? Will she further state whether the blockade is a critical factor in the appalling strangulation in Nagorno-Karabakh?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend has asked me a number of linked questions. Certainly, the Azeris have sought to blockade Armenia in a number of ways. They have caused great problems in Nakichevan which is a part of Azerbaijan separated from the rest of the country by southern Armenia. We know that without confidence-building measures there will be no solution to the situation. Those measures should obviously include the lifting of the economic blockades. However, we are concerned that there has as yet been no positive response by the Azeris. Until there is, it will be difficult to continue to help the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to the degree we believe they deserve.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned funding by the European Commission for assistance. Will she inform the House of the amount of funding incorporated in the 1993 draft budget adopted by the Community, together with the article title and item number which refer to that expenditure?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret very much that without notice of that question I cannot answer the noble Lord, but I shall write to him.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the incident demonstrates the vulnerability of using gas as a source of power supply? On that basis, will she press her colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, to maximise the use of coal for British power supplies instead of gas?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the two cases have nothing in common. The safety of any power station is what counts.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, will my noble friend expand on her earlier Answer and say what efforts the CSCE is making at the moment in broking peace between the Azeris and Armenians? Can she also say whether any progress is being made by the WCC in its efforts to bring together the head of the Armenian Church and the Azeri Moslems?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Signor Raffaelli, who has been appointed by the CSCE, makes continual efforts to bring the parties together. As concerns the WCC, I cannot give the noble Lord an answer but I shall write to him.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm the reports that Turkey and Greece are pursuing their mutual feud by supplying armaments to the respective sides? If so, can she say what steps are being taken to dissuade them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No, my Lords, I cannot.

Local Authorities: Capital Receipts
3.2 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much of the £1.75 billion in capital receipts estimated by them to be made available to local authorities as a result of the Autumn Statement will be wiped out through clawbacks and redistribution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, local authorities are free to spend the estimated £1.75 billion of extra usable capital receipts as they choose and are not required to repay any of them to the Exchequer as a result of the measure.
The distribution of basic credit approval takes some account of authorities' estimated usable receipts, but this does not reduce the total of central government support for their capital programmes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply because it gives me some hope. Does he agree that when this subject was dealt with by the Chancellor in the Autumn Statement it gave a fragile hope to the building industry, which has already been devastated? Will the Minister also agree that if Mr. Portillo takes his scalpel to the £1.75 billion he may just about ruin the building industry for all time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have no intention of ruining the building industry. The noble Lord is right, the Autumn Statement was about giving the building industry confidence and giving local authorities money to spend with that industry.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that his own department now considers that £700 million of the so-called £1.75 billion will be taken up in place of normal borrowing for housing investment programme allocations? Further, is he aware that £56 million will be taken up in supplying the shortfall in renovation grants which the Government have cut? Therefore, even if the £1.75 billion is achieved and, of that, £1 billion is left, to participate in the capital partnership programmes which the department has announced will require further sums. Even if that doubtful target is achieved, how much will be left for building new houses?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I find it extraordinary that noble Lords opposite believe that the announcement that we made in the Autumn Statement was some sort of financial trickery, some sleight of hand by the Government. In my original Answer, I explained that local authorities could choose how to spend that
902
money provided it is on capital expenditure. Whether they spend it on new houses or other projects is entirely up to them.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that it is not noble Lords from these Benches who called it "some sort of trickery"? The leader of Nottingham District Council said that it was a con, a cosmetic public relations exercise.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not believe that £1.75 billion is a con at all. It is a valuable contribution that is being made to the building industry and one that most responsible local authorities are taking up.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an estimate as to how many new houses will be built and how many workers will be put back into employment?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords, that depends on how the money is spent.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Chalker will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Maastricht.

Housing and Urban Development Bill
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order 48; read a first time.

Video Recordings Bill [H.L.]
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Birkett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Young persons employed in video hire shops
. After section 3 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Young persons employed in video hire shops.
.—(1) A person who carries on a business of supplying video recordings for reward shall not permit any young person to supply in the course of that business any video recording which, by reason of the classification certificate issued in respect of it, is not suitable for viewing by that young person.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) above is guilty of an offence.
(3) In this section "young person" means a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years." ").
The noble Lord said: This Bill is designed to strengthen the Video Recordings Act 1984. I welcome

903
the Bill and support the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, in introducing it. I pause here, as the tide in the Chamber goes out in a manner which would have appeased King Cnut, had it happened to him! My noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Astor, was kind enough to write to me about the amendments which I tabled and which I foreshadowed in my speech on Second Reading. He concluded his letter by hoping that a Private Member's Bill of this sort would not be,
"over-burdened with controversial amendments going far beyond the scope of the 1984 Act".
I say by way of preliminary that I think it is worth remembering that a Bill in this House is not unlike a bus. It has a known destination and carries on board passengers in the form of clauses, all of whom intend to go to the destination on the name board. The destination on the name board on the front of this bus shows that it will go to the Video Recordings Act via the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. Sitting in the bus already and waiting for it to go are four passengers put there by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett: three going all the way and one getting off in Scotland.
I wish to do nothing to impede their journeys but I notice that there is plenty more room in the bus; room, I hope, for the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, as a passenger whom I shall certainly assist to get on to the platform; and room above for three.
The question is not therefore: is there room for these amendments?—because there is. A Bill can be as long as one wishes and the Committee may have noticed the astonishing thickness of the Bill laid on the Table a moment ago, to be discussed shortly by your Lordships, whereas ours is only three-and-a-half pages long.
Nor is the question whether the provisions are designed to do exactly what we had in mind when we drafted the Bill. That would be like expecting all the passengers in the bus to wear the same clothes and do the same work. The answer to that point is simple and has already been given by accepting the amendments onto the Marshalled List. They fall plumb into the Long Title of the Bill; so there is room for the passengers and they are going to the advertised destination. The real question is: is their journey really necessary? To decide that, we need to look at them individually.
I speak to the first amendment, which deals with the employment of young people under the age of 18. The object of the principal Act is to shelter.society at large from unrestricted availability of video porn and the younger members of that society from video sex and violence of a kind that may be damaging or disturbing to them. That is achieved by a system of licensing certificates and labels with which the Committee is familiar. Members are also familiar with the way in which the labels and certificates declare that certain videos are suitable only for those above a certain age.
Members of the Committee will certainly remember—if not from their own childhood, from the behaviour of their children and grandchildren—the attraction of anything to the young when they are told that they are not old enough for it. I wonder how many in this Chamber smoked their first cigarette as children
904
purely and simply to enjoy an experience forbidden to children; and how many would not have suffered the dizzy nausea of the second cigarette were it not for an urgent wish to seem grown up.
In an ironic way the labelling system itself therefore actually increases the pressure on youngsters to see that which it is designed to help prevent them seeing. We have all in our time resisted the clamorous pleas of the young for things meant only for their elders. For us it is a weariness; but for the newly adult it is an agreeable confirmation that they are of age.
I have little anxiety, therefore, about the ability of 18 year-old shop assistants to resist under-age requests for age-restricted videos. But I doubt the wisdom of expecting under-age shop assistants to enforce the rules against the wishes of their peers to see under-age material. Such assistants can at present sell or hire videos of any age rating. It is normal for them to handle over-18 stock for over-18 customers. That is rather as if 16 year-old children were allowed to sell beer or spirits to adults in pubs. I am not certain that a shop stocking over-18 videos is a good place for children of 14, 15, 16 or 17 to be working in at all. But given that that is accepted, I believe we should take steps to prevent them from handling material that the BBFC itself has specifically singled out as unsuitable for viewing by them and their age group.
The pressures upon under-18s from their peers to release the material to them will be enormous, as will be the temptation to view the material themselves and boast about it. They will be under the same pressures as we were to smoke that first and second cigarette. But whereas the cigarette smoked at the age of 10 or 12 is unlikely to cause lasting harm, the effects of an adult video on a 14 or 15 year-old can be both lasting and traumatic. If Members of the Committee have the slightest doubt of that, I ask them to read our debates in 1984 on the present Act and save themselves a long speech from me.
The amendment is designed to assist the implementation of the policies of the BBFC, of which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, is vice-president. I very much hope that he and Her Majesty's Government will allow the clause to join his four clauses on the legislative bus, on which there is plenty of room. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Birkett: In view of the elaborate metaphor of the bus introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, if I am to be regarded as the conductor on that bus, it seems rather churlish of me not entirely to welcome the noble Lord on board. Although I share with him —as I am sure all Members of the Committee do—the concern about youth and that young people should not be subject to influences from which they are supposed to be protected by the classification system, I very much doubt whether his journey on this amendment is necessary.
It is perfectly true that people under the age of 18 serve in video shops. Such large numbers do so that I suspect that the legislation, if it were passed, would have a very serious effect upon their employment. Three of the biggest chains of video retailers, who

905
between them employ 25,000 people, have among that number 10,000 who are under the age of 18—in other words, 40 per cent. I believe, therefore, that, if passed, the amendment would have a draconian effect upon the industry.
Furthermore, a very large number of video outlets are not large chains. They are small corner stores. Sometimes they are more grocery than video shops. But (as I am sure all noble Lords have discovered) they sell videos, or they hire out videos as well. In many cases it is a member of the family who looks after the shop. In those little shops I believe it would be a very serious burden upon the shopkeepers if they had to have available at all times somebody over 18 simply to handle the videos.
It is quite clear that if somebody under the age of 18—or indeed under the age of 15—either sells or gives out for hire a video classified for age 15 or 18 to somebody under that age, whatever age he is, he is committing an offence. Those in charge of the shop should have made sure that he did not do so. I have no evidence—and I have asked around—whether there is indeed the sort of peer pressure to which the noble Lord pointed. Are under-aged children pestered by their friends of the same age to supply videos below the proper age? I can find no evidence of it at all.
Lastly, although I understand the noble Lord's metaphor when he says that a bus is big enough to take anything on board, this bus was intended to be a measure about enforcement. It was meant to make sure that the enforcement of an Act, which, I believe, is generally regarded as sensible all round, was made more streamlined, more effective and more cost-effective. The noble Lord's amendments will add to the regulations involved which the Bill otherwise does not do. Therefore they will create new potential offences. I doubt whether that bus is the right one to climb on for that purpose. In view of all those points, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I need say only once that our position on Private Members' Bills is that they are a matter for individual judgment and conscience. Therefore what I say from the Dispatch Box is said for myself rather than for my noble friends.
I will make one point in favour of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, followed by one or two points against what he is arguing. The first point certainly is that he is correct—the Bill is not long; it is not complex; it would not be an impossible burden in legislative terms to extend it. Having said that, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, may be well advised to resist the amendment, even if only on the grounds that the Bill is a streamlining measure and that to add new regulation would complicate the issue.
But when we come to the substance of the amendment, I am bound to say that I do not see any evidence that the evil of which the noble Lord complains is likely to take place, or any reason why video recordings should be singled out in that way. It is not against the law for young people under the age of 18 to serve in grocery shops, newsagents, confectioners, tobacconists and so on. One of the peculiarities of videos is that one cannot be corrupted
906
by what is inside the case; whereas if one has a book or a magazine, if corruption were around, it could be obtained by opening the book or magazine. So videos are peculiarly safe from casual handling, if I may put it that way. I would have thought that the noble Lord is proposing an unnecessary complication, and an unnecessary regulation, for which he has not produced any adequate evidence. I hope that the Government, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, will resist the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will not feel obliged to press the amendment. Although I have the greatest sympathy with much of what he said, this is the wrong place and the wrong time to raise it. If we are to accept a measure which would have the effect of causing severe unemployment among a group of young people who are desperately in need of jobs, then a great deal more consultation would need to take place as to what the exact effect would be—we are not at all sure of that—not only with the retailers concerned, but also with youth employment personnel in the areas which are likely to be effected.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, that it is an unfortunate time to put forward the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will not press it. It may prejudice any future attempt to achieve the same objective. I do not doubt the noble Lord's integrity, nor the validity of what he says in regard to the effect that videos have on young people. I feel, however, that Amendment No. 1 is unnecessary and will not achieve what he hopes.
Viscount Brentford: I support Amendment No. 1. However, I am not sure whether what is proposed is the right way to go about it. The noble Lord may wish to withdraw the amendment and reflect upon it. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said in that regard.
My concern, which is well brought out by the amendment, is the fact that the 16 or 17 year-old working in a video shop is encouraged to see all the videos on sale. From my understanding and from what I have been told by teenagers, that is the policy of owners and managers of video shops. One must see what one is selling in order to be a good salesman, to enable one to push the videos. I am worried that the youngsters will need to see the videos while acting as salesmen, whether to other under age people or adults. I therefore support the principle of the amendment.
Viscount Astor: In regard to the bus analogy, I am not sure whether I am the bus inspector, the driver's assistant or indeed the apprentice mechanic—or a little of all three. I can add little to what the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said. The Government are not persuaded that the amendment of my noble friend is necessary to meet any real need or remedy any real weakness in the way that the Video Recordings Act operates. Many small businesses supply videos as a sideline—for instance, in a grocer's shop. If they had to ensure that there was always someone on the premises who was at least 18 years of age that could drive them out of the video trade altogether. Even

907
large national chains employ young people. Amendment No. 1 would prevent such staff being used flexibly.
In short, the amendment would create serious practical difficulties for a range of businesses at a time when the Government are anxious that commerce should not be encumbered with red tape of doubtful value. There is a comparison with the law relating to the sale of alcohol. Shop assistants under the age of 18 are permitted to make off-licence sales of alcohol provided they do so under supervision, whereas the amendment would completely outlaw such sales in respect of age-restricted video recordings. The restriction on the sale of alcohol is also easier to obey and to enforce than the amendment would be because it relates clearly to one age and not to a range of age classifications. It also reflects the fact that young people should not be in a position where they may be tempted to assist in the offences of others since, unlike the situation with video recordings, it is also an offence to attempt to buy alcohol under age.
The Earl of Longford: Perhaps I can ask the noble Viscount a question. He said that young people under the age of 18 are allowed to sell alcohol provided they are supervised. Thinking of one of my local shops, young people are often not supervised by anybody except by a character who may be under suspicion.
Viscount Astor: I cannot answer the noble Earl's question in regard to the shop from which he buys his alcohol. My point is that the amendment would make it more complicated for shops. With that explanation I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elton: One takes a little time to absorb the variety of arguments put forward. My immediate reaction is to say that I was anxious that a number of young people might not only be at risk themselves but also that they might place others at risk through being required to handle and distribute material which was thought to be harmful to themselves and others of their age. The first reassuring comment of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, was that there were no less than 10,000 people at risk in that respect. That is not something which encourages me to relax my anxiety. I shall return to the question of evidence in a moment.
The noble Lord's next point was that the Bill was about enforcement. In strictly parliamentary terms, whether it is a Private or a Public Bill, a Bill is about whatever the Long Title says. In this instance the Long Title states that it is,
"An Act to amend the Video Recordings Act 1984",
and so forth. That is no more and no less than what I am proposing.
The noble Lord said that there would be an addition to the regulations that apply to the industry. That I accept. But is that a necessary and worthwhile burden?
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out that people were safe from casual contamination—if that is a correct description—by the material in a video cassette, which I accept. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was kind enough to say that she shared my
908
anxiety, but that this was the wrong place and the wrong time because of the desperate need for jobs for young people. That was mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. The analogy is perhaps disproportionate but otherwise just. One would not have advocated continuation of child chimney sweeps before the relevant Acts forced the practice to be abandoned on the grounds that there was massive unemployment at the time. This is a lesser threat, and therefore I do not press the analogy. However, the principle is clear. One fits the law to the circumstance. If the circumstance is that it is a threat to young people, then one should not make a greater exposure of them to that threat at the price of increasing the number of jobs.
It comes back to the question of the scales. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said. We need evidence of a considerable number of cases. My evidence is circumstantial. I shall withdraw the amendment and hope that the interested bodies following the arguments in Hansard come forward with the evidence I need to bring it back at Report.
An alternative route would be to require supervision of young people in the shops where they are to handle the material. I can find no reference to that, and it may be acceptable to include a requirement for their supervision by adults rather than to restrict the work that they do by amending the Act. That said, I thank the Committee for its patience and constructive attendance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Video recordings shown in public places
. After section 3 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Video recordings shown in public places.
. If a video recording which is not suitable for viewing by persons who have not attained a particular age is shown in a public place, and any person under the age sees the video recording, or any part of it, in the public place, then the person responsible for the showing of that video recording is guilty of an offence." ").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 relates to the showing of videos in public places. I tabled the amendment to address the known evil of the showing of entirely unsuitable material to very young people. At present an adult can hire or purchase a video of any classification. Once he has done so, what he does with it ceases to be the concern of the existing Video Recordings Act. While the composition of audiences in private and domestic premises must be the concern of the people who live there, there is an anomaly in setting up the whole paraphernalia of certification and then turning a blind eye to what happens to the material in public. After all, the Act is designed to protect the public.
That is a matter with which the BBFC is concerned. Indeed, as early as in its 1986 report it drew attention to it. Paragraph 65 of the report states,
"A recurrent problem considered at meetings of the council was that of unsuitable videos being shown in captive situations with children present, such venues including long-distance coaches, hotels and restaurants and video shops, where it was currently legal".
The chairman was asked to write to the Minister about the need to tighten up the rules. The Minister, it is recorded in paragraph 66, replied that the matter was already being considered as part of a wider review of the Cinemas Act and suggested that Home Office officials and those on the board should remain closely in touch on these matters.
In 1987, the annual report recorded in paragraph 57:
"The council had asked the board and the Home Office to consider the best means of ensuring that the screening of unsuitable videos to captive audiences in long-distance coaches, restaurants, hotels and the public areas of video shops should be brought under some form of regulation".
There was particular concern that the screening of videos in non-domestic situations should be constrained by audience age, particularly where such screenings fell between the two relevant pieces of legislation. In paragraph 58 it is recorded that,
"with the council's support an undertaking was given by the Home Office to explore the best means of introducing such regulation, perhaps through an amendment to the Cinemas Act 1985".
In the following paragraph Home Office officials said that they would consult both the film and video industries and coach hire firms, hoteliers and so on to see whether legislation was practicable or whether informal self-regulatory arrangements might suffice. I would add that the final sentence of the paragraph deserves attention:
"A caveat was entered by independent members of the council expressing scepticism about how far self regulation could prove effective in areas of profitable commerce".
Some time has elapsed since then. I hope that the noble Lord or the Minister will be able to tell us how we have progressed in producing a framework to control this area. I regret to see that no reference is made to other places of public entertainment such as hired village halls and school halls where again materials which the board is concerned to regulate can be shown without any regard to the regulations. I have particularly in mind a recent occasion when a seven year-old girl went to the showing in a hired hall of a very violent video and was greatly upset by it.
This probing amendment is drafted to suggest one means of preventing a recurrence of that kind of thing. The Minister will doubtless tell us that the Bill is about the supply and not the exhibition of certificated material, and so indeed will the noble Lord, Lord Birkett—and that is absolutely right. But I hope that they will not go on to say that we need not therefore bother about this kind of abuse. If such conduct is a breach of other legislation such as the Cinemas Act, perhaps the Minister can tell us about that. If it is not, perhaps he can tell us in what respect that measure could be amended to bring it within the Act's scope. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Birkett: Here again I fear I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that, although I too share his concern that films totally unsuitable for young people should not be shown in public places where they are more than likely to see them, I doubt whether there is very much abuse at all. The Cinemas Act 1985 defines a film exhibition as an exhibition of moving pictures
910
which is produced otherwise than by the simultaneous reception and exhibition of programmes included in a programme service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990. In other words, anything that is on film, tape or video; anything that is not coming live off a television or radio set. The Cinemas Act requires that premises other than private dwellings which are to be used for such exhibitions must be licensed and it permits local authorities to impose licence conditions, including restrictions on the age of those allowed in.
By and large, there are very few places in which the noble Lord's amendment would really bite. I refer in particular to video shops, which are now very widely spread. I suspect that the Video Standards Council's rules on the subject of what is and what is not shown in a video shop now bite very deeply and that that abuse is more or less non-existent. The noble Lord's next amendment deals specifically with that point so I shall not say any more on the subject at the moment.
It is of course possible to arrange a video showing in circumstances where quite a large number of people are present which is not a public viewing. There are exceptions for exhibitions of films not for gain; that is to say, for private purposes. But since those exemptions also apply to the cinema, it would be a little unfortunate to single out the video industry where such abuses, I suspect, are less likely than they would even be in cinemas.
As far as concerns the general tenor of the Bill, I take the noble Lord's point that if the Long Title of the Bill is,
"An Act to amend the Video Recordings Act",
that is an invitation to amend it in any way you choose. I do not think it quite means an invitation to make all the amendments that occur to you at the time. There are suitable vehicles and unsuitable vehicles. Although I take the noble Lord's point that a bus is by definition big enough to take on lots of passengers, the purpose of a bus and where it is going are quite different. It would be unfortunate if this so far quite tight-knit and, I hope, potentially effective little Bill were encumbered by a vast number of additions which would slow up its progress. It is not so much the size of the bus but the speed and efficiency of it.
Lord Elton: Can my noble friend say in what way that would slow up its progress? It would go through the House in just the same number of days.
Lord Birkett: I was not entirely thinking of its progress through your Lordships' House or through another place. I was simply thinking of the efficacy of implementing it and how difficult or not it would be for those concerned, which is the video industry, to come to terms with it and operate it properly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not very keen on this analogy of the bus. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, would agree with me that the real restriction is likely to be parliamentary time in another place; and there the bridge that the bus has to get under is a very low one.
Lord Birkett: I fear that the noble Lord is all too right on that matter. I would not disagree with him for a moment. I am sure that that is true.
I see the purpose of the amendment but I believe that life is a great deal better than it was during the times that the noble Lord was originally referring to. I do not see the necessity for the amendment at this point. I hope that he will agree to withdraw it.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has explained that current laws deal with any possible problem that can arise. I refer in particular to the Cinemas Act 1985. One aspect with which he did not deal totally was "public place". Perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee if I say that, if it were possible to show a video work in a public place in circumstances which were outside the scope of the Cinemas Act, such an exhibition would still be subject to the provisions of the Indecent Displays (Control) Act, which makes it a criminal offence to display indecent matter in a public place or where it can be seen from a public place. Such exhibitions would also be subject to the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which makes it an offence to infringe a copyright owner's right by the unauthorised public exhibition of a film or sound recording.
Perhaps I may also make the point that we have found no evidence that there is any major social mischief being done by this. I quite understand my noble friend's concerns. The only other point I would make to him is purely a technical one. His amendment refers to "a video recording". I suspect that the correct term should be "a video work". That is purely a technical point. I hope my noble friend will see that his point is covered by existing law. We do not see this to be a problem area.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that technical point. I shall ensure that amendments when they later appear will be better drafted. I said that this was a probing amendment because in my view the proper destination for this passenger is quite possibly not on this Bill but on a Bill concerning the Cinemas Act. That is borne out by what the Minister has just said and that is what I wanted to extract.
I am not sure that either of the two noble Lords who have spoken are quite up to date with the extent of disquiet and abuse. I understand that there has been a succession of complaints about material shown, particularly, oddly enough, on long-range buses which have an audience of all ages and tend to get very adult material to entertain the passengers. That is an abuse and one which we should take note of.
I should like my noble friend the Minister to consider, between now and Report stage, putting the two Acts together perhaps in the next Session of Parliament. It is possible that unsuitable video material falls between the regulations of this Act and the Cinemas Act. Perhaps he will see whether anything needs to be done to them in respect of each other to ensure that the gap is closed. It would be very helpful if my noble friend were in a position to tell me
912
something about that at Report stage. Until then I shall leave the Committee in peace on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 3:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Videos on view in shops
. After section 3 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Videos on view in shops.
.—(1) A person who carries on in any premises a business of supplying video recordings for reward shall not permit the showing on those premises of any video recording, or part thereof, other than one in respect of which a classification certificate has been issued which satisfies the requirements of section 7(2) (a) of this Act.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section is guilty of an offence." ").
The noble Lord said: Again, this amendment is directed at what happens on the premises used for the hire or sale of video recordings. I need not remind the Committee that the principal Act is designed to protect people of tender age from seeing material suitable only for viewing by adults. It does so by requiring that all material be classified, preventing the hire or sale of certain classifications of videos to people under certain ages. Nevertheless, at present video shops are perfectly at liberty to run extracts, continuous loops or advertisements for such videos in premises in which children of any age can come and go without supervision.
That is the provision of the law. I have in my hand a copy of the Video Standards Council code of practice which deals with this matter and which makes it an unacceptable practice. I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, would tell us the extent to which the code of practice is observed and the proportion of places where such video material is available and which actually subscribe to the code of practice. Perhaps he could also tell the Committee of the means of dealing with those places when they fail to observe the code of practice. I beg to move.
Lord Birkett: Once again, if there were any evidence of widespread abuse —the noble Lord has asked me very specifically to say how much there is or is not —I would be much in sympathy with the amendment. However, before I deal with that matter perhaps I may point out one rather serious flaw in the amendment as it stands—
Lord Elton: I am not going to press the amendment in its present form. I believe I made it clear that this is a probing amendment to ask the noble Lord to bring forward information, which I hope will be reassuring, so that I need not bring forward the amendment in any form.
Lord Birkett: I shall certainly do that. I was going to point out that there is a category of video which does not require classification at all. They are the most innocuous of all videos—that is to say, covering sport, religion, music and videos designed to inform, educate or instruct. They are exempt from classification. This

