Sitting of 11 January 1993

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

    Channel Tunnel
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail links between Wales, the west of England and the channel tunnel.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The Secretary of State and the chairman of British Rail meet regularly and channel tunnel services from the regions, including Wales and the west of England, are often discussed.
    Dr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that just before Christmas, Wales and the nation lost the Powell Duffryn wagon construction works in Cardiff and with it the expertise of a century's trading and the ability, among other things, to construct low-axle rail freight wagons which would have enabled areas such as south Wales and the west of England to trade directly with firms on the continent? Why does not the Minister recognise that the lack of orders from British Rail is doing incalculable damage to firms such as the one that used to operate in Cardiff? When will he do something to offer protection to the British rail industry?
    Mr. Freeman: I regret the announcement by Powell Duffryn. I had the opportunity to visit its French subsidiary about two years ago and saw the value of its work. But under the rules for open procurement the responsibility rests with British Rail; its decision about the procurement of freight wagons and the special axles and wheels required for them has nothing to do with the alleged dearth of orders.
    As for the future for rolling stock orders, I am pleased that progress has been made on the new leasing arrangement of £150 million for British Rail. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will shortly make a statement on that.
    Mr. Adley: In wishing my hon. Friend and his colleagues—and you, Madam Speaker—a happy new year, may I ask whether my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend would prefer the chairman of British Rail to be a man who was willing, regardless of his own views, to accept whatever the Government produced by way of plans for the future of British Rail—in other words, a yes man—or would they prefer someone who gave, publicly if
    590
    necessary, his honest appraisal of the Government's proposals and stated how he saw the future for Britain's railways under those proposals?
    Mr. Freeman: I can confirm that the chairman of British Rail discharges his duty with distinction and enjoys the confidence of the Government. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants a chairman of British Rail who will speak his mind, not someone who will meekly agree with any statement made by a Member on either side of the House. I can also confirm that the chairman of British Rail agrees with the broad objectives of the Government and I feel quite certain that he will help fully to implement them.
    Mr. Wilson: Is not it becoming increasingly clear that these ill-thought-out and unworkable plans for privatisation are a blight on jobs, on safety and on the future of the railways in general? Has a route finally been advised to the Government for the rail link with the channel tunnel? If so, will the Minister undertake today to publish it in the near future as a basis for full public discussion?
    Mr. Freeman: I can confirm that my right hon. Friend has received a report from British Rail on the route for the channel tunnel rail link from Folkestone to King's Cross. It will be for him to consider that report carefully; but I can give the House the assurance that I gave on 14 December—the last time we debated this—that the Government will move as quickly as possible to commence the procedure of public consultation.

    Transport Supplementary Grant
    Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road schemes will be able to start as a result of the support he is giving to local authorities by means of the transport supplementary grant.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): As I explained in my statement to the House on 15 December 1992, 41 new major schemes due to start in 1993–94 were accepted for transport supplementary grant. These schemes are listed in the Official Report.
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful for that encouraging reply, which will do much for the country's infrastructure and for providing jobs. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that my constituents in the village of Spofforth, which lies south of Harrogate on the main link road between the A1 and Harrogate, suffer from increasing volumes of traffic and share my considerable annoyance that the bypass, due to start in September this year, was delayed by North Yorkshire county council until January 1994? It is to be delayed again into the 1994–95 financial year. Will the Minister be kind enough to look into this personally to see whether the start date can be brought back to January 1994?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening comments. He is right that this is a major capital investment in the country's roads. It will be £1,047 million in the coming year, which is a record, in a difficult year. However, despite a good number of new schemes, as my hon. Friend knows there are always many more candidates than can be entertained. The problem about the Spofforth bypass scheme was that it was a doubtful starter in 1993–94. As my hon. Friend said, the forecast starting date

    591
    was put back to January 1994, but in our experience forecast start dates are often optimistic and I am afraid that there were better candidates. I cannot accept any more schemes for this year, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said about next year.
    Ms. Walley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that there is a major problem about the way in which his Department is determining priorities? Is not it the case that the amount that local authorities can spend on local schemes rather than major schemes—on the sort of projects that local people want for environmental traffic calming measures—has been reduced from 7 to 5.7 per cent? When will he give local councils the real right to determine the priorities that they know are needed in their communities?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Lady is wrong. By and large, we follow the priorities advanced by local authorities for major schemes. As she will know, we have also increased substantially the amount available for local safety schemes, which often include traffic-calming measures, for this year and next year. The figures are up from £31 million to £50 million. I know that local authorities approve of those schemes; we are responding positively to their priorities.

    Motorway Repairs
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken.
    Mr. MacGregor: I receive a steady flow of representations about motorway repairs, mainly concerned with individual cases.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the public are satisfied that motorway repairs are undertaken in the minimum possible time? I appreciate that there has been an improvement in recent years, but has he any proposals to improve the situation further?
    Mr. MacGregor: I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that there have been substantial improvements, not least because the introduction of the lane rental scheme means that motorway repairs are completed faster here than anywhere else in the world. Our pioneering scheme has been copied around the world. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we shall be moving from a level of 50 per cent. of motorway repairs carried out through lane rental contracts to achieving our target next year of all schemes where lane rental is applicable being carried out in that way. We are also making fast progress in other directions.

    A1 (Motorway Standard)
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many properties are to be demolished to allow the A1 to be improved to three-lane motorway from the Barnsdale Bar area to the Boot and Shoe interchange; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): On the basis of the present preliminary proposals, two residential properties and one commercial property would be demolished.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister consider the properties that will be blighted by the proposals, especially Ferrybridge school, which lies in an area where a 16-lane motorway will pass through a conurbation? When will the Minister consider bypassing towns? When will he stop acting like a vandal and make sure that we have motorways which take traffic away from towns and villages and not through them?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman will understand that we have gone through a thorough public consultation on this part of the A1 improvement. Almost 2,000 people visited the exhibition or wrote to us. About 60 per cent. of those people fully supported what we intend to do and only 16 per cent. opposed it. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the upgrading of the A1 to motorway standard from London to Newcastle will bypass many towns. We are also being especially careful to avoid areas of important countryside, such as sites of special scientific interest. Therefore, I strongly refute the hon. Gentleman's allegations.

    Motorway Noise
    Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further steps he will take to reduce the levels of noise from motorways.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: We are proceeding on two fronts: ever-stricter noise limits on vehicles, together with the practical measures that are available when motorways are improved or constructed. These include noise screening by earthworks and barriers, quieter road surfaces and the provision of insulation.
    Mr. Willetts: I welcome the steps that the Department is taking to reduce the level of noise from motorways. However, may I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the notorious roar produced by the experimental concrete surface on the A27 at Havant? Does not that make it a prime candidate for a new experiment, with a quiet noise-absorbent surface?
    Mr. Carlisle: I well know the campaign for a quieter A27 that my hon. Friend has waged on behalf of his constituents. Unfortunately, when this road was built with concrete, it was over-textured. However, we are making some improvements to that road and we shall continue to do so.
    I was pleased in the summer to announce a new policy on designing roads to ensure that they are less noisy. That entails providing porous asphalt where it will work and that will halve the level of noise. Before Christmas, I was delighted to be able to say that we are going ahead with porous asphalt on the A5 at Fazeley. Wherever possible in future, we shall meet the requirement for less noise. We shall look to better textures wherever we can.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that many homes are badly affected by motorway noise and that that is certainly the case with the M4 around Newport? Many people seem to be caught out by anomalies in the regulations. Will the Minister look into this to see whether the regulations can be relaxed a little?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am happy to look at anything that we can do to improve the situation. As I said, noise is the one sector in which we must do better. I know that many

    593
    people are concerned about noise when new roads are built. We now have extensive powers for insulation and the Land Compensation Act 1973 provides for compensation to be paid where the value of property declines.

    Speed Cameras
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that speed signs are placed beside camera signs in zoned areas for spy cameras; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steven Norris): Observation of speed limits has markedly improved where cameras, backed by warning signs, have been installed. This suggests that drivers are well aware of the speed limit in force and that signing arrangements are adequate.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that most, if not all, motorists are anxious to stick to speed limits, particularly where there are spy cameras? Will he assist them by eliminating small speed signs, which are often illegible, particularly where speed limits change rapidly? Will he also place visible speed signs alongside the spy cameras, further to assist motorists to stick to speed limits, as I am sure they are anxious to do?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend will know that the speed limit signage is in accordance with national criteria and where there are 40 mph or 50 mph speed limits in force, repeater signs are used. He raised a sensible question about why we cannot combine repeater speed limit signs and camera warning signs. There are two reasons for that. First, to display both items of information in one sign would require an impractically big sign. Secondly, camera signs are not intended to show exactly where the cameras are. Their purpose is merely to remind people of the need to observe speed limits over a wider area. For those two reasons, a conscious and deliberate decision has been made not to site the repeater speed limit sign and the camera sign on the same post.

    Traffic Speed (London and Paris)
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about calculations of traffic speeds in London and in Paris.
    Mr. Norris: The most reliable comparison is for day-time off-peak traffic speeds. These are about 31 kilometres per hour in London and 28 kilometres per hour in Paris.
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend should note that that is one up for London. Given the positive joie de vivre with which his appointment as Minister responsible for London's transport was greeted, would he like to tell the Evening Standard what it can do with its criticisms of him? Will my hon. Friend do his best to accelerate the trend of people moving to trains and away from cars by introducing road pricing around London's perimeters?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend has asked an important question and I commend him on his perspicacity and thinking on the matter. There is a tremendous tendency to knock London. The great British disease is knocking our own achievements. My hon. Friend has elicited the fact that traffic in London is appreciably better than it is, for
    594
    example, in Paris. Comparisons with many other, even leading, European cities are impossible because their authorities do not even attempt to record mean average speeds. I agree with my hon. Friend's observation that we must continue to encourage public transport. That is why expenditure on roads in London, as a result of the current public expenditure survey, is about a third of that on public transport. There is a substantial commitment to public transport.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: In addition to the sensible suggestion of the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) for improving traffic in London, does the Minister accept that another good approach would be to authorise the completion of works on the Jubilee line extension? Given that the approval was announced in the autumn statement, are the works to be authorised this year, next year, some time or never?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman, who has always taken a keen interest in the project, knows well the answer to his question, which is that the Jubilee line extension has always been a partnership between the Government and private developers. Negotiations on concluding the agreement are well advanced. As far as I am aware, they are continuing and good progress is being made. The hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will be extremely pleased when the project can commence, but that must depend on the signing of the agreement.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: What progress has my hon. Friend made in reviewing the success of the red routes scheme in London? What plans does he have to discuss with his colleagues the possibility of providing similar schemes in other large towns and cities in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Norris: The red routes, including the pilot route, have been spectacularly successful. Accidents have been reduced by about 17 per cent., which is about three times the level that has been achieved in the boroughs through which the pilot route passes. Speeds have been improved, but fortunately not greatly so, for private cars. About 8,700 more passengers a week are using the No. 43 bus service on the pilot route. I look forward to our being able to replicate those improvements throughout the priority network.
    I am interested that Lothian, a Labour-controlled county in Scotland, is introducing and implementing a concept which it calls green routes, but which in every way is exactly the same as the red routes concept in London, even down to the fact that red paint will be used. Silly politicking has surrounded the red routes debate over previous months, but we have the clearest possible vindication in the general recognition that it is an extremely valuable concept.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I am all for a bit of knocking, but there is no need to engage in it when comparing parking in Paris and in London. Parking in central Paris makes parking in London seem positively orderly and restrained.
    The Minister did not answer part of the question of the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) about road pricing. We understand that the Government will make an announcement about road pricing in London. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when the announcement will be made?
    Mr. Norris: I shall not comment on the hon. Gentleman's propensity for knocking in any circumstances, except to say that in terms of parking he is wrong again. He probably knows that one of the major contributory factors in achieving better road speeds in London is that parking is much better managed in London —this is a general recognition—than in Paris, where recently there has been—
    Mr. Banks: That is what I said.
    Mr. Norris: I am grateful. If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I withdraw. Perhaps I was too busy knocking him. I entirely agree with him.
    My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that we are undertaking a substantial study of road pricing in London. That is something which the hon. Gentleman may have missed. He will know, if he has read the appropriate answer, that the research is to continue and that it is likely to take at least another year before the information is available. Much of it involves extensive attitudinal and survey research. The Government consider that road pricing is an important component in dealing with urban congestion in future and I shall be happy to keep the hon. Gentleman appraised of progress.
    Mr. Mans: On the question of traffic speeds, can my hon. Friend say when the regulations associated with the Traffic Calming Act 1992 are likely to come into force? The Act has been in existence for nine months and many local authorities want to get on with producing schemes based on it, but are prevented from doing so because the regulations have not yet been published.
    Mr. Norris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having been the inspiration behind that Act. He is to be commended for having put it on the statute book. I understand that its provisions will be enacted shortly. It will certainly make a worthwhile contribution to road safety.

    British Rail (Redundancies)
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the chairman of British Rail about the effect on performance of recent proposed redundancies.
    Mr. Freeman: This is a commercial matter for the board. The redundancies concern staff positions where, judged by British Rail, loss is not expected to affect performance.
    Mr. Janner: Does that answer mean that there were no consultations with the Minister? If not, why not? Surely matters of commercial interest and concern in public bodies such as British Rail should be considered by the Department. Do not they lead to great public expenditure in redundancy pay and other benefits? There should be consultation not only with the Minister concerned, but with the Secretary of State for Employment.
    Mr. Freeman: Of course there were consultations between British Rail and the Department of Transport about the need to reduce the work force in line with falling demand. On Network SouthEast alone, during the 12 months to the autumn of 1992 patronage fell by about 8 per cent. Ministers were certainly aware that British Rail was discharging its functions correctly by planning to
    596
    reduce services—and therefore employment—at the margin. The precise number involved and the timing of the announcement were rightly matters for British Rail. We do not believe in interfering in matters that are not our direct concern. Until our reforms are in place, the management of British Rail is a matter for its board.
    Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend has assured the House that the redundancies will not affect performance. Is he aware that several thousand of my constituents commute daily on the Kent coast and Kent link lines in filthy, awful and old rolling stock, with unreliable services and little hope of any improvement? Is he further aware that British Rail has proposed cutting the already unacceptably bad service from May and is offering my constituents no hope of any improvement? When will my hon. Friend offer them some hope of improvement for their almost £2,000–a-year season ticket?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—[Interruption.] I usually concentrate on listening to the question rather than turning away from Madam Speaker.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend on his very detailed support of the urgent need to improve rail services to his constituency. I repeat my earlier assurance that the 5,000 redundancies principally affect management and will not affect the safety of the railways.
    My hon. Friend is aware of the £800 million programme of improvements now being made on the Kent link line, which serves part of Kent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will turn his attention to the Kent coast service as soon as British Rail has completed improvements to the Kent link line.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that already British Rail has removed all staff from a number of stations in my area? If that trend continues, many women will cease to travel by public transport because it will become even more dangerous and difficult for them. When does the hon. Gentleman intend to reconcile his supposed care for the safety of women passengers and the constant and increasing destaffing of British Rail stations?
    Mr. Freeman: I share the hon. Lady's concern. However, that matter has nothing to do with the 5,000 redundancies announced by British Rail. The destaffing of stations has been taking place for some time. I firmly believe that with the introduction of franchising, which is a positive idea that will be welcomed by the House when we debate it tomorrow, there will be an improvement in the quality of services, including an improvement in the number of staff serving passengers both on platforms and on trains.

    British Rail (Passenger Numbers)
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets he has set for the current year for the number of passengers using British Rail.
    Mr. Freeman: The Government do not set targets for the number of passengers using British Rail, but we wish to see more travellers preferring rail to road for all types of travel, including commuting into London.
    Mr. Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that the thousands who commute from Chelmsford to Liverpool Street station each day simply want an efficient, well-run service, and does he believe that franchising will achieve that?
    Mr. Freeman: I certainly do, and I am sure that the House looks forward to tomorrow's debate on that very subject. My hon. Friend has long been concerned in particular about resignalling on the Great Eastern line, as others of my hon. Friends have been in relation to resignalling on the London-Tilbury-Southend line. I confirm that, following a review of the interdepartmental financing round settlement for British Rail, resignalling work on both lines will immediately continue.
    Ms. Glenda Jackson: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents are eager to use the services provided by British Rail, but that they are consistently being made too expensive by constant fare rises—and that many services are not even accessible because of the continuing closure of railway stations? Far from pursuing privatisation, should not the Government take on board the concept that railways should provide a public service that is available to the majority of the public?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady will know that the Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, provide £1,000 million a year in subsidies to British Rail to run socially necessary services. If she believes that fare increases should be moderated or that fares should be reduced, that would mean the taxpayer having to provide more money for subsidies to British Rail and a bigger burden on the taxpayer. The difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we believe that railway passengers should meet as much of the cost of providing the service as possible and that socially necessary services should be subsidised rather than the passenger.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of southern commuters suffer unnecessarily when trains do not run—which I understand is due to cancellations resulting from drivers not turning up for work? Will my hon. Friend therefore look into the trade unions' restrictive practices?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right. Certain services are affected by drivers not turning up for work, but I pay tribute to British Rail—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) should be generous with his support where British Rail has made an effort to improve the quality of services. Under the passengers charter, there has been a real improvement this year on certain Network SouthEast lines. I hope that my hon. Friend will see continued improvement on her line.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware of the report published today by the Central Transport Consultative Committee, and of the Health and Safety Executive Commission's report on safety in a privatised railway, which make it clear that there will be serious cuts in passenger services and that they will be less safe due to the lack of adequate financial resources provided by the Government? No doubt that is due to the £3 billion that the Government have taken out of public support since 1983. Does not the Minister think that British Rail and the Secretary of State should switch their attention to that important issue rather than try to explain the confusion
    598
    about whether the Government intend to privatise, semi-privatise, or commercialise—all of which are irrelevant to the needs of a good railway system?
    Mr. Freeman: I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's two specific points, because we shall have an opportunity to debate the full issue tomorrow. As to public support for the railways, the hon. Gentleman is five years out of date. We increased the public service obligation grant in the past four straight years. The hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. He claimed that we removed support, whereas he should know that we have increased it in the past four years. As to safety, every time that there is an accident on the railways—and that happens infrequently—the hon. Gentleman immediately says that the Government and British Rail are skimping on safety. He should know that this year, British Rail is spending £200 million on safety —a significant improvement on previous years. Safety is the single most important factor for not only the Government but British Rail.

    Networker Trains (Kent)
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the implementation of the new Networker trains on the north Kent suburban lines.
    Mr. MacGregor: There has been a very positive response to the introduction of the new Networker trains.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Naturally, my constituents are delighted with the new trains, which are improving the service. As my right hon. Friend knows, however, the Dartford line—which goes through Erith and Crayford, my constituency—has a long way to go before it provides a good service. Can he give my constituents any hope that his plans for the future of the railways will improve the service for commuters to south-east London?
    Mr. MacGregor: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. His question raised two points. The total route modernisation, plus improvements to track, infrastructure and stations, is costing about £800 million. It is the largest investment project to take place on Network SouthEast in recent years, and many of the benefits are still to flow through. For example, new Networker trains are now coming on to the line at the rate of one a week, and all 764 coaches will have been delivered by mid–1994. My hon. Friend can tell his constituents that the number of new trains will continue to increase week by week.
    As for the second point, I am sure that franchising will lead to improved passenger services in 1994 and beyond.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Who is to blame for the decay of the railway network in the south-east which has been mentioned by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), for Chelmsford' (Mr. Burns) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman)?
    Mr. MacGregor: A number of factors are involved. The fact is, however, that a substantial capital investment is being made. That, combined with all the organisational changes made by British Rail—changes which were very necessary—will produce better services in the future. I also believe that our privatisation proposals, including the

    599
    proposal for the franchising of passenger services, will provide even more benefits than those produced by the management changes that have already taken place.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend accept my constituents' congratulations for his part in pushing British Rail to supply fresh rolling stock for the north Kent lines? Will he now turn his attention to the need for new signalling equipment, which would make the service not only of good quality but reliable in future? The need for such equipment is the last major impediment to the breakthrough that north Kent commuters require.
    Mr. MacGregorI am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I understand his point. Of the £800 million that I mentioned, £150 million will be spent on improving track, power and signalling equipment, as well as on extending platforms at 63 stations. My hon. Friend can be assured that work is going ahead on signalling.
    Mr. Bayley: Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the work force and management of ABB Transportation Ltd. in York, which built the magnificent modern Networker trains that are used on the north Kent line? Is he aware that the company has invested many millions of pounds in its factory in the expectation of orders from British Rail, but is now running at little more than two thirds of capacity? Further orders could be dealt with; commuters in the south-east need the trains, and people in York need the jobs.
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that in the autumn statement we announced a £150 million leasing programme in the run-up to privatisation. Indeed, only the prospect of privatisation enabled us to do that. It is now for British Rail to decide what use it makes of that programme. Late last week I had a discussion with the chairman and board members of British Rail, and I know that they are considering how they may take full advantage of it. It is for them to decide on the rolling stock to which the programme will be applied.

    Trunk Roads (Dorset)
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the trunk road building programme for Dorset.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: The national trunk road programme contains 12 schemes in Dorset, with a value of more than £90 million. The schemes most recently opened to traffic were dual carriageway improvements between Yellowham hill and Troytown, in December 1991, and between Mere and Wincanton—which serves north Dorset —in July 1992.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and for the enormous amount of investment that is going into Dorset—particularly that which benefits people trying to travel to and from London.
    Dorset has already spent a good deal of money on the A37, but the last link, which goes to Yeovil, must go through Somerset, and therefore receives no investment. Will my hon. Friend consider making it a trunk road, thus greatly improving north-south communication for my constituency?
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is always fighting for better roads in south Dorset. I pay tribute to him for that.
    600
    I remind him, however, that it is unnecessary for a road to be a trunk road if it is to be greatly improved. On the two north-south routes in Dorset, the A350 and the A354/A37, in recent years four schemes have been approved for transport supplementary grant worth £30 million or more in total. Investment in these routes will continue.

    British Rail Maintenance Ltd.
    Mr. Milligan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has decided on the future ownership of British Rail Maintenance Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeman: We are still considering the options for BRML depots. We have made it clear that we see benefits in involving the private sector in the heavy repair work currently carried out by BRML.
    Mr. Milligan: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but is he aware of the extreme anxiety among the 1,500 employees of BRML in my constituency, particularly after recent job losses? They fear that the change of ownership could mean further job losses. Could my hon. Friend be a little more precise about when he expects to make a decision? And when he makes it, will he bear in mind both the need to maintain employment in what is an extremely efficiently run works and the need to ensure proper competition so that the works at Eastleigh, and elsewhere, can compete fairly for work on the railways and for other business?
    Mr. Freeman: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He and I have visited the Eastleigh depot. I know that my hon. Friend supports very much the work of that BRML depot. We shall seek to make an announcement as quickly as possible on the future of the four major depots. If the depot were transferred to the private sector, the intention is that it would compete fairly, on a level playing field, with other engineering companies in the private sector.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment he has made of the effect on the budgetary requirements of the National Audit Office of the introduction of citizens charters in Government Departments.
    The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission (Sir Peter Hordern): The National Audit Office's corporate plan for 1993–94 to 1997–98 confirms that the National Audit Office's strategy is to take account of and respond positively to the citizens charter initiative.
    Mr. Bayley: Is the National Audit Office in a position to make a detatched and independent evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the citizens charter initiative? If not, who is?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I very much hope so. The National Audit Office has been making reports about the quality of service for many years. Several reports were given to the Public Accounts Committee only last year. The NAO, is therefore, fully qualified to carry out this initiative.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Chairman also acknowledge that the Public Accounts Commission has been extremely worried about the lack of accountability of some, for want of a better term, quangos? There are grave worries that the next steps agencies could go down the same road and that this time next year we shall find ourselves expressing worries about the new agencies, just as we are expressing worries now about the existing ones.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am sure that those points will have been made to the Comptroller and Auditor General. If he is very concerned about it, as he may well be, he in his turn will come before the Commission and ask for help and extra resources. So far, however, the Comptroller and Auditor General has expressed himself fully satisfied with the resources that have been made available to him.
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment he has made of the effect on the funding requirements of the National Audit Office of changes in the organisation of the national health service.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office's corporate plan for 1993–94 to 1997–98 takes account of the need to examine known changes in the machinery of Government, which includes NHS reforms.
    Mr. Michael: Can the Chairman assure us that the Commission is aware of the fact that, irrespective of changes of management, of trusts, or anything else, people still regard their local hospital as their hospital? That is certainly true of Llandough hospital in my constituency. My constituents want that hospital to get a fair crack of the whip in terms of finance and contracts. Can the Chairman assure us that there will be a mechanism in place, and the staff, to investigate the way in which all financial arrangements are made and to ensure that money is allocated and accounted for properly in this new climate of ever-increasing numbers of quangos and trusts?
    Sir Peter Hordern: Of course it is important that the National Audit Office should have the power and the capacity to look at the reforms and how they are carried out. The NAO has carried out a number of reviews. Only last year there were eight, and seven the year before, which were brought before the Public Accounts Commission. I am sure that the Comptroller and Auditor General will read what the hon. Gentleman has said, for he has raised a very important point.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Commission will look closely at National Audit Commission reports that refer to specific scandals in the national health service? It is becoming increasingly clear that the opportunities of the so-called internal market are being exploited, not for the good of patients, but for those who want to rip off the taxpayer, because it is seen as an easy mark.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I cannot comment generally on what the hon. Lady says. However, I hope that she will put any specific examples to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the National Audit Office that the internal market has led to an increase in the number of patients being treated and a reduction in waiting lists? The internal market is seen as good value for money for patients.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I have no doubt that the Comptroller and Auditor General will report on this, as on any other matters.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Clocking On
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his oral answer of 29 June, Official Report, columns 575–76, what further consideration has been given to removing clocking on and off procedures for all members of the staff in Parliament.
    Mr. A. J. Beith(on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): I understand that the position in the Refreshment Department remains unchanged since my answer to the hon. Member on 29 June 1992 and that since that date no representations from trade unions that represent staff in the Refreshment Department have been received requesting abolition of the present time-recording system. Other Departments in the House continue to review the methods for recording the attendance of their staff.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the right hon. Gentleman, who represents the Liberal Democrats, understand that it is nothing short of a disgrace that cleaners, cooks and bottle washers must clock on when Ministers, Members of Parliament, top civil servants and people in the press gallery do not need to clock on? Can the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of them not get rid of the upstairs downstairs mentality? Instead of waffling on about the classless society, they should do something about the upstairs downstairs mentality.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is answering on behalf of the House of Commons Commission.
    Mr. Beith: Time recording is used mainly in those Departments—primarily the Refreshment Department—in which the overtime worked by staff is important to the calculation of the pay they receive. Presumably, that is one of the reasons why the trade unions have accepted that some form of time recording is appropriate.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Rather than wait for the trade unions to ask, would it not be a good idea to take a management initiative and consult representatives of the staff to see whether they would prefer to continue with the present system or change it?
    Mr. Beith: The matter is under regular discussion between representatives of the staff and management.

    Clerks (Judicial Inquiries)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make it his policy to permit the seconding of House of Commons Clerks to the secretariat of judicial inquiries.
    Mr. Beith: No approach has been made to the House authorities requesting such secondments and the Commission, therefore, has no reason to consider the matter.
    Mr. Dalyell: With the experience of having given one and a half hours of oral evidence to Lord Franks and his colleagues—who, by common consent, produced something of a whitewash—and in view of the fact that every knotty problem relating to arms to Iraq is landing in Lord Justice Scott's in-tray, would it not be better if his committee and the helpers that he must have were partly staff from the Clerks of the House, not only because of their acknowledged expertise, but because, unlike civil servants, they do not need to return to a Government machine which naturally determines their careers and futures? Can we have Clerks who are responsible to the House, rather than civil servants who are ultimately responsible to the Government?
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. However, it is not for the Commission to pass judgment on the effectiveness of the support staff used by inquiries. If there is a wider feeling that such a change and such secondments would be appropriate, it would then be for the Commission to consider whether that could be accommodated within the work of the House. I think that the confidence which the hon. Gentleman shows in the independence and expertise of our Clerks will be widely shared in the House.