913
amendment would surely knock them out, which I am sure was not the noble Lord's intention. It is purely a drafting matter.
I have asked those concerned and, as I understand it, the code of practice of the Video Standards Council is widely followed. It is only in the larger shops where there is even the screen facility. I spoke about corner shops when we were dealing with the first amendment. Those premises rarely have a screen flickering away among the groceries. The screens are usually found in the bigger stores. By and large such stores almost invariably respect the code of practice. Very rarely are whole videos shown. They are much more likely to show a trailer from time to time. But trailers have to be certificated as well as videos. The trailer itself must have a classification such as U, PG, 15 or 18. It is possible to have a U trailer for an 18 film; that is, extracts which are in no way objectionable. Therefore, the material is classified as U.
The code of practice which the Video Standards Council recommends, and which is almost invariably followed, means that no under-age material of any sort is shown in the video shop, including trailers. Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord can be reassured that there is no misuse and that children of any age coming into a video shop are unlikely to see unawares any material on a screen which has not been classified either U or PG. Therefore, in those circumstances I believe that the noble Lord will be doing us all a service at this stage if he also withdraws this amendment.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may briefly say that video dealers cannot themselves compile trailer tapes for showing in their shops as that would be a breach of copyright, as would be any public exhibition of a whole work. We have looked at this matter and there is no evidence to show anything that is contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said. Like all the amendments that the noble Lord has spoken to this afternoon, between now and Report we shall look very closely at what he said.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: I am much obliged to my noble friend. If between now and Report stage I receive no evidence against what the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said I shall not bring back this amendment; but if I do, I shall. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [Titles to be assigned to video works for identification purposes]:
Lord Birkett Lord Birkett moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("reference") and insert ("registration").
The noble Lord said: This is a very tiny but technical amendment. The Committee will recall that the Bill requires that there is a unique title and number given to every video work simply to make the process of providing evidence in the case of prosecutions much easier. At the moment the Bill refers to a reference number, which indeed it is, but the number is effectively the one under which it is registered for
914
classification. The word "registration" seems better. Therefore, the phrase reads "a registration number" and not "a reference number". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Birkett Lord Birkett moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
General defence to offences under the 1984 Act
(". After section 14 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
"General defence to offences under this Act.
14A. Without prejudice to any defence specified in the preceding provisions of this Act in relation to a particular offence, it is a defence to a charge of committing any offence under this Act to prove—

(a) that the commission of the offence was due to the act or default of a person other than the accused, and

(b) that the accused took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence by any person under his control." ").

The noble Lord said: The Committee will recall that on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, proposed putting forward an amendment covering the defence of video retailers in a prosecution by the defence of due diligence. The noble Lord cannot be here today for one of the nicest of all possible reasons. He is in Leeds and he has just received the freedom of the City. I hope that the Committee will join me in congratulating him on that happy event.
The amendment now before the Committee is similar but very slightly streamlined and has the advantage of being tailored particularly for the Video Recordings Act rather than simply taken out of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. It is very similar in effect.
The reason why the noble Lord originally proposed such an amendment, and why I have proposed a similar one myself, is because it was discovered that there are certain offences to which innocent video retailers would have no defence. The general defence of taking due diligence to make sure that the proprietors of shops see that all their employees respect the various regulations under which they operate, is hugely important. By producing an extra defence, even that of due diligence, may be seen as in some way weakening the effect of the Act whereas, as I have been saying all along, the aim is to strengthen the regulations and the means of prosecution.
I believe that the amendment will have the opposite effect. The good thing about a due diligence defence is that it places on the retailer an obligation to train his staff to exercise that due diligence and thus avoid offences under the Act. Therefore, it will have a very salutary effect. If due diligence cannot be proved, the defence is inoperative. Consequently, I believe it is a strengthening rather than a weakening measure, and only just where there are certain offences which would not otherwise be covered. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: The Government have given careful consideration to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, after the Second Reading proposals of the noble Lord, Lord

915
Merlyn-Rees. The Government agree that this amendment is sensible and will not weaken the enforcement of the law. The inclusion of a due diligence defence would remove the possibility of a conviction being unjustly obtained against an employer who has made every effort to avoid the commission of an offence but who is liable because of the actions of one of his staff. As the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, explained, the amendment would not weaken our existing controls on video recordings and could even assist in the operation of those controls by raising dealers' awareness of the provisions of the Video Recordings Act.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Offences due to fault of other person.
.After section 15 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Offences due to fault of other person.
15A. Where the commission by any person of an offence under this Act is due to the act of default of some other person that other person shall be guilty of the offence, and a person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this section whether or not proceedings are taken against the first-mentioned person." ").
The noble Baroness said: As a vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, I am speaking today on behalf of local authority trading standards officers, who very much welcome the aims of the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has put before the House. However, enforcing the Video Recordings Act is but one of the many responsibilities of the officers of the fair trading institutions. I know that there has been long and deep disappointment about the fact that the proper operation of the controls has been hampered by the shortcomings of the original Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has already set out the intentions of his Bill and explained how such measures as he proposes will add to the effectiveness of the legislation. I can wholeheartedly support his views knowing only too well the unease that local authorities feel at having to return, say, 390 out of 400 illegal and unclassified video scenes to the retailer because of the exceptionally onerous evidential procedures currently included in the Act.
Equally, the six-month time limit on investigations is a significant hurdle as evidence may not be discovered until some time after the commission of an offence. The one-year limit which has been proposed by the noble Lord would enable investigations to be more thorough. However, it would also place a duty on local authorities not to delay initiating proceedings against suspected offenders. That is entirely right and local authorities will take particular note of it. The courts have made clear that a dim view will be taken of any prevarication by law enforcers when bringing a case to trial. With that safeguard, I am sure that the small extension of the time limit will be welcomed by all.
However, there are two areas in which I believe that the proper and effective operation of the legislation could be improved still further. The first is the current absence of a defence of due diligence which the noble Lord has brought to the attention of the House. I am happy that the suggestions of my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees have been taken on board. It seemed unreasonable that a trader who had taken all possible steps to ensure that he had not broken the law was not able to be protected.
My second concern, in respect of which Amendment No. 6 stands in my name, relates to the cumbersome administrative arrangements which the Act imposes upon enforcement authorities. For obvious reasons, local authorities are empowered only within their own administrative areas—in the areas covered by their councils. Crime, however, does not stop at the borders of local authority areas. There may be a spill-over all over the country. Sensibly, therefore, most protective legislation which is enforced by local authority trading standards officers includes a clause which is commonly known as the "bypass". It enables a local authority to take action against the true perpetrator of an offence within its area even if that person is based many miles away. The bypass really means that one authority can investigate an offence from beginning to end.
Perhaps I may explain what I mean by "from beginning to end". It can mean tracing the importer, the manufacturer, the wholesaler, the local distributor, the retailer and finally the consumer. As it is often the consumer who brings the initial complaint to the attention of the trading standards officers, a long supply chain has to be gone through before the original wrongdoer is reached. The bypass should be thought of only as facilitating the existing role of the local authorities. It will not require any authority to expend further resources.
Perhaps I may give an example of how the bypass works. It was recently brought to the attention of trading standards officers in Kent that unsafe hammers were being sold in their area. Eventually, they were traced to a single supplier in Liverpool. The retailer in Kent did his very best to ensure that the hammers were safe. Indeed, he had written assurances about their safety from his wholesaler. Nevertheless, the hammers were found in his possession and in his shop. But why should he be prosecuted when he had taken all the legitimate steps? If we did not have the bypass procedure, prosecuting the retailer would be the only step that Kent trading standards officers could take. However, because of the bypass procedure the trading standards officers could trace the original wrongdoer, who came from the Liverpool area.
That example shows how, because of the bypass, one local authority could trace the supply chain right back until it found the real charlatan—if I may put it like that—that is, the person who had set out to break the law in the first instance. Therefore, the bypass provision allows rapid and effective action. At the same time, the costs of investigation are less because only one authority is following the matter instead of

917
the first authority passing it to another and so on, with court cases taking place, until the original wrongdoer is traced.
One obvious case of which many noble Lords are aware—it is discussed in your Lordships' House on many occasions—is that of the car mileage "clocker". Under the trades description legislation, the bypass procedure can be used against the clocker. A garage may be selling a car to somebody—as what I am saying now is causing great hilarity, perhaps I could share in the joke when I have finished. A car dealer may have sold a clocked car to a consumer who has bought it in good faith. The garage, too, might be selling the car in good faith, but we all know that there are auctions and that cars can be clocked. The bypass, however, means that the local authority can trace the person who actually committed the crime.
Given those examples, it seems strange that the suppliers of unclassified videos are treated differently from those who defraud or endanger the safety of consumers. It is a great pity that the Video Recordings Act does not contain a bypass provision and that streamlined investigation is therefore impossible. As I have said, local trading standards departments can operate only in their own administrative areas and perhaps cannot, therefore, give full justice to the consumers whom they serve.
If 200 unclassified works are seized in an area, it costs a local authority £500 or £600 for the investigation and prosecution procedures. Those people who are taken to court may be innocent. However, if there is a bypass procedure, the original wrongdoer will be caught at a far lower cost because the resources of only one local authority will be used throughout. Therefore, there will be savings not only for the local authorities but also for the courts. Members of the Committee will recognise that all local authorities are trying to save money as far as possible and are finding it difficult to do so at the present time.
It is hoped that the bypass procedure will tackle those parties which are acting in default and which are leading an innocent person to commit a crime. That is the essence of the wording of the amendment, which follows the wording in the Trade Descriptions Act, consumer protection and food safety legislation. The original wrongdoer will then be in no doubt as to his liability for a subsequent offence.
A bypass provision would make this a more effective piece of legislation at no extra cost. There will be a greater possibility of the original wrongdoer being brought to book and, as prevention is better than cure, it will also represent savings when compared with the cost of prosecuting traders for breaches of the Act as a result of the actions of the original offender. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, described those people as the few individuals who deliberately flout the law and abuse the system. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and the Minister are satisfied that this amendment has the effect which the noble Baroness claims for it, then I hope that they will accept the amendment as a means
918
of making this legislation more effective. It will also have the agreeable sub-effect of enabling Members of the Committee who have followed my analogy from the beginning to think of a bypass on a bus rather than vice versa.
Lord Birkett: This is by no means an unwelcome passenger and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, for the care and clarity with which she outlined all the problems. I am sure that we all want increased efficiency and cost efficiency as regards the prosecutions procedure. I am sure that we all want to catch the real villains of the piece—the people of whom I spoke at Second Reading, as the noble Baroness reminded us, who deliberately flout the Act.
I am not sure whether the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness is the right way to deal with the matter. Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to use my best offices with all parties concerned to see whether I can provide an amendment which is similar in effect, achieves what she wants to achieve and which will meet with her approval before Report stage. I should be very happy to do that. If I fail to do so, the noble Baroness can table an amendment on Report to deal with the matter. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment today. Speaking from these Benches on a Private Member's Bill, I am in no position to give an undertaking but I shall do my best to bring all parties together to see whether we can resolve this issue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My noble friend must make her own decision about the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. I confirm that this is very much the kind of amendment which falls within the restricted scope of the Bill as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. As my noble friend claimed, it would streamline the procedures. I hope that it may be possible to incorporate the amendment, or something like it, into the Bill.
Viscount Astor: While I understand what has been said this afternoon about a bypass provision, I am afraid that the Government have strong reservations about the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, has explained, the purpose of this amendment is to assist trading standards departments to address the root of the problem of unclassified video supply, by enabling them to prosecute those wholesalers who supply retailers in their area for the offences then committed by those retailers. While the Government certainly share the objective of dealing effectively with the illegal supply of unclassified videos, we are not persuaded that this is the correct way to set about it. I shall try to explain why that is so.
Of course there are various precedents for a bypass provision, including that in Section 23 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, but that does not mean that such provisions are always appropriate or likely to be effective, and in this case we believe that such a provision would be misplaced for various reasons.
First, it must be remembered that wholesalers who supply unclassified videos to retailers are already guilty of a distinct offence of unlawful supply under the Video Recordings Act. This contrasts with the

919
position under the Trade Descriptions Act, where a factory which makes a contaminated tin of peas, for example, will not necessarily apply any description to it and may only be caught for the eventual retailer's offence when it is sold.
The noble Baroness's amendment is inappropriate in the context of the Video Recordings Act for other reasons. Let us take the case of a retailer who knowingly sells an unclassified video; surely, he is responsible for his own offence. It cannot properly be argued that his offence is a result of an act or omission by anyone else other than himself, any more than a drug dealer can argue that his offence was due to the actions of the original smuggler.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. There is an analogy with a supplier of a tin of peas which contains a carrot. It is possible for a distributor to distribute unedited and, therefore, unclassified material in a case which advertises the film as having been edited and, therefore, classified. That can only be discovered when the film is shown. I should have thought that there is an exact analogy and that the noble Baroness's amendment applies to that.
Viscount Astor: There are two analogies: that of my noble friend Lord Elton and my analogy. They are slightly different. In these cases, therefore, the requirement in the noble Baroness's amendment that the commission of the offence was due to the act or default of some other person clearly will not be satisfied.
Equally, if a dealer carries out an unlawful video supply in all innocence, he may well be able to avail himself of the defences in the Act. If so, he will be acquitted, and no offence will have been committed. Because the noble Baroness's amendment requires there to have been an offence committed, in those circumstances also the proposed provision could not be used to catch a dishonest wholesaler elsewhere.
The Government therefore believe that it would be inappropriate simply to graft the Trade Descriptions Act "bypass" provision on to the Video Recordings Act, which is structured in an entirely different way. We believe that, where wholesale suppliers are situated outside a local authority trading standards department's area and have supplied unclassified videos to retailers within that area, the correct solution is for the different local authority departments to liaise together in order to bring their investigations to a successful conclusion.
Where trading standards officers have successfully identified a chain of illegal video supply but are unable to pursue the matter further as a result of jurisdictional restrictions, and for some reason collaboration between different authorities cannot be achieved, there is also the option of referring the matter to the police, who are not subject to the same territorial restrictions. Indeed, where training standards officers believe that they have uncovered a network of supply of obscene or other unlawful works then there will be strong practical reasons for the police, who are used to dealing with such offences, to be brought into the investigation at an early stage.
920
I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment, but I hope that I have explained why it is unnecessary. This is a complicated area and there can be a long chain of people. The noble Baroness described the numbers of videos that might have to be handed back. The certification procedure will make it easier to bring proceedings in respect of seized videos. We are dealing with a complicated subject and a complicated argument but I hope that, having explained the situation to the noble Baroness, she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I am disappointed with the reply from the Government Front Bench. If one wishes to use the analogy of drug trafficking, the real problem is not the man who is selling £5 worth of drugs on the streets in Birmingham or £10 worth of drugs in London; it is to find the supplier who is bringing the big consignments into the country—in others words, the big guy. That is the point that I have been trying to make. The real problem is not the little man in the shop who is doing his best to support the law, or the honest traveller; it is the person at the top of the chain, who deliberately flouts the law and who is determined to do so. The Minister is encouraging the big fish to allow the little fish lower down the chain to pay the penalties.
Viscount Astor: I did not say that at all. I specifically stated that in the case of a large dealer or a supplier, the matter could be referred to the police, who are used to dealing with such things. When I made the analogy with drugs, I intended to make a point about the offence and how it could be argued that an offence was committed by somebody who had been responsible for a previous offence. That is a separate point. I agree with the noble Baroness that we wish to prevent such videos coming into the country and being sold and shown.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Perhaps the noble Viscount can reconsider the matter. Will it be cost effective not only for the local authorities but for the courts? That is an important point because court time is expensive.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who stated that he would give serious consideration to the matter. Perhaps I should rely upon the noble Lord to use his charms on the Minister, as mine seem to have failed. I shall await the results of that consideration and raise the matter at Report if necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Maastricht Treaty
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

921
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the process of ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.
"As the House knows, the purpose of the Bill before the House is to ensure that UK law where necessary conforms with the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty.
"My right honourable friend the Minister of State said in this House on 20th January that if Amendment No. 27 were carried, United Kingdom law would not conform to the provisions of the Treaty on European Union and that the United Kingdom would therefore be unable to ratify the Treaty.
"Those remarks were, of course, based on legal advice. However, in the light of discussion in this House and elsewhere, further careful and detailed consideration was given to the matter, and the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate were asked for their advice. I think it right, with the agreement and on the authority of the Law Officers, to inform the House of the advice at the earliest practicable opportunity, and to explain the Government's position in the light of that advice.
"Madam Speaker, in accordance with our usual practice when legislating, Clause 1 of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill has been drafted to incorporate in our domestic law all amendments and protocols to the Treaty of Rome which were included in the Treaty on European Union.
"The House will recall that the protocol on social policy authorises the other eleven member states of the Community to have recourse to the institutions, procedures and mechanisms of the Treaty of Rome for the purposes of implementing their agreement on cooperation in the social area—the Social Chapter. Most significantly, it specifies that acts adopted by the Council under the terms of the protocol shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom.
"Amendment No. 27 would exclude from the scope of Clause 1 of the Bill the protocol on social policy. That is all that Amendment No. 27 would do. The amendment would not have any effect on the Treaty itself. It would not change the agreement among eleven into an agreement among twelve. It would not bring the Social Chapter into effect in this country. The amendment would simply exclude the protocol from incorporation in domestic law under the European Communities Act. The legal question is therefore whether the United Kingdom could ratify the Treaty even if the protocol were not incorporated into domestic law.
"The Law Officers advise that, if the amendment were carried, acts adopted under the Protocol would still not apply to the United Kingdom. This is because it is of the very nature of the protocol that acts adopted under it should not be applicable to the United Kingdom. It follows that no rights and obligations arise from those acts which need to be given effect in our domestic law.
"In summary, Madam Speaker, the Law Officers consider that, while incorporation of the protocol in domestic law is desirable, it is not necessary for
922
ratification or implementation of the Maastricht Treaty. In other words, there would be no impediment to ratification if the amendment were carried because acts adopted under the protocol would still not apply to the United Kingdom.
"Madam Speaker, there can be no question of the United Kingdom ratifying the Treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures. The House will have the opportunity at Third Reading, after detailed consideration of all aspects of the Bill, to decide whether the Bill should pass into law. The United Kingdom will not ratify the Treaty unless the Bill is approved by Parliament. But Amendment No. 27 is not a proposal to adhere to the Social Chapter and its passage would not be a decision that this country should do so. The Government will continue to oppose the amendment because, as I have said, incorporation of the protocol in domestic law would be desirable. But, in the light of the Law Officers' advice, if the amendment were carried it would have no effect on our ability to ratify the Treaty.
"Madam Speaker, this constitutes a different situation from that implied by the honourable Member for Copeland when he moved the amendment and my right honourable friend's remarks in the House on 20th and 27th January. I regret that the legal advice then given to the House was not correct.
"Madam Speaker, the Government's position on the substance of the matter remains unchanged. We continue to believe the Social Chapter will harm growth and jobs in this country. We intend to press forward with the Bill so that we can ratify the Treaty which I, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer negotiated at Maastricht, and which won an overwhelming majority on Second Reading in this House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement which was made in another place this afternoon. It is a most extraordinary Statement and is yet another twist in the saga of how the Government are trying to pass the Bill through Parliament.
It is understandable that the Government should wish to make a Statement on the subject this afternoon. We on this side of the House are grateful for any scraps of information which the Government can throw at us which cast some light on their intentions for today. Tomorrow their intentions may be different but this afternoon we have received a certain clarity from the noble Baroness. That is so in particular after the weekend, when heavy government briefing gave the firm impression that the bypassing of Parliament and the use of the Royal Prerogative were being seriously considered. That was a daft idea and am delighted that the Government appear to have rejected it.
It is a strange Statement about a strange episode which started with the unfortunate Mr. Tristan