    Children's Centre
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, when the Finance and Services Committee will consider proposals to establish space and provision for a children's centre in the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Beith: The Finance and Services Committee was nominated on 11 December and has now held its first meeting. It may be for the convenience of the House if I respond to the hon. Lady's question, which was tabled prior to the Committee's nomination. Possible options are still being investigated by the authorities of the House and any suitable proposals will then be put to the relevant Committees. When their feasibility, cost and financial implications have been examined, a recommendation will be brought before the Finance and Services Committee, which will give advice to the Commission. However, I shall bring the hon. Lady's continuing interest to the attention of the Serjeant at Arms and the Establishments Office as an indication of the importance placed on the project by several hon. Members.
    Mrs. Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree—I think that he does—that 1992 was characterised by many parliamentary questions and answers on the matter being answered by "soon", "may be", "hope so", "when we find the money"and "when we find the space"? May I suggest that he recommends to the Finance and Services Committee that it makes a new year resolution that during 1993 space will be found for children in this large Palace in which we sit? Space should be found for well-equipped facilities for mothers with small babies and for the many children who visit the Palace. It is disgraceful that in the 1990s we have no such facilities for families and for visitors' and Members' children, grandchildren and so on. Will the Committee make that new year resolution?
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady's supplementary question goes wider than the creche proposal which was, indeed, the
    604
    subject of many questions during 1992. It extends to whether we could go beyond the present facilities of the Families Room. Those matters ought to be considered by the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Commission has asked the Committee to consider them.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Sittings of the House
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for the time of sittings of the House in the light of the legislative programme for the remainder of the parliamentary year.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Discussions are continuing through the usual channels to seek to identify an acceptable basis on which the House can take decisions on the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, including decisions on the timing of implementation of any changes which may be agreed.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Lord President of the Council accept that the implication of the statement that he made last year when the report was produced was that the new regime would be in operation from the beginning of 1993 so that we could work some logical hours this year and change the system of decades for a better one? Have the Government not implemented the new proposals merely because small technical difficulties remain or do they not intend to introduce them until after they have allowed the House to play funny games as a punishment for rebels, as opposed to an advancement of democracy?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's interpretation is wide of the mark. I assure him that no one has a greater vested interest—if I may put it that way—in making progress on the proposals than the Leader of the House, in view of the amount of time that he is expected to put in here.
    Mr. Madel: On the progress of the Maastricht Bill, would it not help us all if we stuck to Tuesdays and Wednesdays until the proceedings are completed? That would make our lives reasonably reasonable.
    Mr. Newton: As I said at business questions just before the recess when a similar point was put to me, I cannot give an immediate undertaking of that nature. However, I am conscious of the number of people who would find that arrangement convenient.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Lord President accept that while we are well aware that he has taken some small steps, which are most welcome on both sides of the House, towards adopting the recommendations made in the report, we are anxious to see further moves by agreement between all parties, particularly because it is undoubtedly the case that our present hours and circumstances of operation are likely to put off the many women whom we wish to see in the House in every party?
    Mr. Newton: That, I know, was a point which was in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and others who were involved in the report. I welcome what the hon. Lady has said. As she knows—I state this simply as a matter of

    605
    fact and not in any sense as a criticism—she is currently considering her response to a letter that I wrote after outlining some thoughts to her earlier.
    Mr. Marlow: As the Maastricht treaty is dead until the Danes change their minds in another referendum, and as legal expertise takes the view that they do not have the legally binding opt-outs for which they asked, would it not be in everyone's interest to delay further strenuous consideration of the Maastricht Bill in the House until the Danes have said yes?
    Mr. Newton: I know and understand my hon. Friend's views on the matter and I hope that he will not think me unduly aggressive if I simply say no.

    Chamber (Layout)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the physical layout of the Chamber of the House on the effectiveness of its procedures.
    Mr. Newton: No such assessment has been made.
    Mr. Banks: That is a pity because, given that Members of Parliament are getting reasonable office facilities, surely it is time that we examined the possibility of a new debating chamber in this House. The layout of this Chamber resembles that of a pokey, second division football ground, so it is not surprising that we have outbreaks of crowd disturbance from time to time. In the latter part of the 20th century, is not it time for us to have a proper Chamber, with allocated places, desks to work from, individual microphones and electronic voting, or is this place to remain a parliamentary museum?
    Mr. Newton: I think that I may say on behalf of the House of Commons Commission with your assent, Madam Speaker and that of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that the Commission has no proposals for rebuilding the Chamber. As for electronic voting, I should miss the hon. Gentleman's attendance in the House.

    Question Time (London)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has for a Question Time for London; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: I have no proposals for a separate Question Time for London, but hon. Members can, of course, ask questions of relevance to London to any of the Departments of state.
    Mr. Greenway: Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to look to his sense of fairness on such matters within the United Kingdom, bearing in mind that Northern Ireland has 17 Members of Parliament and a whole Question Time, Wales has 36—or perhaps 32—and a whole Question Time and Scotland has 71 Members and one hour of questions? Is that not somewhat unfair to the people of London, who have 84 Members of Parliament and who are the heart and the father of this nation?
    Mr. Newton: I do not think that the constitutional position of London can be equated quite with that of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I am also mindful of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Patronage
    606
    Secretary, in an unusual intervention in our affairs, asked, "What about East Anglia?"—a view with which I can sympathise. My hon. Friend's record in asking questions, not only in London but on Ealing, is second to none.

    Guillotine
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to change the operation of the guillotine.
    Mr. Newton: I have no plans to alter the arrangements for allocation of time motions governed by Standing Order No. 81. However, the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, in the report to which I referred earlier, recommended the routine timetabling of all Government Bills, except those taken through Committee on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Lord President of the Council tell us if and how he proposes to use the guillotine on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? Would it not be appalling to use that on such an awful piece of legislation? In the longer term, should time-limited speeches not be available as a constitutional alternative?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have his own views on such matters, but I am not sure that they will be shared in all parts of the House.

    Points of Order (Reform)
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals for the reform of the points of order procedure.
    Mr. Newton: Points of order, by their very nature, do not arise in a regular or predictable way and I see little scope for a rigid, regulated procedure. It is for the Chair to determine whether points of order are genuine and to give rulings as appropriate.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most often heard words in this House are, "This is not a matter for me"? Would it not be a blessing to Madam Speaker if the House took action to remove from her shoulders the burden of tedium caused by the most abused procedure in the House?
    Mr. Newton: I note that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee is in his place and I congratulate him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) on becoming my right hon. Friends. He will have heard what my hon. Friend has said, but I am sure that the Procedure Committee would wish to respond were Madam Speaker to suggest that she saw a need for such consideration.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Leader of the House accept that interference with the right of Members of Parliament to raise issues on points of order—issues that are often substantial—and the removal of the Speaker's right to determine such issues, making them subject to political pressure, would be opposed by many hon. Members? Points of order are a time-honoured and useful way to raise important issues and they should not be interfered with.
    Mr. Newton: Yes, despite my occasional or perhaps even more than occasional disagreement with the hon.

    607
    Gentleman, he makes some very good points. Everyone would agree that, although we recognise and deplore abuse when it clearly occurs, we should need to be careful before taking too many rights away from too many people.

    Finance and Services Committee
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to be able to nominate the Finance and Services Committee; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: The Finance and Services Committee was nominated on Friday 11 December and had its first meeting on Wednesday 16 December.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the efficiency of the House should be much improved with the formation of that Committee? Will he hasten its progress in bringing about those improvements?
    Mr. Newton: The Committee, at its first meeting, considered a full programme of work in which improving the efficiency of the financial control over affairs in the House was very much a key element.

MV Braer (Oil Pollution)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement. MV Braer, a fully loaded Liberian registered tanker, drifted on to rocks at Garths Ness in Quendale bay, south Shetland, and was confirmed aground at 11.19 am on Tuesday 5 January.
Prompt action by the rescue services enabled the captain and crew, 34 persons in all, to be rescued before the ship grounded. I would like to pay tribute to the skill and courage of the helicopter crews and the professionalism of our coastguards in preventing loss of life, despite the violent storm conditions. Those who risked their lives in an attempt to get a line aboard when the drift of the ship unexpectedly provided extra time deserve particular praise.
Very sadly, it did not prove possible to avert a major oil pollution incident in this ecologically sensitive area. This is one of the biggest spills we have experienced in this country and the consequences for the people of Shetland and their livelihoods, and for the islands' marine life and birds and their habitats, are potentially very serious. I am sure that the whole House will be deeply concerned at this accident, and will sympathise greatly with the people of the Shetland Islands who are being affected by it.
A great deal of oil has escaped from the wreck. I had hoped to say that much is still retained in the tanks, but I regret to say that, in the past few minutes, I have heard that, owing to today's extreme weather conditions, very large additional quantities of oil are now escaping from the ship; it is too early to say how much or to assess its implications. The oil concerned is a light crude, a quarter or more of which will evaporate as it is released.
Rapid deployment of my Department's marine pollution control unit aircraft enabled dispersant to be sprayed throughout daylight hours on 6 January covering most of the oil on the sea surface. The continuing strong winds and big waves have aided dispersion and made spraying unnecessary on a number of days, while keeping the bulk of the spill near the ship. Nevertheless, the extent of the pollution so far, until the latest information, which I have just given the House, was available, though serious, is less than might have been feared and this will make, or would have made, the clean-up operations more manageable.
The Shetland Islands council and the marine pollution control unit have established a joint response centre to co-ordinate clean-up action in accordance with the national contingency plan. I saw this for myself on Friday, and I would like to congratulate all those concerned on the magnificent way in which they have risen to the occasion, particularly the local people and the voluntary organisations who have given unstintingly of their time, expertise and energy.
Inevitably, important questions arise about the events leading up to the accident. I announced that a full investigation by the marine accident investigation branch was being started immediately. I will, of course, publish the chief inspector's report to me in full. The investigation is covering the causes of the accident, the action taken to prevent it, the action taken after the event, the seaworthiness of the vessel, the competence of the crew and the safety of navigation. A parallel investigation is
610
being carried out by the Liberian authorities. At the same time, I announced that I would be considering, following my visit, whether further inquiry action was necessary. This accident raises wider questions about tanker movements around our coasts, as well as many other issues. I have therefore decided to commission an additional inquiry with the following terms of reference:
"To advise on whether any further measures are appropriate and feasible to protect the UK coastline from pollution from merchant shipping. Due consideration should be given to the international and economic implications of any new measures."
The inquiry will be held in public except to the extent that the chairman feels any matters need to be heard in private. I am delighted to say that Lord Donaldson agreed to be chairman of the inquiry.
Clearly, dealing with the incident will be costly and there will be economic loss to individuals as well. The Government strongly uphold the polluter-pays principle. The United Kingdom is party to international conventions that provide for compensation following oil pollution incidents.
Under the 1969 civil liability convention, the shipowner is strictly liable for damage caused following an oil spill. In the case of the Braer, some £50 million will be available from the insurer and the international oil pollution compensation fund.
Compensation under the conventions is paid for costs incurred, including clean-up costs and the costs of reasonable restoration. Compensation is also available for economic loss. It can thus cover loss of income by local businesses affected by the consequences of the spill. I announced in Shetland on Friday the decision of the ship's protection and indemnity club and the international oil pollution compensation fund to establish a claims office in Lerwick to advise on and receive compensation claims arising from the incident. The Government are discussing with the director of the international fund ways of securing the earliest possible payment of compensation, particularly in cases of economic hardship.
This is a very serious pollution incident. Dealing with the consequences will not be quick or easy. I repeat that I am sure that the whole House will share my concern about this accident and will want to join me in expressing great sympathy with the people of the Shetland Islands who are being affected by it. I will keep the House informed of developments.
Mr. John Prescott: May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement on this terrible maritime environmental disaster and express the sympathy and concern that is felt by all Members of the House for those affected by the sinking of the Braer. We are thankful that, despite the devastating effect on the environment and the appalling consequences for wildlife, miraculously no one was killed.
May I place on record our admiration for the courage and skill shown by those involved in the salvage and rescue operations, especially those helicopter pilots who braved extremely hazardous weather conditions to winch the Braer's crew to safety. The lives of many seafarers are owed to the courage and tenacity of those helicopter pilots.
I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of the widening of the inquiry into the Braer disaster and its separation into two parts. The House will welcome the fact, albeit with some suspicion, that Liberia has at least promised to hold an inquiry. But under what

611
circumstances will that inquiry be held? Has the Secretary of State requested that it be held in Britain under a British judge, as has occurred on a number of other occasions? Does he agree that it would be unacceptable for Britain to be left to face the consequences of this major pollution tragedy and for Britain alone to carry the heavy burden of the necessary inquiry costs, which will run into many millions of pounds, without any charge on the Liberian Government?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the practice of some countries of prostituting their flags for a few pieces of silver, allowing shipowners to put out to sea second-rate vessels with second-rate crews, has contributed to a loss rate three or four times greater than that of traditional maritime countries and the death of 300 seafarers with the loss of 24 tankers in the past few years? Those deaths have attracted far less publicity than the images of oil slicks on beaches, no doubt because blood washes away quicker than oil.
In recognising the principle that the polluter should pay, will the Secretary of State now insist that those countries that sell their flags for short-term gain should bear the long-term costs of their irresponsibility? Does he now accept that the loss of more than 1,000 ships from the British flag—many to flags of convenience countries and many of them tankers—has meant the loss of experienced British crews and the deterioration of vessel standards and has contributed to these terrible tragedies? Year after year we have warned the Secretary of State of such tragedies, and how they will result in the loss of the British maritime fleet. Does the Secretary of State agree that the merchant navy of an island nation such as Britain should be able to restore its fleet and not have to witness its own elimination?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the full public inquiry must concede the public's right to know and to contribute to the debate that is necessary to force changes to reduce the possibility of such tragedies happening off our coasts in future? Does he accept that all who wish to give evidence to the inquiry must be allowed to do so?
Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether all contingency plans for such tragedies were subjected to an environmental impact assessment of the effects on the environment—human and wildlife—and particularly on the food chain? Will the inquiry consider the role of the International Maritime Organisation and its conventions in securing the necessary measures to guarantee the standard of vessels, competency of crews and safety of routes? Will the Government consider a separate European convention—which I discussed with the European Commissioner 10 months ago—laying down standards and enforcing them in respect of all vessels entering British waters and ports?
Will the inquiry consider the delays that have occurred between the onset of danger and the notification of the emergency services due to pressures on captains to inform the shipowners first? As that has been the case in other tragedies around the British coast, why have the Government failed to sign the IMO salvage operations convention of 1989?
We should not delay action on any such issues until the result of the inquiry is known or the European legislation is enacted. Therefore, will the Secretary of State make it
612
abundantly clear to all oil companies and carriers of hazardous materials that it is totally unacceptable for them to take dangerous routes that may be cheaper and quicker in commercial terms, but more dangerous and damaging to the community? Such policies are totally unacceptable to the House.
Is it not time that Britain recognised the inadequacy of relying on quick improvements through IMO, which is dominated by the flags of convenience countries that are reluctant to agree to good international practices? Will the inquiry consider the possibility of establishing a European convention on the carriage of hazardous cargoes and protection against marine pollution—possibly under the present international maritime conventions—that will unilaterally impose all the necessary policies to reduce the likelihood of such tragedies occurring in future?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the main burden of such incidents is usually carried by the polluted, not the polluter? Does he know that the owners of the Braer will receive more compensation for the ship than it is worth on the open market? Does he know that those who use flags of convenience will continue to pocket their immoral earnings, while communities such as those in the Shetlands will have their lives disrupted, their environment destroyed and their fishing industry paralysed and will face greater uncertainties about the compensation available? The rest of Britain will be affected by the pollution once it works its way through the food chain. The British taxpayer will have to pay for someone else's cynical irresponsibility, which is unacceptable. It is time for change.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for his support for the two inquiries that I have set up, and I am glad that he agrees that they should be separate. I felt that it was right to announce immediately the marine accident investigation branch inquiry, which is a highly professional technical inquiry and should proceed in the normal way. It was important that it should start its work and interview the crews immediately. I think that the hon. Gentleman recognised that important point.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Liberian inquiry. As is proper in such circumstances, that inquiry is being held in parallel, and is currently taking place in the Shetland Islands. The inspector for the Liberian inquiry has been working with the inspectors of the marine accident investigation branch and interviewing the crews since Wednesday in the Shetland Islands.
I have one important point to make in relation to what the hon. Gentleman said about Liberia. Given that the hon. Gentleman referred to higher losses among ships registered in such areas, it is important to stress that the Liberian loss ratio is only half the world average. It is also important to establish that the Liberian authorities carry out thorough inquiries in cases of this sort.
It is not possible at this stage to make any allegations or accusations about the vessel or crew—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree—because they must be a matter for the MAIB inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the implications of flagging out. He will know that, whatever has happened to the United Kingdom fleet, enormous numbers of vessels from other countries are travelling in international waters all the time; hence the importance of looking at these matters at the IMO level.

613
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the full public inquiry will lead to changes. It will be for the chairman of that inquiry to decide what recommendations to make, and I will be happy, if either he or the MAIB inquiry feels it necessary to make interim or urgent recommendations, to have them followed up.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether all who wished to give evidence would be allowed to do so. They certainly will. As I have said, we intend the inquiry to be held in public except when the chairman comes to the view that there are good reasons for not doing so. He will then explain those reasons.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked about contingency planning for dealing with clearing up. During my visit on Friday I asked all concerned whether they felt that any more could be done and whether they had any suggestions to make to me. They told me that co-operation was excellent, that the contingency plans for clearing up had been implemented quickly, and that everything possible was being done in that respect. The fact that we got the unit in quickly, as well as the Dakotas and all the other equipment, shows that the planning worked. Clearly the inquiry will look into this aspect as well.
The hon. Gentleman referred to separate discussions in the European Community. As the House knows, during our presidency of the last six months of last year we took up and pushed through a proposal for a new directive on ships carrying dangerous goods and on reporting procedures which had been under discussion already for about three years. We gave priority to getting the directive through, and I am glad to say that we got it through. It affects oil tankers.
We are one of the member states taking the lead in all these matters. We also gave strong support to encouraging the Commission to produce proposals for maritime safety in general. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have been pressing at both IMO and European Community level on ferry safety matters. Although that is not strictly relevant, it does show the extent to which we are trying to drive forward higher standards in the IMO and the Community. We expect the Commission's communication on maritime safety within the next few weeks. I believe that the Community has a real role to play in ensuring that international standards are applied and enforced in a determined and consistent way. We have urged, and will continue to urge, other Governments to participate wholeheartedly in these efforts. I believe that our efforts during our presidency to push these matters have already borne some fruit, and we shall go on pressing.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the inquiry would look at some of the delays. I do not want to comment on that today because it is clearly a matter for the inquiry itself, but it will be for the MAIB inquiry, in the first instance, to examine the matter because it encompasses the causes and all other aspects of the accident. I will certainly make arrangements to ensure that anything that the MAIB inquiry reveals is made available to the chairman of the wider inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the salvage operations convention. We hope to be able to ratify it as soon as we can find a legislative opportunity; it requires primary legislation.
Mr. Prescott: That is terrible.
Mr. MacGregor: The salvage operations convention was only recently agreed. We are looking for an early opportunity to implement it, but a number of other countries must also ratify it so that there are sufficient numbers before it comes into force. [Interruption.] I have already stressed that we are looking for an early opportunity to implement it and I note that the hon. Gentleman will support that.
The second and relevant point is that the salvage operations convention is already being applied commercially in practice in this case. I have looked into that thoroughly, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not need the convention to take all the appropriate measures relevant to this accident.
Mr. Prescott: That is terrible.
Mr. MacGregor: It is not terrible. The convention is already being properly applied. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to show that he has slightly lost his sense of perspective. If the convention is being applied, as I am assured it is, we can at least be satisfied that anything that could have happened under the convention will happen. We shall certainly endeavour to legislate at an early opportunity.
My next point in relation to the International Maritime Organisation is important. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, many of these issues have to be negotiated at international level if they are to be effective. That is why it is important in so many cases to try to reach agreement in the IMO. I as much as the hon. Gentleman regret the occasional delays, but the measures will be effective in practice. I suspect, although I do not wish to prejudge the matter, that some of the recommendations of the wider inquiry will require pursuit at IMO level.
At the weekend the hon. Gentleman complained that the Government had not taken action similar to that taken in the United States. He said that he regretted that we had not acted along the lines of the Oil Pollution Act introduced in the United States following the Exxon Valdez disaster. That Act was passed by Congress against the wishes of the American Administration, and I believe that it has considerable defects. I am certain that nothing that occurred in this accident would have been affected or improved in any way by the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of the United States. That demonstrates the importance of trying to reach agreement at IMO level. As I have said, we shall actively pursue any issues arising from the two inquiries that I have announced.
Mr. Robert Adley: In unreservedly welcoming my right hon. Friend's action, may I ask whether he agrees that it is tragic that it takes a tragedy before he can set up the inquiries that he has announced? Is he aware that in March 1979 the Committee considering the Merchant Shipping Bill accepted a new clause of mine that would have placed liability for pollution of the sort that is occurring in the Shetlands on the cargo owner rather than on the carrier? The thinking behind the new clause was to prevent oil companies from chartering rotten ships with cheap crews.
Can that matter be looked at by the inquiry? The new clause was a victim of the demise of the then Callaghan Government and the noble Lord Callaghan of Cardiff told me that he was under enormous pressure from the oil companies to remove it. Will my right hon. Friend stand

615
firm against pressure from the oil interests, and will he ask the inquiry to look into the links between oil companies and detergent manufacturers?
Mr. MacGregor: It will be for the chairman of the inquiry to look at any aspect he wishes. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the inquiry's terms have been widely drawn and that it will be open to anyone to give evidence or to make recommendations.
Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) regrets that he is not yet able to be here. The first flight from Shetland left at 10.50 this morning. I spoke to him when he was at Edinburgh airport and he told me that he hoped to be in the House by 4.30. Hon. Members are aware of the weather in the Shetlands and will, I hope, understand the reason for his delay.
On behalf of my colleagues, may I join the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) in paying tribute to all those who have successfully worked to save lives and who continue to work to mitigate the damage to the islands and their communities? I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland. As I saw when I was in Shetland on Friday, he has been working round the clock in his constituency to support his constituents at this hour of their greatest need.
Can the Secretary of State give the House the assurance that the inquiry will be, as legally defined, a proper public inquiry, entirely independent of the Department of Transport, so that the terms of reference, in addition to those announced, can include other matters of concern to the communities affected if they so wish and, above all, so that the reason why warnings given in years gone by were not heeded? The warnings included those from my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland about the need for surveillance and surveillance mechanisms and for different routing arrangements. A truly independent inquiry will ensure that there will be no doubt that, after this most public of disasters, the communities of Shetland, which are among the most economically important communities in the kingdom, will know that, just as the damage has been public, so the inquiry and its conclusions will be public and that nothing will be private except with the consent of their elected representatives.
Mr. MacGregor: I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and I fully understand why he is not able to be present. I also met him on Friday and I know that he has been assisduous in pursuing all aspects. I am sure that he will agree that the Department and the marine pollution control unit have been working closely with the Shetland Islands council and doing everything possible in this tragic situation.
As the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Southwark (Mr. Hughes) will know, the marine accident investigation branch inquiry is independent and I have made it clear that its findings will be made public and that its report to me will be published in full.
As to the wider inquiry, what is taken in public and what is taken in private will be a matter for the chairman of the inquiry. Because he is out of the country, in the time available, I have not yet been able to discuss all the details with the chairman, and that includes matters such as
616
assessors, which he will want to have. I hope to be doing that shortly. However, I have already made it clear that it is the intention that the inquiry will be held in public except where the chairman—not the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—feels that it should be taken in private and then he will give reasons for that. I think that this is the right way to approach the matter and the best way to consider issues such as surveillance mechanisms and whether they would have had any effect in this case.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement of the inquiry by Lord Donaldson will be widely welcomed not only in the maritime community but beyond it? Will he confirm that one of the issues that the chairman will consider is the permanent provision around our shores of dedicated, ocean-going salvage tugs of sufficient size? Similar arrangements are made in countries such as France and South Africa.
Mr. MacGregor: That would be a matter at which the chairman of the inquiry could look within the terms of reference and given the conditions laid down in relation to economic and international impacts, obligations and interests.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Let me begin by expressing my concern about what has happpened and my appreciation of everything that has been done since the accident.
I welcome unreservedly the Secretary of State's decision to set up two separate inquiries, and especially the undertaking that, if anything comes up quickly, action will be taken. However, there may be conflict between his inquiry and the Liberian inquiry. If they come to different conclusions, will not this affect the question of how quickly compensation can be paid? Would it not be much better if the Government took on themselves the capacity to pay compensation now and for them to argue with the insurers after the event as the amount of compensation might not match what was necessary?
Can the right hon. Gentleman allay one fear—that the dispersants used are poisonous to people? What can he tell us about that?
Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear that we strongly believe in the polluter-pays principle. I have outlined the steps that we are taking, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will shortly have something further to say on that matter. It was decided after consideration that the inquiries should take place separately but that the two should co-operate with each other.
I know that there has been a great deal of interest in, and concern about, dispersants. I assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that the Department uses only dispersants that have been carefully tested to ensure that the toxicity of the dispersant when combined with oil is no greater than the toxicity of the original oil. The decisions to spray the dispersant were taken in conjunction with a considerable number of people, who were consulted and who gave their agreement.
The chief executive of the Shetland Islands council reassured the people of the Shetlands in a public notice that he put out on 10 January that

617
"The composition of the dispersants used has been made known to the medical authorities and it is considered that, if used by correct methods, then risk to the general public is so low as not to be measurable."
He added:
"In fact, what people have been suffering from is the effects of oil in the air and the use of dispersants would reduce the problem."
I know that there are arguments on both sides in relation to dispersants. That is why they are used only when on balance they have advantage in dispersing the oil. That is why dispersant has been used on only certain occasions in this instance. I think that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was able to observe on Saturday the way in which the Dakotas were carrying out dispersal work. I believe that every effort has been made to keep the dispersant on the sea. I can assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) about the effect of it in the way in which I have just sought to do.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a tragedy on a similar scale might have happened off the south Devon coast shortly before Christmas, when a Chinese oil tanker was being towed across the channel by a Russian tug? In the gale the oil tanker broke loose and hit the rocks on the Devon coast. As the tanks were not full, only engine oil went on to the rocks. It has since been dispersed.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the possibility of ship traffic control, like air traffic control for aeroplanes, is considered? Such a system would enable there to be a round-Britain network. It would be possible to know the position of all ships by the use of computer screens.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities will not be charged a penny piece when accidents of this type take place, and that local taxpayers will not be expected to foot the Bill?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend's point about local authorities and taxpayers is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friends who are involved with local authorities.
We have much tighter control over ships that are coming into our ports than over those that are operating on the basis of international rights of passage under international law. One of the effects of the steps that we took recently within the European Community, to which I have referred, is that we shall be able to have much greater knowledge and information about dangerous goods that are being transported, where they are on ships and what they contain. Wider considerations of what might be done are a matter for the inquiry.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State confirm that over the years his Department has received numerous warnings from Scottish local authorities and from hon. Members of the possibility of just such a disaster on the north-west coast of Scotland? Why was a study such as that to be made by Lord Donaldson not commissioned a long time ago, which possibly could have prevented the disaster?
Mr. MacGregor: Steps have been taken through the International Maritime Organisation. A large part of the seas around Shetland, including the area where the tanker was eventually beached, was declared in 1991 to be an "area to be avoided" as a result of British efforts in the IMO's assembly. There is no evidence—this is a matter for
618
the MAIB inquiry—that the tanker was in the area to be avoided before its engines failed. The tragedy is that following engine failure it moved into that area.
Many steps have been taken over the years, but I believe it right in a case such as this to ascertain what further steps we can take. The House should be under no illusions about some of the difficulties. As I have said, there is the view that the American oil pollution legislation, following the Exxon Valdez disaster, will not prove to be very effective in practice. It might have been better to operate through the IMO, as the American Administration itself wished to do. That is always the inevitable constraint. It is right to consider thoroughly the wider circumstances surrounding the accident to determine whether we, together with other nations that have similarly suffered, can bring further pressures to bear through the IMO.
Mr. David Harris: I represent a constituency that suffered badly from the Torrey Canyon disaster many years ago—a not dissimilar accident. I welcome the wider inquiry announced by my right hon. Friend and I extend my sympathy to the Shetland islanders.
If I understand my right hon. Friend correctly, the wider inquiry will cover pollution risks in the United Kingdom as a whole, not just the results of the disaster in Shetland. May I press my right hon. Friend to widen the inquiry even further to consider the whole question of safety at sea? I am president of the sea safety group, which is concerned about collisions at sea, especially those between large merchant vessels and fishing vessels. Would not it be timely to widen the inquiry in that way?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The inquiry will cover a wide area, so I should be reluctant to widen it much more as that might mean further delay. I think that it is right to focus on pollution from merchant shipping, which is the result of the accident. However, I share my hon. Friend's interest and concern. We are looking forward to the European Commission's proposals on maritime safety, which I hope will be published shortly. We can then decide how to follow up those proposals.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that as the neighbouring Member of Parliament to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), whose constituency has been so adversely affected, and as my constituency is surrounded on three sides by coastal waters and is in peril of suffering a similar accident, I have a particular interest in the matter. Does he accept that his decision to lean heavily against the American solution will dismay a number of people, who feel that the American legislature showed greater wisdom than did the outgoing President in this matter? Although it is necessary to have acceptable international solutions operated through the IMO where that is possible, if it is not possible we must operate higher standards in the waters around our coasts—not only United Kingdom waters, but the routes to, from and by the United Kingdom.
Mr. MacGregor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I mentioned the doubts about the American legislation simply to show that I have heard reservations and criticisms of it and that it is as yet untested in practice. I was simply showing that there are no easy solutions to