923
Garel-Jones, Minister of State at the Foreign Office. On 20th January he told the House of Commons in unmistakable terms that if Labour's Amendment No. 27 were carried,
"United Kingdom law would not conform to the treaty's provisions, so it would be impossible for the United Kingdom to ratify the treaty".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/93; col. 403.]
That was a clear and unambiguous statement. We thought that we knew where we stood, the Euro-sceptics thought that they knew where they stood and even the Government thought that they knew where they stood—at least on 20th January.
In addition to being told that on 20th January, we were also then told that, if Amendment No. 27 were carried, fresh ratifications would be needed by the other 11 countries which have signed the treaty. I assume that the idea of fresh ratification has disappeared like snow as a result of the Law Officers' advice, as has Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones' firm and unequivocal statement.
We are now told that, if the amendment were carried, it would have little effect on the ratification process. If that is so, what on earth has the argument been about? For six or eight weeks, Parliament, the chattering classes, the press and those who follow the intricacies of our parliamentary procedure have been obsessed with the effect that Amendment No. 27 will have on the ratification procedure. We are now told that acceptance will have no effect whatever and that, after consulting the Law Officers, it appears that Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones was wrong.
The Government will know that there is more than one view of the matter; there is that held by the Euro-sceptics, and by Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones on 20th January, and there is the somewhat belated view set out in the Statement. I have even heard the suggestion that, as a way out, we should call a halt to the proceedings and consult the European Court on the correct interpretation. But to be serious, what a farce this has all become—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Richard: My Lords, having negotiated an opt-out—which was absurd and ill-advised action to take because the other 11 countries with governments of different shades of opinion had accepted the treaty—the Government have sunk themselves into a parliamentary procedural mess which is unique in my limited experience. I recognise that some Members of this House have far more experience than I, but I suspect that not even they could have devised a situation such as that into which the Government have sunk themselves.
In order to get out of that mess the first thing the Government did was to float the idea of bypassing Parliament on the basis that Amendment No. 27 mattered. If Amendment No. 27 does not matter, why on earth should the Government go out of their way—as clearly they did before yesterday's press coverage—to float the idea that all they have to do is to ignore what is happening in the House of Commons and to use the Royal Prerogative to ratify the treaty? Now they have produced fresh legal advice to show that in
924
any event the amendment is of no consequence. No doubt the Government anticipate that that opinion will undermine the strength of the opposition to Maastricht which exists on their own Benches.
I must say—and I do not say it with any joy because the situation affects the standing of the country just as much as it affects that of the Government—that in this matter they have elevated drift to a political principle and vacillation to the first rule of parliamentary survival. It is the politics of panic, chaos and confusion. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness one serious question—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord should wait because I hope that, when he hears the question, he will lend his weight and authority to obtaining an answer from the Government. When did the Government consult the Law Officers? When, in this extraordinary process, were the Attorney General and the Lord Advocate consulted? Was it as long ago as 20th January when Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones made his now apparently erroneous statement? Did the forensic alarm bells start to ring as long ago as 20th January? They do not appear to have done so—or, if they did, no one listened. Only when it became clear that the Government were in serious trouble in holding their majority in another place was the fresh opinion of two Government Ministers—that is, the Law Officers—trotted out. The Minister will forgive us if we approach this latest twist with deep scepticism. Such political manoeuvring will be neither understood nor appreciated by the country. It reduces Parliament to a laughing stock. The Government should be ashamed of the way in which they have handled this important piece of legislation.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend in another place. I congratulate her on the elegance and sangfroid with which she stood on her head. She did it very well indeed. I expected that the Statement would be an attempt to "tidy up the battlefield", in the words of Field Marshal Montgomery. The battlefield was indeed in a mess. The confusion about the status of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill was widespread in inner circles of the Government, among the Law Officers and in the Palace of Westminster. Outside the great British public must be bewildered as to what the hell is happening. As to the position of our colleagues in the European Community, I suspect that many of them have come to the conclusion that General de Gaulle was right.
It is a most humiliating episode. I have been trying to make up my mind about precisely what this Statement means. It makes three points, as I understand it. The first is that the Government had no intention of using the Royal Prerogative to ratify the treaty without the approval of Parliament. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that that must be said. Secondly, it is stated that whatever happens the Government will stick to their guns on the Social Charter. Perhaps we shall return to that matter.

925
Thirdly, it is stated that Amendment No 27, on which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition did not touch, does not do what it is intended to do—that is, that it does not affect the treaty and does not bind us into the Social Charter, which is what I understood it was meant to do.
I am totally incapable of judging whether that is correct. I received the new information only a short time ago and have received different information at different times on different days since early January. If the new interpretation is correct, it is an interesting and important fact. It means that those who had three objectives in mind, as did we on these Benches—that is, to have the United Kingdom ratify the Treaty of Maastricht, to bring the treaty into force as soon as possible and to end the exclusion of the United Kingdom from the Social Chapter—must look at the amendment again and, if necessary, table a new amendment which produces the effect that we want.
I do not think there are any questions we can possibly ask the noble Baroness. The question that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has asked is an interesting and relevant one that historians will puzzle over. Who told Mr. Garel-Jones to say what he said? Why did he say it if he was not told? Why did the Attorney-General not notice that it was a gross misinterpretation of the law? All of those questions are fascinating but I do not believe that the noble Baroness can be expected to answer them. They are probably unanswerable. However, what is a pity is that this country should have been put into a humiliating and ridiculous position.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that there was never any intention to bypass Parliament. He should refrain from believing all that he reads in his Sunday newspapers. Since noble Lords may have gained a wrong impression from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I should say that it was not Mr. Garel-Jones who started the confusion; it started with the drafting and moving of Amendment No. 27 by the noble Lord's honourable friend in another place, Mr. Jack Cunningham.
The noble Lord asked me when the Government consulted the Law Officers. Your Lordships know that in any government department it is normal practice always to seek the advice of departmental legal advisers in the first instance. The problem arises solely from the effect of the Opposition amendment, not the terms of the Bill as presented to the House. It was in the light of the discussion in the House —as it emerged from the reading of Hansard—and elsewhere that careful and detailed consideration was given to what had been said. Surely, that is a purpose of the Committee stage. That was how the Law Officers were brought in and their advice sought early last week. I agree that it is very easy to be wise after the event. I believe there can be no Front-Bencher in either House of Parliament who can honestly say that there have not been times when the legal advice first given has later been changed.
In response to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I must say that some may be answerable but the confusion arose from many of
926
the speeches made on 20th and 27th January in another place by Liberal and Labour Members of Parliament. The confusion that has reigned has been due partly to the massive speculation about what would happen to Amendment No. 27. The Government intend to use Parliament. They do not intend to incorporate the Social Chapter. Amendment No. 27 will be resisted. If Members care to move another amendment it will be for the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place, or for the Chairman of Committees in this place when the Bill comes before this House, to say whether that amendment is in order.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, when I saw the word "Maastricht" on the television screen I had the fleeting hope that the Government would come to the House and tell us that the whole thing had been dropped and the Government would get on with their proper job of governing the country. That not being the case, we have to pursue what we are offered. Like other noble Lords I am left in considerable doubt. I have not had the advantage of studying the text, but, as I understand the Minister, the reason why there is no worry about it affecting ratification is that Amendment No. 27 makes no difference to the treaty or the Bill. If it makes no difference, why do the Government resist it? Why do the Government not say, "If you want to have a silly amendment, have it"? Because the Government are resisting the amendment they must believe that it has some effect. The question I ask my noble friend is: what effect do the Government think that the amendment will have?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I well understand the question that my noble friend Lord Beloff puts but I am sorry to disappoint him. He may still be in doubt. He has posed exactly the question that I posed when I first saw this coming. The point is that the Government wish to have a sensible situation as between our domestic law and international and Community law. Were Amendment No. 27 to be passed there would be no reason why it could not be dealt with in a different way. It would simply be tidier and cause less confusion in the future. I think that the less confusion we have in both Houses and in the country the better.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness simply cannot get away with blaming this on the Opposition, the pundits, the national press, local press and anybody else they may wish to name. The fact of the matter is that, as the Statement says, her right honourable friend the Minister of State said in the House of Commons on 20th January that if Amendment No. 27 were carried United Kingdom law would not conform to the provisions of the Treaty of European Union and therefore the United Kingdom would not be able to ratify the treaty. That was the advice given at that time. Is the noble Baroness saying that that advice was not given after consultation with the Law Officers? If it was given with the advice of the Law Officers when did they change their minds? Why

927
did they not consider the matter in depth so that proper advice was given to the House of Commons in the first instance?
My second point is a very serious one. Here we have a bit of advice that was given to Members of the House of Commons on one particular amendment. But advice has been given on many other amendments, and legal advice will be given on many more, not only in the House of Commons but in the House of Lords. How can we rely on the legal advice we are now receiving from the Law Officers? This is a very serious matter that has to be addressed by the Government, because it is incumbent upon the other place and this House in a serious matter such as this that affects the Constitution of this country, to ensure that all Members in both Houses are given legal advice that is correct and will stand up to scrutiny not only by British courts but by the European Court as well.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the earlier advice taken by Mr. Garel-Jones in another place came from departmental legal advisers, not from the Law Officers. We have sought the agreement of the Law Officers and their wisdom on this matter in the light of the discussions that took place in another place on 20th and 27th January. For all the noble Lord's protestations, I have to say that I have been a Member first of another place and now this House for quite long enough to remember when Labour Government Ministers—in those far-off days—came to the House to explain that the departmental legal advisers had not advised the Minister correctly. I see the Chief Whip of the Labour Party nodding his head; he remembers it, too. This situation is not unique. However, it is an uncomfortable situation which none of us would have wished to occur. It has occurred and we have put it right. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asks how we can now have confidence in the Law Officers. I have first-class confidence in our Law Officers. I can assure your Lordships that they will be consulted whenever I have the slightest doubt. I am sure that that is true for all my honourable friends in another place.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I hope I may put forward a rather different point of view from my noble friend. Must it not be assumed, now that the Law Officers' opinion has been given—two Law Officers of different jurisdictions have given their opinion —that that is correct, it is wholly improper to suggest, as it was suggested, that that advice was actuated by political considerations? The disreputable conspiracy between the official Labour Party and a few Conservative disloyalists has not merely proved totally unprincipled but also totally ineffective.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for those comments. He is, of course, correct. I wish to emphasise one comment my noble and learned friend made. This matter is not the result of political
928
consideration but of legal consideration by the Law Officers. There is no way in which it should be interpreted otherwise.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the noble Baroness, whom we all like and respect, really proud of the fact that after 14 years of her party's government, they should be ready to enter into these legal contortions to prevent Britain, alone of the 12 members of the European Community, adhering to a treaty to offer employment protection rights? Would she like to argue that case with the workers of Leyland Daf at the moment?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I respect the noble Lord and his previous experience in the European Commission. However, I should recount the comments made by staff employed at factories in my former constituency. The workers and the management told me that the Social Chapter—or the Social Charter, if one prefers to call it that—would be the death of their industry. That is why we oppose the Social Chapter and why we do not wish to incorporate it in our law.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, most people outside the House will have concluded that the time has come when Members on both Front Benches should stop their clever-Dick tactical manoeuvring and really face up to this important matter in a serious manner. The Opposition clearly tabled Amendment No. 27 with the idea of pushing through a particular part of the Maastricht Treaty they wish to have adopted. The Opposition did that although they pretend to be in favour of the Maastricht Treaty as it stands. The Government delayed giving an answer revealing the true position. They gave the impression, or allowed an impression to gather, that the amendment could achieve things that it is now clear it could never have achieved. If there is a vote in another place on Amendment No. 27, or anything like it, I hope that the Government will take on board the message behind the result of that vote. I admire my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham greatly, but I should tell him that those of us who feel differently to him consider that disloyalty to the country is embodied in allowing Maastricht to go through in its present form. Let us be serious and adult about the matter and give it the serious attention that its importance truly demands.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hesitate to say this, but I must tell my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that I believe he is wrong. Mr. Garel-Jones did not in any way intend to mislead another place. He was acting on the legal advice then given to him by the departmental legal officers. I will not repeat what I said about the process that then followed. However, I am serious about this issue and I hope I am being adult when I consider the future and the needs of this country and what has to be done. While I understand that many noble Lords may have doubts about various aspects of the European Community, there is no doubt that for the future of this nation we should at least be prepared to go along with a treaty which has been carefully negotiated at

929
Maastricht, excluding those matters which are not right for Britain and ensuring that any considerations of economic and monetary union must come before Parliament before we take any action towards that union. That is the way to do things and it is the way we have done them. It will be right and good for the country for us to ratify the Maastricht Treaty.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. Until this moment one might have imagined that Parliament consisted only of another place and not also of this place. At some stage we will have to consider the amendments that will be brought before us. Therefore it is good that we are taken into the Government's confidence at this stage. I am also grateful to the Minister for repeating a Statement which enabled me to cheer to the rafters as my noble friend Lord Stoddart and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, combined in a united force against what she said.
But seriously—not that I have not been serious in the points I have made so far—will the Minister illuminate us further as regards the legal advice that was given to Mr. Garel-Jones when he made his Statement? I ask that question as one who was a Minister for many years in another place and as one who has sat on the Front Bench in this place. Was Mr. Hurd saying that Mr. Garel-Jones made a Statement to the House of Commons of great importance without the views of the Law Officers having been ascertained in advance? I find that impossible to believe. Will the Minister explain how it was that that Statement was made only on the advice of civil servants and not on the advice of Ministers? We may then perhaps understand what is going on.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am glad I have helped the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to make friends across the Chamber. However, in his long experience as Secretary of State for Social Services I am sure there were times when the legal advice available to him changed from the time when it was first given to him. I wish to repeat something I said earlier. In the light of discussion we took the Law Officers' advice because of what had been said in debate. However the problem only arose out of the effect of the Opposition amendment. It does not arise out of the terms of the Bill as it was presented to the House.
There is no more that I can tell noble Lords, willing as I am to be questioned on these matters. The legal advice generally available to Ministers is, I believe, second to none, but it cannot be perfect. That is the very reason why in both another place and in this House we have experienced legal officers. As I said earlier, we can all be wise after the event and declare it would have been better if the Law Officers' advice had been sought in the first place. The fact that it was not is now in the past. That fact cannot be changed. The advice has now been sought and I am grateful to the Law Officers.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that despite the fun being had at her expense the Statement that she has repeated
930
clarifies what has been a rather confusing weekend? I hope it allows us to see the main target here which is to ratify the Treaty and get on with the business of running a sensible European Community. Does my noble friend agree that the real confusion that surrounds the whole issue is the fact that the party opposite which claims to support the Maastricht Bill will vote against it and the rump in this party who claim they agree with opting out of the Social Chapter now appear to wish to vote for opting in? That is the confusion; it is not a confusion in the Government's mind.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend has expressed the position far better than I could. Indeed it was my intention this afternoon to clarify the situation. The legal advice that the Law Officers have given us is advice on which we can fully depend. I remember with clarity all the debates in the past on Bills that concerned the European Community and I have never known a situation like this before. It is sad for the country that the Opposition are so prepared to play cat and mouse with something which the large majority of them say they believe in.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the amendment to which the Statement refers has been on the Order Paper in the other place for six calendar months? It has taken until this time for the Government to come forward with a Statement seeking legally to define the net result if the amendment were passed. Is the Minister aware that there are many thousands of people in this country today pursuing litigation who will heave a sigh of relief that they are not buying their legal advice from the Government's legal advisers?
If the amendment is not important, will the Minister give a guarantee that the Government will not apply a three-line Whip when the vote comes to be taken?
Finally, why are the Government so determined to avoid implementing the Social Chapter? Over a year ago the present Government introduced an arrangement whereby when a Government Minister lost his or her job for whatever reason the ministerial salary continued for three calendar months. Why is that arrangement not good enough for the workers of Leyland Daf?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am well aware that the amendment has been on the Order Paper for some time. So have some 500-plus others. It is probably because departmental legal officers have been wading through the implications that they may have seen the matter in a different light. I have made the point to the House this afternoon, and I repeat, that it was when the subject of Amendment No. 27 was debated a number of aspects became clear. On reading the report of those debates, particularly of the debate on 27th January, we sought the advice of the Law Officers. I cannot and will not give the noble Lord any guarantees about whipping in this or another place. It is not my place to do so. I believe that his own Front Bench would respond similarly.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the repetition of the Statement has been greeted with great relief as reducing to simplicity what was a very complex problem? Secondly, is she aware that I have listened with grave anxiety to the way in which we have been discussing and criticising the conduct of Law Officers and other Members of another place which I should have thought was privileged to that other place? Does the Minister agree that the time to discuss the contents of the Bill is when the Bill comes to this House, and that it may be quite different and the clause in question will probably not be in it?
Finally, since noble Lords opposite seem to consider it quite proper to criticise the conduct of Members in another place, does my noble friend agree with me that the Opposition Front Bench in this House set aside very lightly, with a laugh or two, the important fact that Amendment No. 27 was tabled by their party, which plainly did not know what it meant either?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton makes exceedingly important points. I believe that he has his finger on the pulse as regards what has been happening. The Labour Party in another place is very divided. I used to think that it was perhaps rather more divided than in this House, although having watched noble Lords on the Benches opposite I sometimes now wonder whether that is the case.
We shall see what comes of the many debates in your Lordships' House as well as the debates in another place. I conclude by saying that I believe that it is right for Britain that the Treaty of Maastricht should be ratified.

Criminal Justice Act 1991 (Contracted Out Prisons) (No. 2) Order 1992
4.53 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th December be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the draft order before your Lordships seeks to extend the powers in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to allow the management of existing prisons to be contracted out to a private operator.
When it was originally drafted the Criminal Justice Act provided only for the contracting out of remand prisons. During its passage through Parliament another place accepted an amendment which allowed those powers to be extended, by order, to allow for the contracting out of any type of prison, existing or new. In July last year, Parliament approved an order which extended contracting out to new prisons. That order allowed the new prison at Blakenhurst, which is due to open later this year, to be managed by a private operator.
All contracted-out prisons have been subject to a competitive tendering exercise. The first, the Wolds near Hull, opened in April 1992. It is a remand prison
932
which can hold 320 prisoners. It is managed by Group 4 Remand Services Ltd. As the only prison which is managed by a private operator, the Wolds has attracted considerable attention from those who are interested in the penal system and from the press. It is to the credit of Group 4 that it has been willing to allow access to the prison to so many visitors. Between opening in April 1992 to the end of January 1993, 148 people had visited it, excluding, of course, visits to prisoners and the 68 visitors from the press and television.
Wolds is unique in that it is the only purely remand adult prison which we have in England. The high public profile which it enjoys—if indeed enjoys is the appropriate word —has included some alarmist stories. Some of these have been about incidents which have not happened. People rang up constantly to say that Wolds had burnt down. Others telephoned to say that inmates were on the roof, even after it was said that the prison had burnt down. Imagination and scaremongering has been rife and markedly distant from reality. Other reports have given substantial publicity to events which at any other prison would have attracted little or no press coverage, still less coverage at national level.
Wolds offers a high quality regime to its inmates. It recognises the needs of those who are not convicted. The regime includes daily visits from families and legal advisers and 15 hours a day unlocked and out of cells. Few other prisons in the country offered visits to prisoners' families on Christmas day, as Wolds did. We think that Wolds compares well with the public sector, but we need more than one privately operated prison—out of the total of about 130—if we are properly to test the effectiveness of competition in raising standards in the prison system as a whole.
The next prison to open under private sector management will be Blakenhurst, near Redditch which is near to Birmingham. Blakenhurst is a local prison which can take 649 prisoners. Unlike Wolds, it will hold convicted prisoners who are serving their sentences as well as those who are on remand. It will be managed by UK Detention Services Limited. Like Wolds, its performance will be closely and continuously monitored in order to ensure compliance with the high standards which are set out in the agreement with the contractor.
The prison will also develop new ideas. Prisoners will be locked in the cells only at normal sleeping time or for specific security needs. Like Wolds, Blakenhurst will provide 15 hours per day for prisoners to be out of their cells as a norm. A mixture of education provisions, of at least six hours a week, will aim to prepare prisoners for the realities of release. Visiting facilities for prisoners' families will be open in the evening to suit the convenience of the visitor, with daily visits for unconvicted prisoners. Basic hygiene provisions for prisoners will be good, providing daily showers and daily changes of socks and underpants. Prisoners will be involved in decisions which affect them as individuals as much as possible. The services of a solicitor will be made available to give advice on

933
appeals. High standards of health care, suicide screening and sex offender therapy treatment will also be provided in that innovative programme.
In the debate in July 1992 on the order to allow new prisons to be contracted out it was made clear in another place that the Government's policy was to subject all new prisons to competitive tendering. In May we will therefore be inviting private operators to bid for the management of the new prison at Doncaster. That is the last of the 21 new prisons which will have been constructed as part of our most recent prison building programme. The programme has cost a total of no less than £1,200 million. Doncaster prison will have 720 places and it is scheduled to open in the early part of 1994.
Wolds, Blakenhurst and Doncaster are all new prisons. The order before your Lordships today will enable the Government to enter into contracts with private operators for the management of existing prisons. The order is before your Lordships because we are carrying out a market-testing exercise on Her Majesty's Prison Manchester, which is commonly known as Strangeways. Therefore, in addition to half a dozen private sector companies an in-house team from the prison service has also been invited to bid for the management contract.
Bringing forward the order now is not intended in any way to pre-empt the outcome of the tender evaluation process. It is simply a case of needing to be prepared. We need to be in a position to enter into a contract should a private operator be successful.
Manchester is one of our oldest and largest local prisons. Following the riot in April 1990 the larger part of the prison was left in a condition which required major refurbishment and which amounted almost to rebuilding it. At that time the prison held 1,647 prisoners. Those included unconvicted prisoners on remand, those awaiting sentence, and prisoners serving their sentences, including some in the highest security category, category A.
Manchester will now be a virtually new prison when it opens. It therefore seemed right to seek private sector tenders for its management. That is in line with our policy on the management of new prisons. Manchester has remained partially operational while the rebuilding work has taken place, and it has retained a nucleus of Prison Service staff. It seemed, therefore, a good candidate for extending our contracting-out programme to include "market testing", in which in-house bids are sought and considered in competition with those from the private sector.
This is a time of great change in the Prison Service. In April, the service will become an executive agency, under the leadership of Mr. Derek Lewis. As an agency, it will have considerable freedom to determine the best way in which to carry out its remit. An important change to the present position is that the Prison Service will be responsible for implementing government policy on the involvement of the private sector in managing prisons.
Agency status, and the introduction of competition by private sector involvement in the Prison Service, have the same objective—to raise standards and to
934
secure better value for money throughout the prison system. In order to achieve that, we need to find the right balance between public and private sector management of individual prisons, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has asked Mr. Lewis to provide advice later this year on the extent, the form, and the timescale for increasing private sector involvement. Meanwhile, the Prisons Board will be looking for further establishments which may be suitable for market testing or contracting out.
In relation to contracting out, it might be helpful to your Lordships if I were to say something about the application of the European Community acquired rights directive and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 which are, rather nastily, colloquially known as TUPE. Those have been the subject of much recent media coverage. The somewhat alarming-sounding regulations are the means by which the European Community acquired rights directive is given effect in domestic law. They protect the employment contracts and collective agreements of staff when an "undertaking" is transferred from one organisation to another.
When both the European Community directive and the regulations were drawn up, the draftsmen did not have in mind the type of transfer of work from the public sector to the private sector with which many government departments are now involved. That has resulted in considerable discussion about the effect which the regulations will have on a number of contracting out and market testing exercises, including that of Her Majesty's prison at Manchester.
When the invitations to tender for Manchester were issued in October last year the understanding was that the regulations would not apply. Shortly before Christmas further legal advice on the subject was given and it became apparent that we should apply the regulations to Manchester. In relation to other existing prisons, which may be contracted out in future, we shall need to consider carefully each case as it arises.
What is clear is that the application of the regulations to existing prisons will not necessarily be a barrier to private sector involvement. There are, arguably, benefits as well as difficulties in taking over a workforce. New ideas and approaches can be grafted on to existing expertise and skills, of which there is already a good supply in the Prison Service.
The Prison Service is preparing an in-house bid for the management of Manchester. That is an encouraging sign, and it bodes well for the future for a prison system which will be a mixture of directly and privately managed establishments.
I know that within the Prison Service there are many dedicated members of staff who are struggling to provide fair and humane care in difficult surroundings. They do a job which I fancy would not appeal to many people and they do it very well. Their work will continue still to be necessary. The move to agency status, with the devolution of many key decisions such as recruitment of staff to local level, together with the stimulus of competition from the private sector, should result in the ability to introduce change which will be of benefit to individual

935
establishments. Prison governors will be better able to improve the way in which they manage their establishments and they will be better able to try out innovative ideas more easily. That should result in better value for money for the taxpayer and better regimes for the prisoners.
In my view both the move to agency status and the involvement of the private sector are healthy developments. I know that many staff in the Prison Service are ready to take up the challenge which it offers and to begin to build a Prison Service under a new regime which will come to be recognised as a leader in the field by other countries and of which we can all be proud. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th December be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
5 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to offer very strong opposition to the lamentable order moved by the noble Earl with more than his usual charm—and that was certainly needed on this occasion. I am aware that the official view of my party will no doubt be very effectively stated by my noble friend Lord McIntosh at the end of the debate. I will be surprised if he much disagrees with my general line. In another place my party divided against the order. For once, I believe that I speak along orthodox party lines.
I am one of the few noble Lords who have visited the Wolds. When we last discussed the issue the noble Earl had not had time to do so. I do not know whether he has had time since. I assume that he has not since he does not rise to confirm that he has visited Wolds. I believe that anyone who speaks for the Government on this issue should find time eventually to visit the Wolds or some such place. But I shall offer some words about the Wolds before I conclude.
I speak now on the principle. The noble Earl is sensitive on such matters. He will realise that those who oppose the order do so on moral grounds. We regard the issue as one of fundamental principle. I have criticised the prison system as often and as sharply as anyone present. But I regard the order as an outrageous attempt to steal the administration of prisons away from the Prison Service and to place it in the hands of a variegated crew of novices with no experience of prisons.
Let us consider the Wolds. I do not know the latest figures. When I visited it, out of 100 operational staff only five had experience of prisons. Apart from the governor, who took me around, I met two senior gentlemen. One had been a physical education officer in a private school; the other had been some sort of management consultant trainee. Shall we pit the wisdom of those gentlemen against the accumulated wisdom over many years of the Prison Service?
Let us consider the position even more fundamentally. I submit that when we take away the liberty of a fellow citizen we assume a grave responsibility. No doubt the primary reason is that we believe ourselves to be acting in the interests of the community. But we
936
cannot discharge our responsibility for the welfare of the citizen in our care. I wish to labour that fundamental point. I have criticised the Prison Service often enough. But throughout the 50 years that I have known the Prison Service, there has been a light of concern, albeit flickering, by staff for the prisoners in their charge. There is no reason to suppose that an international company such as the one which now manages the Wolds will have any such concern.
What is that company doing at the Wolds? What is that foreign company up to? It has come here for one reason only. Neither a charitable nor a public spirited reason, but to make money, to make a profit. There is no harm in that; many of us who have been in business are likely to have done the same in our time. But that is the motive and we should never under any circumstances believe that the company has the same concern for prisoners as the existing Prison Service.
The Government whom the noble Earl represents have a fanatical belief in the superiority of any businessman over any public servant. They have replaced a widely admired head of the Prison Service with a television executive who has never been inside a prison according to my information. That is because the Government believe that the businessman always knows best, and that is what is behind this order.
That is not the only reason. When I went to the Wolds I asked what the advantage of it was. The prison governor—an excellent man—had had experience of prisons. He said to me "We have more flexible working arrangements". In other words, they get on without trade unions. That is what it boils down to. There are businessmen who love the idea of getting on without trade unions. That is the game they are playing, with no nonsense about it.
I am afraid that I feel that this is one more step along the ideological road of crazy privatisation. I can only end with the words of a poet whose name I do not know. If I were asked, I should have to look it up:
"Turn again, oh my Sweetest"—
those words are aimed at the noble Earl—
"Turn again, false and fleetest"—
those words are aimed at the rest of the Government—
"The beaten where thou beatest
I'll swear is Hell's own track".
That describes my attitude and, I am sure, that of all those who care for prisoners or value the work of the Prison Service.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I agree with a good deal of what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said. I shall confine myself to one or two detailed points, as I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will make the rest.
First, in his opening speech the noble Earl said that the Wolds prison compares well with the public sector. So it ought to. No one would take on a contract with the kind of problems we have in most of the other prisons in the country. No one in their right mind would undertake for money running a place like Brixton or even some of the smaller prisons which are nearly as bad. When the noble Earl said that, he was being over-innocent—even though he is always so polite and innocent.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the noble Lord talking of me?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, no, I am talking of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl must not be too keen on gathering all the bouquets that the noble Lord is passing.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, after that little effort to keep everyone happy, it is important to realise that, with the setting up of the Wolds, with the proper conditions, with the agreed staff, with the agreed number and no excess in the number of prisoners, if the Government had done that elsewhere the results would have been at least as good as they are at the Wolds. They may possibly have been better, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, believes. There is no doubt that, if only we could have persuaded the Government to give as much enthusiasm to reacting positively to the 85 recommendations in the Woolf report as they have to introducing this new arrangement for prisons on ideological grounds, things would be much better.
My belief is that it is difficult to oppose on ideological or any other grounds anything which improves the ghastly way in which we treat remand prisoners in this country at the moment. It is absolutely intolerable. Everyone knows that and says so. One-third of those who are on remand and treated in that evil way leave without a sentence in the end. It is an impossible situation. Thus I cannot object if the Tory Party has a special idea that it wishes to do something in a certain way, provided that it is basically sensible. That way is to have proper equipment and no overcrowding—for which we have been shouting for more than 30 years all over the country. If that is achieved, good luck to them.
I cannot go far because I well remember reading the history of penal affairs and of the old gaolers before prisons were nationalised. They depended entirely on bribes for their money. Chains were always put on prisoners first and they had to pay the gaolers before the chains were removed.
I am not saying that the new companies would behave like that, but I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that there is a motive to make money out of that, without which the companies would not do it. There is nothing else I wish to say as I know that my noble friend Lord Harris will cover all the other points.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I believe that there are two reasons for the order. The first is ideological and I shall return to that in a moment. The second is the deplorable industrial relations record in our prisons. The Home Secretary made no reference to that in the House of Commons, and neither did the noble Earl refer to it today. But it is one of the principal reasons why we have the order.
As the noble Earl will recall, I have raised this matter on a number of occasions. I do not believe that the Government of which I was a member had a good
938
record on this because they did not. There were far too many surrenders to the branches of the Prison Officers' Association. The noble Earl will recall the report of Sir John May soon after the present Government came into office. He drew attention to the lamentable industrial relations situation in the prisons. Curiously, since 1979 it has become a great deal worse. That is not my view. It is the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who conducted the inquiry into the disturbances which took place at Strangeways.
The reason why the situation has become worse since 1979 is simple. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when Prime Minister, was quite happy to take on the National Union of Mineworkers. She was quite happy to take on other groups of organised workers. But she would under no circumstances take on the branches of the Prison Officers' Association. That is why the situation has deteriorated in many prisons, although not all. In many prisons the industrial relations record is excellent; there are many admirable men and women working in the Prison Service. The noble Earl will recall from the previous debates that we have had on the issue that in other prisons a campaign has been waged by a minority of members of the association to create as much chaos as possible.
The way one deals with the situation, in my view, is the manner in which Mr. Hurd dealt with it when there was the walk-out at Wandsworth. The fact that the Metropolitan Police took over Wandsworth in an extremely ugly situation and brought order to the prison passed a message to the rest of the Prison Service that behaviour of that kind would not be tolerated. Firm management is the way to deal with a bad industrial relations situation, not privatisation.
It is instructive to examine how Ministers have changed their ground since the Bill which became the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was introduced into Parliament. First, there was the proposal to take powers to set up the single remand establishment at the Wolds. It was the idea of Mr. Hurd, and I supported it at the time for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Donaldson. Remand establishments are, in the judgment of all of us, wholly different from prisons holding sentenced prisoners. If anyone finds it difficult to accept that view, they have only to read the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to see the justification for that opinion.
I am sure that the noble Earl will recall the words of his then colleague, Mrs. Rumbold, when speaking in the House of Commons on 25th February 1991. That is less than two years ago. She said:
"The Government are taking the first step in considering contracting out a remand prison … If, and only if, the contracted-out remand centre proves to be a success might we move towards privatisation of other parts of the prison service".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/91; col. 720.]
In the light of last year's debate and the speech of the noble Earl—when, with great respect to him, he endeavoured (not wholly successfully in my view) to re-write history—it is important to emphasise again Mrs. Rumbold's words:
"If, and only if, the contracted-out remand centre proves to be a success"—

939
not a tendering exercise, as the noble Earl tried last year to suggest, but if the operation of that establishment proved to be a success.
Let us come again in detail to what the noble Earl told us. When we were debating the Bill which gave the Home Secretary the order making powers we are discussing today he said:
"If a suitable tender is received that prison may be contracted out. No new remand centres are being built or planned. Therefore, in regard to contracted-out remand centres, that will be the only one for the foreseeable future. At present there are no plans to contract out prisons for convicted prisoners or for existing establishments".
He said all that less than two years ago, adding:
"If we decided to go down that road we should first wish to see how well the contracting out at Wolds had gone, and whether there were any lessons to be learned from that".—[Official Report, 23/4/91; col. 211.]
A few weeks later the noble Earl said:
"I must emphasise once again that my right honourable friend has no plans to contract out the management of existing prisons. There is no hidden agenda of wholesale contracting out of existing prisons".—[Official Report, 21/5/91; col. 211.]
We now know that there was just such a hidden agenda. No doubt the noble Earl was not told. The noble Earl is an honourable man. He would certainly under no circumstances have sought to mislead the House. But it is quite obvious that his colleagues had a hidden agenda and that is why we are discussing the matter today.
Last year, when he brought forward the first order dealing with contracting out, the noble Earl had the embarrassing experience of coming back to us to explain that, despite all the assurances he had given only a few months before, the Government had chosen to ignore them. Despite his own promise that the Wolds,
"will be the only one for the foreseeable future",
he moved an order to extend the Home Secretary's power to privatise all new prisons—not existing prisons but all prisons built thereafter. He performed his duties, I may say, without any apparent embarrassment, despite the assurances he had given exactly in the contrary direction.
Not altogether surprisingly in the circumstances, his arguments were a little unconvincing. He said the Wolds,
"to date … has been shown to be a success".—[Official Report, 7/7/92; col. 1109.]
That was a pretty remarkable statement in all the circumstances because it was made at the beginning of July. The Wolds had been opened only in April. When the noble Earl spoke last July it was only one-third full. That is pretty thin evidence for a Government to decide that an experiment has been a remarkable success. But no doubt the noble Earl will be able to assist us in regard to the matter again today.
Today we have another order extending the possibility of privatisation to all existing prisons. I do not want to deal with the general issues of principle involved in the policy. I have already made my position clear. I believe that it is undesirable and foolish. I should just like to raise one or two matters which arise from that decision.
First, I should like to refer to the position of the new director general. I do not know Mr. Derek Lewis.
940
All I will say is that, given the very heavy responsibilities with which he has been entrusted, I wish him well. He will certainly carry a very heavy burden. Not only will he run the Prison Service; he will also have the responsibility of implementing all the privatisation decisions. How one man can do both jobs is a question that I would find very difficult to answer.
But one statement made by the Home Secretary during the Commons debate on the issue seemed to me a little remarkable. He said:
"In April, the service will become an executive agency under the leadership of Derek Lewis, whom I appointed recently". —[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/93; col. 422.]
Let us consider those words for a moment: "I appointed recently". Perhaps the noble Earl will help to clear up my doubts. Do Ministers now appoint the heads of all executive agencies? If that is so, perhaps the noble Earl will be able to refer me to the date upon which that decision was announced in Parliament.
I have no doubt that Mr. Lewis and other candidates were interviewed by members of the public service, so the noble Earl need not trouble to assure me on that point. I am asking an altogether different question. The holder of that position ranks as a Deputy Under-Secretary of State in the Home Civil Service, although, as we know, Mr. Lewis is paid a great deal more. Is his position within the gift of a Minister of the Crown? If so, I think we are moving perilously away from the traditions of the British public service and the principles laid down in the Trevelyan-Northcote reforms. Perhaps the noble Earl will deal with the matter. I think that we should be reassured on that.
So far as the public service is concerned, the Trevelyan-Northcote reforms have operated for a century and a half. If they are to be discarded, I believe that we should have a clear statement explaining the situation that Ministers have decided upon. We are well aware that so far as Permanent Secretaries are concerned the Prime Minister of the day is consulted. But that is not the issue. Perhaps, as I said, the noble Earl will deal with that when he comes to reply.
I should now like to deal with the other part of Mr. Lewis's responsibilities for the creeping privatisation programme. The Government appear to have got themselves into a fine old mess. Their enthusiasm for privatisation at all costs—the costs, of course, are borne by employees not by Ministers—has apparently been such that they have been ignoring their own regulations. The noble Earl skated fairly briskly, if I may say so, over the question of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to implement the European Commission's 1977 acquired rights directive. That directive broadly lays it down that any new contractor must take over employees on their existing terms and conditions. As we are well aware, for many months, while the pace of privatisation grew, Ministers were either unaware of the order or they believed that they could get away with ignoring its provisions.
Then there were threats of litigation and the Government drew back. As a result, just to take one example reported by the Financial Times, 120 staff employed by the Prison Service Stores Department in

941
Corby have had their redundancy notices withdrawn. The new contractor was to have been Beck & Pollitzer, but it apparently had not been told by Ministers about the existence of the regulations.
I am by no means a doctrinaire opponent of all privatisation proposals. I have made that clear already. Sometimes the private sector will perform a responsibility more effectively and satisfactorily than the public services; sometimes the reverse will be true. But that is not the position of the Government. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, pointed out, they believe that the private sector is always best, although I should have thought that in recent months there has been much evidence to the contrary.
Let us put that aside for a moment. We have a situation in Corby where 120 longstanding employees of the Prison Service of the Home Office—storemen and storewomen, not highly paid public servants—were suddenly told that after a lifetime of working in public service they were to be fired. They performed their work faithfully and well, but Ministers took no account of that whatever. They were to be discharged. The only reason that their redundancy notices are being withdrawn—no doubt the Statement we heard a few minutes ago is significant in this context—is that some legal adviser to the Government, perhaps the law officers or somebody else, realised that the Government were behaving unlawfully. That is why the redundancy notices have been withdrawn. They are in the process of being withdrawn in a number of other cases. It would have been even more helpful to the House if the Government had acknowledged once again that there had been a serious failure regarding their legal advice. Only because there was a European directive in existence—I say that in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—have those people been saved from being thrown on the scrapheap.
I hope that the noble Earl will tell us whether there are any further consequences to the transfer of undertakings order. The Home Secretary said that the successful tenderer at Strangeways would have to take over protected employment contracts. I welcome that, as I am sure many others do also. However, I hope that we shall obtain further information on that point from the noble Earl.
I come to my final point. I have been informed that if there are disturbances in privately managed prisons, the staff in the state sector will not go to reinforce the private sector staff. As they are outside the public service, the view has been taken that they must look after their own security problems. That has major implications for the police service. During the serious disturbances that occurred when Mr. Hurd was Home Secretary, and indeed on many other occasions when riots have taken place, they have been rectified only because staff at prisons which were not affected were sent as reinforcements to those that were.
What happens now? If there are not to be reinforcements from the state sector, who will go to the prisons when there is a substantial disturbance? Will it be the police? Many would welcome an answer from the noble Earl on that point. If it is, does the noble Earl realise that the forces concerned will need
942
substantial programmes of training on how they are to deal with a problem of that nature in a prison. If they are to be given that training, who will pay for it? Will the Home Office make more funds available to the chief officers concerned? It will be helpful to have answers to those questions.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for allowing me to intervene. An additional point arises on the matter that he raised. In fact the police would also be involving themselves in an industrial dispute, which is to be regretted.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, that may be so but a disturbance may take place when no industrial dispute is involved. In any event, the noble Earl is aware of the point and I hope that he will give us a clear answer. I am sure that the police will follow his reply with the closest attention.
I have made my position on the matter wholly clear. The order we are discussing today is largely, though not exclusively, the result of the Government's doctrinaire obsessions. It will not deal with the pressing problems in our prisons; it merely diverts us from the major issues involved in trying to create more civilised conditions in the prisons of this country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Longford need have no fear that I shall disagree with him. The order is an abomination. It is only my deep respect for the conventions of this House, and in particular the convention that we do not vote against orders passed in another place, that will prevent me from going into the Lobby against this dreadful order.
There are two fundamental reasons why I oppose the order—one of principle and a whole series on practicality. The reason of principle was best expressed by the distinguished criminologist, Sir Leon Radzinowicz, who argued in The Times in 1988—referring to remand prisons—
"In a democracy grounded on the rule of law and public accountability the enforcement of penal legislation, which includes prisoners deprived of their liberty while awaiting trial, should be the undiluted responsibility of the state. It is one thing for private companies to provide services to the state system, it is an altogether different matter for bodies whose motivation is primarily commercial to have coercive powers over prisoners".
One does not need to cast aspersions on the motives or efficiency of those who undertake the private contracts in order to reinforce the basic point that it is wrong for the private sector to deprive people of their liberty; it is wrong for the private sector to lock people up. I have no reason other than what I read in the press and what I have heard in the House and read from the debate in the House of Commons to be critical of Group 4 or those who propose to take over the contract at Blakenhurst. I have nothing against them, but they are in a position in which we should not have placed them. We should not allow the private sector to lock people up.
I turn to the issues of practicality, of which there are many. I shall talk first of the historical ones before going on to the priorities for the future. I start with the Wolds prison. That is a remand prison that has been