619
the problem. I do not wish to go further than that because such issues are matters for the inquiry, its chairman and all those who wish to give evidence.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I warmly welcome the inquiry under Lord Donaldson. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the inquiry should bear in mind the fact that, in all the marine losses in 1991, 82 per cent. of the vessels were more than 15 years old? The Aegean Sea, which went aground on the Spanish coast in November, was 19 years old; the Braer was 17 years old. Is not it obvious that there is a link between age and safety? Is it not high time that we considered an age limit on ships that wish to trade on an international or global basis?
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I am somewhat circumspect today because we do not know whether the condition of the Braer was a material factor. It would be right for the MAIB inquiry to consider that point thoroughly and then to reach conclusions. It is clear that the wider inquiry will wish to consider the general issue raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Nick Ainger: I have 14 years' experience of the oil industry at Milford Haven. Many people in that town have said about the Braer and many other such incidents that they are disasters waiting to happen. During that 14 years, I have seen ships coming into Milford Haven that have been poorly maintained, poorly crewed and with poor officers.
I refer to a telephone call that I received from a constituent whose son is a master mariner, who left the company chaired by Lord Sterling because he was sick and tired of having to give his crew members written instructions that had to be checked against a dictionary so that the orders could be translated. That is the kind of thing that is happening on the high seas.
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take unilateral action, as the United States appears to be doing, particularly in relation to double-skinned hulls. At least that would make those who charter vessels realise that something must be done and shipowners appreciate that a real investment must be made in their large tankers. The only answer will be unilateral action. We require proper regulations that are properly enforced.
Mr. MacGregor: I have not ruled out unilateral action. I was pointing to the fact that, given the nature of international shipping and the huge number of ships from other countries that move through international waters, the more that agreement can be reached at international level the better. I was simply making the case that some unilateral actions may not be fully effective and may occasionally be unproductive. Those are aspects that the inquiry will have to weigh up.
The hon. Gentleman may know that the IMO has already agreed new rules for double hulls, that double hulls for all new ships will be introduced in 1995, and that there will be an insistence on double hulls for older ships over a progressive period. The IMO has taken steps on that front.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I add my voice to those who share in the tragedy that has affected the Shetlands and islanders there. I welcome the extension of
620
the inquiry to the whole United Kingdom coastline and the proposed new investment in extending coastguard surveillance to my constituency, on the Fairlight cliffs. Will the inquiry consider the special problems and hazards of shipping in the English channel?
Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear that the inquiry will be concerned with the United Kingdom coastline, which clearly means the whole United Kingdom coastline.
Mr. Brian Donohoe: Why is it that in the past week I received a letter from the Royal National Institute for the Blind and from other voluntary organisations asking for money and why, in this instance, have the Government not given an undertaking that all the costs of those voluntary organisations will be met by the Government? After all, after the fire at Windsor castle, the Government were quick enough to state that all the costs of that disaster would be met. Why have they not done the same on this occasion?
Mr. MacGregor: I did not refer to that because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be doing so in his statement.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend instruct the United Kingdom representative at the International Maritime Organisation to press for the raising of standards of training for masters and crew and of the standards of maintenance of vessels up to those expected of British masters and crew and shipowners? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the event of serious maritime accidents anywhere in the world, an inquiry should be conducted by an inspector appointed by the IMO itself and not by the Government of the country under whose flag the ship sails?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall have to reflect on my hon. Friend's final point, but I thought that it was right to establish an inquiry straightaway so that we could get on with the matter and come to a United Kingdom view. As to my hon. Friend's first point on training, the Government have been pressing that matter in the IMO.
Mr. Eric Clarke: The Secretary of State continually referred to the incident as an accident and used the word "disaster" only in relation to the Exxon Valdez. Is it the Government's view that it was only an accident? I am sure that Scotland, the whole of the United Kingdom, and the rest of the world regard it as a disaster. Miners know historically that legislation sometimes results from disasters; but the price paid by the people and the environment is too high. It may be that we should look to our laurels and see whether we can offset the effects of such accidents or disasters. Is the Braer incident a disaster in the Government's eyes?
Mr. MacGregor: On Friday, when I visited the area, I described the incident as a disaster and a tragedy, as I have done on a number of occasions. It was also an accident. It is clearly a major issue about which we should all be very concerned; that, too, I have made clear on several occasions.
On the other hand, I emphasise all the effort that is being made to deal with the incident, to ensure that the clean-up takes place as quickly as possible and to ensure that all the potential further effects are avoided. I know that the Shetland islanders feel that that is very much in

621
their interests. I should also emphasise all the work that is being done to restore the coastline, and every other aspect of the Shetlands, as quickly as possible.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on setting up the Donaldson inquiry. Does he accept that few people in these islands, wherever they live and whatever areas they represent—and many Members come from coastal areas—do not regret the decline of the British merchant fleet and the concurrent increase in flags of convenience shipping? Will he assure us that Lord Donaldson will be able to examine all aspects of the operation of flag of convenience ships?
Mr. MacGregor: That will certainly be an aspect of the inquiry, and Lord Donaldson will be able to make whatever recommendations he wishes to make. As I have said, the terms of reference are
"To advise on whether any further measures are appropriate and feasible to protect the UK coastline from pollution from merchant shipping."
Consideration must, of course, take into account the international and economic implications of any new measures. But that will be a matter for Lord Donaldson to consider, and for us to consider subsequently.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald)? Given the current appalling weather conditions, why can tankers still go through the closed waters of the Minch? Why has nothing been done about that, even now?
May I also return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger)? Can it possibly be true that the wireless operator on the Braer had an imperfect command of the English language?
Mr. MacGregor: As I have said, steps were taken in relation to those waters. The arrangements, however, were agreed under the United Nations convention on the law of the seas, and we must abide by them and seek changes by the same means. That is the most effective way of securing change.
As for the question of the wireless operator, I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on press reports and similar matters. The issue is one of many that the marine accident investigation branch is now considering.
Mr. Tim Devlin: We are now part of the world's largest single market, with which every country in the world wishes to trade. Is not the European Community the best forum in which to dictate the terms on which we will allow goods to be carried into and out of the Community? Should we not seek a European package providing, for instance, MOT tests for ships and the use of a single language on board ships? Should not that be done as soon as possible?
Mr. MacGregor: We all have obligations under the IMO and the law of the seas convention, which includes some 136 countries at present—the number fluctuates. Given the international nature of shipping, that is the arena in which many such matters must, if possible, be decided.
I have endeavoured to bring about further action in the European Community on a number of shipping fronts. I am happy to say that we recently managed to agree one
622
aspect of dangerous goods at sea, as I said at the last Council meeting. I know how difficult it can be to reach agreement in a Community of 12. I hope that we shall be able to make progress in the Community when we have the Commission's report on maritime safety. A wider debate on shipping is also going on in the Community.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) both raised the question of the Minch. Surely the Secretary of State recognises the massive local and national concern about the continuing dangers posed to the Western Isles and the west coast of Scotland—especially the highlands—by the passage of large tankers carrying crude oil through those waters.
The route west of the Hebrides is not mandatory; it is only advisory. While this welcome inquiry is under way, cannot the Government at least take interim steps to require oil-carrying tankers to have proper pilotage if they are using the route through the Minch, until Lord Donaldson is able to report and recommend?
Mr. MacGregor: In this instance we are talking about ships going through British waters according to international law. If we are to get those laws into a form whereby they can be compulsorily applied, it is important to reach agreement through the International Maritime Organisation. That is what we should endeavour to do. It will of course be for Lord Donaldson, if he wishes to do so, to make interim recommendations, which we could then consider.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Is there anything to stop the Secretary of State for Transport immediately ordering tankers to sail at least 50 miles to the west of the Hebrides? The argument has always been that there would be international repercussions. The argument has never been that it is not open to the Government to do that. Will the Secretary of State therefore clarify his answer?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm the answer that he appeared to give, that the inquiry under Lord Donaldson will be able to take account of all aspects of flags of convenience shipping and of the effect on the environment, as well as of the disastrous rundown of our merchant navy that has taken place under this Government? Will he immediately act upon the House of Lords Select Committee's report and increase the number of inspectors so that more than one in four of foreign flag ships visiting British ports are inspected and do not just go on their merry way? Will he take action immediately, without waiting for any report? If he does not do so, the Government's culpability in allowing the flag of convenience scandal to fester in this country during the last 13 years will be compounded.
Mr. MacGregor: On the last point, there is no need for me to take further action, because we are already taking it. On the hon. Gentleman's point about one in four ships visiting our ports being inspected, that is the international target, but we are more than exceeding that target. We are meeting our own target of 30 per cent. Therefore, 30 per cent. of ships are being inspected under our own port state control. I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that that is a positive response.
As for the hon. Member's second point, I do not think that it would be for the inquiry to go wider into questions

623
of the British fleet as such. However, issues such as flags of convenience, in so far as the chairman regards them as relevant to any further measures
"appropriate and feasible to protect the UK coastline from pollution from merchant shipping",
would be relevant. They could involve, if he so wished, crewing.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if we are to abide by our international obligations, we cannot take unilateral action of that kind 50 miles from our coastline. I am advised that the Oil Pollution Act would not have enabled the American Administration to take the action for which the hon. Gentleman asks in relation to their tragic accident. We cannot do so, either.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does not the Secretary of State agree that we should regard this recent disaster as a nail in the coffin of the farce of flags of convenience? Should we not ask ourselves who these flags are convenient for? They are surely not convenient for the Shetland islanders. Are they designed only to protect well-heeled shipowners and oil companies that wish to exploit cheap labour, thus ignoring the needs of our environment? Is it not time for the Government to take a lead in the International Maritime Organisation and to end this farce once and for all?
Mr. MacGregor: The Government have taken a lead in the IMO in relation to a number of matters, including, as I have already said, crewing. It would be wise to await the outcome of the inquiry and to establish whether in this case crewing was or was not a factor. I certainly do not have any evidence either way on that point at the moment, and it is a matter that I have asked the MAIB inquiry to consider.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Is there any truth in the allegations made in the Observer at the weekend that the Government have repeatedly resisted attempts to keep ships carrying oil and other dangerous cargoes away from our shores? If that is so, the Government stand condemned.
Mr. MacGregor: I did not see that report; and I am not absolutely clear what the hon. Gentleman is getting at.
Mr. Elliot Morley: I welcome the fact that there will be an inquiry into the shipping routes of large crude oil carriers. The Minister should turn his attention to the Government's response to the effects of the spill. Long after the headlines have gone and long after the clean-up, people will have moved away from the Shetlands.
I think that I am right in saying that there has not been a spill on such a scale of this sort of crude oil in such weather conditions. That has led to the oil dispersing in the water column, being ingested by marine animals and, therefore, being transmitted through the whole ecology of the Shetlands. It affects fishing. Perhaps the Minister could say whether any research is being undertaken into the matter.
Mr. MacGregor: I understand the importance of the matter raised by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I can assure him that this is not a case of simply waiting for the immediate impact and effect to be over. We shall be closely monitoring the impact and effect all the way through. Certainly the inquiry will examine all the aspects. The particular point that the hon. Gentleman raised will be covered in the statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is about to make.

Shetlands (MV Braer Incident)
4.25 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to make a statement about the Shetland tanker incident, covering those aspects of the matter that fall within my departmental responsibility: in particular, the areas of health, agriculture, fisheries and the environment.
The Government have been especially concerned to ensure that the local community's health is protected. The Director of Public Health in Shetland, in conjunction with the Islands council, has given local guidance on the steps which should be taken to avoid exposure to the oil, and advice has been made available to general practitioners about how they might best respond to patients who present with symptoms or who have worked in areas of high exposure.
I arranged for the Director of the Environmental Health (Scotland) Unit to travel to Shetland on 7 January. The unit has considerable expertise on environmental health issues, and the director has been working closely with the health board and the Islands council. Expert advice has also been made available on toxicological aspects. Regular environmental monitoring of total hydrocarbons in the atmosphere is being carried out, and the levels observed so far do not indicate any long-term hazard to health, although there have been some cases of eye, nose or throat irritation and feeling of nausea, particularly involving people working outside in close proximity to the incident. But, clearly, the situation will be carefully monitored over the coming months. A health survey has already been announced, involving the islanders living in the affected area.
I visited Shetland on Saturday, accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. During the course of the visit we had useful discussions with representatives from the agriculture, crofting, fishing and fish-farming industries, in addition to a range of environmental interests. We also met members and officials of the Shetland Islands council. The efficiency which they have demonstrated in this incident has been considerable, and I pay tribute to the way in which their staff have risen to the challenge in difficult circumstances.
My officials and the local environmental health officers have been particularly concerned to avoid any risk of oil contamination to food. Action has been taken to condemn crops of vegetables in the south of the island, and independent monitoring arrangements have been established, with the co-operation of the farmers and fishermen, to ensure that there is no contamination of milk supplies or of fish entering the market.
We are also concerned about the health and welfare of farmed animals. Cattle in the affected areas are being housed inside with supplies of clean water and feed. Local vets are monitoring the impact on sheep which have been grazing on areas affected by oil spray. Officials of the marine laboratory are monitoring the impact on the fish farms that have been affected by oil in the water. Farmers have also been asked not to send sheep for slaughter for the time being.
The fishing and fish-farming industries are of fundamental importance to the economy of Shetland, and it is clearly essential that we do everything that is necessary to safeguard and protect their long-term futures.
626
The key immediate issue is that of confidence in the industry's products. My Department has, therefore, already instituted arrangements for the sampling and testing of sea fish landed in Shetland. We also announced on Friday an exclusion zone under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 within which the taking of fish is, in the meantime, prohibited.
The spillage is causing serious damage to wildlife and their habitats. It also threatens to despoil coastal landscapes as well as some inland areas which are under threat from windblown oil. Quendale bay is already heavily polluted. There are a further nine sites of special scientific interest currently at risk. Further sites could be reached by oil within days if the present trend continues.
Staff of Scottish Natural Heritage are advising on the natural heritage implications of the clean-up operation as part of the joint response committee, and are also playing a key role in co-ordinating voluntary effort and liaising with local groups.
It is too early to predict what the final impact on wildlife and their habitats will be. However, I fear that we can expect over time several thousand mortalities, in total, of different species. The operations staff and volunteers are doing all that they can to minimise that total.
The adverse ecological consequences are cause for widespread concern. I have therefore instructed my departments to establish an ecological steering group with membership which will include representatives of the Shetland isles, environmental specialists drawn from Scottish Natural Heritage and elsewhere, and those involved operationally in handling the oil spillage. Its immediate task will be to develop urgently the best strategies, both in the short term and in the longer term, for dealing with the implications of the spillage for the natural environment of the Shetland isles.
We should also draw more general lessons for the future from what has happened. Accordingly, I have agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the group should also initiate and oversee a special study of the ecological effects of the incident and how best to handle them should a similar event occur at some time in the future. It will report back to Government on this wider consideration in due course. The membership of and remit of the steering group will also reflect the wider consideration and appropriate support will be made available to it. The study will build on the foundations of the extensive Government-funded investigations of fish and birds that are already carried out in the area.
As regards the cost of all the work now being undertaken and the costs incurred by islanders and local businesses, my right hon. Friend has made it clear that the Government strongly uphold the polluter-pays principle.
There is every reason to believe that the resources available for compensation from the international fund will be sufficient to meet all eligible claims. As my right hon. Friend has said, the Government are pressing the international oil pollution compensation fund to facilitate early possible payments, particularly in cases of economic hardship. I welcome the immediate payment on account made by the insurers to Shetland Islands council in this regard. There is, however, understandable concern in Shetland about the cash flow problems which may face businesses, particularly the farming, fishing and fish-farming industries, in the period before claims are settled in full. In view of the significance of these industries to the

627
Shetland economy, my Department is proposing to make resources available through a special bridging fund to help them with particular economic hardship pending the settlement of compensation claims.
Arrangements for administering the bridging fund will be announced as soon as possible following urgent consultations already in hand between my Department, the Shetland Islands council and other interested parties.
Once the extent of the damage is more fully known, Shetland Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will work with Shetland Islands council to assess the impact on the island's economy. I shall consider carefully any recommendations made to me as a result of this assessment.
I am also following up welcome offers of help from the European Commission and will make further details available as soon as they are agreed.
Damaging and distressing though the circumstances of this serious environmental accident are, the response of the people of Shetland and of the wider community, nationally and internationally, has been impressive. I am satisfied that all the organisations, voluntary bodies and individuals involved in the efforts to limit and repair the damage are working well together, with a shared commitment to succeed.
My hon. Friend the Scottish Minister responsible for the environment was prevented today by bad weather from paying his second visit to Shetland since the incident, but he hopes to get there tomorrow and he and I will pay further visits as and when it is helpful to do so. It is our purpose to ensure that we do all that we can to help Shetland and the people of Shetland to restore quickly and effectively their beautiful environment and their way of life.
Mr. Henry McLeish: While I welcome the suggestion made today that we shall have a wider inquiry rather than a narrow departmental one, and while I welcome the Secretary of State's assurances about health aspects and about reviving the Shetland economy, Opposition Members remain concerned about the complacency and confusion which have surrounded initial responses from the Government. That is reflected in the anxieties that have been expressed to several Opposition Members.
May I also take this opportunity to praise, as the Secretary of State has done, the efforts which have been made by all involved—statutory services, local council people and the voluntary sector—to tackle the devastating crisis which now faces the Shetland Islands.
As I said, it is difficult to extend the same praise to Scottish Office Ministers—[Interruption.] That is an important matter which has to be mentioned on the Floor of the House because concerns have been expressed to us.
In the brief time available I must mention three issues on which the Secretary of State commented. I am afraid that his comments on the extent of compensation were equivocal. The people of Shetland will be disappointed that the Secretary of State has not stated clearly that no person on Shetland will be at a disadvantage in the immediate future because of the consequences of the tanker spillage. Compensation is crucial, not only to the well-being of many islanders, but to reassure them that the Government are with them and to build confidence during
628
a difficult time for the community in the north of Scotland. We agree that the polluter should pay, which is equally important, but surely to goodness, even with the set-up that the Secretary of State mentioned in his statement, islanders will be worried that the amount of money to be made available will not cover the tremendous costs involved as the story unfolds during the months and years ahead.
I note that the Secretary of State said that there is every reason "to believe" that the resources available will meet all eligible claims, but Shetland islanders want something more specific. I want the Secretary of State to tell the House this afternoon that no Shetland islander whose economic well-being is affected will be worse off. It would be appalling if we had to wait until the due processes of law had taken place to know the terms of any compensation.
The saga has been a cruel irony in that the Shetland isles and the islanders are a model of the way in which an authority should handle complex oil-related issues. Through no fault of their own a tanker has gone down, in astonishing circumstances, and they are being left to foot the bill. My plea is that this afternoon the Secretary of State will assure them that they will not be out of pocket.
The second issue that has been mentioned by a number of my hon. Friends concerns the routing of tankers and the Secretary of State for Scotland must have a role to play in that. Concerns have been expressed about the Minch. There are valuable and sensitive environmental areas around the entire British coastline. While I accept that the International Maritime Organisation and the European Community should review tanker routes, would it not be appropriate and in the interests of Scotland for the Secretary of State to remove tankers from sensitive areas at this stage, pending the outcome of the review?
We have talked about the economic well-being of the Shetlanders and the damage to wildlife, the ecology and environmentally sensitive habitats, but there is also growing concern about the possible impact on health of hydrocarbons in the air and I welcome the Secretary of State's statement about monitoring that impact. I sincerely hope that, during his visits and those of his hon. Friends, they will do everything possible to minimise the impact. The community is particularly fearful of the impact on children and, as parliamentarians, we must talk seriously about that issue.
Finally, we must deal with the question of spraying. I welcome the Secretary of State's comments about the possibility of further damage being done to the environment by adding toxicity to the problems created by hydrocarbons spewing from the tanker, but I want his reassurance that that toxicity is being monitored. There has been speculation in the press about the damage being done by spraying. I hope that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will deal with that issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Why was the hon. Gentleman not here to listen to the Secretary of State for Transport?
Mr. McLeish: I was about to apologise for my absence. No discourtesy was intended to the Secretary of State for Transport or to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston

629
upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Unfortunately, because Glasgow was snowbound, I could not get here to listen to the first 20 minutes of the exchanges.
Finally, the statement went far enough on certain issues, but we must have reassurances on compensation, routing, the use of toxic chemicals and health. The people of Shetland are demanding those reassurances and it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to provide them.
Mr. Lang: I fear that the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about complacency and confusion fall below the actual record of events. I suggest that perhaps he, too, should visit Shetland where he will see that all those involved, including the Scottish Office, which has sent more than 20 officials, other Departments' officials, voluntary bodies, local government and other organisations are working together efficiently and with complete dedication to repair the damage that has been caused in Shetland and to minimise the risk. The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks were completely misplaced.
On the question of the immediate disadvantages faced by the people of Shetland, it was precisely with the interests of those people in mind and the difficulties that can arise as a result of economic hardship and cashflow problems in the short term—before people are able to secure settlement of insurance claims—that I decided to establish the bridging fund that I announced today. An office has already been established in Shetland to manage that compensation fund and the insurers have already advanced £200,000 to the Shetland Islands council to meet immediate, interim and short-term problems on account. The Shetlands Islands council has also made funds available to the agricultural sector. The European Community, through Commissioner Paleokrassas, has already made emergency aid available and it is having discussions with my Department about possible further aid. When one takes into account all those factors, one can see that resources are being brought to bear as needed and that procedures for clearing up this damaging environmental incident will not be in any way inhibited by lack of funds.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of Stale for Transport dealt with the routing of tankers in his statement. I understand why the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) was delayed by travel problems and was unable to get to the Chamber in time to hear that statement.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that health is an immensely important aspect of the incident. I underline the importance that we attach to the careful monitoring that is now taking place. That monitoring involves a number of individuals with considerable expertise and access to high-quality advice on toxicological matters. That monitoring will continue for some considerable time and clear advice will be given to the people of Shetland as to how to respond to events.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport also dealt with dispersants. It is worth repeating that today's statement from the director of the Shetland Islands council environmental services, the director of marine pollution control, the director of the Scottish environmental health unit and the director of public health for Shetland indicated that the dispersant, if used according to correct methods, meant that the risk to the public is
"so low as not to be measurable".
630
That helps to put the issue into perspective.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, vital though it is, it is not just with the immediate devastation that the Government must concern themselves? Will he give the House the commitment that long after the television crews have gone, he and his Department will still be working with the Shetland islanders and their leaders to ensure the return to the quality of life to which those people are accustomed and which they deserve?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. He is right to say that long-term issues, as well as the short-term immediate problems, will be of considerable importance. We will not lose sight of them and the ecological study group that I announced today will be concerned to monitor matters for some considerable time.
Mr. James Wallace: I preface my remarks by apologising to the House for not being here earlier. Perhaps I should explain that the weather conditions were atrocious and that I got here as early as I could.
I thank the Secretary of State for Transport for his statement, but I should like to address my remarks to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand that he has announced a bridging fund, which seems to be along the lines of that which we discussed on Saturday. Obviously, if he is able to provide any further detail on that fund today that would be welcome. He will be aware of the immediate need faced by a number of salmon farmers who would have undertaken a scheduled harvesting of their salmon this week. Substantial cashflow problems could arise. If the fund is not sufficient to meet those needs, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider it so that the response from Government is adequate to ensure people's livelihoods?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm to the House that the response that he saw on Saturday from the farmers and particularly from the seafood industries, which were ahead of the Government in announcing a voluntary ban, shows their determination to ensure that Shetland will maintain its reputation for the high quality of the produce that it puts on the market? That will be extremely important in the long term.
Mr. Lang: I understand, as does the rest of the House, why the hon. Gentleman was unable to be here earlier. I am happy to pay tribute to the commitment that he has shown to the interests of his constituents in all aspects of this matter.
As I said earlier, we are involved in urgent consultations with Shetland Islands council and others over the precise details of the bridging fund. I will make further details available as soon as I possibly can, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not possible at the moment to spell out in more detail the way in which it will operate.
I am happy to endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the actions of the Shetland Fishermen's Association and others in relation to the need to maintain confidence in the quality of the island's produce. I imposed an exclusion order on the area most affected around Sumburgh last week to maintain confidence in their produce, particularly fish and farmed fish. I welcome the

631
support of the Shetland Fishermen's Association, which took an extremely responsible posture in supporting me. I hope that confidence in its products will be quickly restored.
Mr. Roger Gale: Those of us who represent seats at the other end of the United Kingdom from Shetland and whose constituents rely on farming, fishing and tourism for their livelihood feel for the constituents of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for the damage that they have suffered. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has been on the Shetland Islands this weekend and who also represents Kent, would share that view.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard)indicated assent.
Mr. Gale: As chairman of the all-party animal welfare group, may I say how much we appreciate the voluntary work that has been done to help to mitigate this disaster, in particular the work done by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others. I echo the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) that my right hon. Friend should try to ensure that those voluntary bodies, which have spent considerable sums of their funds in assisting in the clean-up operation, are able to seek recompense from those liable—not in order that they may make a profit, but so that they may continue to help with the long-term work of restitution that will be necessary.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his earlier comments. I also join him in congratulating and complimenting the voluntary organisations on the dedicated work that they are doing and on the way in which they are working together.
My hon. Friend may like to know that a number of voluntary groups working on the islands, including the World Wild Fund for Nature, the Shetland Bird Club, the RSPB, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the SSPCA, are getting together to form the Shetland Conservation Consortium. Funding has been provided immediately by the Scottish Office under the special grants environmental programme and by Scottish National Heritage to help that new organisation. SNH is also empowered to give further funding to voluntary bodies as needed.
Mr. Norman Hogg: The Secretary of State will be aware that I am parliamentary consultant to the National and Local Government Officers Association and in that context I thank him for his kind remarks about the prompt and efficient action taken by local government officers on Shetland. Can he give an assurance that those officials and in particular the environmental health officer will receive the fullest possible support from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, or whichever officials of his Department arc appropriate, to deal with this situation and to give the best possible advice and support to the community of Shetland?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I repeat that the officials and the
632
councillors of Shetland Islands council, both groups of whom I met on Saturday, are working very effectively to deal with this difficult incident. They are getting as much co-operation and assistance as is possible from officials in my Department, in particular the director of the environmental health unit, Dr. Forbes, has been to the islands, as has the chief scientist of SNH. Contacts are continuing at all levels between those groups. Some 20 or more officials from my Department are on the islands fulfilling various tasks and I intend to ensure that that co-operation is maintained for as long as is necessary.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread concern felt at the lack of priority and lack of urgency shown by the Government in their response to this catastrophe? For example, why did it take more than four days for the Secretary of State to visit the scene of the disaster? Why has he made only a qualified statement about compensation? Why does not the Secretary of State copy Holland's example, where the Government pay victims compensation immediately and then sue the polluter to recover the money?
Mr. Lang: On the lack of urgency, the hon. Gentleman seems to overlook the fact that the Scottish Office Minister responsible for the environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), went to Shetland the day after the incident, as did the Minister for Aviation and Shipping from the Department of Transport. Since then, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I have visited Shetland and spent a considerable time talking to a wide range of interest groups involved. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would have been in Shetland again today for his second visit but for the weather. So there is no lack of urgency or commitment on the part of the Government, as is reflected in the statements by my right hon. Friend and I today.
On compensation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman upholds the fundamental principle that the polluter pays. In the meantime, to deal with short-term economic hardship, I have announced the setting up of a bridging fund to help to meet the anxieties that he identified.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: May I welcome the positive aspects of the Secretary of State's announcement and endorse the praise for the Shetland islanders and their response to the disaster. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) was right about the crucial nature of the compensation to Shetland islanders in the meantime. Is the Secretary of State aware of the pathetic sight that he presents to the House, compared with the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who guaranteed millions of pounds for the repair of Windsor castle? The Secretary of State for Scotland had come forward with £200,000 for the Scottish people. What support will he give the Shetland islanders in pursuing their legal claims against the polluter? What guarantee can he give that, while that legal operation is taking place, no Shetland islander will go bankrupt or out of business because of the disaster?
Mr. Lang: The incident with which the hon. Gentleman compares the circumstances of the Shetland Islands is not comparable. Windsor castle is a Crown property for which the Government have administrative responsibility and

633
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage made that position clear at once. We are concerned about the longer term compensation, legal liability and consequential loss that affect a large number of people following this serious incident. I have tried to identify how the Government can best help to meet areas that are not immediately covered by compensation aspects, in that they will take some time to come through. That is why we have set up a bridging fund to deal with the short-term problems and economic hardship that can arise.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce:The Secretary of State will recognise that the disaster is not simply a local problem for the Shetlands but is of considerable importance to the whole of Scotland because of the importance of tourism and the quality of our food and maritime products. That is one of the reasons why a speedy response is necessary. We must ensure that, wherever possible, money does not constrain protective measures that can prevent extensive pollution, nor does it encourage anybody to break an embargo that is essential to ensure that the quality of products is re-established.
Will the Secretary of State take up the point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), that the Government must make it clear that nobody will be denied cash when they need it and that, in the long run, full compensation will be paid?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the purpose of the bridging fund that I have announced, the emergency help offered by the European Community, the fund operated by the Shetland Islands council, and the advance payment made by the insurers is to ensure that such short-term difficulties do not arise.
On the quality of food, I agree that it is important to restore confidence in the quality of Shetland's produce. That is one of the reasons why I imposed the exclusion zone and why fish landed is being tested daily and will continue to be monitored in the long term. It is important to restore confidence in the quality of Shetland's produce as quickly as possible.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Why have I received an appealing letter in the past week from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on the disaster in the Shetland islands if what the Secretary of State says about compensation being made available to the voluntary organisations is right? Why does not he give a commitment to the House, as the Secretary of State for National Heritage did on Windsor castle, and say that he will underwrite all costs involved in the disaster?
Mr. Lang: I urge the hon. Gentleman to read what I have said today. He will then understand that I am meeting the area of need that has been identified to help people in the short term until they can secure full compensation, as I anticipate they will be able to do, from the insurers.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I apologise for being late. I am sure that the Secretary of State understands that transport difficulties in Scotland are pronounced today.
Is there a limit to the bridging fund proposed by the Secretary of State? Does he understand Opposition Members' concern that no one should be in cash flow difficulties? No one disputes the principle that the polluter
634
should pay. None the less, we are concerned that no one in the Shetland Islands conducting a business should find himself in straitened circumstances because of delays in compensation. We have very much in mind the fact that the Amoco Cadiz disaster took 14 years to settle.
Does the Scottish Office have a view on rights of passage? In the light of this disaster and bearing in mind the fact that only 20 per cent. of tankers are following the recommended route to the west of the Western Isles, does the Scottish Office agree that there must be a firm new look at rights of passage? Does the Scottish Office intend to have an input to provide some security for the sea passageways?
Mr. Lang: As I explained in my statement, the details of the bridging fund are still the subject of consultation and will be announced as soon as possible. The navigational matters were largely covered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but I wish to ensure that all Scottish interests are fully reflected in the outcome of any consideration of those matters.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Like the Secretary of State for the Environment who is sitting next to him, the Secretary of State for Scotland had a fruitful visit to the royal botanical gardens in Edinburgh recently. Will he therefore take into account the view of the director, Dr. David Ingram, that there is not only a short-term problem on which great attention and expertise is being deployed, but a long-term—probably 10 to 20 years—problem of maritime algae and marine photosynthesis? It so happens that the deputy director is one of the world's leading experts on such matters. Could a fund be set up urgently or Government money be devoted to a long-term project, which this unique tragedy requires? A long-term scientific study must be funded from somewhere.
Mr. Lang: We must wait until the details of the ecological steering group's remit is fully set up before we can be precise about the specific long-term matters that it will undertake. It may develop long-term strategies, including overseeing appropriate research studies to monitor the impact on and subsequent recovery of the environment and it will report to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and me. On funding, we shall ensure that measures on which we embark subsequent to that report or in the light of advice from the steering group will be adequately funded.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State respond to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) that tankers be required to be piloted through the Minch straits? The Secretary of State for Transport has already said that the Government do not have powers to ban traffic entirely. Will he clarify whether they have powers to require that tankers be piloted? Will he investigate that possibility as an interim measure?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows that that matter does not fall within my responsibility but I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is sitting beside me and has heard the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Michael Connarty: The Secretary of State will realise that the Opposition echo his compliments

635
to the Shetland Islands council. I hope that he also understands that we applaud it for its work outside times of crisis because he has attempted to cut its budgets and staffing over a long period. There is therefore much cynicism about the vagueness with which he has answered questions on funding and compensation. The only sum that has been mentioned so far is £200,000 for the bridging fund. He has spoken of compensation and support for the voluntary organisations.
How much money is there in the fund? How much money will be made available? Will he let us know later on paper, or even state today, the level of compensation that will be given to the people of the islands? Will they be given complete compensation if money is not supplied by the international fund? What level of reinstatement can be expected? Will the fund ultimately turn out to be something to take the heat out of the issue, not enough to deal with the real problem of recompensing the people and reinstating their lifestyle?
Mr. Lang: The issue of reinstatement is not for the bridging fund, but for the insurers. It relates to the compensation that individuals will seek under the polluter-pays principle. The bridging fund is designed to help, in the short term, people suffering the sort of hardship that could arise from a delay in the settlement of their claims. The £200,000 to which the hon. Gentleman refers is the advance payment made by the insurers to help immediate claims to be met in the short term. I cannot yet put a firm figure on the bridging fund, but anticipate that, if there is a need for several million pounds, we shall seek to meet it.

Points of Order
5 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have been more than generous to me this afternoon and I am a little shy about raising a point of order. However, I was wondering whether, in view of the alleged Iraqi incursion into Kuwait, the statements from Baghdad about the need for a dialogue among
636
America, Britain, France and Iraq—which some of us strongly support—and as the operation is not conducted under the umbrella of the United Nations—Dr. Boutros Ghali has made it clear that it has nothing to do—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have been enormously generous this afternoon to all hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and if he will be good enough to come to his point of order, I shall deal with it immediately.
Mr. Dalyell: My point of order is simply whether you, Madam Speaker, have received a request from the Government to make a statement on those grave and urgent matters.
Madam Speaker: I have had no approach from the Government for a statement today.
Mr. Gary Waller: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will recall, on the day before the Christmas recess our proceedings were interrupted by a demonstration. I make absolutely no criticism of the action that you found it necessary to take on that occasion when you adjourned the sitting. However, is not it a fact that our hard-won democratic freedoms are threatened when hon. Members use the power of numbers to bring proceedings to a halt and your authority in the House is ignored?
Madam Speaker: As the House knows, during the Christmas Adjournment debate, a number of hon. Members, with extreme selfishness, set about preventing the discussion of several important matters on the ground that a subject of their own choosing was not to be raised. I trust that I shall have the active support of hon. Members in all quarters of the House in my determination that such an outrage—which is what I considered it to be—against the long tradition of freedom of speech in the House should never be repeated. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) was one of the hon. Members who lost their Adjournment debates that day. Those hon. Members were successful in the ballot and I shall see to it that they will soon have the chance to raise their Adjournment debates on days other than Thursday, on which I usually grant such debates. I have written to all the hon. Members involved about the matter.

Orders of the Day

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Bill is clearly a major piece of legislation and the amendment paper lists a large number of new clauses and amendments. You have kindly selected five new clauses, including Government new clause 6, and nine groups of amendments, including Government amendments. It is now 5.3 pm and clearly it is open to hon. Members to oppose the business motion at 10 pm—indeed, it is expected that the debate may run to midnight.
  In view of the serious nature of the Bill arid the widespread controversy that it has aroused, especially in relation to clauses 9 and 10—about 1,000 black and Asian people are today lobbying the House to protest against the provisions—if progress is not expeditious, to avoid a vote against the business motion would you, Madam Speaker, he prepared to consider encouraging the Government to halt the business at 10 pm? The Government could return with the remainder of the business at a later date. Will you consider whether we could terminate today's business at 10 pm? Could you encourage the Government to complete the proceedings another day? In view of the serious nature of the Bill and the time already taken up this afternoon on extremely serious matters—about which I make no complaint—will you consider whether it would be proper for us to consider the Bill on Report and complete Third Reading today?
  Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, as Speaker, I have to strike a balance between how long a statement should take and the remainder of the business on the Order Paper. What the hon. Gentleman has said is a matter for the House to consider, not a matter for me at this stage.

New Clause 6

  PROTECTION OF CLAIMANTS FROM DEPORTATION, ETC.
  '. During the period beginning when a person makes a claim for asylum and ending when the Secretary of State gives him notice of the decision on the claim, he may not be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom.'—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.3 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time, and trust, in response to the plea of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that I shall be able to do so expeditiously.
  I am very pleased to introduce the clause, which follows an undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in Standing Committee. The new clause provides that a person who has made a claim for asylum may not be removed from, or required to leave, this country until he has been notified of the decision on that claim. It complements the provisions already contained in schedule 2 of the Bill, which affords the same protection
  638
  during the period when an asylum appeal is pending. The new clause does not represent any change of policy or practice on our part; but in response to hon. Members who spoke in Committee, may I say that it puts into statutory form the practice which exists. I can assure the House that nobody who claims asylum will be removed from this country until a decision has been taken on his or her claim.
  I am pleased to be able to move the new clause because it emphasises that the Bill does not in any way weaken the Government's commitment to meeting their international obligations towards the protection of genuine refugees. We accept our obligations under the Geneva convention and intend to honour them in full. The purpose of the Bill is to enable us to discharge those obligations as efficiently and speedily as possible, first, in order to ensure that genuine refugees are not returned to countries where they may face persecution and, secondly, to curb misuse of the asylum process by people who are not genuine refugees.
  Our aim is to establish a system that works in everyone's interests. When applications are made, the key element will continue to be the full and fair examination of individual applications, arriving quickly and efficiently at the right solution for each of the cases we consider. It is not our intention to bundle applicants out of the country before they have had a proper opportunity to make their case. New clause 6 makes that unequivocally clear.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sure that everybody would be deeply upset if people were bundled out of the country, but when dealing with manifestly bogus asylum seekers, particularly those who make trouble while they are seeking asylum—like the wretched individual who made bogus claims about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—will my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary ensure that they are kicked out of the country with utmost speed?
  Mr. Clarke: The Bill is introducing new procedures to deal with such cases, which are normally described in legal terms as manifestly unfounded claims for asylum. We shall discuss that matter under later new clauses and amendments. It is extremely important—
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No—the hon. Gentleman must let me deal with one intervention at a time.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said, it is extremely important that bogus claimants are turned round speedily and sent back, first, because they are not entitled to be here and, secondly, because they get in the way of the full hearing of genuine applications which new clause 6 is partly designed to ensure.
  I cannot go into the case that my hon. Friend has mentioned except to say that, although it has received a great deal of publicity, I assure him that it was being dealt with in the ordinary way well before the recent newspaper allegations. The gentleman in question had been told in August last year that he had no right to remain in this country and he had been asked to take steps to leave. This will continue to be dealt with as an ordinary case regardless of the man's involvement in matters of public controversy concerning my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. He will be dealt with on the same basis as

  639
  everyone else: allowed to stay, if there are compelling reasons why he should be, or removed if he has no reason to be here and has abused the immigration process.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm that when a person arrives at an air or sea port in this country and wishes to seek political asylum he will not be prevented or restrained in any way from leaving the aircraft or ship in order to approach an immigration officer, and that no airline will be allowed—because of the way the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 operates—to prevent such people from approaching immigration officers while in transit at any airport in the country?
  Furthermore, will the Secretary of State investigate past cases when it has been alleged that people have been prevented from leaving aircraft at Heathrow because they were likely to seek political asylum here?
  Mr. Clarke: I know that the hon. Gentleman has sought to raise this matter before. I think that I am right in saying that a later new clause or amendment will enable us to discuss the matter again. I assure the hon. Gentleman that anyone who has set foot on these shores and who makes a claim for asylum will have the application considered in the way in which the Bill envisages the process. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that any immigration officer has ever been involved in removing someone without the application first being properly considered. This new clause ensures that no one will be removed until his application has been determined.
  I know that there have been allegations about airline staff and others and one such case at least is still under investigation. The Government have made it absolutely clear that if someone reaches these shores and applies for asylum the application will be properly considered. No one will be removed without his case having been properly determined in the light of the rules.
  It is important to have proper methods of dealing with these matters because of the pressure that we are under with the number of new asylum applications in modern circumstances, following the sudden and dramatic increase in popularity of asylum applications a few years ago. We now know that the total number of new asylum applications received in 1992 was 24,500. That means that the previous year's total was nearly halved, largely, we think, as a result of new screening arrangements introduced in November 1991 to detect and deter multiple applications.
  We took 35,000 decisions in 1992—six times the number we were able to take in 1991. Leaving aside applications that were refused because of failure to attend interviews or to provide information, just over 5 per cent. of the decisions actually recognised refugee status and granted political asylum. We have not changed the criteria; we continue to apply the same criteria as always in deciding these cases: the criteria of the 1951 United Nations convention.
  The simple fact is that very few of the applications that we now receive are from refugees as the international community has always defined them. Nineteen out of 20 of those who apply for refugee status turn out on
  640
  investigation not to come within the terms of the Geneva convention. That is why we need a system that deals properly and quickly with these applications.
  Mr. Marlow: So 5 per cent. of these claims are valid claims, and the other 95 per cent., by definition, are not. What proportion of those 95 per cent. have been removed from the country or are in the process of being removed?
  Mr. Clarke: Comparatively few at the moment, as my hon. Friend knows and fears. That is another underlying purpose of the Bill, since 19 out of 20 applications eventually prove not to be well founded under the 1951 convention. Many such applications have been made by people arriving in this country as a means of getting around other immigration controls. We must have a good and expeditious system of removing clearly unfounded cases so that we can deal more promptly with genuine ones. Delays in dealing with such cases lead to many people eventually being given leave to remain even though they have no right to be here when they first entered the country. That is why we must press on with the Bill.
  We still have a backlog of more than 49,000 undecided applications and new applications continue to arrive at five times the rate they did just over four years ago—another reason why we need this Bill.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Secretary of State concede that one reason why the number of applications being dealt with has increased is that the Department has finally taken the advice offered by the Labour party two years ago and employed adequate numbers of staff to deal with the applications received? The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being somewhat disingenous when he quotes figures from four years ago. Comparing last year's backlog with the current year's backlog shows that the latter has not only stopped growing but is diminishing. In other words, the two reasons why the Secretary of State's predecessor introduced the Bill have now been eliminated.
  Mr. Clarke: We have increased the number of staff because there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people applying for asylum. It is the hon. Gentleman who is being disingenuous by claiming that this is entirely the result of the Labour party's advice. The fact that the Labour party agrees with the Government that it is right to increase the number of staff is a happy event. We should not have this backlog and it is important to get down to ensuring that we can deal quickly with the large number of unfounded applications so that we can then deal expeditiously with the rest. It is not right that people who turn out eventually to have no claim to be here should be able to rely on the process being spun out for several years so that they can make claims for leave to remain because of circumstances that have arisen since they landed.
  The need remains for a system that is resilient, responsive and fair, concentrating efforts and resources on the issues that really matter. I am convinced that the Bill provides the framework for such a system. It contains time limits and safeguards to prevent abuse—I am sure that we will discuss them later—which are part of a balanced package to ensure that the significant new rights and benefits that we are giving asylum seekers are not exploited be people who are not bona fide applicants. I hope that the Bill's improvements to the position of genuine asylum

  641
  seekers will be properly recognised in our debates today. The Government have tabled a number of amendments to clarify the Bill's intentions and to respond to some—usually misplaced but understandable—concerns expressed in Committee. New clause 6 is the first of those Government amendments and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Tony Blair: The new clause was tabled by the Government because of matters raised by Opposition Members in Committee and we welcome it. I shall deal briefly with it before moving on to some of the broader issues that the Secretary of State mentioned in what seemed at times a short rerun of the Second Reading debate.
  New clause 6 affords protection to applicants for the time between a claim being made and notice of a decision, so that they cannot be removed once they have made a claim until notice of decision is given. The prohibition on removal of an applicant does not apply only for the time between the making of the application and the decision; it also applies pending an appeal—I should be grateful for confirmation of that.
  Some people have asked whether the protection pending appeal applies also to the period between notice of the decision being given and an appeal being lodged. In other words, there may be a period when an appeal has not yet been lodged but notice of decision has been given. I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would confirm that the prohibition on removal applies also to this period. The issue has recently come up in certain cases before the courts.
  Of course no one supports bogus applications, but the issue between us has concerned the method of determining whether a bogus application has been made and whether that method is fair. Because of the serious consequences that can arise, it is essential that the procedures for determining bogus applications are fair. Many people who arrive here are in appalling personal circumstances and are fleeing from tremendous distress and civil war. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that the procedure for deciding whether they are entitled to stay here is fair and gives proper and adequate access to people to make their case.
  The Secretary of State implies that there are two types of claims those that are obviously well founded and those that are bogus. The term bogus does not merely cover claims that are made in bad faith, which is what the word often suggests, but claims which, technically, may not comply with the terns of the United Nations convention. It is critical to realise that that convention gives refugee status only to those who personally fear persecution. Someone fleeing from civil war or from a zone in which there is great risk may be in danger, but he is not being personally persecuted. The UN convention covers the first case but not the second. It does not cover the broader definition of refugee, which is used by many countries to denote the circumstances of a person who is in danger but is not being personally persecuted by the regime in his country.
  Before claims are judged to be groundless it is important carefully to examine the basis upon which the judgment is made. It is clear from reading the debates in Committee that the real dispute between us is over the process of determination. The Opposition believe that at many points in that process the appeal procedure is too
  642
  quick and the ability of people to make a case is foreshortened. That may give rise to injustice against those who have genuine claims for asylum.
  It is false to regard all claims that do not fall within the terms of the United Nations convention as claims in bad faith, because they are not. Many such claims are made in good faith but do not fit strictly into the United Nations convention. In such cases it is especially important that the determination and the appeals procedure are fair. We oppose the Bill not just because the removal of the right of appeal in immigration cases is wholly wrong and unfair, but because the Bill will not apply in the way that it should the rules of natural justice, which must be applied to such cases.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I can give the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) affirmative answers to all his questions. The Bill provides that someone should not he removed from this country pending the determination of an appeal. As I have explained, the new clause makes statutory our policy that no one will be required to he removed from this country until his application is determined. The combined effect will be to cover the period between a decision being taken and a possible appeal being filed. The time limit for appeals will be allowed to run before anyone is required to leave this country.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his acknowledgement that those who do not have a well-founded claim for asylum should be removed. It is difficult to understand how the Opposition can reconcile their assertion that people who do not have a well-founded claim should be removed with their amendments, some of which would make it extremely difficult to remove anybody or to defend ourselves against ill-founded claims. The key matter upon which the House must agree is a procedure which, with reasonable expedition and complete fairness, can determine whether someone falls within the terms of the convention or should be required to leave the country.
  I agree with some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. Matters are not always in black and white: not all political refugees are obviously political; not all bogus refugees are obviously bogus. Many people have no sensible claim at all and have to be removed quickly. Some are plainly political refugees because they have been political activists in the country from which they are fleeing an unpleasant regime. In between there is a large grey area for which it is necessary to have a proper system to determine whether people fall within the terms of the convention.
  We must not conjure up a vision of all refugees in harrowing and distressing circumstances. Many people who flee from imminent persecution arrive distressed and destitute and sometimes in unusual circumstances. However, most applications are from people who have travelled on international airliners and arrive at main airports. Others have been here for some time and, having exhausted all other arguments to establish a right to reside, decide to apply for political asylum because they suddenly recall that if they were returned to their country of origin they might face persecution. No doubt some hon. Members will conjure up visions of all asylum applicants being distressed and arriving hurriedly, fleeing from

  643
  persecution. Many applications are made in perfectly ordinary circumstances and our procedures are fair and give everybody a proper chance to put his arguments.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary agree that the grey area that he mentioned also applies to the many asylum applicants who in the past were not able to establish their rights under the convention but whom the Home Office thought it unconscionable to return? Consequently those people were given indefinite leave to remain. It does not automatically follow that someone who fails in his formal application will he bundled out of the country.
  Mr. Clarke: We are reasonably generous in giving exceptional leave to remain. Sometimes we grant it to people who do not qualify, simply because in the two, three or four years over which the case has been spun out people have acquired children, wives or other settled obligations and in all conscience we have allowed them to stay. There will always be people who, although they do not satisfy the convention, should be given exceptional leave to remain because, although they would not face personal persecution if returned, they would face demonstrable hardship. That is the most difficult area and the hon. Member for Sedgefield touched upon it.
  The Geneva convention covers those who run a personal risk of persecution because of their political or religious beliefs. In the public mind that becomes tangled with the cases of people who flee here from famine or civil war. We accept our humanitarian obligation to accept some of those people. That is why we are in the process of taking about 4,000 people from Bosnia who have been referred to us by the United Nations. We shall look at individual cases from wherever they come.
  There is no point in having an asylum that does not allow the return of anybody in any circumstances to a country in which there is civil war, poverty, famine or whatever. The entire population of some countries could qualify for asylum or refuge here if that definition were applied. That is why we have to look at each case and why exceptional leave to remain must be exceptional. It is a discretion of last resort.
  Mr. Blair: It is right for the Secretary of State to concede that there is a grey area between UN-defined refugees and bogus applicants, because that gives a different colour to the debate. However, his remarks about those coming here were callous. He spoke of them coming here on international airlines in a way that implied that they were part of the international jet set. I have never suggested that all those who make asylum claims are in circumstances of acute distress, but many are and many Labour Members have experience of working with such people. He must justify applying the procedures to all cases, whether or not they involve people who are in a good position to make their claim quickly. We measure our system of justice by how we deal with those who are worst off, not by how to deal with those who are best off.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Clarke: I accept that some arrive in considerable distress and I am satisfied that the way in which we deal with those cases is fair—indeed, our system goes to considerable lengths to be fair. However, it is wrong, for
  644
  the purposes of debate, to conjure up a vision of most of those arriving doing so in great distress. Most of those who arrive do so calmly and in comfortable circumstances. Many have been in this country for some time before suddenly realising that they face persecution at home and deciding to make an application for asylum. For that reason, while we have procedures that ensure justice in the case of those in the most distressed and difficult circumstances, we must not be naive in the rules that we apply to everyone else. We shall debate other subjects later —for example, there is an Opposition amendment that would make it easier for people to apply from third countries before they have even got here. Like that proposal, many of the Opposition's suggestions would negate any serious attempts to remove promptly those who can demonstrably and rapidly be seen to have no claim at all.
  Some of the arguments against the Opposition's ideas are not just technicalities, as has been suggested. Claims are often manifestly unfounded. I gave an example on Second Reading of a Sri Lankan who has been living in the United States for the past couple of years who would be returned because he has arrived from a safe third country. He cannot get asylum by saying that he would be persecuted if he went to Sri Lanka because he has not come from Sri Lanka and faces no difficulty in the country from which he has come. Many safe third country claims can now be rapidly turned round.
  Mr. Marlow: Obviously, the difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we are concerned with the interests, wishes and desires of the people of this country, whereas the Opposition are concerned about foreigners. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that in the past people have used the device of extension to put down roots in the United Kingdom. Inevitably, in certain circumstances, they have been given leave to remain. Would not it be helpful if my right hon. Friend said from the Dispatch Box today that if, in future, people use such devices, it would be most unlikely that leave to remain would be granted?
  Mr. Clarke: Those who are not able to demonstrate a well-founded claim will find that the British system of justice comes to a reasonably expeditious decision or a more expeditious decision than has been the custom. No system could be described as just if it takes years to reach finality, particularly with the weaker claims. We should be able to reach a fair decision reasonably quickly, which means that people will not have had a chance to put down roots. When we give exceptional leave to remain, the word "exceptional" is important and we shall deal with foreigners extremely well and fairly, I hope.
  This is a civilised country and we shall allow people from overseas to settle here if there is a compelling reason to allow them to do so even when they do not comply with the rules. However, it must be compelling. With the best will in the world, we cannot open our doors to all those who think that they would have a better quality of life here than in the distressed country from which they come.
  Mr. Blair: I understand that the debate has taken on a slightly different character, but I want to make one point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He knows perfectly well—that is what is so deplorable about the way in which the Government play this issue—that when he makes his claim about open-door policy, it is reported

  645
  outside as if the Opposition say that anyone who wants to come here can do so, while the Government say that that should not be the policy. Nobody is suggesting that.
  When the Home Secretary uses the example of a Sri Lankan who has lived in the United States as the basis for the Bill, that is debate by caricature rather than debate by principle. He fools nobody if he thinks that he can retain any credentials as a humane Home Secretary by engaging in such debate. As he has already agreed with me, we shall judge the Bill on how it affects those who are most distressed. If we can make out our claim, as I believe we can, that it treats them poorly, it is the Home Secretary, rather than us, who has the explaining to do.
  Mr. Clarke: I do not think for one moment that the Opposition can make out a case that the system treats people poorly. The delays and the difficulty in removing anyone who makes any kind of claim give rise to the circumstances that so annoy my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and many others. The present system gets in the way of our dealing fairly and promptly with the genuine applicants for political asylum whom we want to help.
  The hon. Gentleman may think that I am not being fair to his policies, hut, as the debate unfolds, we shall listen to what he says. Had we followed the advice of the Opposition throughout the passage of the Bill, we should have made no worthwhile changes or improvements in the present system. The way in which it operates leads to protracted stays in the country of people who turn out never to have had a genuine claim to be here. We have an immigration control system that is fair and effective and we need to extend it to ensure that it covers asylum properly as well.
  New clause 6 is part of that. It honours an undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in Committee that in no circumstances would we remove people from the country until their applications have properly been determined. On that basis, I trust that this new clause, at least, is non-controversial and I again commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

  SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS TO APPLY FOR ASYLUM OVERSEAS
  `Where it appears to the Secretary of State that conditions in a country outside the United Kingdom render it impracticable for a person to seek leave to enter the United Kingdom or otherwise to travel to the United Kingdom then the Secretary of State shall make arrangements in that country or in an adjoining country for persons to be able to claim asylum in the United Kingdom in a like manner to persons arriving in the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Allen.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Allen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in page 1, line 11, after 'removed', insert
  'or refused leave to enter, or refused entry clearance'.
  No. 2, in page 1, line 11 after 'from', insert 'or to'.
  Mr. Allen: I like it when I hear Conservatives using the word "bogus" because, as hon Members who served on the Committee will know, nothing was more bogus than their arguments about how much they cared about political asylum-seekers. In Committee, the debate made it obvious that the Bill was designed to make it harder for people to seek political asylum, rather than easier. This talk about bogus needs to be put back in the kennel where it belongs, with the Conservative claim about being caring.
  The only bogus part of our debates in Committee was the Conservatives' attempt to paint every individual who seeks refuge and succour in our land as some sort of social security scrounger. They argued by taking a case and extrapolating from it the thousands of people seeking refuge here, perhaps from Bosnia. They tainted such people with the claim that they are trying to twist and turn and manipulate the system and put in multiple applications for social security. That is what bogus conjures up in my mind and that of my colleagues who fought the Bill, line by line, in Committee.
  The other interesting argument that we are now getting from the Home Secretary is the almost intellectual point about the grey area between bogus applicants—that is, those with no claim whatsoever—and people who are genuinely seeking asylum here. We need to have a genuine intellectual debate on that point, which is why the argument is so appealing to Labour Members. Sadly, the House of Commons and its Committees are not structured so that we can have that debate properly, but there is a genuine debate about how we define categories of people who do not immediately, technically, fall into the political asylum seekers sector—for example, those who are fleeing from famine or civil war. That is a debate that did not take place in Committee. The issue was not debated on Second Reading and nor will it be debated this evening. It is a debate that will have to take place in a forum that takes itself rather more seriously than, sadly, the Committee did on several occasions.
  We contrast the vision that is being offered by the Home Secretary of a genuine discussion on how we categorise those people who are in the middle, as it were, with the practice of the Conservative Government. I do not have the sheaf of press cuttings from which I quoted on Second Reading, but it was possible for me to close my eyes and pick any headline from about 20 from The Sun, the Star and other newspapers. They were headlines such as "Don't let them in" and "Keep them out". That was the sort of nonsense that was pumped out by the Home Secretary's predecessor. There is now a slightly more intellectual feel about the arguments. I am sure that my hon. Friends will make it clear that much of the Bill owes its origins more to the pending leadership contest within the Conservative party than to a genuine effort to try to help those who are seeking political asylum in our country.
  Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the question of who is genuine can often mean life or death to those who are actually involved? Surely it is important that the organisation that used to be the refugee unit of the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service, and which is now the refugee legal centre—perhaps not all Conservative Members will agree with this but I am sure that it will find the agreement of most hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber is recognised as one that does a good job. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be unfortunate if, given the

  647
  short time that is allowed for appeals and other factors, the refugee legal centre found that it was not in a position to carry out a thorough investigation into whether an individual claim was genuine?
  Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend speaks with great experience of these matters and Ministers would do well to heed his advice. The organisations that have been involved, especially the UKIAS, have suffered from a degree of internal dissension which has not been helpful. I hope that those days are passed and that every support will be given by the Government to the refugee legal centre and other bodies. I hope, too, that they are given adequate resources and time to pursue individual cases in the way that my hon. Friend would wish.
  Long after this measure has been repealed people will remember 1992 in immigration and asylum terms, not for an ill-fated Bill but for the shameful way in which the Government responded to the crisis in Bosnia. It is laughable that only 150 people were initially allowed into the United Kingdom so as to escape from that conflict. It is barely more credible that now just 1,000 people are to be allowed into the country. Of course, the Government have the support of those who are seeking to bump up the numbers to a monumental 4,000. Even the Government admit that the crisis in Bosnia has produced 3 million displaced persons. It defies belief that our country can assist its European partners to the extent of taking in only 4,000 people, or 1,000 and their dependants, when other nations have done so much more. I find it especially shameful that the Austrian Government had to bail out the British Conservative Government when they refused to allow the 173 people who were trapped on the border to be assisted by Leeds Alert. They were taken into Austria to be looked after. That is one of the reasons that caused us to table the clause.
  The clause seeks to extend the possibilities for those who are seeking political asylum to pursue that course legally. I am greatly surprised that the Government have said that they will oppose the clause as it is written or as it could be amended if they are dissatisfied with its present wording.
  Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend has referred to Bosnian nationals being received in the United Kingdom. I have received a reply today from the Under-Secretary of State to the effect that so far only 79 former detainees from Bosnia have been received in this country. Apparently they arrived on 17 December. There is no sign of when the remaining 1,000 are to arrive. It could be months or possibly years before we see their arrival. Will my hon. Friend confirm that another reply to a question indicates that 29 former Yugoslav nationals were refused leave to enter and were removed from the United Kingdom? They applied to come here as visitors. The Minister does not know to where they have been returned. Surely that must be a matter of considerable concern.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend was tireless in his efforts in Committee and on the Floor of the House to highlight the difficulties faced by those who are suffering persecution in Bosnia. I commend his work to the House, and am glad to put that on the record.
  648
  It is pathetic—it would be laughable if it were not so tragic—that a mere 79 people from Bosnia have been allowed into our country to escape the evils of the regimes that are persecuting them directly and personally. I understand from my own sources that the 1,000 political asylum seekers that the Government have now agreed to take into the country may not arrive in the United Kingdom before the end of the summer. Only 1,000 people will be rescued from the conflict and the persecution that they face in the next seven or eight months following the imposition of the visa regime. That is deplorable. We need the new clause, or something like it, so that there is a legal means by which individual claims can be assessed in extreme, urgent and difficult circumstances in the country of origin.
  That is not something that would have to be done in every instance. I find it difficult to contemplate examples other than those that replicate actual instances in Bosnia. It would have been fortunate—it would have been the only fortunate feature of the conflict—if we had had three or four officials from the immigration department of the Home Office on the border in Bosnia to process claims. That did not happen and the Minister was not prepared to travel to Bosnia. The Government were not prepared to send a small contingent of Home Office officials to Bosnia. All that demonstrates to the entire world how seriously the Government were taking the plight of people in Bosnia.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Allen: I am happy to give way to an hon. Member who is one of the closest in the House, in terms of his constituency, to our continental partners. I have no doubt that he will have something to say about the cross-border controls that still apply at the port of Dover.
  Mr. Brazier: I take a particular interest in another conflict about which comparatively little is published, and that is in the Lebanon. When we consider what is going on in the Lebanon, in Nagorno Karabakh, in Cambodia and in Afghanistan, the only difference between those events and those in Bosnia is that the conflict in Bosnia appears on our television screens. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, however well meaning the clause is, the scale of the applications that would ensue would be unbelievably high? Does he expect the terms of the clause to appear in a future Labour party manifesto?
  Mr. Allen: If the hon. Gentleman reads the clause, he may be assisted. He might then understand what we are talking about. It begins:
  "Where it appears to the Secretary of State"
  that it is impractical for certain things to happen. In other words, the clause, if it were accepted, would not apply in all circumstances. It would probably not be appropriate in the circumstances that apply in the Lebanon.
  In Bosnia, as I attempted to explain earlier I shall have another go and take it more slowly—we saw a situation in which it was physically possible to have a small team of Home Office officials somewhere near the border of Bosnia. That would be an emergency response, and it would be made only if the Home Secretary considered it to be appropriate. It would not be a regular response. It would avoid, however, a situation which the Government precipitated in the context of the Leeds Alert episode. A

  649
  number of people on the border wanted to make a claim for political asylum, but there was nowhere in Bosnia to register it.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): Of course there was.
  Mr. Allen: That is true—but to do so those people would have had to fight their way back through the lines of the advancing Serbian infantry. They would have had to go back to Sarajevo or Belgrade, risking life and limb. They were emaciated, they had come out of camps and many had medical conditions. What sort of Government would put people through that, especially given the suffering that they had already endured?
  In fact, those people were quite fortunate because Leeds Alert was to hand. It drove to Vienna to get the necessary application forms and it then drove back to Bosnia so that they could be filled out. It then drove trans-Europe to London because that was the only place where the forms would be accepted. They were lodged with the Home Office, which kept Alert on a string for several days. Finally, it refused 169 and accepted just four applications.
  Had the Government really wanted to help in that emergency they would not have delayed the decisions. Then, even if the eventual outcome was the same, at least those individuals whose applications were not accepted would have been put out of their misery at a much earlier stage. That would have demonstrated a caring approach and shown that the Government were serious about wanting to help the asylum seekers. Instead, the Government had Mr. Beasley, Mr. Lamb and others dodging around, jumping through hoops and over obstacles, just to delay the decision on the political asylum applications.
  Mr. Roger Gale: I do not want to distract the hon. Gentleman too much, but I had hoped that he would respond fully to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that my hon. Friend would comment on the frontier controls still being enforced at the port of Dover. My hon. Friend's constituency has no sea frontier, but I have the adjacent seat which does have a channel coast port. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should abandon our frontier controls?
  Mr. Allen: I apologise to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I met his former agent on the first cross-channel ferry into Britain on 1 January and I obviously confused my facts. It was an entertaining evening. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), I shall say that the reason that I was on that ferry was that the need to show a passport was abolished on that day. Sadly, Herr Bangemann—and perhaps I should say head Bangemann—the Home Secretary strongly disagreed on removing the requirement to show passports at borders. The embarrassing incident of the arrest of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on immigration and asylum was avoided by the deft footwork of some Customs officers, who waved through the coach on which a number of Conservative colleagues from the European Parliament and myself were travelling. I had expected at least to be asked to show my passport, but the officers could not get the coach off the ferry and through
  650
  Customs quickly enough. I am still not sure about the position of those who travel abroad and return through Dover. Until the Home Secretary can answer that question, it is not for me to bail him out.
  Mr. Brazier: What are the hon. Gentleman's views?
  Mr. Allen: It is my view that it would assist those seeking political asylum in this country if, in an emergency such as that in Bosnia, there was a facility in the relevant country where people could discuss their applications and their needs. That would prevent the sort of nonsense that happened with Leeds Alert.
  I am not saying that the wording of the new clause is perfect. If the Minister gives me the nod, I am sure that my hon. Friends would agree to withdraw it so that it could be worded appropriately. The problem is that for those wanting political asylum in the United Kingdom, the Government are virtually insisting that they break the law. At the very least, someone, somewhere, has to be deceived. It is not possible to obtain political asylum abroad and bring it into the United Kingdom. An asylum seeker has to get to the United Kingdom by some means before he can make a claim. Therefore, by definition, he would have arrived here by a route that probably was not an honest route. For example, such a person would have to pretend to be a visitor or something else before he could land and say, "I claim political asylum."
  The new clause would legitimise individuals who go through due process, not necessarily at the port of entry but in extreme circumstances—such as those in Bosnia —in their own countries. I can only repeat that such an arrangement would be extraordinary rather than the norm. It appears that with the Bosnian problem the Government have—perhaps in pursuit of their privatisation policy—subcontracted to the United Nations and the Red Cross the decision on those who may be allowed in to this country. They have been given their tender contract —1,000 people over the next six to nine months. If that time scale is inaccurate, perhaps the Minister would correct me.
  It is possible that those two organisations, which are under great pressure in other areas, may nominate people who the Home Office may not regard as satisfactory and who may not meet the criteria. Perhaps they have not been in a camp for long enough, perhaps they have not lost sufficient numbers of relatives, or perhaps they have not suffered sufficient deprivation to qualify for the magical figure of 1,000 out of the 3 million people who have been displaced. In many ways, that is a failure of the European dimension as operated by the Government throughout their presidency. They did not make an adequate response to the Bosnian problem. Grey-suited men waited for photocalls in various European capitals, unable to make any impact on the Bosnian crisis. There was no genuine burden sharing, either in terms of the numbers of refugees coming out of those strife-torn areas or in making a proper financial settlement for those countries that took a greater share of the burden.
  Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend referred to visa applications from former Yugoslav nationals. In a reply today, the Foreign Office Minister said that
  "we are monitoring the effect of the visa regime on former Yugoslav nationals on the visa sections at Belgrade, Vienna, Zagreb, Budapest, Sofia, Rome, Milan, Florence, Naples,

  651
  Dusseldorf and Paris. At these posts 1,715 applications were received from former Yugoslav nationals—1,251 were granted, 238 were refused and 203 have a decision pending."
  Can my hon. Friend confirm that, if clause 9 is passed, the 238 who have been refused will have no right of appeal—like the thousands of others who, in the coming months, undoubtedly will also be refused—against those arbitrary decisions?
  Mr. Allen: I have to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot confirm that because I do not know. I listened very carefully, as did my hon. Friend, to the Minister's remarks in Committee—but the more that I re-read Hansard, the more confused I became, and I imagine the more confused will be individuals who want to exercise a right of appeal, if they are allowed to do such a thing. I would like the Minister to answer my hon. Friend's question because I believe that clause 9 and the rest of the Bill will not allow such people to appeal.
  6 pm
  The Bill's failure to make provision for people from abroad to apply in emergency circumstances will make life harder for those seeking political asylum. If it appears that people are reaching our country, the Bill introduces other, administrative obstacles. If those obstacles are overcome, the Bill imposes a visa regime. Where a visa regime is imposed, the Bill makes it difficult for it to be implemented by forcing people to go across Europe to obtain and to complete forms.
  We want to ensure justice for those people who, in Bosnia-type situations, have suffered, been abused, held captive, and deprived of the basics of human life. New clause 2—modest as it is and however imperfectly it may be worded—would give a sign. Rather than the sign that, the Government usually put up to people seeking our help and aid, it would give a sign that where circumstances permitted, it would be appropriate to send one or two people from the Home Office to vet claims and to allow applicants either to enter our country for political asylum or to tell them, "We are sorry, but you do not qualify."
  The fact that, as we understand it, the Government are not prepared to entertain new clause 2 in any form indicates the truth about their concern for those seeking political asylum—it just does not exist.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Clearly, new clause 2 is prompted by the political situation in the former Yugoslavia and the difficulties experienced by many people from that country in seeking political asylum in Britain. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who also led for Labour in Committee, spoke for many when he pointed out the unconscionable embarrassment that Britain has faced because of the small part that it played in dealing with the consequences of the fighting in the former Yugoslavia and in Bosnia in particular.
  I believe that the hon. Gentleman also thinks that it is unnecessary to amend the Bill to achieve his purposes because, as new clause 2 proposes, it would be possible for facilities to be made available in Vienna, other border towns of Austria or southern Germany, or in neighbouring countries, to evaluate applications and to determine whether Britain is prepared to play its part in providing a haven for those displaced.
  652
  New clause 2 attempts to tackle both the problem or asylum and that alluded to in the earlier debate, to which the Home Secretary made some reply—those people who do not strictly fall within the provisions of the convention but whom it would be reasonable for Britain to seek to offer a home.
  The clear sense of making such a provision close to the ground—close to Bosnia—is emphasied by the experiences we have witnessed at the border and the Leeds Alert case. It seems unlikely that many people in the countries in question will look to the United Kingdom for relief, given our record of dealing with such applications over the past year.
  Figures made available to me by the Library's research department show that between January and November this country received a mere 4,830 applications for asylum from the former Yugoslavia, refused 110,000, and granted asylum to none. That suggests a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Home Office for tackling the problem directly, and the belief that if we show ourselves to be tardy in dealing with applications, they will simply disappear.
  It is not good enough for Britain, as a member of the European Community, to land the problem in the lap of countries neighbouring the strife—for that is the practical consequence of Home Office policy and why tens of thousands are leaving the former Yugoslavia and arriving in countries such as Germany, which is hard pressed by the adherence of the eastern zone to the republic, and Austria, which is a very small country.
  The policy pursued by the British Government is positively dangerous not only for those countries which are receiving refugees but to the whole of Europe. It has undoubtedly strengthened the fear of foreign influx, where that influx has been large. If we look at the totality of the picture during the period to which I referred, the number granted asylum in this country from all over the world was a mere 1,040. That compares with 17,270 refused applications.
  Britain is not a country to which refugees would look for a haven in the times in which we live. It is striking, particularly if one considers the state of African countries languishing under dictatorships and tyrannies, how in many cases we have simply turned away all applications. It is open to question whether, if more were known, those applicants would be eligible for asylum status. On the face of it, one must take the view that it is the Government's policy strongly to discourage applications for asylum from abroad.
  Although the Government will undoubtedly refuse to accept new clause 2, saying that it is not strictly necessary —and, in a purely legal sense, it is not—I hope that they will indicate how they propose to share the burden, particularly with other European countries, of offering relief to those from the former Yugoslavia who are able to enter the other countries of the European Community. I hope that the Government will also tell us whether they are prepared to reconsider the exiguous numbers to whom they have undertaken to offer room and the criteria on which they will determine which cases to accept.
  Many people in this country believe that what is being done in their name to tackle the problem is wholly inadequate. They believe that it is stoking up trouble and making more likely disturbance and civil strife in other, at present more peaceful, parts of Europe. This is a matter of great urgency and in tabling new clause 2 the Labour party

  653
  has given the Government an opportunity to demonstrate that their views have advanced somewhat since the Christmas recess.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: As I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), I found it hard to repress a wave of nostalgia for the time that we spent in Committee. There he was, rambling up hill and down dale without touching too frequently on the subject in hand.
  When he discussed asylum applications, the hon. Gentleman forgot to mention the fact that some 75 per cent. of asylum-seekers apply after they have entered this country. I hope that he is not suggesting that the great majority of those applicants arrive as bogus visitors; many arrive as genuine visitors and then apply for asylum.
  The hon. Gentleman talked of his adventures on new year's eve and new year's day. He forgot to tell the House that, at Dover, an inspector—an immigration officer—boarded his coach, asked whether everyone on board was an EC citizen and then got off the coach. Immigration controls were clearly in place.
  Mr. Allen: It is true that a gentleman boarded the coach; but he asked whether everyone was having a good time.
  Mr. Wardle: I do not wish to malign the hon. Gentleman, but it is possible that he was having such a good time that he did not hear the rest of the sentence which, I am sure, was pronounced by the immigration officer.
  As the House will of course be aware, on 1 January there were no changes in controls at ports of entry in any EC country. If the hon. Gentleman had taken himself to Rome, Brussels or anywhere else in the Community that day, he would have found that that was the case.
  Mr. Madden: If any members of the party on the coach had admitted that they were not EC nationals, what would the immigration officer have done?
  Mr. Wardle: He would have wanted to ascertain their identity. Having done so, he would have exercised the appropriate controls. Had any such person proved to be a genuine non-EC national, the controls would have followed the pattern that they follow at every port of entry in regard to non-EC nationals—a pattern that will continue.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, North also referred to our record in the former Yugoslavia. He mentioned the 79 arrivals—helped by an intervention by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). It should be borne in mind that we rely on the UNHCR and the International Red Cross to pick out the cases that come to this country; the UNHCR selected the 79 and their dependants and will continue to send us further groups in the months to come.
  The passion of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) can never be doubted, but his logic sometimes defies belief. He referred to the role played by this country in Yugoslavia. I hope that he did not mean to slight the efforts of our soldiers, medical teams and technicians to deal with the terrible conflict in that country. He seemed to suggest, however, that the Germans, the Austrians and others had made a political decision to take the large numbers that had arrived, and that simply is not true. Perhaps 600,000 people have
  654
  arrived in Germany as a result of that terrible conflict, but that was not the consequence of a political decision: they just turned up there.
  6.15 pm
  Both new clause 2 and amendments Nos. 1 and 2 seek to broaden the United Kingdom's current international obligations to asylum seekers by including references to entry clearance procedures. The 1951 convention imposes obligations on signatory states in relation to refugees on their territory or at their borders. There is no obligation to allow refugees a free hand to choose where in the world they would like to live. New clause 2 seeks to put asylum seekers who are not in the United Kingdom—and thus have not engaged our obligations to afford protection—on the same footing as those who have arrived here. That would distort the concept of asylum, as understood within the terms of the Geneva convention, into just another category of immigration.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Minister mentioned logic earlier. What is the logic of his argument about whether or not the German Government sought to give asylum to 600,000 people? Is not it a fact that those people are there and that our country is a fellow member of the European Community? The Minister is simply not addressing our duty to deal with the problem.
  Mr. Wardle: It is the hon. Gentleman's logic that is faulty. Is he suggesting that because 600,000 people have arrived, without the express invitation of the German Government, to add to the large Yugoslav community in that country, every other country should take the same action? If so, he is ignoring agreements reached within the international community, and recommendations made by the UNHCR and the International Red Cross.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the applications of the nearly 5,000 former Yugoslays who applied for asylum in this country last year had not been resolved. Perhaps, in that context, he will understand the purpose of the Bill.
  Amendment No. 1 seeks to achieve a similar result to that of new clause 2 by including an entry clearance application in the definition of an asylum claim. It also seeks to include the ground that a refusal of leave to enter would breach our convention obligations. That is an unnecessary addition; removal following a refusal of leave to enter is the action that could breach our convention obligations and that is already provided for adequately in the wording of clause 1.
  Mr. Allen: The Minister seems to, find no difficulty in meeting our international partners through the ad hoc group of Immigration Ministers, the Trevi group, and the Schengen group—although we are not a member of that group, we receive information from it. He has no problem in negotiating arrangements such as harmonised visa and border controls. Why can he not, in the same fora, meet our European colleagues and negotiate a proper settlement for people who seek political asylum—either by sharing the burden of the numbers that we accept, or by sharing the financial contribution?
  Mr. Wardle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are playing a part in the international community. As was said many times in Committee, we are also turning to the experts—that is, the UNHCR—for precisely that purpose. We do not want, however, to see movement on a scale that would give way to the evil goal of ethnic cleansing.
  Mr. Bernie Grant rose—
  Mr. Wardle: The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) will understand that I wish to make progress. He will then, no doubt, want to listen to the reply of his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North.
  Mr. Grant: Will the Minister give way on this point?
  Mr. Wardle: How can I resist the hon. Gentleman's entreaties?
  Mr. Grant: I thank the Minister for being so kind as to give way on this matter. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will be referred to constantly in the Minister's speeches, so can he settle this matter once and for all? Does he agree that the UNHCR is not an independent body, as he claims, but that it comes under the United Nations and is accountable to the Security Council, of which Britain, France and the United States are permanent members? When the Minister refers to the UNHCR, therefore, he is talking about an organisation that is the servant of the United Nations and a lackey of the British Government.
  Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman has skilfully introduced a point that he made frequently in Committee —his views about the United Nations generally and of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in particular. He is right that the UNHCR is an arm of the United Nations. We, and the international community generally, regard the UNHCR as the experts on the ground who can make the decisions that really matter for the Bosnians.
  The simple fact is that we must inevitably take a different approach to asylum seekers in this country from those who have found safety in other countries and from those who might at some point have a claim to refugee status but who have not yet left their own countries. The United Kingdom cannot be the guarantor of every individual around the world who might fear persecution. We cannot undertake to evacuate everyone who claims to be in danger and to bring them here.
  The Geneva convention was very sensible and practical in its limitation of the definition of refugees to those who are already outside their own country. That does not mean that the international community has no interest in what happens to people in their own country. Major humanitarian efforts have often been made to assist the internally displaced, such as those in Bosnia, in those circumstances, but to hold out the prospect of emigration as a refugee, with no need to move or interrupt one's normal life while the application is considered, seems, in the real world of migratory pressures and strict immigration controls, to encourage unfounded applications and misuse.
  At present, we consider outside the normal immigration rules all applications that we receive for entry clearance to come here to claim asylum. The criteria that we apply are that the person is prima facie a refugee within the terms of the 1951 convention and that the United Kingdom is a more appropriate country of refuge than where the person is. I am sure that this is the right approach. It enables us to respond to cases where links with this country clearly make it right that the person should come here, but it does not open up a formal channel that would be open to misuse. No other European country adopts an approach
  656
  that is significantly different from ours. The proposed amendments would be likely to add substantially to the number of applications that we receive.
  The particular example of refugees from the former Yugoslavia has already been debated extensively. The availability of procedures of the sort proposed in new clause 2 would make it more rather than less difficult to deal with that matter in a coherent way. It is not practicable for everyone who might be at risk, or who might claim to be at risk, in the former Yugoslavia, or anywhere else, to come to this country, but in making our contribution to the international response to that terrible conflict we are working with the UNHCR to identify those humanitarian cases that it would make sense to bring to this country. As the House knows, I announced on 30 November that we were prepared to receive up to 1,000 ex-detainees and their dependants, which will amount to about 4,000 people.
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: I noted with interest what the Minister said about the close working relationship that the Government have with the UNHCR. If that relationship is so good, why did the Minister resist the pleas of the Opposition for the UNHCR handbook to be incorporated in the Bill?
  Mr. Wardle: Because there is no need for it to be incorporated in the Bill. That does not mean that the handbook is disregarded, as I reminded the hon. Lady in Committee and seek to do now.
  We are ready to consider in the normal way any applications for entry clearance that we receive from individuals, as well as those put forward by UNHCR. I repeat that the Government remain ready to consider applications from abroad to come to the United Kingdom to seek asylum. I am convinced, however, that we should not create a new immigration channel for that purpose, as new clause 2 seeks to do. Instead, we should continue to deal with those applications on a discretionary basis, outside the normal immigration rules. That, together with a readiness to work with the international organisations to find solutions to refugee-producing situations, seems to me to be the proper and practical approach and the one that is most likely to produce a helpful outcome. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject new clause 2.
  Mr. Allen: By leave of the House, may I say in reply that by tabling new clause 2 we have attempted to open up the debate and to allow the Government to show whether they really want to assist genuine political refugees who are in absolutely appalling circumstances. There is an almost unique set of circumstances in Bosnia. Had we been able to send people to Bosnia to assist them in making their applications—and to reject, where necessary, their applications—we should have been in a position to do some good. By tabling the new clause and probing the Government to find out whether they were prepared to seek a solution to the problem of political asylum seekers, we were hoping for a good response. Sadly, we have received the response that we expected. The Government have rejected our overtures to find better ways to help asylum seekers.
  The same applies to the grey area between those who are so obviously political asylum seekers and those who are so obviously not—the victims of civil war, famine and so on. It is apparent that that grey area needs to be looked at by a new Government. As the Conservative

  657
  Government have refused even to consider the possibility of helping genuine political refugees, we intend to press the new clause to a Division.
  Questions put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 295.