943
referred to on a number of occasions. The Minister today and the Home Secretary two weeks ago praised the record of the Wolds. But, as my noble friend Lord Longford said, it has only been open since last April. When he visited there it consisted of only one third floor. My understanding is that, although it provides for 320 remand prisoners, there have never been more than 233. Under those circumstances it is not too difficult to provide higher standards than are provided elsewhere.
But it does not seem that those standards are being produced. On 19th December the Financial Times described a horrific case where a prisoner was tortured and injected with heroin. Only yesterday the Observer contained details of what had been happening in the Wolds prison and compared it with public sector prisons. It states:
"Last week there was a second escape from The Wolds in less than a month. A prisoner who was being escorted by the jail's Group 4 staff for treatment at Hull Royal Infirmary suddenly leapt from a wheelchair and vanished".
That is the second escape in a month, and unless the Minister has evidence to the contrary, I suggest that that is way above the record for public sector prisoners. It is also reported that in the month following 11th December 1992 there were no fewer than eight assaults on staff. That contrasts, I understand, with a figure for public sector prisons of on average six assaults on staff per year per prison.
In addition to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has rightly made about what will happen if there are disturbances in the prison—I very much look forward to the Minister's answer on that—I understand that a letter has been sent to the Prison Officers' Association saying that if there is any threat of overcrowding at the Wolds any excess of remand prisoners will be sent to the public prison at Hull. If any difficulties which arise either from disturbances or from the possibility of overcrowding are simply shifted off to public sector prisons, what justifiable comparison can we make between the records of private sector prisons and public sector prisons? My fear about this comparison is confirmed by the fact that the tender which is being issued for Strangeways in Manchester has been taken back and amended so that the tenderers to run Strangeways will have an opportunity to put on extra costs if there is any threat of overcrowding. I have not heard of that being adopted as a principle in public sector prisons.
This is ideology carried to a mad extreme. It is based on a totally false view of what happens in the United States. Ministers went over, visited some presumably ideal prisons in certain parts of the United States and came back with the idea that this was something that would please the Adam Smith Institute. What they seem to have forgotten is that while there are 1.25 million prisoners in the United States —far too many—only 20,000 of them are in private sector prisons. In other words, the United States itself has not adopted private prisons as a proper way of dealing with the problem. Heaven knows, it has enough problems which we would not wish to see in this country.
944
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations and the chaos that has been caused in legal advice to government and in the implementation of that legal advice in their contracting procedures. In introducing the order in another place two weeks ago the Home Secretary said that the new procedures would protect employment contracts and collective agreements and would provide for consultation in the case of redundancies. That is what the regulations say. They have to say that. It is a European directive. They cannot get round it. But they can get rid of the collective agreements and the protected employment before they go out to tender, can they not? Presumably, that is exactly what they will now do. They will remove employees' rights and then they will proceed to the transfer of undertakings rather than run the risk of conflicting with these European objectives.
I do not think that anyone has drawn attention to the point, although it was mentioned in another place by Mr. Robert Maclennan, about the lack of availability of information to Parliament concerning these privatised prisons. Since the Wolds was privatised, any questions about the staffing of the prison and conditions there are described as being "Commercial-in-Confidence". This may well be the last occasion on which we shall be able to debate issues concerning privatised prisons because we will no longer succeed in getting answers from Ministers on these subjects.
The whole thing is a false analogy. It is claimed by Ministers that somehow there is a relationship between privatisation and an enlightened regime, co-operation from the Prison Officers' Association, good conditions and high quality in everything from food to work and education and training. It is assumed at the same time that overcrowding, drugs, slopping out and all of the worst features of our prison system are somehow caused by the fact that it is in the public sector. If we look at the priorities for our prisons I think it will be seen that privatisation is the last thing that we should be considering. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, set out the priorities very clearly in his report. In none of the priorities that he set out is privatisation in any way relevant. He talked about the need for better work opportunities, better education and better treatment, both psychiatric and medical, which will be an extra problem. He talked about an enhanced role and not just a custodial role for prison officers so that they can take part in rehabilitation. Above all, he talked about the horrors of overcrowding and poor sanitation in our prisons. To none of those issues is privatisation an answer. It is just a diversion from the responsibilities which Ministers have.
Indeed there is one way in which the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, go exactly contrary to privatisation. In his report he talked about a national system of accredited standards. How can we have a national system of accredited standards if we are going to be privatising little by little our prison system, losing control of our prison system and losing control of the standards in

945
order to fill the ideological imperatives of the Adam Smith Institute and those who presume to follow its guidance?
There is an organisation called the Penal Affairs Consortium. All the members of the organisation do not necessarily subscribe to everything that the consortium collectively says. It consists of Action on Youth Crime, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, the Association of Members of Boards of Visitors, the Apex Trust, the Biosocial Therapy Association, the Bourne Trust, the Howard League for Penal Reform, Inquest, the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, JUSTICE, Liberty, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, the National Association of Probation Officers, New Bridge, the Parole Release Scheme, Prisoners Abroad, Prisoners Advice Service, the Prisoners' Families and Friends' Service, the Prison Governors' Association, the Prison Officers' Association, the Prison Reform Trust, the Royal Philanthropic Society, the Society of Voluntary Associates and Women in Prison. The Penal Affairs Consortium, with that membership, opposes the private management of prisons and escort arrangements on grounds of principle and practicality. So do we. Under those circumstances the best course would be for the Government to bow their head in shame and withdraw the order.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when I prepared myself for this order earlier I thought what a reasonable order it is. Never in my life did I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, would get so worked up about it. He described it as a dreadful order, as an abomination and as ideology carried to a mad extreme. I think that those are extravagant words, if I may say so, for this order.
It is very difficult for the Government because, as I have told your Lordships before now, ever since I have had the privilege of occupying this position at the Dispatch Box I have heard complaint after complaint about how bad the Prison Service is, how bad it is for inmates, how disgraceful it is, and have been asked what we were going to do about it. A very great deal has been done, over the past 10 years in particular, in building new prisons and so forth. Now we come to a different phase and a new phase when we are actually going to contract out some of the running of the prisons. This is a great change but because it is a great change does not mean that it is necessarily a wrong one or a bad one.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that it was the undiluted responsibility of the state to look after prisoners, and so it is. The state is not reneging from any responsibility. It is saying who is going to manage the prisons. I do not believe that there is any magical, mystical feeling that says only civil servants are able to look after prisoners. In this instance we are getting a very rigid set of principles and a very tightly drawn contract. It is on that that people are being invited to quote.
It is interesting to note the contracting out possibility at Manchester and to compare it with what is being offered to prisoners at other prisons of a similar size. One will find that the prisoners at
946
Manchester will spend at least 12 hours out of the cells seven days a week; in other prisons on average the prisoners spend six hours out of the cells each day and usually fewer at weekends. At Manchester there is access to a minimum of six hours education a week. At other prisons there is no guaranteed access to education and for most prisoners it is limited. At Manchester there is access to a minimum of six hours physical education a week and at other prisons there is at least one session of physical education a week, although some prisoners enjoy more.
Looking at the comparisons one finds the conditions that will apply at Manchester; and the reason for them is because of the very tightly drawn contract which will be better than that which applies at other prisons. Both the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Harris of Greenwich said that the Government are being doctrinaire and ideological. They are not. The Government are asking how they can produce a better regime for the prisoners. If it happens to be cheaper then that is better, too. I cannot see what is wrong with that.
In this order we are taking the precaution that when this matter goes out to tender if an outside body meets the tender's specifications—for which the prison department will also be competing—more effectively then that body should be given the contract. That does not mean to say that the contract is necessarily going to a outside contractor.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that we shall lose control of standards if this work is put out to contractors. I suggest to the noble Lord that that is exactly what one does not do because the standards are very carefully and clearly adumbrated in the contract. In the prison there will be not only the director who will run it but also a controller who will be from the Home Office. He will ensure that the prison is run in accordance with the contract which has been given. So there is no question of the state relinquishing its responsibility. There is no question that the control of standards would be lost. I believe the evidence shows that standards would be better.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that we had no right to hand these contracts over to a motley crew of people who had no knowledge of running prisons. The contractors have to persuade the Home Office that they can run a prison. Many of them have gone to great lengths to acquire the expertise and to submit very detailed proposals. The Home Office sets the syllabus and the standards for the training of staff at a contracted-out prison. The noble Earl was also worried about the staff at the Wolds and whether they were involved with a trade union. They are represented by Apex which is part of the General & Municipal Workers Union. The staff remuneration is broadly comparable to that in the prison service.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was worried about the contracting out of other prisons. He quoted what I had said and it is fair enough for him to do so. It is perfectly true that what I told the noble Lord at the time was the case; namely, that there were no plans then for contracting out the existing prisons. That was the case then. Like everyone else, the

947
Government are entitled to change their minds when they believe that a change will be more successful. That is what we have done.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am glad that we have found that out.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, at least that shows the noble Lord that we are not blinkered in our views. We always listen to what noble Lords say and sometimes we may even act on their views if they are better.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept one intervention? The noble Earl asked us to believe that under the new arrangements the organisation led by a television executive will be able to impose conditions. That produces the most wonderful scenario. Why cannot those conditions be imposed now on the existing service?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl will realise that when one tries to change things, even in Government—and the noble Earl had responsibility for many years—that is not quite so easy as it might seem. People get used to what they have done and used to the regimes with which they have been involved. The great advantage of the present system is that at least one has two systems. The privatised and contracted out scheme, if that is the better, will point the way in which the state service should run.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked why we did not contract out more prisons before evaluating the first one. We are of the view that the introduction of private sector management into the present system will stimulate competition and encourage the introduction of new ideas much more quickly than would otherwise be the case. He was also worried about the contracting out of warehousing and distribution. We are considering the implications of the legal advice that TUPE applies in Corby and in particular whether to let the contract or to revert to the in-house management.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to Mr. Lewis. I am bound to tell the noble Earl that he was appointed from a very strong field of candidates. He has the right policies and experience in managing the process of change and in providing the prison service with dynamic leadership. He has been appointed as a career civil servant—the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was concerned about that—on a fixed term contract. His appointment was made in open competition held under the guidance of the Civil Service Commission and advice from both a senior civil servant and a representative of industry.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat the question which I put to the noble Earl, because clearly he misheard me. I did not ask whether Mr. Lewis had been interviewed by a group of public servants, because I am sure that he had been. I asked the Minister specifically about the words used by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons (Official Report, 3rd February at col. 422) which were: "I appointed Mr. Lewis". Did the Home Secretary personally appoint Mr. Lewis? Does he owe his
948
position to a personal appointment by a Minister of the Crown and, if so, how does he reconcile that with other appointments in the public service?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may correct something which I said. I said that he was a career civil servant. He is not. That was an unfortunate slip of the tongue. The noble Lord quite fairly asked me whether my right honourable friend appointed him. The answer is that he did.
We come now to the so called torture case at the Wolds where a person was injected with heroin. That is a most appalling thing to have happened. It does not matter whether such things happen in state-run prisons or in contracted-out prisons; it is appalling. The Humberside police are investigating it and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was also worried about what happens if there is a major disturbance. The contractors are required to satisfy the Secretary of State that they have satisfactory contingency plans in place. The chief officers of police in the areas which surround the contracted-out prisons have sought assistance in training their instructors in the use of control and restraint techniques should they be called upon. Some of your Lordships have also referred—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with respect to the noble Earl, again that is not the question that I asked him. The question that I asked was totally different. I understand—I believe on good authority —that staff from Home Office prisons, if I may so describe them, will not reinforce the staff at a private sector establishment if there is a riot as they do at the moment if there is a disturbance at another Home Office prison. If that is the situation, the question that arises is: who is to reinforce the staff of the private sector establishment? Will it be the local police? If so, is the Minister aware that that will create substantial resource and training implications for the chief officers concerned? Will they be given additional assistance from the Home Office Police Department, for which the noble Earl is responsible, to deal with that situation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, a riot in any prison creates great problems—whether it is a privatised prison or, as the noble Lord describes it, a Home Office prison. Eventually, the police will be involved—and that will be the case if there is a riot in a contracted-out prison. The question that the noble Lord asked was, "If there is a riot, where will the immediate resources come from?" That responsibility rests with the contractors, who have to satisfy the Home Office that they can take account of immediate problems. Obviously, if the trouble escalates into the most appalling riot, the police will be involved—as now.
Some noble Lords have referred to escapes from the Wolds. The first was on 23rd January, and the prisoner was returned within 48 hours. He is believed to have escaped via the visiting area as visitors were leaving the prison. The second escape took place at Hull Infirmary on 9th February when a prisoner escaped from his escort after his handcuffs had been

949
removed so that he could receive treatment. The prisoner was recaptured during the evening of 10th February. Several noble Lords were concerned about the number of escapes from and the trouble at the Wolds. I think that it is fair to say that any new prison —wherever it is—initially has its share of problems. It does not matter whether it is a contracted-out prison or a new prison. That is one of the facts of life.
I can only tell your Lordships that we hope and believe that contracted-out prisons will have the chance to make a great contribution to the success of life in prison. Everyone knows—the noble Earl, Lord Longford, knows this better than anyone—that being in prison is very disagreeable. If we can raise the standards of care in prisons, it is relatively immaterial whether that work is done by civil servants, the Home Office or those who contract for it. The point is that the Home Office retains the responsibility for prisoners. It also retains the right to try to provide the best possible treatment and accommodation for them. We believe that in this case contracting out might help.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1992
6.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft orders and regulation laid before the House on 21st January [18th Report from the Joint Committee] and the draft order laid before the House on 3rd December 1992 [14th Report from the Joint Committee] be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
These are five draft orders concerning the rates of social security benefits, national insurance contributions and occupational pensions from April of this year. They implement decisions announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security following the Chancellor's Autumn Statement at the end of the public expenditure round last year. They clearly demonstrate our commitment to those people most in need. We have maintained support for those hit by recession; we have focused additional support on the most needy; and we have
950
kept our pledges to families and to the elderly. We will be increasing all major benefits in line with prices—and more than that, concentrating resources on those most in need.
The benefits uprating will be achieved without increasing the main rates of national insurance contributions in April of this year. The national insurance instruments (that is, the second and third on the Order Paper) before the House today provide for the minimum changes to certain earnings limits and to the flat rate contributions in accordance with the usual practice each year. With the permission of the House, I do not propose to dwell upon the detail of those two orders.
I turn now to the benefit uprating which is contained in the principle order (the fourth on the Order Paper). When my right honourable friend announced that all the main benefits would be uprated in line with prices he was warned that by retrospective indexing he would be,
"leaving pensioners' living standards vulnerable to rising inflation in the coming year".
Similar points were made in this House. But the retail prices index showed a 3.6 per cent. rise in September. It now shows a rise of just 1.7 per cent. It is though that September year-on-year figure of 3.6 per cent. that will be used (and not any later or lower figure) in April this year.
It may be helpful if I now indicate how the benefit uprating helps different groups of people: first of all, pensioners. Our pensions policy has three main strands. The first is to maintain the real value of the basic retirement pension, so we are increasing the basic pension next April from £54.15 to £56.10 for a single person and by £3.10 to £89.80 a week for a couple.
The second strand is to focus extra help on those who most need it. The House will remember that we increased the income support pensioner premiums in October last year by £2 for a single person and £3 for a couple. From April, less well off pensioners will benefit not just from the uprating but also from a real increase in their disposable income when they no longer have to pay any portion of council tax. Together these two measures will take the annual extra help made available to pensioners through income-related benefits to £0.5 billion in six months and £1 billion since 1988.
The third strand is to encourage people to make additional pension provision in line with their earnings. The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order protects members of occupational pension schemes by uprating by 3 per cent. post award guaranteed minimum pensions earned from April 1988 onwards.
The success of our policies to encourage more choice in pensions can be seen by the number of people who have chosen to contract out of the state system. Since the pension reforms of the 1980s, 5 million people have become personal pension holders, some 500,000 additional people have joined occupational schemes and the number of schemes has increased by 31,000.
I turn to families. Once again for families we have honoured our manifesto pledge by fully uprating child benefit which will rise to £10 per week for the first child and £8.10 for other children in the family. Family credit will be uprated in full. It now goes to more people with family responsibilities than ever before. Some 450,000 families are being helped to maintain themselves in work by an average payment of £42 a week. Maternity allowance and the lower rate of statutory maternity pay will go up in full to £43.75 and £47.95 respectively.
I now turn to the sick and disabled. We propose to uprate invalidity benefit fully in line with inflation for people unable to work because of sickness.
The House will also note that we intend to make a full increase in line with the retail prices index for sickness benefit and for the lower rate of statutory sick pay. We do not, however, propose to increase the higher rate, which goes to employees earning £195 or more a week. Most employees who qualify for the higher rate have their statutory sick pay topped up by occupational sick pay schemes. It would, therefore, be an inappropriate use of scarce resources to increase that rate.
For people with disabilities we will in particular continue the support provided by the two new benefits introduced last year—disability working allowance and disability living allowance. This will be the first uprating for these new benefits. Since the introduction of disability living allowance in April last year 370,000 awards have been made, including over 200,000 less severely disabled people who have benefited from this new benefit. This increases to nearly 2 million the number of people receiving help with the extra costs of disability.
We also plan to increase the amount that carers may earn before their benefit entitlement is affected. Carers entitled to the carer premium in income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit who presently qualify for a lower earnings disregard will be able to earn up to £15 a week without losing any of their income related benefit. The ceiling for earnings for those receiving invalid care allowance will increase by £10 from £40 to £50 per week.
While not forming part of the orders before your Lordships, I mention these measures now as they will affect the disposable incomes of some carers from April. Both those measures will help many carers who wish to keep in touch with the world of work, as well as giving them valuable additional cash.
Other provisions—largely for the elderly, but for all those who need additional care—are the payments made for residential care and nursing homes. From April the department's limits set out in the uprating order will apply to income support claimants who have preserved rights to the special higher levels of income support. Those are mainly people who are resident in residential care or nursing homes on 31st March.
Most of the limits will be increased by £10—that is, more than inflation in most cases. But there will be no increases for the terminal illness limit. Those have not proved to be very effective in providing additional
952
help to hospices since many do not make a charge and there is, therefore, no basis on which their residents can claim the special levels of income support. We have therefore decided that a better use of resources is to increase the grant to hospices, and we will be making an extra grant of £1 million in 1993–94. That is in addition to the £1 million for each of the Public Expenditure Survey years that was announced in 1991.
Our debate today covers a wide range of measures designed to make sure that expenditure is deployed wisely and effectively. The Government are getting on with the job of keeping our promises, of protecting all those most in need and of encouraging responsibility by giving people more control over their own money. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft orders and regulation laid before the House on 21st January [18th Report from the Joint Committee] and the draft order laid before the House on 3rd December 1992 [14th Report from the Joint Committee] be approved.—(Lord Henley).
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we thank the Minister for his introduction. On this side of the House we welcome an uprating which inflation-proofs benefits and which, as has rightly been said, as inflation is falling may even represent a modest improvement in real terms to most beneficiaries. We are happy to acknowledge that. However, it is worth pointing out that if the retail prices index is 3.6 per cent., the average rise in male earnings is 4.7 per cent. Therefore, recipients of benefits will still see themselves slipping even further behind the rising prosperity of those in work.
I give an example. Unemployment benefit for a couple with two children under the age of 11 has hardly increased in real terms since April 1979. It has risen from £69.53 to £69.70 per week at April 1992 prices. However, in the same period, as a percentage of gross average male earnings, that benefit has fallen from 27 per cent. to just over 20 per cent. —the cost of decoupling the link of benefits to earnings and coupling it instead to prices. Nevertheless, we are pleased that we are not arguing this evening to prevent a cut in benefits in real terms, which given the fears of last autumn seemed all too possible.
I should like to raise some particular problems, most of which have been previously flagged from the Opposition Benches, as well as some wider anxieties. The first cluster of problems are those affecting people on very low benefits. We are talking about the poverty of non-working single parent mothers with young children, the continuing poverty of elderly pensioners who have neither SERPS nor a private pension and carers whose invalidity care allowance represents barely 10 per cent. of average earnings.
None of those groups can reasonably enter the labour market. They are dependent upon benefits, usually because other people—small children, the frail or the elderly—are dependent upon them. Their benefits are totally inadequate to provide enough for their daily needs. As all the research carried out by the

953
CABs and other charitable organisations indicates, those people fall into debt or they go short. Needless to say, they are almost all women.
Therefore, will the Minister look at the home responsibility contribution, especially for carers, in the context of the debate about the equalisation of pension ages? My figures may not be correct because 1 am trying to decipher them from the department's statistics. But will the Minister confirm that only 25 per cent. of working women at the age of 60 enjoy a full old age pension in their own right on their own contribution?
Many such women are forced to turn to the Social Fund, whose workings, cash limits, replacement of grants by loans and failure to help the neediest have been demonstrated by research finding after research finding. The Government's own social security advisory consortium has urged them to restructure the Social Fund. Their own sponsored research undertaken by York University has urged them to restructure the Social Fund. In the light of that research, will the Minister indicate when we can expect to see that reform? Will he indicate also how much new money, as opposed to recycled loans, has gone into the Social Fund in the past 12 months?
I suggest that there is a cluster of problems for those who remain on very low benefits and who cannot reasonably be expected to enter the labour market because of those dependent upon them. We must continue to address that problem.
Secondly, there are a cluster of problems affecting those receiving no benefit at all. First, I am thinking of the problem of 16 to 17 year-olds who are not in education, not in work and, despite government promises, not in training. They are without income.
The national figures suggest, although the Minister may have more up-to-date information, that there are something like 125,000 unemployed young people, of whom 97,000 in that category are without income. Certainly the latest figures from Norfolk are that 450 school-leavers are unemployed, awaiting a training place and without income. For them the Government's promise of a training place is a miasma. We know what happens to them. They turn to begging on the streets. Will the Minister tell us what financial arrangements are being made for those young people for whom the promise of a training place has so far failed to materialise?
Secondly, still as regards those claiming no benefit —it may be that the Minister will give us a more positive response on this—perhaps I may point out a problem of which I am sure he is aware; namely, that those who undertake more than 21 hours education per week—those training to acquire skills which the country so desperately needs—are perversely punished by losing benefit. Those who work for 24 hours per week in the voluntary sector, perhaps even as local authority councillors, effectively retain their labour skills and at the same time offer a community service. However, they are also perversely punished by losing their right to benefit. We hope to see a speedy review of those arrangements.
Thirdly, can the Minister reconsider the position of those people who are denied benefit while benefit
954
officers explore whether they are available for and are actively seeking work, as a result of which very poor people are denied their entire income on the basis of an officer's doubt rather than on the basis of an adjudicated offence? Can the Minister tell us the review mechanisms that are in place that were promised by his honourable friend Mr. Burt to the Statutory Instruments Committee? I was present when that promise was made. Can the Minister tell us what shape the review mechanism will take and whether he will be reporting to the House on its efficacy?
The last group is made up of those who are waiting for their DLA claim to be processed, who lost access to the Independent Living Fund and therefore to an increase in their income of £70 to £120 a week. That is a severe price to pay for government delays.
In that context, I should like to put on record that every word of the assertions in my question to the Minister on this subject a week ago was correct, as letters from the Independent Living Fund have subsequently confirmed. The Minister was wrong to state that I was wrong and I regret that he has not seen fit to withdraw his remarks to that effect.
Thirdly, I should like to turn to those people who are on benefit but who should not be. I am talking about the unemployed. It is clear that social security expenditure is unemployment led, because the unemployed draw not just unemployment benefit or invalidity benefit and, in time, income support, but also receive housing benefit or mortgage help, poll and council tax benefits, etc.
Without entering into the wider debates that have been promised by reviews from both parties, I should like to emphasise that the Government, having destroyed our manufacturing base, are now seeking to finger the benefit system which picks up the pieces. If our manufacturing economy were rebuilt, no government would need to face the prospects of devastating our social security system in the name of fundamental review. Social security is carrying a load for which it was never intended. The fault lies not in the fecklessness of our people nor in fashionable theories of dependency culture, but in the absolute insufficiency of jobs. The evidence is around us. Every time Sainsbury's advertise for a packer of shelves there are 200 applications. The abolition of wages councils would push more women who are sole earners on to family credit, and, rather like the Speenhamland system of old, the state and the tax payers will be subsidising the employer to pay low wages.
I have tried to indicate the main problems of those on very low benefits, those on no benefits and those who are drawing benefit who would prefer to be in work. The Minister and his honourable friend in another place have been making much about the issue of fraud. The Minister will have our full support in stamping out fraud whenever it exists. However, there is quite a lot of research evidence to support the fact that mismanagement and consequent error, if benefit staff and of claimants is an infinitely larger problem. We urge the Minister, for all our sakes, to keep separate statistics on what is fraud and what is error so that we may have agreed information.

955
I should like to point out the continuing cost of the shadow welfare state in our society arising from such matters as mortgage tax relief and relief on private pensions. The information from the National Audit Office is that we are currently paying £9 billion to save £4 billion in SERPS by privileging private pensions.
One problem that will be of wider concern in the future is the interface of social security and local authority benefits, particularly the problem of housing where one is eligible for mortgage help if one is on income support but not on family credit. That is a perverse incentive to become unemployed.
The issues that remain concern housing repossession. We do not need what is offered by the Housing Bill, which is a rents to mortgages scheme, but a mortgages to rent scheme, thus looping people into the social security system, enabling them to retain their homes.
Can we hope that the Minister will continue to keep in mind in his review the wider issue of the poverty trap, the sharp taper of benefits which underpins that poverty trap, thus producing a perverse incentive not to work, and, finally and above all, the widening gap between those on benefits and those in work? If a social security system is to have any rootedness in justice, it must seek to narrow and not to widen that gap. I await the Minister's response.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord will notice that I am a stand-in for his noble kinsman. That may or may not be a matter of relief to him.
We are glad that the appalling rumours about what was going to happen to benefits have not proved to have substance, and that many of the important benefits are being increased. That does not mean to say that we are satisfied with the package that we are being offered, and the noble Lord would hardly expect that to be the position.
We are pleased that child benefit is being updated. However, we should like confirmation that never again—though perhaps that is a request that is unlikely to be responded to, so I will ask rather for confirmation that there is no further intention of freezing child benefit as it has been frozen in the past. It would be an acceptable position if a proposal that child benefit will be updated in line with the retail prices index, if nothing else, were to be incorporated in legislation. We continue to regard child benefit as one of the most important benefits. It affects families with responsibilities for children, which is undoubtedly one of the heaviest burdens that people in poverty have to bear. Therefore, we should like confirmation that there is no further intention of tinkering with child benefit.
I should like to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, by stating that we continue to regard the Social Fund as a singularly ill-designed instrument for dealing with special problems of poverty. It is quite ridiculous to make loans to people who are already living at the lowest possible level. The loans are certain to increase their indebtedness, which is already one of their major problems. Can the Government reconsider the nature of the Social Fund and whether it is not time that they abandoned the idea of making loans?
956
The government, while deploring debt on the one hand, encourage people to get into it on the other. There are loans to students and loans to the most impoverished people. It is not desirable that either of those groups, in their already straitened circumstances, should be landed with a burden of debt which in many cases they will not be able to clear for many years, if at all.
We welcome the increase in the invalid care allowance. However, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that people who start caring when they are over the age of 65 are not eligible for the invalid care allowance, small though it is. I assume that it is considered that the invalid care allowance is a substitution for the pay that people lose, and that if they are over retirement age they are not losing pay. That is a misinterpretation of what the care allowance ought to be about. Invalid care allowance should be paid in recognition of the work that is being done by carers of all ages, over or under 65, who are keeping people in their own homes who would otherwise be very expensively looked after in institutions. As a result, the distinction between those people above and those people under the age of 65 is a false one.
The introduction in April of the community care system will place a very heavy burden on those people. The burden of caring is difficult enough but, if it is enhanced by considerable poverty, then their plight will be serious. That will be the situation for many people, especially if they are going to have the care of relations who are coming out of institutions, who, by definition, are those most difficult to care for. In the light of the changes that will take place in April, will the Minister not consider making the invalid care allowance available to people of all ages, if it is demonstrated that they are doing a very heavy job of caring?
I wish to join in urging the Minister to look again at the 21-hour rule for study which applies to the unemployed. It is crystal clear that the biggest burden to this country is the extent to which people are insufficiently trained, or not trained at all. That situation will continue even when we move out of recession. If during periods of unemployment people are prepared to receive training, and to spend 21 hours a week in an organisation which will provide that training and equip them for a more demanding labour market, that should be encouraged. They should also be encouraged to undertake that training for a full week rather than for merely 21 hours.
Without giving greater assistance for training we shall find ourselves with a serious problem because even when we are out of recession there will not be jobs for people without skills and knowledge. The time during which people are unemployed can he used to ensure that they acquire skills and knowledge. By handicapping the unemployed to a maximum of 21 hours a week is a false economy and a short-sighted view of what is needed. I hope that the Government will look at that issue and at the 24 hours allowed for voluntary work. Such activities should be encouraged

957
and extended so that when people have the opportunity of employment they are properly equipped to take it. They are not equipped at present.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke of the appalling rumours that were circulating in the autumn. They did not emanate from this side of the House but were more along the lines of scaremongering from the Opposition. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, reminded the House, we have kept our pledges, in particular, our manifesto pledges to uprate child benefit and retirement pension. We shall continue to maintain them. We have uprated all the main benefits in full and by prices.
It is all very well for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to say that there is a growing gap between benefits, such as unemployment benefit and retirement benefit, and earnings. I presume that her hidden agenda was to return to what her party did; that was to uprate either by prices or earnings, whichever was the highest—
Lord Ennals: Hear, hear!
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note the "hear, hear" of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. But how would one pay for an ever-greater burden on the working population? We are committed to uprating pensions, for example, in line with prices and at the same time to encouraging the growth of pensioners' incomes from other sources. That is why since we have been in government we have seen pensioners' average net income from all sources, and not only from the state retirement pension, grow by approximately 3 per cent. per annum. However, during the entire five years when the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was Secretary of State for Social Services the pension grew by only 3 per cent. in real terms over and above inflation. Income for pensioners from saving during that time fell. If we are to start uprating by earnings and prices, whichever is the highest. I must remind the House who will have to pay. If one takes pensions alone one will find there will be an extra contribution bill to employer and employee of some £11.20 per week. That is a considerable sum of money.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, spoke about the adequacy of benefits for three target groups in particular. I accept the single parents and the older pensioners. She pointed out those above the age of 80 who are less likely to benefit from occupational pensions because of their working career. She also mentioned carers. As regards the generality of adequacy of all our benefits I have yet to see any genuine evidence of people being unable to manage on existing levels of benefit. To answer that more money at a high level of benefit will reduce, say, malnutrition, when there might be other causes such as ignorance is simplistic. We have increased the income support rates over and above inflation, in particular if the noble Baroness is prepared to take into account the fact that in future those in receipt of income support will not have to pay 20 per cent. of the council tax.
I must also point out that income support is paid for out of general taxation. Many of those taxpayers
958
are low earners. As I have pointed out, we have during the years increased income support over and above RPI. We have increased the premiums for the elderly in income support by far more. In my opening remarks I mentioned the fact that we have added some £1 billion per year to the amount of support in income support paid to pensioners. For the first time the income support level for a couple above the age of 80 is more than £100.
I shall deal later with some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about carers. I now turn to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about HRP and the statistic which I cannot yet confirm; that at the age of 60 only 25 per cent. of women are in receipt of a full pension in their own right. I shall write to the noble Baroness on that point. She made a valid point about HRP and asked the Government to see whether it can be extended. I can assure the noble Baroness that the matter is worth looking at in our entire review of the state pension age, bearing in mind the different conditions under which most women work and the fact that many women take considerable time away from the labour market. There is already a degree of protection in HRP but it might be worth looking at the matter further during our considerations of the issue.
I turn to the lack of automatic entitlement to income support of 16 and 17 year-olds. I assure the noble Baroness —as I have on previous occasions but not to any great effect—that there remains the guarantee of a place on youth training if they want one. Only those who are vulnerable and unable to take advantage of that opportunity can receive income support automatically.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my point was that there are youngsters who are waiting for a place which fails to materialise because insufficient places are being offered by employers to TECs. While they wait for a promise that does not materialise they are without income. That was the point I raised and I hope that the Minister will go on to address it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was about to say that there is a course of action which deals with their problem. They can apply for income support under the severe hardship provision if there is a likelihood of hardship and if they have no other means of support. However, we see no particular need to provide them with automatic entitlement to income support when, for example, they are living at home supported by their family and where there is no element of hardship. We have eased the means by which they can claim severe hardship and we ensure that they receive careful counselling. However, we see no reason whatever why a 16 or 17 year-old should have automatic entitlement to income support whether they need it or not.
I turn to the social fund and the report of the Social Policy Research Unit at York. I acknowledge that both the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Hollis, are not as keen on the social fund as I am. We are considering the results of the research which we commissioned into the Social Fund together with all other recent reports on the scheme. We shall respond to those in due course. However, I must say we have

959
seen nothing to justify altering the basic principles of the Social Fund, which is a much better scheme than any of its predecessors; in particular, its predecessor of single payments, when costs rose out of control.
Noble Lords asked about ICA and the position of carers. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, believed that the allowance should be paid to those above the age of 60. I note what she said but, as always, standing at the Dispatch Box I must remind her of the considerable cost implications of her suggestion. I am sure that the noble Baroness will argue, as she knows her noble kinsman always manages to do, that in the event we will save money in the long term. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that we have increased by a considerable amount the sum of money that carers can earn without it affecting their particular level of benefit.
I will certainly undertake to look at the point that both noble Baronesses made about the number of hours' training allowed for those on unemployment benefit or in receipt of income support when out of work, and similarly the work rule, in particular for members of councils, that has been a problem in the past.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in dealing with carers I am not sure that the Minister has taken on board that I was talking about those over pension age. It is not the amount of earnings that they can get but the fact that they cannot get any at all if they start above a certain age. They may then be very poor.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was quite aware of what the noble Baroness was saying. The point I was trying to make was that there were what might be called some goodies for carers generally. I accept the point made by the noble Baroness that there is nothing for those over 60. Obviously, that is something we will bear in mind but I point out to the noble Baroness that it has considerable cost implications. I will undertake to look at the points made by both noble Baronesses about the permissible number of hours' training or voluntary work for those on unemployment benefit or in receipt of income support. I thought we had resolved the particular problem of councillors. I have seen a number of councillors on the issue recently. Obviously, the noble Baroness is not yet satisfied.
I turn to the question of DLA and the particular problems about its introduction. I also deal with the question about the ILF raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. We have accepted that there have been problems with DLA and its administration. A number of delays have affected a number of people. When a new benefit like that is introduced to a very large number of people there are always quite likely to be problems. When the Labour Party was in government and introduced mobility allowance it took a different approach; it introduced it in a phased manner. As a result, there were 5,000 payments in the first year, 30,000 in the second year, 65,000 in the third year and 95,000 in the fourth year. That may or may not be a satisfactory way to deal with it. I have to say that personally if I were entitled to one or the other I would prefer to wait a mere three months—as the delays over
960
DLA seem to have been this year —rather than up to four years for some classes of people back in the early seventies when mobility allowance was claimed.
I also refer to the point that the noble Baroness makes about our exchange of words at the Dispatch Box on ILF the other day. As the noble Baroness has acknowledged, I have already apologised. She considered my manner abrupt. I am, I believe, quite right in saying that the ILF—the Independent Living Fund—had a discretion that it could operate. It simply chose not to exercise that discretion. For that reason I do not believe there is any need for me to make the apology for which the noble Baroness asks.
The noble Baroness asks whether we can have separate statistics on what is fraud and what is error. I note what she says, but I suspect that there will be considerable practical difficulties in defining all the different levels of fraud and error.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that to be a helpful response. However, as I understand it, the separation of information was made before 1988. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that it stopped from 1988 onwards. Therefore, if we were able to disaggregate the statistics in the past it would be extremely helpful if we could continue to do so in future. Then we would have an agreed basis of information as to what was a problem of error—and the Sunday Times report on the DLA suggested there were considerable problems of error—and what was a problem of fraud, which we would all wish to stamp out.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I presume that the noble Baroness would like to stamp out both error and fraud. I will certainly look at what she says without making any commitment. I cannot repeat myself often enough in saying that I do not accept what the noble Baroness says about the cost of the personal pensions initiative and the cost of the changes that we made to SERPS in the early eighties. Those changes and the changes that we made by the abolition of the uprating by prices or earnings were the two biggest steps in giving us an affordable pensions structure for the 21st century—a structure that my children and grandchildren would be able to afford. There was no point in making wild promises, as the party opposite did, in the mere hope that something would turn up.
I turn to the poverty trap and the high level of the taper to which the noble Baroness objects. I accept that there are some people with very high marginal deduction rates. The first thing I point out is that the number of those with high marginal deduction rates over 90 per cent. dropped dramatically from 130,000 to 75,000 between 1985 and 1992–93. The second point I make is one of cost. It is worth pointing out to the noble Baroness that the cost of reducing the housing benefit taper to, say, 50 per cent. would be £340 million. I am afraid that that is simply not on. To reduce it by a mere 5 per cent. to 60 per cent. will cost some £100 million with about 1.5 million gainers of about £1.30 per week.
The noble Baroness asked about the fundamental review of social security and sought an assurance that it was not just about cutting costs. I suppose I could

961
ask the same question about the privatisation by the noble Baroness's party of its policy-making by handing it over to the commission on social justice. I am full of admiration at its conversion to the virtues of privatisation. It has taken it so far as to privatise its policy-making. The purpose of our fundamental review of social security is not to cut the level of benefits to the sick, the unemployed or the elderly as the noble Baroness claimed. The purpose of the review is to look at ways in which we can make the system more effective in the long term and provide better value for money to our customers; Existing manifesto pledges will he unaffected. We will honour our pledges to uprate fully in line with prices both retirement pensions and child benefit. That is what we have done, along with the other benefits in this particular debate. I commend the five orders to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Kenya: Elections
6.48 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the Commonwealth Observers' Group on the recent elections in Kenya.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I begin by thanking the Minister for being here tonight. I know that she is always dashing round the world and it is very good that she is here for a debate on what I believe to be a subject which she herself agrees is important.
I should like to offer your Lordships a short description of the events leading up to the election in Kenya on 29th December last year, to try to explain in some detail the observations and conclusions of the observers from the Commonwealth Secretariat, to consider the future and to ask the Government what their reaction is to the report. The report received some criticism in the press. It appeared that the journalists—who always like simple answers to complex questions—wanted to know whether the elections were free and fair. Consider the following circumstances: 1 million voters are displaced from the electoral register; there is substantial personation of votes; there is a deliberate failure to de-limit voting districts so as to present a high disparity in electoral size, varying between 20,000 and 126,000; and there is a huge imbalance in the number of voters required to elect representatives of different political parties to Parliament. Are those elections free and fair? Should they be nullified? I do not think so. All those things I have mentioned apply to local and parliamentary elections in Britain.
The criticism of the report in the press also tends to show that on the whole the press has not read the report. There is also a lack of understanding of what the Commonwealth observers are supposed to be doing. I reiterate that they are there to observe, to record their impartial findings and to report to the Secretary General of the Commonwealth and to the political parties in the country. It is not the job of the
962
Commonwealth observers to determine the future of the country. It is up to the Kenyan people, the Commonwealth and the donor countries to interpret those findings and determine their response.
I should start by explaining what happened before we arrived there, because the process did not begin with our arrival on 16th and 17th December last year. It could be said to have started—although it probably started long before—with the decision of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Harare in 1991, when it was decided that the Commonwealth should try to assist the extension of multi-party democracy throughout the Commonwealth. As a result of that there was a significant number of visits by the Secretary General and his staff to Kenya. Technical teams were sent out there to help to identify the issues. Those noble Lords who have read the report will have seen those issues identified on page 1. As a result of that activity significant changes were made in the electoral arrangements. I wish to take the opportunity tonight to pay tribute to the Secretary General of the Commonwealth and to his secretariat.
The delegation went out mainly on 16th and 17th December. It comprised 25 people from 18 countries. It is important to recognise that this was not a British delegation; it was a Commonwealth delegation. It contained only three British people: the honourable Colin Moynihan, Sylvia Heal and myself. The other members came from different parts of the Commonwealth and they comprised as broad a cross-section of the Commonwealth as one could wish. It is important to reiterate that this was a Commonwealth enterprise. The delegation consisted of experienced people such as judges, diplomats, parliamentarians, election officers and a highly qualified team of staff who deserve the highest tribute.
We started by having initial discussions with the Government, the President and the political parties. We talked to the local national monitoring units. They comprised a useful group of people to whom praise is very much due. I wish to place on record—this is contained in the report—our thanks to the officials in Kenya: the Permanent Secretary, the foreign department and Ambassador Sefu who did such a lot to ensure we were able to move about freely and efficiently. I wish to pay tribute to my driver, Mr. Joseph Boit, who drove about 2,500 kilometres on my behalf and without whose assistance we would not have found half the polling stations that we found on polling day.
After that initial period, 36 of us, including members of the staff, went out to different regions of the country. In addition to ourselves there were other observers and monitors. There were about 50 from the International Republican Institute of the United States. There were Scandinavians, European parliamentarians and church groups, including the former Bishop of Manchester, as well as diplomats from the High Commissions and embassies in Nairobi. It was a pity that the Carter Centre, the Kennedy Center and the National Democratic Institute were not allowed to send observers because it was alleged by the Government of Kenya that they