  Division No. 105]

  [6.27 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Faulds, Andrew

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Allen, Graham

  Flynn, Paul

  Alton, David

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Foulkes, George

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Fraser, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fyfe, Maria

  Austin-Walker, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Garrett, John

  Barnes, Harry

  George, Bruce

  Battle, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bayley, Hugh

  Godsiff, Roger

  Beckett, Margaret

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Gordon, Mildred

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Benton, Joe

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Gunnell, John

  Betts, Clive

  Hain, Peter

  Blair, Tony

  Hall, Mike

  Boateng, Paul

  Hanson, David

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Hardy, Peter

  Bradley, Keith

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Henderson, Doug

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Heppell, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Burden, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Caborn, Richard

  Home Robertson, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clelland, David

  Hutton, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Cohen, Harry

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jamieson, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Janner, Greville

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cox, Tom

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cryer, Bob

  Keen, Alan

  Cummings, John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dafis, Cynog

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Darling, Alistair

  Leighton, Ron

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lewis, Terry

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Denham, John

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dewar, Donald

  McCartney, Ian

  Dixon, Don

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dobson, Frank

  McFall, John

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McKelvey, William

  Dowd, Jim

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McLeish, Henry

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Maclennan, Robert

  Enright, Derek

  McMaster, Gordon

  Etherington, Bill

  Madden, Max

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  658

  Maxton, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Michael, Alun

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Short, Clare

  Milburn, Alan

  Simpson, Alan

  Miller, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

  Snape, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Paul

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Spellar, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stevenson, George

  Olner, William

  Stott, Roger

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Pendry, Tom

  Straw, Jack

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Dennis

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wallace, James

  Prescott, John

  Walley, Joan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Purchase, Ken

  Watson, Mike

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Radice, Giles

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Redmond, Martin

  Wilson, Brian

  Reid, Dr John

  Winnick, David

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rogers, Allan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mr. Alan Meale.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Burns, Simon

  Alexander, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Butler, Peter

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Ancram, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cash, William

  Atkins, Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Churchill, Mr

  Baldry, Tony

  Clappison, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Bates, Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coe, Sebastian

  Beggs, Roy

  Colvin, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Congdon, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Body, Sir Richard

  Couchman, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cran, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Boswell, Tim

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Devlin, Tim

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dicks, Terry

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bright, Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dover, Den

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Duncan, Alan

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  659

  Dunn, Bob

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Eggar, Tim

  Legg, Barry

  Elletson, Harold

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Evennett, David

  Lord, Michael

  Faber, David

  Luff, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forman, Nigel

  Maclean, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Madel, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  French, Douglas

  Malone, Gerald

  Gale, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Gallie, Phil

  Marland, Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marlow, Tony

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gill, Christopher

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Merchant, Piers

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Iain

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moate, Roger

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hague, William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Needham, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Norris, Steve

  Hawksley, Warren

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heald, Oliver

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Patnick, Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Tom

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  660

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Trend, Michael

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Trimble, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spring, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Sproat, Iain

  Ward, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Steen, Anthony

  Watts, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Stern, Michael

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stewart, Allan

  Whitney, Ray

  Streeter, Gary

  Whittingdale, John

  Sumberg, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sykes, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wood, Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

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

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Tracey, Richard

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

  EXAMINATION: OFFENCES
  '.—(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of not more than level 5 on the standard scale or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both, in any of the following cases:—

  (a) he either by himself or in conjunction with any other person prevents any asylum seeker who has arrived or attempted to arrive in the territory of the United Kingdom from being lawfully examined by an immigration officer;

  (b) he either by himself or in conjunction with any other person or persons hinders or delays the asylum seeker who has arrived or attempted to arrive in the territory of the United Kingdom from being lawfully examined by an immigration officer;

  (c) if being an immigration officer he conducts the examination either without authority or in such a manner as to render that examination unlawful;

  (d) if as owner or agent of a ship or aircraft he procures, assists or permits any employee, servant or agent or any other person to commit an offence under subsection (a) or (b) above;

  (2) Subsection (1) above applies to matters both within and outside the territory of the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Fraser.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  One welcome aspect of the Bill is that, for the first time, applicants for political asylum who arrive at a port in the United Kingdom will have a statutory right of appeal. About three quarters of those who are already here and apply for political asylum already have that right, but it is generally agreed that those who flee from another country and arrive at a port probably have the most pressing need to claim refuge.
  There are many unwelcome aspects of the Bill, but the one that I have mentioned is a welcome one. However, it is tarnished and corroded by two main elements in the Bill: first, the removal of the right of appeal for visitors, with

  661
  which I shall deal later; and, secondly, the legislative barbed wire barrier which the Bill flings out. The barbed wire barrier is designed to prevent people from ever availing themselves of the right to claim political asylum in the United Kingdom in the first place.
  The underlying principle of the Bill is getting one's foot in the door. Unless the applicant gets his or her foot in the door, it is impossible to exercise the right to claim asylum and a right of appeal. The Government have a hidden and rather sinister strategy to ensure that as few people as possible get that foot in the door. If people do not get their foot in the door, the Government do not have to say yes or no or provide any right of appeal.
  There are two particular barbs on the legal barbed wire barrier to refugees. The first is the practice of requiring visas to he granted to people from countries from which people are likely to flee and to seek political asylum. The rule is easily forecast. If Kurds want to come from Turkey to claim political asylum, impose a visa regime on Turkey. If Tamils want to come from Sri Lanka to claim political asylum because of undoubted problems in that country, impose a visa. If people want to come from former Yugoslavia to claim political asylum in Britain, impose a visa to prevent them from getting a foot in the door to make that application. That is the first barb in the legal barbed wire harrier that has been put around the country.
  6.45 pm
  The second barb is the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. If people who know that they need a visa to come to the United Kingdom are foolish enough to apply in an overseas country for a visa to visit the United Kingdom and disclose, as did the Bosnian refugees, that they are likely to claim persecution, it follows as night follows day that the application will be refused. Therefore, people have no possibility of making an application for asylum which is subject to an appeal. That brings into play the carriers' liability Act.
  If an applicant boards an aircraft or ship without a visa, arrives in the United Kingdom and claims political asylum —that is to say, if that person gets a foot in the door—the carrier of the applicant for political asylum will be fined £2,000 without any right of appeal. The Act puts a £2,000 premium on the carrier. It physically prevents people from making an application to an immigration officer in the United Kingdom.
  United Kingdom law will perhaps not apply for the whole of the journey. It depends on the carrier and the ship. The system which the Government have put together to prevent people from arriving here almost encourages bounty hunters who will pick out prospective applicants whose presence in the United Kingdom could otherwise cost the carrier £2,000 per person. We know that the fines imposed on carriers amount to many millions of pounds.
  I understand that there have been examples of people being physically prevented from reaching an immigration officer in the United Kingdom. The new clause would make that a criminal offence.
  The new clause also deals with the rarer circumstances —I do not suggest that they arise often—in which an immigration officer might interview an applicant for admission to the United Kingdom but not admit of the fact that an application for political asylum was made and then return that person to a third country. That is what happens to people who arrive in the United Kingdom and claim admission. If they come from a visa country and do
  662
  not make an application for political asylum, they can be removed almost within hours and sent back to a third country. The new clause would equally make a refusal under those circumstances a criminal offence.
  The carriers' liability Act puts a £2,000 price on the head of every visaless refugee who comes to Britain. The new clause would at least be a discouragement to claiming that price. The evil with which the new clause proposes to deal is not imagined. There have been several examples in which a price has been claimed. It is possible that the increase in the fine on carriers from £1,000 to £2,000, together with events in various parts of the world, will make the process of claiming a price on the head of prospective applicants more attractive than ever to carriers and disreputable people.
  If the Government are making it a criminal offence for applicants for political asylum not to give their fingerprints, surely they should make it a criminal offence for anyone to prevent such people from reaching an immigration officer to have even the opportunity to have their fingerprints taken.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I want to ask the Minister a question which arises from subsection (1)(c) of the new clause. Unless I am seriously misguided, I hope that the Government will not accept the new clause because of the massive problems that paragraph (c) could create for immigration officers.
  Most of the debates today, in Committee and elsewhere have been based on the false premise that the British Parliament and Government control immigration policy and the right of people to come to this country. As we well know, significant changes have been imposed on us by our membership of the European Community. First, every citizen of a European Community country is entitled to come here. Secondly, we will shortly face the problem of citizens of some overseas colonies who will have the automatic right of admission. The citizens of a small Portuguese colony, not far from Hong Kong, will shortly be fully entitled to come to this country, as the Government are well aware, which could create problems if people from Hong Kong go to that colony.
  I have a high regard for the Under-Secretary of State and have never doubted his integrity. I hope that he will give us some guidance on the position of the Government and of immigration officers in the event of a case being taken to the European Court, as is likely, to decide whether a person coming to an EC country from a third-world country will have the automatic right of admission to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Allen: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would help me to understand his argument. Is he criticising the fact that most immigration decisions are made by meetings of European Community Ministers? Is he criticising the fact that none of the decisions comes before the European Commission or the European Parliament? If that happened, would it not give us a better chance to scrutinise what goes on in the Trevi group and the ad hoc group of' Immigration Ministers?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman believes that argument, he should consider the matter more carefully. As he well knows, there is no way that the European Parliament, or any other such body, could consider such matters. It would be different if we were to start all over again and have a European Government and a European

  663
  Parliament, but the hon. Gentleman is living in cloud cuckoo land. As he is well aware, the decisions will be taken by the European Court—a political court, which is not controlled by any democratic body. Irrespective of whether one considers that that is a good or a bad thing, the basic issue is important.
  The Government will be well aware that the Home Secretary has had long discussions with Commissioner Bangemann because it was assumed that article 7 might allow any person from a third-world country who was entitled to come to any part of the European Community to come to the United Kingdom. It was assumed that a bona fide visitor to Greece, Portugal or Italy would have an automatic right of entry here, despite our laws. The Home Secretary has had long discussions with Mr. Bangemann and it seems that a decision has been delayed for a year or more. However, as the Minister knows well, that agreement does not prevent anyone from a third-world country from going to the European Court to claim that, because of article 7, he or she should have right of admission into the United Kingdom. Although we cannot prejudge such matters, the signs are that the European Court would find in favour of such an application and in those circumstances we could face considerable problems. Italy is virtually an open house country, to which it is easy to gain admission, and Greece poses a problem because, although Athens is tightly controlled, it is easy to gain entry to the rest of the country.
  I do not wish simply to peddle an EC argument; I wish to point out the dangers if we do not have effective controls. I think that all hon. Members have been horrified at recent events in Germany, which have happened not because the Germans are nasty people but because they gained the impression—rightly or wrongly—that there was no effective control over people coming to their country from the eastern bloc. For that reason, some horrible things happened, horrible deeds were done and horrible things were said.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House who are anxious to preserve good race relations in this country are also anxious to prevent a situation in which we will have limited control over the admission of people from third-world countries to this country. We are well aware that there is a huge demand from people in third-world countries to come here because of economic considerations, although those are not as vital during a time of great depression, and because of the bonds between the United Kingdom and parts of the third world. Every hon. Member knows of the numbers of people from Bangladesh and Pakistan who want to come to this country because of our historic links and the successes of fellow citizens who have settled here. The Minister knows that if we did not have effective immigration controls the good relations that many people—including some Ministers in the Department—fight hard to maintain could be undermined.
  Can the Government give us any indication of the advice that they will give to immigration officers if such a case should be taken to the European Court? We know that court decisions take about one year and all kinds of problems could arise during the deliberations. If, after one year, the decision went against the Government, what on earth would be the position of immigration officers and
  664
  Department officials who had refused entry to people in the meantime? Considerable damage could result. Considerable difficulties can arise in law if one deprives someone of something to which he is later found to be legally entitled. Can the Minister tell us what advice he will give to immigration officers if we were to lose such a case?
  I have sat in this House for far too long not to appreciate that he and other Ministers must get fed up with people asking hypothetical questions. However, the Minister and officials at the Department are well aware that this is in no sense a hypothetical issue. The problem will arise, either because someone takes a case to the European Court, or because of the eventual agreement between the Government and Mr. Bangemann because of what is contained in article 7.
  I hope that the Minister will give us some guidance about what he thinks will be the legal position of immigration officers while a court decision is being taken, and what Government policy will be if the decision goes against them, which I fear will be the case. That will pose a serious problem and I am sure that it worries Members on both sides of the House. We cannot run away from it.
  Knowing the Minister as I do, I hope that he will make a statement now, rather than causing panic if such a case came to the European Court. How much better it would be for the Government to face up to the decision and to make an early statement about what they intend to do.
  Knowing the Minister as I do and knowing of his integrity, as I said before—something that I have said of only one other Minister—I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously, will face up to it and will tell us, on behalf of the Government, about their approach to the issue.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is a man of considerable charm, but I am not used to his laying it on with a trowel in the fashion that he has just done. He is inviting me to speculate on a hypothetical situation—a case that he has dreamt up. I shall respond, as best I can, by saying where we are now, and I shall let him draw his conclusions and take what he will to the debates on Maastricht later this week and in following weeks. The Government will strongly resist any such case. On the back of expert legal advice, we are confident that we would be successful.
  I shall make three points which may help my hon. Friend, although I appreciate that he is an expert on the Maastricht treaty. The House will be aware that only two immigration issues come within treaty competence: a common visa list will be established for member countries, as well as a standard visa format. Everything else to do with immigration which is sometimes debated in this House and elsewhere will come under the pillar of co-operation, with Immigration Ministers of the different countries meeting on a regular basis and seeking to harmonise their policies, but not seeking to establish a standard set of policies.
  7 pm
  Mr. Fraser: Are we not being a little misled? Is there not a provision in the Maastricht treaty to the effect that a majority, which could exclude the United Kingdom, could impose a visa restriction when, in the words of that treaty, there is a threat to entry to the Community?
  Mr. Wardle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about that, but, in terms of the practical arrangements for our normal day-to-day immigration controls, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the two features I have outlined will come within treaty competence. However, I accept the advice that the hon. Gentleman has offered to the House.
  I should like to raise two more points in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and then I shall consider the points raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser).
  Undoubtedly the Commission has a different interpretation of these matters and we dispute its interpretation of article 8A. We are absolutely clear that it does not apply to third-country nationals—people from non-EC countries—who were at the crux of the hypothetical situation which my hon. Friend described. We shall continue to maintain the check on the identity of all passengers coming into the United Kingdom to establish whether they are third-country nationals or not.
  As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) frequently reminded us in Committee, we are not a member of the Schengen group. However, we applaud the efforts made by the nine EC countries which are members of it to improve their frontier controls. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East rightly said, those countries face huge problems with their long land-locked borders and controls are difficult. That is another reason why we shall continue to hold to our interpretation of article 8A and maintain our checks on non-EC nationals.
  The hon. Member for Norwood spoke of allegations that some asylum applicants have been physically prevented from gaining access to an immigration officer to make their application. The whole House shares the hon. Gentleman's concern that people who come to this country wishing to claim asylum should have an unfettered opportunity to do so.
  I am aware that it has been alleged that, in some cases, passengers have been prevented from disembarking or from approaching immigration control. I assure the House, as I assured the Committee on the same subject, that the Government would not condone such behaviour. Immigration officers have clear instructions that a person who claims asylum while on United Kingdom soil must have his or her application referred to the asylum division of the Home Office.
  I am pleased to say that there is no evidence that immigration officers have been involved in unauthorised removals, which would be contrary to their instructions. Having said that, I very much doubt that the creation of the new criminal offence, as proposed in the new clause, would be an appropriate response to that issue.
  It is equally unacceptable that airlines should seek physically to prevent a passenger from approaching immigration control. Once the passenger has arrived in the United Kingdom, it is too late for the airline to ask itself whether it should have carried that passenger.
  I must take issue with subsection (2) of the new clause, which says that an offence would be committed even if the act in question took place outside the United Kingdom. That would be an extraordinary extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction and, in any case, it would not be enforceable. I assume that it is intended to render the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 unworkable, because airlines would argue that they were prevented from denying boarding to undocumented passengers.
  666
  I have already made clear, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State earlier today, that we shall abide by our obligations under the 1951 convention in relation to people who have arrived in this country and who seek our protection. There is no obligation upon us, however, to facilitate the passage of that person to the United Kingdom. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Norwood allowed, it is frequently the pattern these days that passengers do not embark for the United Kingdom directly from the country of alleged persecution; they first find their way to a country of transit.
  The new clause would effectively render the 1987 Act unworkable, and for that reason I urge the House to reject it.
  Question put and negatived.

New Clause 4

  PERIOD OF NOTICE AFTER NOTICE OF DECISION TO APPEAL
  `.—(1) No rule made by virtue of Schedule 2 of this Act shall provide for a notice of appeal against an asylum decision to be given, unless it provides for a period of ten days after receiving notice of the decision to give notice of appeal.
  (2) Asylum decision in this section means a decision to refuse leave to enter the United Kingdom or to remove a person from the United Kingdom or to refuse to vary the leave of a person in the United Kingdom, or to make a decision to deport, or to refuse to revoke a deportation order, or to refuse entry clearance to the United Kingdom where the grounds of appeal are that the decision is contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention.
  (3) Where the Secretary of State has given a certificate under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to this Act the period of ten days shall be read as a period of five days.'.—[Mr. Blair.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Blair: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
  No. 24, in page 13, line 28, at end insert—
  '(4)(A)(1) The time limit for giving notice of any appeal shall be no less than 10 days unless the Secretary of State has certified that in his opinion the person's asylum claim is without foundation.
  (2) In the event that he shall so certify, the time limit shall be 2 days provided that the person is in detention and has submitted a claim for asylum on arrival to an immigration officer.'.
  No. 25, in page 13, line 33, leave out from 'he' to 'refer' and insert 'shall'.
  Mr. Blair: The new clause and the amendments raise two issues: first, when the accelerated procedure for lodging appeals arises under the legislation—in other words, the 48–hour rule—and, secondly, whether that time limit is sufficient for those with appeals to be able to lodge them properly.
  In respect of the first issue, the category of cases to which the 48–hour rule applies, the intention of the Government was put on the record in Committee when the Minister made it clear that the accelerated procedure—the fast-track procedure—for hearing appeals should apply only to port entry cases where the person was in detention and the Secretary of State had certified the claim as groundless. It was made clear that those two preconditions should apply. That is somewhat at odds with the explanation of the legislation given by the Secretary of State on Second Reading, but we will let that pass.

  667
  The problem is that the interpretation and intention of the Government is by no means clear from the legislation and the rules themselves. Rule 5(2) of the draft appeal rules states:
  "The time limit for giving notice of appeal shall be two days in a case where the appeal is made under section 7(1) of this Bill."
  Clause 7(1) applies in any case where there has been personal service on the appellant of the notice of decision. On the face of it, the combination of the rules plus clause 7 means that this accelerated procedure applies in any circumstance when notice of the decision is served personally. As I understand it, the Government's answer to that is that, as a matter of practice, it will apply only to those in detention and, again as a matter of practice, the only people detained will be those whose claims are deemed groundless. Therefore, the Government say that the practical effect of their procedure is that the accelerated procedure will apply only to those with groundless claims who are in detention.
  I should be grateful if the Minister would address the following two points. First, the limitation on the plain meaning of the rules and the clause is not stipulated anywhere in the rules. Secondly, it does not appear to accord with practice. I am advised, and I have checked with a number of those operating in this area, that some people are detained even though their claims are not groundless, while some are served notices personally even though they have neither been detained nor are their claims groundless. The notion that this applies in practical circumstances—that personal service is effected only on those in detention whose claims have been certified as groundless—does not appear to be the case. Some notices arc served personally even though that applicant is neither in detention nor is his claim groundless.
  If the Government's intention is clear and not in dispute. the simple solution would be to alter the rules to ensure that the stated intention accords with the precise letter of the rules. Since it is now three months since this matter was first raised on Second Reading, I should have thought that the Minister would be able to give us an undertaking about the rules and their nature.
  The other issue on which I seek clarification is the time limit. I do not want to go back over the territory that we explored in relation to clause 6, but it has become increasingly clear from debates in Committee and in the House that when we talk about an accelerated procedure weeding out bogus claims, in reality the term "bogus" is a misdescription and a particularly pejorative one. Claims will be made in good faith but will concern the category of people who, although not strictly refugees under the United Nations convention, are in fear of their lives because they are fleeing from civil distress, civil war or some other calamity.
  The two days for the accelerated procedure has been criticised by many of those who operate in that area. It has also been criticised by the Law Society, the Bar Council, churches, and experts on and representatives of refugee groups. As there is a procedure for that time limit to be extended, our amendment extending the two-day period to five days is not unreasonable.
  I draw the Minister's attentition to the strong case that was made in the other place, when the matter was debated before the general election. Lord Ackner said that if the
  668
  appeal procedures are truncated and there is insufficient time for people to prepare and launch an appeal satisfactorily, the only danger that we face is an increase in the number of applications for judicial review. That is a much more protracted and costly process and would slow down the procedure for determination. If there were a possibility of that happening as result of shortening the appeal period, it would not be in the interests of applicants, the Government or those with a view of the public interest.
  Will the Minister respond, first, to the time limit, which we believe is too short to allow proper preparation of the case, and, secondly, ensure that the draft appeal rules are brought into accordance with the Government's stated intentions so that there can be no mistake about people's rights or to whom the accelerated procedure will apply?
  Mr. Charles Wardle: First, I give the assurance which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seeks. I confirm that the draft rules will be amended in accordance with the undertakings that I gave in Committee. If those who are detained are refused but it is deemed that their case is not groundless, the accelerated timetable will not apply, so there will be a longer period. 1 hope that that clarifies another point which the hon. Gentleman raised.
  New clause 4 and amendment No. 24 deal with time limits for bringing appeals and the accelerated procedure for certain unfounded cases. Although the hon. Member for Sedgefield said that he was reluctant to go back over that ground, I hope that he will be patient with me if I cover a little of it rapidly with the aim of clarification.
  Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 sets up a special procedure for appeals against refusal of entry, refusal to revoke a deportation order or directions for removal as an illegal entry where the Secretary of State certifies the asylum claim to be without foundation. Where a special adjudicator agrees with that view, there is no further appeal to the tribunal. Where he does not agree, he may either allow or dismiss the appeal or he may refer the case back to the Secretary of State for reconsideration.
  In addition, the draft procedure rules contain a provision for a shorter time limit for lodging an appeal against refusal of entry—two days instead of 10—where the notice of refusal is served in person. In practice, that means that the applicant will be detained. My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear on Second Reading that this shorter time limit is intended to apply only in cases where the claim is certified to be without foundation and I confirm that that will be incorporated into the draft procedure rules when they are revised.
  Amendment No. 24 correctly summarises the position in which the shorter time limits will apply. However, time limits are appropriately dealt with in the procedure rules, rather than the primary legislation.
  New clause 4 is misconceived in a number of ways. For example, it includes in the definition of an asylum decision a refusal of entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom. The Bill does not confer a right of appeal to a special adjudicator against refusal of entry clearance, since a person must be in the United Kingdom to claim asylum here.
  Amendment No. 25 would require a special adjudicator who disagreed with the Secretary of State's view that a claim was without foundation to refer the case back for reconsideration rather than allowing or dismissing the appeal. In most such cases reference back will be the

  669
  appropriate course as there will not have been substantive consideration of the claim—for example, where my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State considers the claim not to engage our obligations under the convention because it is proposed to remove the appellant to a safe third country. In cases where there has already been substantive consideration of the claim, however, the special adjudicator may have before him the necessary information to enable him to dismiss or allow the appeal and there is no good reason to prevent him from doing so.
  I therefore urge the House to reject the new clause and both amendments.
  7.15 pm
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 290.

  Division No. 106]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Darling, Alistair

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davies, Rt Ron Denzil (Llanelli)

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Alton, David

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Denham, John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dewar, Donald

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dixon, Don

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Barnes, Harry

  Dowd, Jim

  Battle, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Beckett, Margaret

  Enright, Derek

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J

  Etherington, Bill

  Bell, Stuart

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fatchett, Derek

  Benton, Joe

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Flynn, Paul

  Betts, Clive

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Blair, Tony

  Foulkes, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Fraser, John

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bradley, Keith

  Gapes, Mike

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  George, Bruce

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Burden, Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Byers, Stephen

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gunnell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hall, Mike

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Coffey, Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Doug

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heppell, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Home Robertson, John

  Cox, Tom

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cryer, Bob

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  670

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Prescott, John

  Hutton, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ingram, Adam

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Radice, Giles

  Jamieson, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Janner, Greville

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rogers, Allan

  Keen, Alan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rooney, Terry

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Leighton, Ron

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lewis, Terry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Short, Clare

  McCartney, Ian

  Simpson, Alan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  McMaster, Gordon

  Soley, Clive

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Madden, Max

  Spellar, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Marek, Dr John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Stevenson, George

  Maxton, John

  Stott, Roger

  Meale, Alan

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Milburn, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Miller, Andrew

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wallace, James

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Walley, Joan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morley, Elliot

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Watson, Mike

  Mullin, Chris

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Murphy, Paul

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Winnick, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Worthington, Tony

  Olner, William

  Wray, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Pendry, Tom

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pope, Greg

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Batiste, Spencer

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Beggs, Roy

  Alexander, Richard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Amess, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Ancram, Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Ashby, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Atkins, Robert

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bowis, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Baldry, Tony

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Brazier, Julian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bright, Graham

  Bates, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  671

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Harris, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burns, Simon

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burt, Alistair

  Hawksley, Warren

  Butler, Peter

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butterfill, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hendry, Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Hicks, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Churchill, Mr

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clappison, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Horam, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Congdon, David

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jack, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Couchman, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Jessel, Toby

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Key, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dicks, Terry

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knapman, Roger

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knox, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Eggar, Tim

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Elletson, Harold

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lightbown, David

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Luff, Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, David

  Gale, Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gallie, Phil

  Malone, Gerald

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mans, Keith

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marland, Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Marlow, Tony

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorst, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hague, William

  Moate, Roger

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moss, Malcolm

  672

  Needham, Richard

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stephen, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stewart, Allan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Streeter, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Sumberg, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Sweeney, Walter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sykes, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pickles, Eric

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

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

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Richards, Rod

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Riddick, Graham

  Viggers, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Waller, Gary

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Ward, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Watts, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Wells, Bowen

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Whittingdale, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilkinson, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Willetts, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wilshire, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Sproat, Iain

  Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

  CREDIBILITY OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS
  'Notwithstanding anything in any asylum or immigration rule, the credibility of an asylum-seeker may not be judged by reference to any of the following grounds—

  (a) a failure to make immediate disclosure of all material facts;

  (b) the destruction of documents;

  (c) a failure to apply forthwith;

  (d) political activities in the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Allen.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Allen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause refers to the credibility tests that will apply to people applying for political asylum. It is another example of law being made outside the parliamentary process. It is deplorable that the draft immigration rules do not appear on the face of the Bill. They are important to people applying for political asylum and it should not be left to us to devise ways of discussing them in the House. They should be in the Bill, so that those who want to can ask questions about them.