963
would be biased. I believe that that view had been given by Kenneth Kaunda as a result of what had happened in Zambia the year before.
Let us spend a moment to look at the political situation which existed prior to 1992. We must bear in mind that Kenya was a one-party state for almost 30 years. It had a bad human rights record. The previous elections had been conducted not by secret ballot but by people queuing up in front of pictures of their candidate. Election petitions were still being heard from the 1988 elections four years later. It was quite clear from our discussions with President Moi that he was not in favour of multi-party elections. He made it quite plain to us that he feared that that would lead to excessive tribal divisions. It was only due to extended pressure from donor countries that the elections took place at all.
The contestants all came from nine parties. Political parties have to be registered in Kenya. That does not occur in this country, although it might be a good idea if it did. Three parties were rejected. One of them was an Islamic party from the Mombasa area. It was rejected because it was regarded as being tribalist. The Green Party and the Green Party of Africa were rejected for security reasons. That seems a little curious. One must bear in mind that the opposition parties in Kenya were relatively new. Many of them comprised seasoned politicians who had been in the Kenya African National Union (KANU) but they were very new to their political parties. They were inexperienced in campaigning in multi-party elections. Their membership was confined to certain areas and there was quite clearly a difference between what was happening in the urban and in the rural areas. I noticed that also in the elections that I witnessed in Zambia last year and in Bulgaria the year before. Those are points one should remember when trying to establish who are the "goodies" and who are the "baddies". This was not a highly sophisticated election campaign.
The report considers the conditions for free and fair elections and it spells out some of these. It states that while constitutional reforms are relatively easy on paper, there are major problems in changing the attitudes of politicians of ruling parties and civil servants brought up in a one-party system.
Page 7 of the report states:
"Recent Commonwealth experience suggests that at the political level two elements are of particular importance to the conduct of free and fair elections during the transition from a one-party to a multi-party system: the creation of a 'level playing field'"—
I have to apologise as I thought we had removed the expression "level playing field" from the report along with all the split infinitives. However, I am afraid one instance of a "level playing field" crept in. The report continues:
"the creation of a 'level playing field' for the lawful activities of all political parties and a thorough de-linking of government affairs, personnel and resources from those of the ruling party".
That is frightfully important. Another important factor is the establishment of an independent electoral commission which all the parties can trust and whose rules are accepted and administered fairly. There
964
should be free and fair access to the press, TV and radio. I shall return to that point in a moment. There should also be an absence of intimidation and bribery. There should be secrecy of the ballot, an absence of ballot rigging and accuracy at the count. How far were those criteria met?
I shall deal with some of the problem areas. The first problem existed before we arrived: that is the matter of the nominations. As I believe I have already said, we should bear in mind that there were three concurrent elections: one for the presidency, one for the Parliament and one for the civic elections. There were considerable abuses as regards the nominations for the parliamentary and the civic elections. There was widespread evidence of nominees being kidnapped, threatened, robbed of documents and of money and of being prevented from getting their nominations in on time. Such practices were more prevalent in some areas than in others. I was working in the Rift Valley and in the four districts that I covered there were some 15 constituencies and only four of them were contested. One could not help but notice that those were all in the president's own area. Indeed, when we met the president and asked him about it he said, "It is unthinkable that anybody would come from outside the area and seek to stand for election in my own home area". As I recall, our leader replied that he was sure that the president did not expect a totally different form of democracy in Kenya from the rest of the world.
There was also the problem that the Attorney General had altered the law without bothering to tell anybody. The time between the announcement of the election and nomination day was changed from not less than to not more than 21 days. It was probably illegal for him to do that but he did it nevertheless. In the event only six days were allowed between the announcement of the election and nomination day.
During the campaign itself there was considerable evidence of intimidation in the period running up to the election. In the area where I was working I visited refugee camps where there were people whose homes had been burnt, their crops destroyed, their cattle stolen and many of their friends and relatives killed. It was a form of political ethnic cleansing. The Kalenjins had been told by the local politicians—and I place the responsibility for creating the atmosphere firmly on the politicians—that if KANU lost the election they would lose land to other tribes and they would have no influence on the government.
Here I should like to pay tribute to the churches. Huge numbers of people—in the region of 15,000 in the Burnt Forest area—had suddenly landed in the lap of the local churches. It was comforting to see the way in which churches of all denominations worked together in a truly ecumenical way to help out those poor people, with very little government assistance.
I do not say that there was no intimidation by opposition parties. In some parts of the country there undoubtedly was, but it was certainly not on the same scale. In the light of the overall situation, I do not want to overestimate the effect on the result. It was

965
localised, but nevertheless unacceptable. The decoupling of the government and KANU hardly took place throughout the campaign.
Chapter 5 of the report devotes considerable attention to the question of media freedom. It was clear that the press was biased in favour of KANU. The press being biased in favour of the government party is not unknown in other countries. However, in the case of the electronic media it is more serious, particularly when the electronic media are controlled by the government. The report states:
"this became one of the most contentious issues during the campaign. We consider that arrangements to ensure that all parties have equal access to the media are always an important indicator of the strength of the commitment to the democratic process … we issued a statement pointing out that there was a noticeable imbalance in the reporting of the election on radio and television and that we would hope to see greater exposure given to the activities of the opposition parties in the publicly owned media".
In so far as that was achieved, the opposition were shown only in a derogatory light. Most of the evening television broadcasts showed what the president had been doing that day and what he would be doing the following day.
More seriously, a number of journalists, particularly from the weekly newspapers, had been put in gaol and charged with sedition. So far as I know they are not yet off the hook even now. One shudders to think what would have happened to the Sun newspaper in similar circumstances.
There was certainly intimidation and bribery. There was intimidation at public meetings. An organisation called Young Kenya 92, which was almost certainly illegal, was organised and paid. I myself saw people given money and taken off in what appeared to be government vehicles, although they had private number plates. That was in addition to the difficulties which the opposition parties experienced in obtaining permits for meetings.
Serious attempts were made to intimidate opposition candidates right up to the last minute. In Kerio South, a constituency which was part of my area, a lady called Tabatha Seii was very nearly seriously attacked the night before polling. Fortunately she had with her not only some askari but also a member of the BBC World Service. I should also like to pay tribute to the World Service. It was interesting that when speaking to people about the media in Kenya if one suggested that the radio and television were biased they would say, "That doesn't matter because we've got the World Service". That was very good to hear.
Allegations were made that voting cards were being bought from voters. One was supposed to have a pink voting card to be able to go to the polls at all. Those were being bought for quite a lot of money and either being destroyed or handed over to supporters of the government party. That was an issue on which the chairman of the Electoral Commission showed at his best. He suddenly announced about 10 days before the election that it was no longer necessary to have the cards to vote. A great deal of money had changed hands to no great purpose. There was considerable
966
circumstantial evidence to support most of those complaints, but, as always, it was difficult to quantify and it was difficult to obtain first-hand evidence.
A major complaint was made about the composition of the Electoral Commission. It was appointed without consultation with the opposition parties. The fitness for office of its chairman became an issue. He had been chairman when Kenya was a single party state. The report, both in the text on page 10 and in Annex 10, goes into the matter in some detail because we thought it important. We said:
"With the change to a multi-party system, it became vital that the contestants should have the confidence that the Electoral Commission was indeed an independent and impartial body free from the direction and control of any other person in the exercise of its functions.
"Not surprisingly, therefore, the opposition parties objected to Justice Chesoni continuing as Chairman of the Electoral Commission on the grounds that he was not fit for the office".
The reason he was allegedly not fit for office was, as the appendix tells us, because in 1984 he had been a judge of the High Court of Kenya. Bankruptcy proceedings were filed against him and he was allowed to retire on a pension. The government-controlled bank was ordered by the government to write off his debt. In 1990 he was reappointed an acting justice of appeal, but then it was found that there was an outstanding application to commit him to prison which was due to come up in May 1990. He was asked to resign; he refused and was fired. Nevertheless, the president felt that he was suitable to remain as chairman of the Electoral Commission. We said:
"The retention of Justice Chesoni in the face of what were apparently justified opposition protests could reasonably be interpreted by the opposition parties as an unmistakable signal that the Government would use its powers to secure an advantage for the ruling party".
There is no doubt that that feeling that he was totally compromised and was a tool of the government was responsible for a considerable amount of the suspicion and sourness which occurred at that stage of the election process. As we say in the report, at a later stage Justice Chesoni performed much better.
There is much more that I could say, but I see that time is whizzing by. Come election day, in spite of all the problems, the situation was much redeemed. There were serious organisational problems: late opening of polling booths; lack of experience; considerable confusion; and sporadic but by no means widespread instances of attempted ballot rigging—but there were many more allegations than confirmed cases. There was a serious lack of secrecy. I saw polling booths where the screens had been totally removed. In many cases illiterate voters were assisted in a way which was unacceptable. However, it is fair to say that in general polling day went a long way to redeem the whole election process.
In the last paragraph of our assessment we say:
"we can only conclude that neither the polling day arrangements nor the polling and counting processes were adequately designed or carried out to meet the specific situations and needs which the Kenyan electoral environment required. This, coupled with a lack of comprehensive training and civic education, led to the inevitable delays and confusion at the polls. If it were not for the laudable commitment, dedication and patience of some poll officials, party agents and, in particular, the electors, the whole process could easily have become a fiasco. Special mention must be made of the

967
thousands of local monitors who tirelessly and vigilantly kept watch at all polling stations and counting centres. As it was, polling day, and the many hours afterwards, was probably the most positive aspect of the whole electoral process".
In conclusion, I can do no better than again quote from our own conclusion in the summary. We stated:
"Despite the flaws, we believe that these elections marked the first step on the path to multi-party democracy. The process, as it turned out, was facilitated greatly by the resolute determination of the voters to make a success of their contribution to its development. Regrettably, the contribution of the Government and the political parties did not match that of the voters on this occasion".
I wish to ask the Government this question. Where do we go from here? Kenya has come a long way. It has begun to be a multi-party democracy. It has a substantial elected opposition. Parliament has met and has been prorogued; I hope that that is merely a technicality. Perhaps the Minister will be able to assist on that because she has been in Kenya so recently. All eyes are on President Moi. Will he treat the Opposition properly? Will the Opposition behave as a proper opposition group should? Are the abuses of the past ended? Will the Opposition be allowed to operate freely? Will the media be allowed to operate freely? Will journalists be allowed to criticise?
The Commonwealth has an enormous role to play. The Secretary-General has already been back to Kenya and is in contact with all sides. He is using his leverage, expertise and experience to try to assist all sides. We must be grateful to him for that. I am sure that the Minister is doing likewise. However, we must make it clear that we can only support the Kenyan Government if progress is made. Progress is important not only for Kenya itself but for the whole of Africa and for democracy in Africa. Kenya was the big test. It almost failed. But it can succeed if the President, the governing party and the Opposition have the will to make it succeed. Only at that stage should our support be guaranteed.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his work as one of the Commonwealth Observer Group and for initiating the debate. He did so with the balance of judgment that the report also demonstrates. It was wise to let the dust settle before we had the debate. I believe that now is a good time to examine the report and the situation in Kenya in order to consider how Britain, especially Her Majesty's Government, should respond to the situation.
I pay a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. I believe that her visits to Kenya before President Daniel arap Moi had responded to the cause for multi-party democracy were important. The British Government supported the strongly-held American view, and that of other aid donors. I am grateful to her for her recent visit. That is another reason why today is a good time to have the debate. I look forward intensely to hearing what she has to say.
President Daniel arap Moi had opposed the concept of multi-party democracy not only for long years before he gave in to pressure, but also afterwards when he indicated that he did not think much of the
968
system. I believe that the report confirmed that sufficiently for us to watch carefully to ensure that he does not now use his election-given power to revert to the days of oppression and fraud which typified so much of his rule from 1978 until December 1992. He did not hesitate to throw his opponents into gaol without charge, without trial or the protection of the law. It was not by accident that he became one of the richest men in the world during his period in office. That was at the expense of his own people.
We look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say and her comments on the report by the Commonwealth Observer Group. The group's report will have enabled some people to reach the simple conclusion that the elections were rigged, or for the Opposition to say, "We was robbed". It is quite possible that fair and well-conducted elections could have led to a different result which might have put opposition parties into the role of the presidency. I wish to touch on a few points which arise from the report. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord said.
First, the ruling party could have done far more to control and curb the ethnic excesses. Secondly, the Government refused to have dialogue with the newly-created opposition parties in the run-up to the election. Some agreement between them might have greatly improved the situation. Thirdly, the Government were responsible for the structure and composition of the Electoral Commission, to which the noble Lord referred. Fourthly, there was inadequate training of registration officers. Over a million people were unable to register to vote. There was multiple registration. Fifthly the refusal to publish the 1989 census results was unfortunate. Public servants were expected to act in the interests of KANU, the ruling party.
Sixthly, the decision by the Government to cut short the period of the campaign was in the interests of the Government, as they saw it. Seventhly, many election candidates were prevented from handing in their nomination papers. Opposition parties were harassed in the Rift Valley, and elsewhere, and in the North Eastern Province were unable to organise election meetings freely or, in some cases, not at all. Eighthly, there was widespread bribery. Ninthly, on polling day many polling stations were not open for voters until long after the time that they were supposed to be open. Tenthly, the counting of the votes was very slow indeed. Many other points have been touched on by the noble Lord.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. Does he accept that the late opening and the slow counting were due to inexperience and, in some cases perhaps, incompetence rather than deliberate attempts by the governing party to damage the election?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I do indeed. However, it helps to substantiate the point that I made: that the election officers were not properly trained to do their job effectively. I do not say that it necessarily affected the result. I simply say that as a well-run election, it did not quite come up to scratch.

969
Such a catalogue of events as the noble Lord has revealed, and to which I have added, were almost entirely to the advantage of KANU and were more than enough to disqualify the outcome and to declare the election to be invalid. But in the end it was the common sense and political judgment of the political leaders, of the people across the spectrum, and indeed of the Commonwealth observers, which ensured that Daniel arap Moi is still President of Kenya—although in my view he does not deserve to be so.
I am intentionally seeking to be as brief as I can. Before coming to the lessons to be learned from the election in Kenya let me reveal two interests. First, I have an intense interest in Kenya. I have been there many times and hope to go there many times again. I hope that nothing I say today will make my life more difficult the next time that I am in Kenya. Secondly, Mr. Kenneth Matiba—he was the leader of the party who gained most votes among the opposition parties—has been a close personal friend of mine for well over 30 years. He and his wife Edith lived with my family when they were both doing postgraduate studies. He was educated at a mission school. I know his abilities. His absolute honesty and his integrity are attributes that are not always present in all political leaders even in countries other than Kenya, to put it at its mildest. He was a success as a civil servant and as a businessman. He was then a success as a Cabinet Minister. He was a success as a husband and father too, and it was his belief in multi-party democracy which led to his estrangement from President Moi when he was arguing the case for multi-party democracy and President Moi was saying, "None of that"—so much so that Matiba was thrown into jail without charge or trial and his family not knowing for many months where he was. He suffered appalling deprivations which undoubtedly, in my view, led to the stroke which occurred 11 months after his incarceration. The records of his family are as distinguished as his own.
Poor Ken was kept in solitary confinement for 11 months, totally cut off from his family and forced to sleep on a brick floor. Before his detention his wife and one of their daughters were brutally attacked in their home. They were severely injured and both were in hospital for some time. All his family stood by him throughout his struggle.
It was Mr. Matiba's qualities of leadership which led him also to leave his hospital bed for treatment in London at a time when his supporters might have created a situation of violent conflict. They declared, as soon as they knew that he was in hospital, that they would free him the following Sunday. That would undoubtedly have led to violence unless he had simply been freed, and there was no indication that Mr. Moi would do that.
Those same qualities led him to return to Kenya for the multi-party elections for which he had called for such a long time. He returned to the elections before fully recovering from his stroke. He had no opportunity after his operations and treatment fully to recover. It was again those same qualities which led him to turn away from almost certain violence after the results were known. Had he or the other party
970
leaders called on his supporters either to boycott the rigged elections or to refuse to accept their outcome, the situation in Kenya might indeed have been dire.
I pay tribute to the report of the observers who used their political judgment. I also pay tribute to the party leaders who may be open to criticism for other actions, but they decided in the interests of their country that they would take their places in parliament. I believe that Mr. Matiba's time is still to come and I hope that it will not be long.
I totally support the political judgment of those who said, in the words of the Commonwealth observers, that,
"These elections marked the first step on the path to multi-party democracy".
As it turned out, the process was facilitated greatly by the resolute determination of the voters to make a success of their contribution to its development. Tributes were paid to the patience and determination displayed by the voters. They deserve a better government than they have as a result of the election.
Finally, what should Britain's role be now? For years Britain took a low profile. I agree with the comments in the report in the Independent of 6th January:
"Only when it seemed that the country would explode if Mr. Moi did not allow multi-party democracy and when all other aid donors were urging democracy, did Britain finally put pressure on Mr. Moi by stopping aid to Kenya".
It was at that time that the noble Baroness made her significant contribution to the welfare of Kenya.
In my view, Kenya needs Britain more than Britain needs Kenya. Because of our long historic ties we have a link with Kenya and feel naturally, as part of the Commonwealth, a responsibility for that country. I had the privilege of knowing Jomo Kenyatta before and during his presidency, meeting him not long before his death. I knew Tom M'Boya and the late Michael Blundell before I had the opportunity of meeting Mr. Moi. I was introduced to him by Ken Matiba.
Because of the £1 billion worth of investment, Britain's voice will always be listened to in Kenya. Unhappily, Kenya has been split during these elections along tribal lines. The Luo and the Kikuyu were solidly against Mr. Moi. It would be wrong to give Mr. Moi unqualified support or immediately to restore the aid programme. We must be satisfied that the new-found democracy is in safe hands. I certainly agree with all the conclusions of Christian Aid's report, based on the wise, sound advice of the former Bishop the Very Reverend and Mrs. Stanley Booth-Clibborn. I thought that they produced an outstanding report in which there were three points with which I associate myself. Unfortunately, I do not have them to hand, which reduces my speech.
The points were that we must ensure that Kenya stays on the right and proper path, that we do not see it going back again to the situation in which those who voted against the government suffer—either the political leaders or the parties. The report by Christian Aid was very valuable and I wish that I had it with me.
I look forward with great interest to what the Minister has to say. I hope that she will take the same view as did Christian Aid that British policy will be

971
based on the performance of the newly-elected government. I look forward to what the noble Baroness has to say and I shall watch with interest Britain's relationship with Kenya during the months and years to come.
7.26 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too would like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, not only for his hard work in Kenya in December but also for his interesting remarks in opening the debate on the Question. I also look forward to the speech of my noble friend Lady Chalker. I know from my contacts in Kenya in what extremely high regard she is held in that country.
I do not wish to go over all the ground that has been so ably covered by both the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Ennals. I wish to make just one or two points. I agree that the process is a first step towards democracy. The extent to which the result of the election reflects the will of the people I find hard to diagnose. Perhaps two-thirds of the electorate voted against the government, but the government, KANU, were returned. I also wish to know whether my noble friend can tell me how many seats in parliament are still vacant or being contested. Again, I have heard conflicting reports and it is hard to see what is right and proper there.
Perhaps the most important issue is whether the lessons have been learnt for the next election so that the corruption which clearly existed will be much reduced. I do not believe that the government were the only party acting corruptly. I believe that there was opposition corruption as well in certain quarters, though to a lesser extent.
Much has been said about the training of election officers. I hope that there can be ways in which the Kenya Government can be encouraged to initiate training and perhaps put training under the Commonwealth team so that it is impartial. Then election officers will in future not be trained by KANU. It is clearly an enormous difficulty that the separation of the government from KANU was not able to be pushed any more than it was and the two ran together.
I felt, however, that it was encouraging that the superb team of observers was not hoodwinked, as some of the reports from certain quarters suggest that much hoodwinking went on. I am enormously encouraged by the Commonwealth observers' report which ended by being extremely realistic.
Perhaps I may put one or two further questions to the Minister about what Her Majesty's Government's policy will be in the medium and the long term. I know because I read it in the press—we know that everything is true in the press, but in this instance I believe it—that my noble friend has been exerting her great influence to encourage dialogue between the government and the opposition parties. I would be very grateful if she were able to inform noble Lords of what progress she has made. It is important that
972
between them they try to solve the country's outstanding political and economic problems, which are still enormous.
My last question is: what is Her Majesty's Government's view on resuming support for Kenya's beleaguered economy? Is my noble friend satisfied that economic reform and political reform have met the criteria for bilateral and multilateral aid to be resumed, or should further measures be required of the Kenya Government? If so, what action is being taken to encourage those further measures to be taken so that the country can receive aid? Unfortunately, as has already been said, the country is in a very poor economic state at the present time. The aid countries, the government, the opposition and other sources of influence in Kenya need to pull together so that the country can regain its leading position in Africa and not be pulled down by those problems. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Ennals and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for putting down the Question. I also greatly look forward to what the Minister will say in response since she has so recently been in Kenya. I have some more specific questions for her regarding what the UK Government will be doing in response.
Kenya is clearly at a crossroads. After the first multi-party elections for over 25 years, it faces an uncertain future. It could go the way of the proper establishment of democracy, in which opposition parties are able to operate freely, in which the government are accountable to parliament and in which human rights are preserved and large-scale corruption is eliminated. Alternatively, it could return to autocratic rule, leading to civil unrest and disorder, fuelled by the rightly justifiable outrage of the opposition parties, leading in the end to serious upheaval and political instability. How Western governments, and in particular the British Government, handle relations with Kenya in the crucial months ahead, following an election which leaves much to be desired in its conduct, is vitally important.
Looking back over the past decade, one cannot but be rather uneasy about the UK Government's record in dealing with Mr. Moi and his government. It is an uneasiness already expressed by my noble friend Lord Ennals, although in a very gentle way. Having succeeded to the presidency on the death of Kenyatta in 1979, Moi embarked on an increasingly repressive regime. More and more he ruled by presidential decree, locking up those who opposed him, denying such opponents a fair trial and torturing some of them in prison. At the same time corruption became rife. Through much of that period the UK Government said and did little, in spite of their large potential for influence as Kenya's biggest bilateral aid donor. Surely they should have acted sooner to try to curb the brutality and corruption of the Moi regime.
But as more and more aid donors became concerned about blatant breaches of human rights,

973
and following the murder of the former Foreign Minister, Robert Ouko, the Government finally started to put pressure on Mr. Moi along with other aid donors. There was an agreement under the chairmanship of the World Bank to suspend lending and balance of payments assistance to Kenya in late 1991. Their resumption was tied to the regime introducing political reforms as well as undertaking a more effective implementation of the country's structural adjustment programme. One month later, President Moi's KANU party agreed to legalise opposition parties and to hold multi-party elections. As we all know, they took place at the end of December a year later, with a resulting victory for KANU.
The crucial question now is whether Mr. Moi—a most reluctant democrat—intends to behave in a way which is appropriate to a democratic leader. The signs so far are not auspicious. Perhaps we should not be surprised. For nearly 14 years, President Moi has exercised dictatorial power, showing little tolerance or ability to compromise. He must now make dramatic changes in the way he governs.
Such changes are particularly important in the context of an election which raises many questions about whether it was genuinely free and fair. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said. He speaks with authority as a member of the Commonwealth Observer Group which monitored the elections. Having myself been an observer of the election process in another African country which had been denied the benefit of elections, I recognise the difficulties facing such a group both in collecting and assessing the evidence and in making a judgment about whether the election was free and fair. However, having read the Commonwealth report, it is impossible not to feel uneasy.
The first cause for concern is the Electoral Commission and its composition. Frankly, the Commonwealth observers' report is contradictory on the matter. As the report indicates, the opposition complained about both the composition and the performance of the Electoral Commission, and argued that Mr. Chesoni, its chairman, and some other members of the Electoral Commission were unfit to serve on that body—a charge which, of course, he vigorously denied. The report then states that the Commonwealth observers received no information that would cast doubt on the denial, despite the Commonwealth delegation receiving a file which apparently lent credence to the allegations when it visited Kenya in November last year.
Somewhat paradoxically, the observers' report goes on to suggest that there were reasonable grounds for challenging Mr. Chesoni's credentials. Indicative of this, the report states that retaining Mr. Chesoni:
"could reasonably be interpreted by the opposition parties as an unmistakable signal that the Government would use its powers to secure an advantage for the ruling party … [his] lack of transparency, his unwillingness to meet the opposition parties and his apparent collaboration with the Attorney-General in improperly shortening the period between the issue of the writ and the nomination of candidates, confirmed opposition misgivings".
The observers concluded:
974
"These factors cast a cloud over the electoral process".
They observed, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has already reported, that the Electoral Commission's performance improved dramatically—I suppose we can be grateful for small mercies—although the report argues that the chairman's background and his earlier performance in the office,
"might have undermined perceptions that the election would be supervised in a manner that was free and fair".
The Commonwealth observers' report also high-lights the difficulties involved in evaluating elections in those terms, although it became clear to the team that,
"some aspects of the elections were not fair".
The team's concerns relate to the inadequacy of the vote registration process in many parts of the country and significant weaknesses in the nomination process for candidates.
The report also observed that the Electoral Commission fulfilled its designed role in the last weeks of the campaign. The observers also noted—the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to this—the partisanship of the state-owned radio and television and the reluctance of the government to delink themselves from the KANU party.
Finally, as we have already heard this evening, the Commonwealth observers were particularly concerned about KANU's resort to violence and intimidation in the Rift Valley, President Moi's own heartland, and in the north-eastern province. That resulted in 16 KANU candidates being returned unopposed. I understand that the opposition parties are appealing against those unopposed elections; but perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
Despite those anxieties, the report falls short of condemning the elections outright. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, quoted the conclusions and I do not wish to repeat everything that he said. Perhaps I may quote a couple of lines. The team concluded,
"we believe that the results in many instances directly reflect, however imperfectly, the expression of the will of the people. It constitutes a giant step on the road to multi-party democracy".
Had I been drafting I would have been inclined to leave out the word "giant". In the circumstances such hyperbole seems a little misplaced. The election, although flawed, is at least a small step in the right direction. I fully understand the anxieties of the Commonwealth observers about declaring the election to be neither free nor fair. Nevertheless, after the catalogue of failures that we heard of from the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, it is essential that lessons are learnt from the election so that everything possible can be done to ensure that its imperfections do not apply to the next one.
In that regard I endorse everything said by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. It is unclear whether the Kenyan Government take seriously the reported irregularities or whether they will be responsive to suggestions for the need, for example, for the training of election officers. I hope that the UK Government made clear that they are concerned about many aspects of the report.
Meanwhile, we need to ask what can be done to put pressure on the Kenyan Government to implement parliamentary democracy. President Moi's decision to prorogue Parliament is alarming. Perhaps the

975
Minister can say whether she received a convincing explanation on her recent visit and also whether she was given any indication of when Parliament would be recalled. President Moi's failure to appoint any opposition leaders to government posts must also be a considerable cause for anxiety since that means that the country's most powerful and politically active tribes—the Kikuyus and the Luo—are not represented in government. The election revealed that support for President Moi is down to a mere 2.5 per cent. in the Kikuyu homeland.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House whether President Moi has held talks with opposition parties or whether he still believes that he can govern in defiance of them. I assume that she met representatives of the opposition during her recent visit. Perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm that and say to what conclusions she came with respect to their anxieties in regard to the election.
Since Kenya is one of the largest recipients of UK aid, receiving more than any other African country according to 1990 statistics, with only India and Bangladesh as larger recipients, the UK Government are in a strong position to put into practice in Kenya their commitment to linking aid to good government. I note that aid to Kenya averaged £49.4 million between 1988 and 1990 but went down to £29.3 million in 1991. I am unclear whether that is a reflection of the failure to sustain good government or whether there are other reasons. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that and at the same time indicate what the level of British bilateral aid is expected to be in 1992–93.
Turning to the resumption of lending provisions to Kenya by the international community, will the Minister agree that that should be delayed until there is clear evidence that President Moi's Government will both uphold democracy and respect human rights? On the second of those points I understand from Amnesty International that all the political prisoners of which it is aware have been released from gaol but that 30 government opponents are still facing charges, including sedition, and that no date has been set for their trial. Nor have there been any investigations into allegations of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners. There have also been allegations that Somali refugees—most of whom are women, children and the old—have been mistreated in Kenyan refugee camps and threats have been made to deport them. Any light that the Minister can throw on those questions would be helpful.
Clearly there is a great deal at stake in Kenya in the next few months following the elections. We must expect more than we have seen so far from the opposition if it is to act as an effective coalition as well as from the government. But President Moi must bear the major responsibility for the deterioration of his country and its image abroad. Once a role model for Africa with a successful economy and political stability, it now faces an economic crisis. But, above all, its reputation has been damaged by a corrupt and autocratic government. Kenya's 26 million people
976
deserve better than that. We owe it to them to use our influence to help bring about the political change necessary to restore Kenya's reputation.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and all of your Lordships for your contributions to this debate. The elections were held in Kenya on 29th December. They marked an important watershed in Kenya's recent history, reflecting the wider trend towards political reform and greater democracy which we have seen sweeping across many parts of the world—as many would say, not before time.
Periods of fundamental change are always accompanied by risks and opportunities. Britain, as one of Kenya's closest friends, was keen to do all that it could to help minimise the risks and maximise the opportunities. The Commonwealth, I believe, approached its responsibilities towards Kenya in the same spirit of friendship and support.
Since the Commonwealth Secretariat was first invited last April to send an observer team to the elections, it tackled the task at hand with a commendable degree of diligence and dedication. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, it was not an easy job. When long entrenched political landscapes and attitudes begin to shift, suspicions run high. But I commend to your Lordships the report before you, which, in our assessment, constitutes a balanced piece of work and illustrates clearly the positive and the negative aspects of the process.
As noble Lords will be aware, I visited Kenya 10 days ago both to see the problems of the north-east and to talk to President Moi and several of his Ministers. I had also asked to meet leaders of the opposition parties, but my invitation was accepted only by Mr. Kenneth Matiba—leader of FORD-Asili —and two colleagues. We had a good meeting and I fully appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said about Kenneth Matiba whom I too have known for some time though not as long as he. I am sorry that the leaders of the two other main parties refused a discussion. I always recall a phrase taught to me 25 years ago by the late lain Macleod. He said,
"We may not agree, but we should never fail to listen".
It seems a worthy maxim for any disputed matter, especially in the politics of Africa. I was glad therefore to have a good talk with Mr. Robert Shaw, a senior adviser to FORD-Kenya.
My colleagues in the Foreign Office and I had met all the leading opposition figures in the run-up to the elections. We took every opportunity to make clear that Britain had no hidden political agenda. We were genuinely impartial between the political parties and we remain so. We are not, however, impartial about the need for democracy in Kenya. Kenya is one of the few African Commonwealth states in which there has been a continuity of constitutional civilian rule since independence. The move away from a one-party state represents a shift of historic importance. The opposition now have a major stake also in the parliamentary system. I sincerely hope that both they and the governing party will recognise the importance

977
at this stage in Kenya's history of adopting a policy of reconciliation and tolerance. For my part, I will continue to keep my door open to any leading Kenyan politician who wishes to see me. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that I have urged both on the opposition and members of the Government that dialogue between government and opposition is the only way to succeed for Kenya's sake. I implored them to put Kenyan people and the needs of Kenya for growth and stability first and above their party political attitudes.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, the elections were not perfect. There were serious flaws, recognised by all those who took part in the observer exercise. We are indeed grateful to him and his colleagues from this country and indeed all the observers who went to Kenya. Yes, the report is critical of the election process, but all equally agree that there were no grounds on which to declare the whole proceedings null and void. On the contrary, the elections represented a major advance for the democratic process in Kenya. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, concluded his speech with the last paragraph from the Commonwealth observers' summary, which sets out the matter very well. They spoke of the first step on the path to multi-party democracy. I had some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when she said "giant step" on the road to multi-party democracy, as on page 40 of the report. It was not quite as giant as all that and it is interesting that the summary says "first step".
I want to pay tribute too to the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Anyaoku, and his staff at the Commonwealth Secretariat. They really should be praised for the enthusiasm they have shown and for their efforts to encourage the process of democratisation in the various countries where Commonwealth observer groups have been present. I probably know better than most just how difficult that can be. Their contribution to the democratisation process in Kenya has been invaluable and the advice and guidance that they were able to give to the Kenyan authorities led directly to the many improvements in the electoral environment there and indeed to the fact that things had improved by the end of the process and polling day compared with how they were at the beginning. Of course any report receives criticism too, but I still believe that this report and their assessment were frank and fair.
I note that there was a high degree of consensus among all the observer groups on Kenya. None found any evidence of organised fraud. The electoral irregularities were documented in considerable detail. The International Republican Institute from the US concluded that,
"the electoral environment was unfair and the electoral process seriously flawed. We question whether all Kenyans were able to fully express their will—although millions did—but from our perspective we feel that this process is a significant step in Kenya's transition to genuine multi-party democracy".
There was one other group which has not been mentioned in the debate and which I was fortunate enough to meet in Nairobi last Monday. It is the National Election Monitoring Unit, the Kenyan
978
domestic monitors. It reached similar conclusions. NEMU performed a valuable role throughout the period and in general exerted a constructive moderating influence. That continued, I am glad to say, after the election. NEMU is working for dialogue between the parties and is helping to foster positive attitudes towards the parliamentary process. Whatever else we do I hope it may be possible to encourage NEMU in its idea of a foundation for democracy in Kenya. That is something that I undertook with their leaders to look into with support from this country. The monitors were very impressive indeed. It cannot have been easy for them to have gone to the lengths that observers from outside the country, knowing that they could simply return to their own countries after the election, did. These monitors live, breathe and work in Kenya all the time. I am glad to say, too, that the report I had from the European Community Heads of Mission broadly supported the Commonwealth observers' view. So despite the criticisms, I do not think that there is any difference of opinion about the direction being correct.
My concern all along has been not only that the elections should be held but that they should be as free and fair as possible. That was why I made sure that we gave a considerable amount of practical assistance, including providing all the ballot boxes. We did indeed train some key electoral officials although we could not train all of them by any manner or means. We provided some office equipment to the Electoral Commission which had absolutely none at the beginning. In addition we made a significant contribution through the Commonwealth Secretariat to the Commonwealth observer team. But we remained absolutely impartial as between the parties and continue to do so.
I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, regarding the serious concerns about the campaigning environment in the run-up to the election. Your Lordships will see from a Written Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, on 14th December, at col. WA 19 of the Official Report, that I made clear our concerns then. I have made them clear not only in this House. I made sure that those views were very well known in Kenya.
A number of comments have been made rightly about the Electoral Commission. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, made some, as did the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Ennals, and my noble friend Lord Brentford. The Commonwealth observers' report highlights the various problems associated with the conduct of the commission, particularly its lack of transparency and also its concern about the perceived role and credibility of its chairman, Mr. Justice Chesoni. The report also makes clear the damage done to the commission's credibility by the wide speculation regarding the chairman's fitness for office, by its role in the attempted shortening of the electoral process, to which a number of noble Lords referred, and in its initial reaction to grievances over frustrated parliamentary nominations. However, the report recognises a significant improvement in the end in the commission's performance in the latter stages of the campaign. All the allegations are covered in the report

979
but the Commonwealth observers say that in the last three weeks there was a marked improvement. We can therefore believe and know that we were actually quite effective in what we were doing as observers on the Electoral Commission. We just wish that it had happened sooner.
There has been the most regrettable violence in Kenya, particularly last year, and in the Rift Valley. The tribal clashes, particularly between the Kalenjin and the Luo and the Kikuyu, for which government and opposition blamed each other, are a very bad situation. More effective security measures are needed. Some, taken by the middle of 1982, lessened the impact of the clashes but there was still sporadic violence and inter-tribal fighting right up to the election and even some real trouble afterwards. One of the issues I raised with President Moi last Monday was indeed the need for the Government impartially to administer law and order and to bring the perpetrators of violence to book.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, has the noble Baroness seen any sign that that view prevails? Have any charges been brought against those who were responsible on either side for violence during the election campaign?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not believe that it has been possible to gain sufficient evidence. As the noble Lord may well know, collecting evidence when tensions are so high has been a matter of real difficulty. It is one of the reasons why I was advising President Moi in the way I did—that this matter has to be gripped by the Government regardless of party and regardless of tribal allegiance.
A number of your Lordships have referred to the role of the media and its importance. It is also something which we have repeatedly underlined to the Kenyan Government. It is something which the national electoral monitoring unit wish to follow up. We shall see what can be done to assist them in that matter.
Your Lordships also asked about events which have happened since the election, particularly the suspension of parliament. When parliament convened on 26th January in Nairobi it was within the 90 days of its dissolution (28th October) and therefore within the constitution. At that time the elected speaker swore in members and business was duly completed. It is normal Kenyan practice for parliament then to be suspended as it was on 27th January. I can further tell the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that we expect to see the Kenyan Parliament resume some time in March. Obviously it is not within my gift to give a specific date.
Perhaps I may now turn to a number of other matters which are outstanding following the election. My noble friend Lord Brentford, in his very interesting speech and kind remarks, for which I thank him, asked me about contested seats. There are up to 90 seats in total that are currently the subject of electoral petitions, and that includes the seat of the president. These contests come from all parties,
980
including inter-opposition party petitions. So there is a general petitioning going on which alleges malpractice by fellow opposition parties as well as KANU. That is a matter of concern to be resolved as quickly as possible. I have pressed that the petitions be heard without delay.
There were two or three comments made during the debate about the United Kingdom being rather slow to act. Given that, for the past seven years—with the exception of a very short break in the middle when my right honourable friend William Waldegrave was looking after Africa—I have been responsible for African matters, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and your Lordships that at no time have we ceased to try to push Kenya forward to a sensible democratic system with good government. After the many years I have been dealing with Africa I know that one needs infinite patience in these matters.
However, we made it absolutely clear in 1990 (long before 1991) that economic reform was essential if Kenya was ever to get on top of her problems. We also made it quite clear that political reform was essential. We may not have shouted it from the top of the mango tree, but we certainly made sure that it was said. Therefore it is not right to charge that the United Kingdom joined in only after others had made the case. We have given no balance of payments support over the past year. I made it very clear to President Moi early in 1992; again when we met at Rio in June, in September last year and also a week ago, that there will be no further balance of payments support from us or any other donor until there are satisfactory results from the discussion with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
My noble friend Lord Brentford asked me for some detail about that. There will be a meeting of the fund representatives in Nairobi next Monday. We sincerely hope that the important measures that are needed will be completed. The Kenyan Government need to tighten monetary policy. They need to get on with their civil service and para-statal reforms as well as completing a number of other undertakings which they gave to the international financial institutions as long as a year ago. They have made progress on the political front, but, as was made quite clear to them in 1991, they have also to make progress on the economic front. Whatever may be the criticism of the IFIs occasionally in Kenya, I stress that we are asking no more of Kenya than we have of other countries in the region.
In balance of payments support Britain has always moved in line with the bank and the fund. It is quite clear to see in Ghana, Nigeria and Zambia. I repeat that there will be no new balance of payments support until Kenya reaches agreement with the bank and the fund. That means getting back on to the right economic path. We hope we shall see positive signals soon because that will be good for Kenya and for Kenyans. Certainly the donors will pull together.
There has been much emphasis placed in the press comment on the Kenyan elections upon irregularities identified by the Commonwealth and other observers and these have been highlighted tonight. Some have

981
suggested that these were so serious that the election should be declared invalid. I do not share that view. For all the problems identified in the Commonwealth and other reports, the fact remains that millions of Kenyans turned out on the day and were given an opportunity to express their views on their future government.
The return of President Moi and his party was not the result of systematic rigging, or even of the malpractices described in the Commonwealth report, but of the division within the ranks of the opposition. Critics should hear in mind that no other country within a thousand miles of Kenya has given its electorate a similar opportunity to express its views. I believe that your Lordships' House and others should avoid making the best the enemy of the good. It may be that it could be better, but first time round in the right direction means that we can help them to make it better the second time round when those elections Come.
We warmly welcome the report of the observer group and entirely endorse its conclusions. We thank the Commonwealth for the invaluable role it has played in Kenya over the past year. I watched with some trepidation when Kenya embarked on the difficult process of political reform, but I loudly applaud the Kenyan people, because polling day passed off without serious incident and they had a democratic election. That fact is to the lasting credit of all Kenyans. Being the first multi-party elections since 1966, it has undoubtedly been a step forward for democracy in Africa as a whole and, we hope, an influence on others.
Nobody must be under any illusions about the imperfections in the process. So we strongly urge that those grievances of whichever party, arising out of the electoral process, are dealt with properly by petitions and resolved speedily. We will ask them to learn from the lessons that we find in the elections. We have made those thoughts clear to members of the government. But we also hope to see further progress in the de-linking of the party of government from the state apparatus. That is particularly important for the media. The opposition parties must be given reasonable access to put their views across.
So we have called on all sides, but primarily the government, on whom the main responsibility lies, to get on with those jobs but also to condemn unequivocally all ethnic violence and to take effective action to put it to an end once and for all. A climate of genuine constructive dialogue with the opposition parties will set the right tone. Now is the time for all Kenyans to consolidate the achievement built on the gains which have been won and make party politics work. Although that will take time, I believe that we shall see a fully-fledged democracy emerging. That democracy needs roots, patience, hard work and realism. It does not just happen overnight. It is a long and gradual evolution. I am confident that Kenya has embarked upon that road and deserves our support. Perhaps I may close by thanking once more the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for initiating this debate and for the role that he has played, along with so many others, in helping Kenya forward.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether she can answer my question about British bilateral aid. I am most grateful to her for addressing so many of our questions, but I wonder whether she can comment on that point.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have already partially commented on that, but since this Unstarred Question was about the electoral process I felt that it was important to concentrate on that in my reply. I have already told the House that we have not given any balance of payments support for the past year plus. I can tell the House further that in 1988 we provided some £20 million of balance of payments support. As I have said, that is no more. However, we continue to try to help some of the important reforms to be achieved. That is how in 1991–92 our figure rose to about £29 million—I am speaking from memory here. When one considers that this is the sort of help that is being given to the people of Kenya through education, veterinary projects to control the tsetse fly and medical help (as well as in many other basic ways), one can be quite sure that that aid is both going to the people who need it and doing the job that is needed.
What I have refused to do is to allow any money to go into the central government for some two years. That is a decision that I am still not prepared to make until such time as I am convinced that there is a proper programme with the fund and the bank. However, we have of course helped the Kenyans who have been victims of drought. Indeed, we have spent over £9 million bilaterally and through our share of EC action on that. Only last week, on finding the situation in the Turkana region so bad for Kenyans, we announced a contribution of £0.75 million through Oxfam to help the people in the north west.
Perhaps I should add that, notwithstanding their own economic difficulties, the Kenyan Government have spent a great deal of time and resources trying to help the almost unstemmed flow of refugees. I have seen for myself on many occasions the security problems which have arisen from refugee camps in the north east of Kenya and I can assure the noble Baroness that it is not just women and children who have crossed the border. There has been a major security problem for the Government of Kenya. Although I recognise that the return of refugees to their own country may be a priority for Kenya, when I saw President Moi last Monday I urged him to work closely with UNHCR on this problem because it must be tackled in a balanced and considered way. Unilateral action will do Kenya no credit and will not help the refugees. We continue to help the refugees in the north eastern province also.
Our programme has continued for the sake of the people. It has not continued with the government. In addition to the constant pressure from the donor community, that is the one action that I believe has concentrated minds enormously on the steps towards political democracy.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: ACCESS REGULATIONS
  ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: ACCESS REGULATIONS
  HOOVER BUILDING: A.40 LIGHTING
  HOOVER BUILDING: A.40 LIGHTING
  AMENITY TREES: ADVISORY SERVICE
  AMENITY TREES: ADVISORY SERVICE
  NORTHERN IRELAND BORDER: ROAD CLOSURES
  NORTHERN IRELAND BORDER: ROAD CLOSURES
  RAIL FRANCHISEES AND TERRORIST ACTS
  RAIL FRANCHISEES AND TERRORIST ACTS
  LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS, TOWER HAMLETS
  LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS, TOWER HAMLETS
  LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS, BRENT
  LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS, BRENT
  PRESIDENT CLINTON AND UK CIVIL SERVICE
  PRESIDENT CLINTON AND UK CIVIL SERVICE
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM LEGISLATION OPERATION REVIEW: REPORT
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM LEGISLATION OPERATION REVIEW: REPORT
  MINES: PREVENTION OF USE
  MINES: PREVENTION OF USE