  673
  7.30 pm
  The rules list the criteria that can be taken into account when dealing with asylum applications. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees office has made its position quite clear. It is of the opinion that the draft provisions
  "do not ensure the full implementation of the 1951 Convention [relating to the status of refugees] in the United Kingdom and some of them appear to vary from internationally adopted principles relating to asylum and the protection of refugees.'
  That is a clear warning to the Home Office that its proposals may not meet international standards. It is not even clear why the Home Office thought many of these proposals necessary in the first place.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred to the moves towards European harmonisation, although he did not seem too keen to introduce an element of European accountability to this matter. It appears that the United Kingdom is adopting a tougher line than are many of our European partners. In an interesting exercise the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants compared the text of the draft immigration rules with the text of the resolution adopted by the ad hoc group of European Immigration Ministers. There are a number of revealing comparisons between the allegedly hard-line attitude of some European countries and the actual words used by the ad hoc group of Ministers—words with a softer ring to them than many of the phrases that appear in our immigration rules.
  The ad hoc group resolution mentions an asylum seeker who has
  "deliberately made false representations about his claim. either orally or in writing, after applying for asylum".
  The words "deliberately" and "after applying for asylum" do not appear in the English text. Throughout the ad hoc group's document one is aware of more qualifications and greater sensitivity in what is, after all, a brutal political area. Far from harmonising our rules with those of Europe, it seems that we are bringing our European partners down to our level—that level being the lowest common denominator.
  One of the conditions in the rules is that the applicant
  "has made false representations, either orally or in writing".
  That provides no safeguards for asylum seekers and does not mention the motivation that may have been behind untrue statements. So the Home Office could decide to refuse an application merely because of its own misunderstanding that a false representation had been made. Further, there are no time limits on this, so it would mean that the person who had sought entry as a visitor because he did not understand the procedures for claiming asylum, and who had therefore maintained that he would leave the country after a visit, could be refused on credibility grounds.
  The Home Office notes to the rules also state:
  "Self-evidently, if the applicant has been shown to have lied on specific points there will be more general doubt about his story",
  but there is no explanation of the reasons why many asylum seekers do not feel secure enough to reveal all the details of their suffering immediately after meeting an official.
  The second criterion is that an applicant has
  "destroyed, damaged or disposed of any passport, other document or ticket relevant to his claim".
  That needs further examination. As it stands, the rule means that if a passport has been accidentally damaged,
  674
  that can be held against the applicant. There is no requirement to show that the damage occurred deliberately. The Home Office notes assume that such damage is always deliberate so as to make it more difficult to remove people if their applications are refused. The other assumption is that passports may be re-used by agents helping other people to escape. Some asylum seekers are badly advised by agents before reaching the United Kingdom.
  The third criterion reflecting on the credibility of an application is that the applicant
  "has lodged concurrent applications for asylum in the United Kingdom or in another country".
  An interesting example of recent pedigree would be that of someone who has lodged an application in Germany and whose close family members have either reached another country or been granted asylum there because of the dangers that they faced in their first country of asylum. Such people may have been persecuted by racist gangs in east Germany, for instance. How might such cases be dealt with in practice?
  Another criterion concerns
  "failure to comply with a notice issued by the Secretary of State requiring the applicant to report to a designated place to be fingerprinted".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) may want to comment on that shortly. The rules go on:
  "or failure to complete an asylum questionnaire, or failure to comply with a request to attend an interview concerning the application".
  At first sight these last criteria appear relatively innocuous —but a requirement to be fingerprinted has nothing to do with the substantive nature of an asylum claim. The Home Office frequently writes to the wrong address or gives inadequate notice of interview or fails to provide an interpreter. Such circumstances should not be held against applicants. The rules will mean that asylum seekers will be penalised for factors unconnected with the strength of their claims; and people who have followed bad advice or who have genuinely lost documents will find their cases prejudiced and may be returned to danger.
  It is therefore vital that the rules be amended at least to provide the minimal protections suggested in the ad hoc group's resolution. At best, these restrictions should be removed altogether so that each claim can be considered on its merits.
  The UNHCR suggests that it is not advisable
  "to list … the factors which should be given special consideration when assessing an asylum-seeker's credibility. Evaluation of credibility is a process which involves the consideration of many complex factors, both objective and subjective, which are impossible to enumerate. Since all these may be equally important, singling out any of these factors will, by necessity, be incomplete and arbitrary."
  New clause 5 is designed, in short, to make it clear that we should not attempt to define applicants' credibility by such arbitrary means. We believe that these are questions of judgment and that if we introduce such rules, mistakes can be made and people will be excluded. Given that these are matters of life or death, the significance of such exclusions must be plain for all to see.
  Mr. Corbyn: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and to ask the House to think seriously about what he has said. It is often not understood in this House—and certainly not in most newspapers—what it is like for someone who seeks political asylum. Many such people feel a sense of defeat

  675
  because they have had to flee from their own country to seek a new life elsewhere and transfer their energies into a different society. Many of them have to travel in great danger.
  The history books record the heroic deeds of people who sought asylum and those who escaped from religious persecution in the middle ages in western Europe. Many people fled from Nazi Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and from Fascist Spain in the late 1930s and 1940s. More recently, people had to leave South Africa or flee from oppressive regimes in central and south America or Africa. People have had to flee from the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. There are numerous other examples. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Home Secretary would listen to the debate on the new clause rather than gossiping with his hon. Friends. Presumably he is discussing football results. He should take seriously my description of what it is like for people who seek political asylum because he makes the decisions and he framed the legislation.
  The new clause seeks to remove the destruction of documents, failure to disclose all material facts, failure to apply immediately or political activities in the United Kingdom as bases upon which an application may be refused. Let us consider the case of someone who has been consistently opposed to the regime in Iran. He is forced to live and work underground and to change his name and identity. He manages to flee the country, often paying people to guide him at night, and arrives in Peshawar in Pakistan. He then seeks to buy an identity and to travel to a place of safety in another part of the world. That example is based on an actual case.
  When that person finally arrives at, say, Heathrow, he would be loth to reveal all that information. He would seek to enter Britain as a visitor before considering with friends the next step and would apply for political asylum. The fact that such a person does not make an immediate application and has destroyed all evidence of his identity on the way here would be detrimental to his case. He would have destroyed that evidence by throwing documents away, flushing them down a toilet, tearing them up or burning them. People do such things because they are frightened and want to get away to a place of safety. If someone carried such documents during his night time journey in Iran, he would be liable to arrest, detention and possible execution and his family, relatives and friends could suffer a similar fate.
  I mentioned political activities in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and others represent a rather curious lunatic element in the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman is not here, but I shall later tell him what I have said about him as I am sure he would be interested to hear it. Political activity in Britain is detrimental to a person's chances of gaining political asylum. Is it so wrong for someone seeking political asylum from a repressive regime to undertake peaceful political activities against that regime? I see nothing wrong with that if he had been consistently opposed to that regime throughout the time that he lived under it.
  I know people who have been asked by the immigration service what they had been doing in this country to oppose the regime from which they had fled. They said that they had not done much because they were worried about their
  676
  position. That was counted against them. The new clause seeks to make clear and specific what can or cannot be used in forming a judgment of an asylum seeker's credibility. I hope that no hon. Member will ever have to seek political asylum.
  7.45 pm
  Many refugees have made enormous contributions to science, art, literature, politics and medicine. Many such people hold senior positions in the health service and in universities and other places both here and in the United States. Many of them sought political asylum, but if the judgments outlined in the Bill had operated in the 1930s, many would not have been granted political asylum. If such judgments had been used against people fleeing from Chile in 1973, they would not have gained asylum. There are many other examples.
  The new clause would make the legislation more credible and would lead to a greater understanding of the needs of people seeking political asylum because it would ensure that decisions were based on the entire experience of the asylum seeker. Many people have grown up in a society in which people have been taught to mistrust officialdom in any form because it does not work for their benefit and to mistrust anyone in uniform because he may have taken part in attacks or murders of family members. Political asylum seekers with such experiences are unlikely to reveal their entire life story at the first point of entry; such people are often psychologically disturbed and would be incapable of doing so anyway.
  We seek to ensure that all such factors are taken into account and that officers conducting interviews do not try to extract all the information at the first point. People must be given a chance to recover from the nightmare of the journey and the reality of the escape. They should be allowed to consider their situation and their safety and that of their families and friends who may still be living under a totalitarian regime. Unhappily, the world contains far too many such regimes and many countries in western Europe and the United States support them economically and militarily. We should think of the wider implications of what we say and do. I hope that the Minister will recognise the force of the arguments for the new clause.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) about some genuinely harrowing cases to which he has alluded in the debate and raised more than once in Committee. I hope that he appreciates that the Bill will enable us to move more swiftly through unfounded cases so that we can deal more rapidly with precisely the sort of harrowing case that he describes. As I said earlier, about 75 per cent. of those who apply for asylum have already established themselves here as visitors or in some other way.
  As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) will appreciate, the rules that he criticised have to be laid before Parliament and if prayed against can be debated and, in theory, can be disapproved. The new clause is misconceived and impractical, as I shall seek to explain. It would undermine the provisions of the draft rules relating to credibility. There are several reasons for the way in which the factors are set out in the rules.
  First, the rules make clear to applicants and advisers and to those determining the claim the factors that may be considered important. In Committee, Opposition Members frequently asserted that an asylum seeker

  677
  arriving here may be unfamiliar with our procedures and may not know what is important and what is not in presenting his case. The rules form a useful guide to the points that may be deemed of interest. Secondly, the rules are drafted to address quite specific problems of which we have become aware through vast experience of processing claims.
  Let me give one or two examples. The first is of a person who applies for asylum only after several unsuccessful attempts to extend his or her stay in some other capacity and having exhausted all other rights of appeal under the normal immigration laws, or where there has been no change in the situation in the country of origin. Another is of the person whose story changes markedly when he is confronted with a rebuttal of part of his original story, which changes several times more with each successive interview. Another is of the person who destroys identification documents en route to, or after entering, the United Kingdom in order to delay removal. I understand that that will happen for other reasons, as the hon. Member for Islington, North has pointed out.
  We fully appreciate the importance of an asylum claim and of making the right decision. For those reasons, it is vital that all the relevant factors of a case are examined. The general credibility of the applicant is crucial to the eventual decision. Therefore, it is somewhat unworldly to suggest that certain key factors should be taken entirely out of the frame and should play no part in reaching the final decision. It is surely natural to question why a person who has been here for two years suddenly makes an asylum claim in the absence of any obvious changes in his circumstances.
  I have stressed on many occasions, and I am pleased to do so again, that the draft rules are framed in conditional language. Some factors may count against an applicant if no reasonable explanation is given. If a credible explanation is forthcoming, applicants may considerably enhance the strength of their claim to asylum. However bizarre the behaviour may have been, if there is a credible explanation, that will be taken into account, and so it should be.
  However, it is simply not an option to ignore the fact that someone has deliberately sought to hide his identity or the fact that he has taken part in political activities in which he has never previously taken an interest and thereby placed himself in a particularly difficult situation. It is not unreasonable to explore such behaviour and seek explanations of it as part of the overall assessment of the case. That is what the draft rules provide for. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject new clause 5.
  Question put and negatived.

Clause 3

  FINGERPRINTING
  Mr. Mike Watson: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 20, leave out from line 20 to line 47 on page 2.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 29 and 30.
  No. 5, in page 2. line 3, at end insert
  '; except that no claimant or dependant under the age of 16 years shall be fingerprinted.'.
  No. 6, in page 2, line 3, at end insert
  678
  '; except that the claimant of dependant under the age of 18 shall not be fingerprinted unless in the presence of their parent or guardian or social worker.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
  No. 28, in page 2, line 47, at end insert—
  `(11) Where a child under 16 years of age is an asylum seeker or is the dependent of an asylum seeker, an appropriate adult shall be present during the fingerprinting procedure; and an "appropriate adult" is a parent or guardian, advocate, social worker aged 18 or over and who is not employed by the police or immigration services'.'
  Mr. Watson: Of all the clauses in the Bill, clause 3 is seen by Opposition Members and many outside as the most offensive. That is one reason why it was vigorously opposed and resisted in Committee. Despite some minor concessions squeezed from the Minister, which appear in the form of four Government amendments, the Opposition are no more convinced than they were when the Bill was first published that fingerprinting of asylum seekers and their relatives is anything other than a denial of basic civil liberties.
  Amendment No. 4 offers the Government an honourable escape from the opprobrium that has been heaped upon them by the simple device of deleting the whole clause from the Bill. That would be the easy way out, although we do not anticipate that the Government will accept it, and it would go some way to easing the fears of a wide range of organisations and concerned individuals who have expressed their disgust at the relish with which the Home Secretary and his colleagues appear to wish to criminalise every man, woman and child who arrives on our shores seeking sanctuary.
  It is no use the Home Secretary doing what his Minister did in Committee and consoling himself with the thought that fingerprinting is not a humiliating process or, as the Minister said, an unpleasant one. People associate fingerprinting with criminality in this country because hitherto only those charged with, or convicted of, a criminal offence have been forced to submit to it. When this odious Bill becomes law, the situation will be dramatically changed and, on a wide-ranging basis, fingerprinting will be carried out on every asylum seeker.
  Opposition Members stressed consistently, both on Second Reading and in Committee, that the provision is not even necessary because the powers that it will bestow already exist. Under the Immigration Act 1971 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, fingerprinting is carried out when an offence has been committed or, in some circumstances, when a person is charged with an offence.
  I see that I have the honour of facing the Home Secretary this evening. I do not know whether he believes that all asylum seekers would be criminalised by the introduction of fingerprinting, but that is not of much significance. What is important is that those facing the fingerprinting process will feel that they have been criminalised, will feel guilty, and will feel that they have to prove themselves innocent when they arrive here. Perhaps even more importantly, the people of Britain will view such people as criminals because that is the way in which we customarily view those who are subjected to fingerprinting. Only rarely have people been fingerprinted and then not been charged with a fairly serious offence. That is undoubtedly how it will be perceived by the British people.
  It may be that that latter point serves the Government's overall strategy which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said in the opening debate, has been

  679
  aimed at characterising all applicants as frauds, scroungers or impostors. It is assumed that their applications are bogus. Only on rare occasions are people treated at face value when they arrive here. The situation will worsen dramatically once the Bill becomes law.
  Any country that claims to be a democracy should be able to offer asylum seekers more than that assumption when they arrive at its shores. Neither I nor my colleagues have ever argued, either here or in Committee, that there are not some instances of people applying for asylum in a less-than-honest manner. Sometimes there are multiple claims. That has always happened. What we are talking about here is the scale of the problem. Our argument has always been that the scale fails to justify the knee-jerk reaction embodied by the Bill.
  Furthermore, it comes nowhere near justifying the universal assumption of guilt being applied to each and every asylum seeker. I do not believe for a moment that much of this will make any impression on the Home Secretary or his colleagues. They have set out their stall clearly. Many of them were involved with the Asylum Bill that was debated last year. Their aim has been clear, and in Committee they have wavered only slightly.
  This is a modest amendment in the face of widespread opposition both inside and outside the House. The latest event in that process is what we are seeing this afternoon, with the effective lobby organised by the anti-racist alliance, as a result of which many people were here lobbying their Members of Parliament. I am sure that Conservative Members felt the sharp end of the tongues of many who feel themselves and their families threatened by the Bill.
  That process has gone on for several months and doubtless will continue even after the Bill is on the statute book. It is unfortunate that the Government have failed to take account of the widespread views of people, but once they have set their course, they sit back rigidly to fight rather than listening to the arguments put by others.
  One of the minor concessions made by the Minister in Committee was his promise of what he called a "tighter form" of words in terms of who will be permitted to fingerprint asylum seekers. The wording is rather loose, with its references to other persons, apart from policemen, immigration officers and prison officers, being permitted by the Home Secretary to take fingerprints. We pressed the Minister strongly on that and, although Government amendment No. 29 clarifies the procedure and goes some way towards restricting those who can become involved, it is not clear what it meant. The amendment states that persons other than those to whom I referred—policemen, immigration officers and prison officers—are officers of the Secretary of State. However, all those people are already officers of the Secretary of State, and it is not clear why the other category is needed. I do not understand why it has to be left so vague. The Minister said in Commitee that he did not imagine that the practice would be applied widely. If that is so, why not restrict it to the three categories which, reasonably, have been included in some detail?
  680
  8 pm
  Those who framed the 1991 Bill, when the previous Conservative Government were in office, did not seek to drag into the net of fingerprinting the relatives of asylum seekers. Yet this Bill seeks to cast the net considerably wider to ensnare the dependants of asylum seekers.
  In Committee, my hon. Friends and I left the Minister in no doubt about the consequences of clause 3. Indeed, we highlighted in considerable detail the effect that it would have on children. I do not propose to go into that detail again because it would seem that we advanced our arguments to little avail. Some sympathy was forthcoming, however, from some Conservative Members in Committee. It is fair to say that some of them participated in debates on the clause. None the less, I regard the Government's concession to be of little value.
  My hon. Friends and I argued in Committee that children should be excluded from fingerprinting, and we talked about children of certain ages. The Government's amendment does not represent an attempt to meet our arguments and it is clear that they remain resolute in their aim to exclude no children.
  I find little solace in the Minister saying, in effect, that it is not the Government's intention routinely to fingerprint children. Under the Bill, any child who arrives at our shores can be fingerprinted if those who receive the child feel that that is necessary. The door that faces those who arrive in the United Kingdom is open far too wide. Unfortunately, the Minister's undertaking to produce an amendment to meet our fears has not been fulfilled. Government amendment No. 30 provides that children under the age of 16 years who are fingerprinted should be accompanied by someone who is termed to be
  "a person of full age who is not an authorised person."
  That is a welcome concession, but it does not go far enough. It means that all children will or can be fingerprinted. It goes only part of the way to allaying our fears. Further, it goes only part of the way to meeting the commitment that my colleagues and I believe that the Minister entered into when he responded to the debates on fingerprinting in Committee.
  The Government's amendment does not define who the accompanying adult should be. My hon. Friends and I and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) introduced amendments in Committee which were considerably more detailed and referred exactly to who the accompanying adult should be. Under the Government's definition of who an "authorised person" should be in amendment No. 29, it follows that any adult apart from those referred to who happened to be passing at the time could, in theory, be asked by the officers of the immigration authorities to witness the fingerprinting of a child under the age of 16. The only people excluded are the officers of the Secretary of State. In theory, anyone else could be brought in as a witness.
  Surely that is unsatisfactory. That is leaving aside Muslim girls and women who, due to their religion, could become most distressed on being faced with fingerprinting by a man or by being accompanied by a male person. If a child is to be accompanied, and if the provision is to have any meaning, the accompanying adult should be the parent or guardian. It should be a person who the child knows. At the very least, it should be someone who has experience of asylum legislation, of some aspects of social

  681
  work care and of the feelings of children in what will be inevitably a distressing situation, quite apart from the actual fingerprinting.
  We are disappointed with the Government's response. There must be some assurance that the person accompanying the child will provide some reassurance to the child. It should be someone in whom the child can have some confidence and feel able to turn to in what will be a difficult situation.
  In contrast to Government amendment No. 30 there is amendment No. 28, which offers a much more useful definition of the sort of person who should be permitted to accompany a child in these circumstances. It should be made clear that the accompanying person should have some knowledge of child welfare and of asylum procedures. It is made clear in amendment No. 28 who the accompanying adult should be. The amendment is consistent with the views that were expressed by many Opposition Members in Committee. To provide that someone should be an authorised person and not to go any further fails to secure what we regard as the safeguards that are necessary to build confidence in a child. The Home Secretary must make clear why he feels that Government amendment No. 30 is adequate in that context. It would have been far better if children below the age of 16 had been excluded. That has not happened, and that is regrettable.
  The impression that has been gained by my colleagues and I is that the Government failed to appreciate the situation that will face children who are fingerprinted. There has been no adequate explanation of why the Bill requires children to be fingerprinted when the previous Bill did not. The Government have failed to give serious thought to the awkward position in which they are placing children.
  The Government are over-reacting in believing that it is necessary to go to such lengths. The provisions in clause 3 are distasteful. Our relations with other European countries may lead to certain obligations—in other words, we are seeing an alarming drift. I was not assured by the responses of the Minister in Committee about the exchange of computerised information that may take place on asylum seekers. It will become increasingly difficult for people outwith the European Community to enter any of the EC countries, and that is a matter of great regret. The clause cuts across what has been seen in some senses as a commitment by the United Kingdom to many parts of the developing world, not least those which were part of the Commonwealth.
  The amendments highlight the Government's insensitivity to the needs of asylum seekers when they come to the United Kingdom and the Government's failure to grasp their obligations under international conventions. We debated at length in Committee the 1951 convention, which should be taken into account, and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which would outlaw the taking of fingerprints if the Government were prepared to be bound by it in relation to the inhumane and cruel treatment that the convention seeks to circumscribe. It is not surprising that the Government have decided not to be so bound, but it is regrettable. We oppose most vigorously the Government's fundamental approach to fingerprinting.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Much was said in Committee—the argument has been advanced again this
  682
  evening—to the effect that fingerprinting is associated with criminality. But I was fingerprinted when my car was broken into. That was done to ensure that my prints were excluded from any others on the car. When my grandparents' home was the scene of a robbery, they were fingerprinted to exclude them from any possibility of being associated with the prints of those who broke into the house. There are, therefore, aspects of fingerprinting that are good, to which no credence is given by Opposition Members.
  When I was in the United States last year I saw many children—they were accompanied by mums or other members of the family—who were lining up voluntarily to have their fingerprintes taken because of the rising problem [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will agree to listen the second time around. They may learn something this time. Children were being fingerprinted because of the rising incidence of child abduction. The fingerprint records mean that such children can be traced at a later date. People thought such fingerprinting to be a good idea. In the culture of the United States—indeed; in our culture too—if someone has his fingerprints taken it does not necessarily mean that he has committed a criminal act, or even that people might think that he had done so.
  Mrs. Roche: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. Does he think that there is a difference between parents in the United States accompanying their children during fingerprinting as part of a voluntary exercise, and the horror felt by children who are fleeing persecution, civil war or torture and are confronted by figures in authority—however kind or benevolent—who insist on taking their fingerprints?
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks. I have tried to show that the act of fingerprinting does not necessarily mean that the person has committed a criminal act. I recognise the trauma of refugees coming to this country, but surely having their fingerprints taken would be one of the least worrying acts that they will have faced during the past four, five or 10 years. People flee from their own countries because of persecution, so having their fingerprints taken in this country would be the least of their concerns.
  I believe that the Government's amendment will he beneficial. In Committee many of my hon. Friends made known their concern that someone in uniform might, in certain circumstances, worry some refugees. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has dealt with that specific point and we are grateful to him for that. We have no qualms about his amendment. Opposition Members have blown the fingerprinting issue out of all proportion. Refugees coming to this country will have no cause for concern at having their fingerprints taken.
  Mr. Maclennan: It would be ungracious of me not to acknowledge that the Government have moved some way towards fulfilling their undertaking in Committee to introduce an amendment to deal with the problem of children being fingerprinted. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) well described the limits of the Government's concession and properly drew attention to the doubt whether it goes far enough.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), may I say that one reason why people have focused on the fingerprinting issue is that there is a much

  683
  more widespread concern about the treatment of children in general under the Bill. During the Committee stage of this Bill and its predecessor, that concern was manifestly shown on all sides of the House, not least by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley and other Conservative Members. I confess that I had hoped that the Government would recognise the advantage of supporting young children seeking asylum and that they would move some way towards the appointment of an advocate or social worker to look after them during consideration of their asylum applications. I still hope that that matter will be considered in another place.
  These amendments inevitably are confined to the issue of fingerprinting. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central that the way that the Government have drafted their amendment would open the door to inviting almost anyone—perhaps a secretary in the next office who is not technically an officer of the Secretary of State—to witness what was being done. That is not what lay behind the original proposition. We did not want to ensure that the circumstances were regular in a purely legal sense; we wanted to ensure that a young person, who might well be fleeing from the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, did not view the act of fingerprinting as a sign of hostility by those handling the case.
  8.15 pm
  A number of questions arise about the fingerprinting of children. The Minister said in Committee that he would consider specifying the locations where fingerprinting could take place. He said:
  "It is easier for all concerned if prints can be taken in a variety of suitable locations by trained personnel."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 November 1992; c.194.]
  There is no amendment on the Order Paper to put that statement into practice. It would be helpful if the Minister said again that that is the intention and that fingerprinting will be done only at a number of properly supervised locations—presumably, ports of entry, the immigration and nationality department, perhaps Home Office public inquiry offices—and that they will be taken only in connection with asylum applications. None of that has been spelt out in the primary legislation. Perhaps it is not important that it is, but it should certainly be clear beyond argument that that is the firm intention and policy of the Home Office.
  I prefer the wording of amendment No. 28, which was tabled by myself and hon. Members from both sides of the House, to that of the Government amendment. However, I do not intend to press my amendment over the Government's amendment—at least, not until the Minister has explained why he has chosen such extraordinarily wide language to meet the concerns expressed in Committee and why he did not think it appropriate to ensure that the person who is to accompany a child is supportive in some way, and not merely a witness to the event.
  Mr. Corbyn: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). There are serious concerns about the fingerprinting of asylum seekers. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) portrayed a picture of lines of
  684
  happy children in United States' supermarkets queueing up to be fingerprinted, having had the position fully explained to them. That may be true. However, in this country even when children are fingerprinted simply to eliminate them from inquiries—to protect them—they are worried about it. It has to be carefully explained to them why they must be fingerprinted. People allow themselves to be fingerprinted only with the greatest reluctance, even when it is in their own interests. The hon. Gentleman's example is not suitable as support for the case for fingerprinting children seeking political asylum. Most of them do not have English as their first language and they may not even speak it at all. Their only experience of fingerprinting will have been in extremely hostile and dangerous circumstances.
  There is also the question why fingerprinting is being done in the first place. In Committee on both this and the original Bill, much concern was expressed about the effects of fingerprinting on children and why it need be done. The Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), said:
  "Fingerprinting will maintain our system's integrity and help check cases where there is evidence of multiple social security claims … that is what it is intended to do."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 November 1991; c. 61.]
  Those remarks related to the original Bill, which fell because of the onset of the general election.
  The new Bill has brought the return of the whole fingerprinting issue. We were told repeatedly in Committee that the purpose of fingerprinting was nothing more than to check against multiple applications for political asylum, yet when introducing the Bill the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) spent a great deal of time explaining that multiple social security applications were the real reason for it. He could not provide details, state their total volume, or confirm the level of fraud. Happily, that individual has gone on to do nothing and is no longer a Government Minister—for which we are all grateful.
  When the hon. Member for Fareham made his statement in Committee, I believe that he let the cat out of the bag. While the real purpose of introducing fingerprinting is to check against multiple applications, with the very existence of that fingerprinting bank in the Home Office, what is there to stop the Home Secretary's friend, the Secretary of State for Social Security—after reading exaggerated stories in the Daily Mail and other newspapers—deciding that it is necessary to check on social security fraud and to introduce a little Bill giving social security inspectors the right to fingerprint people during the course of their investigations, to eliminate them from inquiries?
  The public take their civil liberties and the fingerprinting issue very seriously. I doubt that they accept that the Government amendments go anywhere near meeting the wide range of concerns and opinions expressed on Second Reading and in Committee.
  All that has been said in answer to criticisms from the children's legal centre and a number of other organisations concerned with child welfare is that a suitable adult must be present during fingerprinting. Obviously, that is better than no adult or independent person being present—but it would be even better if there were no fingerprinting of children at all.
  At no stage has the Home Secretary or his Ministers said what will be the minimum age for the fingerprinting

  685
  of children. We asked whether it would be 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, or 12 years of age—right down to children aged two or one, or even babies—but the Government were not prepared to state the lower age limit. Are we to permit the indignity of frightened children arriving in this country as asylum seekers being fingerprinted? That is on the cards.
  I remind the House—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that the fingerprinting provisions are retrospective. Some current asylum applicants arrived in this country three years ago or longer. I know of some applications that remain under consideration after five years. I do not complain about the length of time involved, because some applications require detailed examination and the collection of evidence. However, because of the retrospective nature of the Bill, those applicants—who arrived in this country long before the right hon. and learned Gentleman became Home Secretary will also have to be fingerprinted.
  I hope that the Minister appreciates that we are unhappy about the fingerprinting provision and do not accept that the Government's amendments go anywhere near meeting our objections. First, children should not be fingerprinted. It is wholly inappropriate, disturbing for the children, and unnecessary. The Government have not convinced me or anyone else of the need for fingerprinting other than as part of the process of curtailing individual rights by the creation of a central fingerprinting bank that can be used for other purposes.
  Even if we cannot defeat this part of the Bill, I hope that it will be radically amended or defeated when it reaches another place, or will subsequently be ruled inadmissible because the Government are a signatory to other conventions—such as the United Nations convention on the rights of the child—which prohibit them from implementing this particularly nasty undertaking.
  Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) graphically described why the Opposition object so strongly to the Bill's fingerprinting provision. The idea of fingerprinting children is the most abhorrent of all.
  I listened with interest to the description by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) of children being fingerprinted in the United States and of his experience of being fingerprinted in this country so that he could be eliminated from inquiries into a car crime. That was a perfectly natural and understandable use of fingerprinting of a kind that arises every day. There is, however, no way in which the hon. Member for Ribble Valley can equate those harmless instances with the taking of fingerprints of children arriving in this country in a traumatised state.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, the Government have not imposed any minimum age on the fingerprinting of children. If the Government win the day and the fingerprinting of children is done in our name, that will bring shame on us all. That is the reason for our series of amendments. I would like no fingerprinting at all, but if that cannot be done, there should be no fingerprinting of children.
  Amendment No. 28 has cross-party support, including support from the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith). It seeks to ensure that if fingerprinting is to be undertaken, an appropriate adult—a parent, guardian, advocate or social worker—will be present. In
  686
  Committee, the difficuties affecting unaccompanied children arriving in the United Kingdom were described. The numbers are relatively small. In 1991, 128 children aged 16 or below applied for asylum on arrival—when they are often traumatised by conflict in their home countries. They may have suffered torture or bereavement.
  Local authorities face many difficulties in catering for their needs—not least because it is impossible to predict their arrival, or their linguistic or cultural background. My own borough of Haringey experienced a number of cases of unaccompanied refugee children and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) and for Islington, North have had similar experiences of these cases.
  Such considerations led to a certain amount of cross-party support for a panel of advocates with statutory responsibilities for befriending children who have been through horrific traumas and for ensuring that they receive appropriate and co-ordinated services. That would apply to children living in the community as well as to those in local authority care and would extend to representing a child's interests in the determination of the process.
  Right hon. and hon. Members may have read in the The Guardian today a persuasive letter signed by a wide range of children's organisations, including Save the Children Fund, Refugee Council, children's legal centre, Barnardo's and the Association of Directors of Social Services. Many other organisations concerned with children and with refugees also support the proposals.
  That letter points out that,
  "at the moment, asylum law in the UK makes no distinction between adults and children … A small change to the current Asylum Bill would remedy that … and would be of great benefit to an extremely vulnerable group of children."
  In Committee, amendments were withdrawn because the Government promised to discuss the matter with the Department of Health. Since then, we have heard nothing about the progress of those discussions. I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would tell us how they are progressing; as I am sure he will appreciate, there is a great deal of interest in and support for the proposal on both sides of the House.
  It is often said, in the Chamber and elsewhere, that a civilised society should be judged according to the way in which it treats children—not only children who are British citizens, but children who come to this country traumatised, frightened and threatened by what they have seen and experienced elsewhere. That is why our proposal is so important; and that is why it is so invidious even to contemplate fingerprinting children.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: At least the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) made it clear at the outset that the main purpose of amendment No. 4—the principal amendment in the group—was to remove the requirement for fingerprinting from the Bill altogether. The hon. Gentleman rightly anticipated that we would resist that proposal: we believe that it would largely destroy the measures that we have put together to combat misuse of the asylum system.
  Let me begin by addressing the main question: why we have decided that we must take this power to fingerprint applicants. Our straightforward aim is to establish a system whereby we can identify individual applicants. We need to establish the exact identity of people who present

  687
  themselves—as people frequently do—with no documents at all, or with forged documents, to guard against multiple applications. Such applications may involve the same person applying in several different identities for the purpose of social security fraud—there is a substantial history of that and we have recently been tackling it—or the same person trying repeatedly, with a different story and in a different guise, to obtain entry.
  If we are to establish the fair and proper system of assessing each asylum claim that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I have described, we must first establish the identity of the applicant. Currently, nearly two thirds of asylum seekers at ports arrive either with no documents or with forged documents. In the second quarter of 1992—the latest period for which I have figures—46 per cent. of applicants had no documents at all, 14 per cent. had forged documents and 1 per cent. had mutilated documents. That represents nearly 300 asylum seekers a month arriving in the United Kingdom whose identities could not be satisfactorily established in any objective way.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) gave examples of why that might be. In our debates on the Bill, he has frequently given dramatic examples of escapes by persecuted people who felt the need to destroy their documents on the way. I acknowledge—as has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—that such cases can occur. I feel, however, that it is naive in the extreme to believe that nearly half the people who arrive at our ports seeking asylum have arrived there in the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that the vast majority do not turn up in a particularly distressed condition, having either destroyed the documents in the course of their journey or handed them back to the agent who arranged their provision so that they can be used by another applicant. Given that, for one reason or another, those people have arrived with no documents, it is surely not unreasonable to provide a straightforward, foolproof way of establishing their identity once they are here.
  Let me also remind the hon. Gentleman that a majority of applicants for asylum are already living here. They have entered the country on some other basis and, after they have been here for a while, have applied for asylum. Between one third and 50 per cent. of such applicants now present themselves without documents. The hon. Members for Islington, North and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) have described traumatised people fleeing persecution. Many more people who come here claiming asylum have destroyed their documents—frequently on advice—simply to throw confusion into the system, believing that that will somehow help them to extend their stay here. We need a method of distinguishing the traumatised people seeking asylum from those who have destroyed their documents as a device to extend the time that dealing with their claim will take, and fingerprinting is the most straightforward method.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does not the Home Secretary accept that people destroy documents, or try to hide their identities, because if it is known to the authorities that they have sought asylum in certain countries, their families are liable to be taken into custody and may be imprisoned or badly treated?
  688
  Will the Home Secretary also concede that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, which he supported, encouraged the use of agents and the spiv culture because of the fines that it imposed on airlines? Is not that Act the main cause of the problem—although it recognised the need for people to use forged documents in the first place?
  Mr. Clarke: We never disclose to the country from which an applicant has come that the applicant has made an asylum application, precisely to avoid reprisals in that country. It may be that a small proportion of those who destroy documents—for some reason best known to themselves—fear that somehow the news of their applications will get back to their own country, although I do not know why they should believe that.
  Although we cannot specify the exact figures, I think that the cases cited by the hon. Gentleman represent a small minority. We all know that people who come here in the knowledge that they have no grounds for entry according to the rules are frequently advised to destroy their documents on the journey and to leave the aeroplane or port saying that they are asylum seekers in order to cause confusion and delay in this country. We also have considerable experience of multiple applications—by which I mean either the same person seeking asylum in several different identities to substantiate several social security claims, or the same applicant presenting himself with a variety of identities and a variety of stories.
  At present, 1,600 cases of multiple application are under investigation. So far, 11 convictions have been obtained for fraud against the Department of Social Security. In one investigation, 15 individuals were found to have used 76 identities and to have obtained overpayment of £80,000 in benefits. The main defendant pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. In another investigation, five individuals were found to have used 19 identities and to have obtained overpayment of £50,000. One individual, with his wife and two children, has been identified as the subject of no fewer than 54 separate files in various identities. I think that that establishes sufficient reason—even on the ground of social security abuse alone —for wanting to establish specific identities.
  The Opposition propose no measures to protect against multiple applications. They propose to allow people to present themselves with no identity checks of any validity. Internationalism has become important. Under the Dublin convention, we have agreed that asylum applications will be dealt with by the country to which the first application is made. There is plenty of experience of people presenting themselves to different countries with different identities trying to establish different claims. Our partner countries in the European Community, all of which have the same civilised values as ourselves towards asylum applications under the Geneva convention, are moving towards fingerprinting.
  All Community countries, except Ireland, have the power to take fingerprints. France introduced a system of fingerprinting all asylum applicants in January 1990. When France introduced its system it found initially that almost a fifth of the applications involved false identities. When the Dutch introduced a fingerprinting system they found that 10 per cent. of the applications were multiple applications. The Opposition ignore all that. All that they talk about are traumatised people arriving at our ports, terrified of the country from which they come.

  689
  We have already established that 19 out of 20 applications in this country turn out not to be well founded when investigations are made. I have now revealed that a fifth of French applications for asylum are made under a false identity and that 10 per cent. of the Dutch applications are multiple applications. What protection do the Opposition urge against that? None whatsoever. They argue that we should not have this protection because the very fact of taking fingerprints is, somehow, criminalising, an argument with which my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) dealt very adequately.
  Mr. Allen: Oh, dear. We have just heard the press release that has been drafted for The Sun and other newspapers tomorrow. The minuscule percentage of people whom the Secretary of State quoted as defrauding social security have been discovered under a system that does not use fingerprints. The question that I have for the Secretary of State, who is a reasonable man, is this: let him imagine that he is being politically persecuted and is fleeing for his life with his family and that to get out of the country he must obtain forged documents, perhaps from dubious sources, and that other members of his family have perhaps acquired dubious documents. What would the Secretary of State then do on the aeroplane?
  Mr. Clarke: In such a case, I believe that under our proposed system we would grant that person political asylum.
  Mr. Allen: Would the Secretary of State destroy the documents?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I would not. I know that to destroy the documents would be of no earthly assistance in obtaining asylum and would add nothing to my story. I believe that our system identifies those people and that they would be given political asylum. I am sure that occasionally we make mistakes, but the circumstances in which such people are returned to a country where they face persecution are few and far between. I have not encountered one such case during my comparatively brief period as Home Secretary. They are not typical cases. I know that there are campaigns when such cases arise. I well remember the Sri Lankan who was holed up in a Manchester church. Although he was passionately believed in by those who campaigned on his behalf, his case turned out to be total nonsense.
  The fact is that 19 out of 20 applications turn out not to fall within the description just given by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. We have had cases of multiple applications. There have been spectacular frauds of the kind that I have just described. Other countries with the same values as ourselves which have introduced fingerprinting have discovered almost straight away that there have been large numbers of false and multiple applications.
  What defence do the Opposition offer against that? None whatsoever. They continue to produce arguments as though 100 per cent. of those arriving here are fleeing from dictatorships and that they are in a traumatised state when they arrive. I remind the hon. Gentleman that three quarters of them have not arrived from anywhere. They are living here when they make the application.
  8.45 pm
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The person to whom my right hon. and learned Friend referred was holed up in a Manchester church with the full authority of the bishop of Manchester and the curate. The curate went back to Sri Lanka with that person and found that there was no problem whatsoever. When he arrived in Sri Lanka the only people who met that person were members of the press—nobody else. He had no difficulties whatsoever.
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that, like me, she does not traduce the sincerely held views of those who supported that man at the time. I encountered some of them. They all believed profoundly that they were protecting this man against persecution. What they proved guilty of was naivety in the extreme, a naivety that is frequently repeated by Opposition Members. They have conjured up for themselves this picture of men, women and children arriving here after torture in a traumatised and shocked state. They refuse to take the slightest notice of what we say: that three quarters of those people are already living here and that they said that they were visitors or students before they even made their application. They take not the slightest notice of the evidence we have of multiple applications and fraud, although they concede that there are unpleasant agents who batten on to these people and tell them that they can get them here, if they take advice about how to make an asylum application. They take not the slightest notice of experience in other countries where fingerprinting has been introduced and has exposed multiple applications. They offer no defence against abuse. They present a naive and emotional picture of the applicants and then resist the procedures that we put forward to protect this country against fraud.
  It is said that fingerprinting is wrong because it means that people are accused of having committed a criminal offence. It does not mean that, unless that is what they are told. Children in particular will not think that, unless someone has told them so, which encourages them to believe it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley rightly said, there can be few people in this House who have not given fingerprints at some stage in their lives. I have; my hon. Friend has. It depends for what purposes the fingerprints are asked. In this case it is perfectly clear to almost all the applicants that they are not being asked for fingerprints because they are being accused of a criminal offence but that it is in order to establish their identity when they—as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North says, for good reasons—have destroyed every other proof that they might have of who they are and where they come from. A system without any identity check has been proved to be porous in the extreme and not valid.
  It is just possible that people will believe that they are being accused of a criminal offence. Therefore, we propose to present each applicant with a written notice explaining that they are not being singled out and that this is a routine fingerprinting test to establish identity and does not involve any allegation of crime. Without there being any serious suggestion as to how else to identify individual applicants and stop them turning up again using another name, or to stop them applying to every other country in Europe for asylum, using a different story, or to stop them making 10 claims so that they can have the benefit of 10 social security benefit entitlements, I believe that our

  691
  system is the right one to adopt. The Opposition will not face up to the fact that there are such people who bedevil the system for genuine asylum seekers who will benefit, if we get rid of all this nonsense and have a practical system that identifies who they are.
  Mr. Madden: What puzzles me and a number of other hon. Members is why the Home Secretary wishes to extend the identification to fingerprinting when his Administration introduced what are called standard acknowledgment letters that include photographs and details of each asylum applicant, including their dependants. That is an adequate safeguard against social security fraud and multiple applications for political asylum. Why is the Home Secretary so enthusiastic about going down the fingerprinting route? I suspect that he gave the game away when he said that this had already been agreed as a general policy throughout the European Community. That I think is the truth. Why on earth does he not admit it?
  Mr. Clarke: We are under no Community obligation, if that is what the hon. Gentleman thinks. We are following a practice that other European countries have followed, bar one. It is the only foolproof way of establishing identity. Photographs are not so foolproof. I have just returned from a visit to our entry clearance officers in the Indian subcontinent. I have seen at first hand the way in which applications for entry clearance or visitors' visas are being handled. It is a pity that more people cannot see the process. The criticisms and fears that have been expressed about the way in which applications are handled would be considerably allayed if people could see the professionalism and care with which they are entertained.
  I saw cases of multiple applications. I saw a case of a man who undoubtedly was applying under the second identity that he had used in the past two to three years to find a fresh basis for settlement in the United Kingdom. One of the bases with which he was confronted was his photograph. The man in the photograph certainly looked like the same man to me and it looked like the same man to the clearance officer. The man said that it was his brother, thereby seeking to disclaim the close resemblance between the man in the photograph and himself. Subsequent questioning about his relationship with his brother and everything else rapidly revealed that he was talking a lot of nonsense. He was not able to answer the questions in a way which correlated with the answers that his so-called brother had given about the family.
  Such cases do occur. A photograph is not an adequate defence. Fingerprints are straightforward and foolproof. It is not the case that the very act of taking fingerprints in all circumstances implies an accusation of crime. That argument is used by Opposition Members, but they do not do themselves credit when they use it.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that most people, certainly my constituents who have read about these matters in the newspapers, would be appalled by cases such as those listed by my right hon. and learned Friend of people who have made multiple applications so that they can defraud social security, which costs the country thousands of pounds? Most people would wholeheartedly welcome the measures being taken by the Government to prevent such fraud
  692
  from taking place in the future. The Government's measures will have the wholehearted support of the country.
  Mr. Clarke: I do. I do not think that the support is confined, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North always tries to make out, to the redneck reactionaries in the United Kingdom.
  Opposition Members pay lip service to the view. Of course, they are against bogus and multiple applications. I doubt whether any Opposition Member would defend somebody who enters the United Kingdom with 15 different identities and makes 15 different social security claims. Opposition Members say all the right things about such applications because they know that the view is held not just by shell-back reactionaries. All sensible members of the public know that we should take steps against multiple applications and social security fraud.
  Every time the Government table a proposition to deal with the matter, Opposition Members are against it. They retreat into a Mickey Mouse, make-believe world in which everybody who applies for asylum in the United Kingdom is a traumatised victim of torture who arrives trembling on our shores. In so far as traumatised victims of torture arrive on our shores, we give them political asylum. Opposition Members should face up to the common sense of having a system which protects us against other people.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Clarke: Before I give way I shall emphasise, the extent to which the Government have tabled amendments to meet some of the fears expressed, although we think that those fears are exaggerated.
  Amendment No. 29 clarifies the classes of person who will be authorised to take the fingerprints of asylum seekers and their dependants. The powers will normally be exercised by civil servants in the asylum division of the Home Office or by immigration officers at ports. In some circumstances it may be necessary for the fingerprints to be taken by a police officer or prison officer. The wording in the amendment,
  "officer of the Secretary of State authorised for the purposes of this section"
  makes it clear that only Home Office civil servants will be so authorised, occasionally together with police or prison officers.
  We do not anticipate having to fingerprint routinely every child. However, there is no particular reason why a child of 16 or younger should not be involved in somebody else's fraud plan. Indeed, children are frequently involved in such plans. It is just as important to establish the identity of children who may otherwise be presented under a variety of different identities. If we simply excluded the fingerprinting of all people under the age of 16, as amendment No. 5 suggests, there would be the danger of deciding the exact age of a child, which could create difficulties in some cases in which there is no documentation. In some cases children will be presented in multiple identities with different fraudulent claims.
  We are persuaded that it should normally be necessary for somebody to be present to protect the child if he or she becomes frightened or to give some independent oversight of what is occurring. Hence, we have tabled amendment No. 30 to meet some of the concerns expressed in Committee.

  693
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department undertook to consider including in the Bill a requirement for an independent person to be present when a child is fingerprinted. Amendment No. 30 incorporates such a requirement. The amendment is drawn in wider terms than the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland would like and an alternative amendment specifies rather more tightly the adult who should be present when a child is fingerprinted.
  I accept that normally the child should be accompanied by the parents or guardian or, when a child is unaccompanied, a local authority social worker or a person from the refugee legal centre or some other suitable voluntary body. If such a requirement is prescribed tightly in the legislation, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland would wish, the effect could be that on occasions it will be difficult to give effect to the requirement or it will cause more delay while someone in that category was obtained. A suitable independent volunteer may be required on occasions, outside any tight definition that we could devise. Therefore, we prefer the wording set out in amendment No. 30.
  In this debate hon. Members have expressed concern about multiple applications and possible abuse of the system, but those who oppose the Government have not tabled any serious proposals of their own. Fingerprinting is a straightforward way of ensuring that we know the identity of each applicant. The applicant can then have the case fairly and properly considered. No one has any reason to fear adverse consequences as a result of being fingerprinted by our officials in the United Kingdom when they seek asylum. I ask the House to support the amendments that the Government have tabled and to resist amendment No. 4 and the other amendments tabled by Opposition Members.
  Mr. Corbyn: With the leave of the House, I would like to say that the Home Secretary has failed to answer two questions. He has failed to say whether the Bill is likely to lead to the extension of the use of fingerprinting to, in his words, deal with social security frauds. All the cases of multiple applications and so on which the Home Secretary has quoted at length have all been discovered without the use of fingerprints. They have been discovered only by the use of photographic evidence which is available at present on the standard acknowledgement form, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said.
  Secondly, the Home Secretary referred in a jocular fashion along with several of his hon. Friends to the case of Viraj Mendis. Many Opposition Members strongly supported his case at the time. He sought asylum in the Church of the Ascension in Manchester.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: You were wrong.
  Mr. Corbyn: We were not wrong, with respect to the hon. Lady. We were correct and honest at the time and we remain so.
  Mr. Mendis spent 16 years in this country. He was eventually bundled out by the most enormous police phalanx I have ever seen in my life. He was dragged out of a church in the process. He spent a year in Sri Lanka. During that time he had to change his identity every several days. He had to go from hiding place to hiding place. His mother's house was surrounded by—
  694
  [Interruption.] I do not know why the Under-Secretary finds this so amusing. Mr. Mendis' mother's house was surrounded by jeeploads of armed police asking for him and looking for him. He managed to escape and change his identity yet again. He sought another place of safety and sanctuary in another part of Sri Lanka.
  Mr. Mendis spent a year of absolute nightmare. The reason why he survived the death squads in Sri Lanka was that he had international support and friends in Sri Lanka. Six people went from Britain specifically to look after him in Sri Lanka during that year. If he was not in any danger whatever, why were so many people and organisations in Britain and in Europe so prepared to support his case? He has now been given permission to live in Germany. Yet he was refused asylum by the British Government.
  The Minister should be ashamed of himself. If he thinks that it was correct to deport Viraj Mendis from Britain, perhaps he will have the courtesy to read the information that Viraj Mendis has provided of his experiences during that year in Sri Lanka.
  9 pm
  Mr. Bernie Grant: The Home Secretary has not answered the points that have been raised by Opposition Members. He stated that in any event three quarters of applications for asylum are from people who are already in Britain as either visitors or students. If that is the case, presumably their identities have been established because they are living in Britain and attending colleges and so on. They are here legally. I do not understand how the Home Secretary can give that reason to support his case.
  If the Home Secretary now believes that photographic evidence is not enough to support a case, whether for asylum or anything else, is he saying that people who provide photographic evidence to entry clearance officers to enter Britain as visitors or to settle will be required to be fingerprinted? That is obviously the import of what he says. I wish that the Home Secretary would answer that point. If photographic or other evidence is not sufficient to support the case of an asylum seeker, why should it he sufficient to support a case for settlement or to visit Britain?
  Mr. Clarke: Photographic evidence in itself is not always conclusive. I am not sure what photographic evidence we are talking about. Obviously, a photograph is one proof of identity, but if one has a database, it is extremely difficult to check every photograph to discover multiple applications. The entry clearance officers in Delhi whom I visited had turned up this chap's previous application. However, it is not always easy to do so. If one is lucky, sometimes it is possible to do so.
  It is the intention that eventually all applicants for asylum will have given their fingerprints so that we have a quick and foolproof way of establishing their identity. Any future applications by that individual will be dealt with in the light of the previous application. I see nothing wrong with that. As we all know, fingerprints are a foolproof way of establishing identity. It merely means that every applicant will apply only once. Whatever name applicants choose to give, we shall have some previous record of the basis on which they applied before.
  A tremendous amount of froth has been worked up about fingerprinting by Opposition Members, but they are silent about how we should protect against multiple applications, which plainly take place on quite a scale. In

  695
  the absence of any explanation of what the Opposition would do, I invite the House to reject their various proposals.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 29, in page 1, line 21, leave out from beginning to 'may' in line 22 and insert
  "an 'authorised person', that is to say, an immigration officer, constable, prison officer or officer of the Secretary of State authorised for the purposes of this section".
  No. 30, in page 2, line 3, at end insert
  "but in the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph (a) of that subsection, fingerprints shall not be taken from a person under the age of sixteen except in the presence of a person of full age who is not an authorised person".
  No. 31, in page 2, line 44, after 'section', insert `(a)'.
  No. 32, in page 2, line 45, at end add 'and
  (b) "dependant", in relation to the claimant, means a person—

  (i) who is his spouse or a child of his under the age of eighteen; and

  (ii) who has neither a right of abode in the United Kingdom nor indefinite leave under the 1971 Act to enter or remain in the United Kingdom'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 4

  HOUSING OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS AND THEIR DEPENDANTS
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 42, at end insert—
  '(6) "Dependant" in this section or section 5 does not include a person who has leave to be in the United Kingdom other than as an asylum seeker or a person who has been granted political asylum, or who is a United Kingdom citizen.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 33.
  Mr. Gerrard: The amendment deals with the housing clauses and in particular the definition of who is a dependant of an asylum seeker. The housing clauses refer to not only asylum seekers but their dependants. I welcome the Government amendment which is similar to my amendment but I suggest that its scope is not as wide as that of my amendment. I shall return to that later.
  It is important to clarify exactly who is to be treated as a dependant as such people will fall within the scope of the Bill. While it may be a minor point in terms of the scope of the Bill and it is certainly minor in terms of clauses 4 and 5, it is something that we need to clarify.
  We still object in principle to clauses 4 and 5, which deal with housing and we believe that it is wrong to single out one group of people for inferior status and treatment when they apply for local authority housing. Harsher criteria will be applied to determining their applications. They will be eligible only for temporary housing and, once their asylum status is determined, they will have to reapply and be reassessed, which does not apply to other applicants. We argue that that is unnecessary and that it is based on, at best, a misunderstanding of the way in which the homelessness legislation works.
  At the moment people have to overcome three hurdles and must prove: first that they are homeless; secondly that they are in priority need; and thirdly that they are not
  696
  intentionally homeless. The latter is particularly relevant to someone who comes to a local authority from another area.
  As it stands, the legislation will deal with intentional homelessness. I believe, and I think that my hon. Friends would agree, that the housing provisions are based on the myth that homeless people, and asylum seekers and their dependants, are responsible for the present housing and homelessness crisis. However, that crisis is entirely due to lack of investment. Although resources may be short, at least local authorities are operating a system which does not discriminate against one type of applicant.
  Local authorities should not have any part in asylum control and, inevitably, if they are drawn into it, people who apply as homeless at the housing department will be treated differently if their name is not English or if their face is black. Those people will be asked to produce passports and to prove that they are eligible for rehousing because they are homeless.
  The removal of the reference to dependants will at least remove some people from the group that will receive inferior treatment. As the Bill is worded, it applies equally to asylum seekers or to anyone who is classed as a dependant of an asylum seeker. People who have permanent right of residence in this country may become dependants of asylum seekers. For example, it is conceivable that someone might marry an asylum seeker and thus become a dependant—they would certainly then be regarded as such by the Department of Social Security. The Government accept that asylum seekers may have been in this country legitimately for some years before applying for asylum and so it is feasible that that could happen. As the Bill is worded, anyone who becomes a dependant of an asylum seeker will lose his rights and we must safeguard against that.
  Perhaps the Minister could clarify the point of Government amendment No. 33 and the differences between it and amendment No. 7. The Government amendment applies only to people who have neither a right of abode nor indefinite leave under the Immigration Act 1971 to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom. As a result, someone who might well have been in the country for some years and have been given exceptional leave to remain by the Government—exceptional leave which could be renewed in due course and which would often become indefinite leave—will not be covered by the Bill.
  They may still be treated as a dependant even though they have been in the country for a number of years and have leave to remain. Amendment No. 33 is narrower than amendment No. 7, which seeks to limit the effects of the clause to deal with asylum seekers only.
  Ideally, we should like the clauses relating to housing removed altogether, but at the very least it is important that people who have rights of residence—people who have had rights to housing—should not lose them simply because they become the dependant of an asylum seeker.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I should like to deal first with amendment No. 33 because that is the one on which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) sought clarification. That amendment defines "dependant" of an asylum seeker for the purpose of the housing provisions of the Bill in the same way as amendment No. 32 defined "dependant" for the purposes of fingerprinting powers—

  697
  that is as a spouse or child under 18 who does not have the right of abode or indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
  Amendment No. 7, which relates only to the housing provisions of the Bill, like amendment No. 33, would exclude from the definition of dependant anyone who had a limited leave, as well as those who have indefinite leave. In response to the question posed by the hon. Gentleman, the exclusion relating to those with limited leave would avoid the situation that could arise if, for example, a woman obtained leave to enter as a visitor and her husband then arrived to claim asylum. It is right that a person in that position should be treated as a dependant.
  For those reasons I urge the House to support amendment No. 33 but to reject amendment No. 7.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 33, in clause 5, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
  `() In relation to an asylum-seeker, "dependant" means a person—

  (a) who is his spouse or a child of his under the age of eighteen; and

  (b) who has neither a right of abode in the United Kingdom nor indefinite leave under the 1971 Act to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Clause 6

  CURTAILMENT OF LEAVE TO ENTER OR REMAIN
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 5, line 7, leave out 'rejected' and insert
  'given to the person notice in writing of his rejection of'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 35, amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 8, after 'person', insert
  'at the same time as the notice of refusal'.
  Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 23, after 'order', insert
  'only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will not comply with restrictions placed on him to report to an immigration officer at an appointed time;'.
  Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 26, at end insert—
  '(5) Any decision to detain and the grounds therefor must he given to the person detained, in writing in a language which he understands.'.
  Mr. Wardle: The amendments require that if the power to curtail a leave under clause 6 is exercised, the notice of curtailment must be served at the same time as the notice refusing the asylum application. I am pleased to repeat the assurance that I gave to the Committee that curtailment of leave will not automatically follow refusal of an asylum claim. Each case will be considered on its merits.
  The key question will be whether the asylum application has raised doubts about the continuing entitlement of the person to stay in this country under the immigration rules. When it is decided at the time the asylum claim is determined that a person no longer qualifies to remain here the intention has always been that the notices should be served simultaneously: the person would be notified of the refusal of his claim, the curtailment of his leave, and the decision to make a deportation order against him. He would then be entitled to appeal to a special adjudicator against the deportation decision. Where the decision is not taken at the time the asylum application is refused, we accept that it would be wrong to leave the person uncertain as to his status in this
  698
  country: for example, it would be unfair to leave a student pursuing long-term studies in suspense as to whether his leave was to be curtailed at some later date. Clarification was sought in Committee about that and I am happy to give it. Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 therefore make clear the way in which the powers should be operated and I commend them to the House.
  Amendment No. 9 would provide that a person could be detained only if there were reasonable grounds for assuming he would not comply with other restrictions requiring him to report to an immigration officer. This is already our practice when considering detention in immigration cases generally. It will continue to be so under the specific power in clause 6. We will exercise the power to detain only if we do not think that the person would keep in touch; and that a failure to detain would frustrate our intention to enforce departure.
  Detention is not undertaken lightly. As well as having an obvious impact on the individual concerned, it is also costly and it is generally undesirable for the Department to tie up limited detention accommodation unnecessarily. However, it must remain an option for those relatively few—cases where we have reason to believe that an applicant will not co-operate or comply with other restrictions that might be placed on him.
  9.15 pm
  Amendment No. 10 provides that a person who is to be detained should be supplied with the reasons in writing and in a language that he understands. Few would disagree with the view that applicants should be informed about the processes affecting them, particularly where a matter as serious as detention is concerned. However, I am not convinced that such a requirement needs to be placed on the face of the Bill.
  Applicants who are to be detained will be notified in person by the detaining immigration officer in a language that they can understand and via an interpreter if necessary. We are considering what written information should be given to detainees to reflect the procedures that will affect them.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister amplify the question of the translation of information to be given to people being interviewed? The trained officers often have no access to a sufficient number of interpreters who can translate into the appropriate languages. When one asks for more unusual dialects or languages, the Home Office is unable to assist. What progress has been made in that matter? During the last round of Home Office questions, the Minister promised progress.
  Mr. Wardle: That point will arise under a later set of amendments. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are now discussing information on the intention to detain. That will be available in a limited number of languages. It is impracticable to expect notices to be available in every conceivable language, but every attempt will be made to explain what is happening to individuals concerned in those relatively few cases. When we discuss amendments Nos. 22, 26 and 27, I shall be pleased to comment a little further on the question of interpreters if the hon. Gentleman presses me.
  I think that further written information is available in about 10 languages in the immigration detention accommodation and staff are available to deal with detainees' inquiries.

  699
  For those reasons, I urge the House to support amendments Nos. 34 and 35 and to reject the other amendments grouped with them.
  Mr. Fraser: The Government amendments have met the point that I raised in amendment No. 8. Although they have not amended the Bill, the Minister has given assurances, so we shall not take the matter further. As we cannot vote against the clause, may I say that we are deeply concerned about the principle of curtailment of leave because it can discourage an application for political asylum. It is particularly severe when a student who may be doing a three-year degree course is considering whether to make an application, because the effect of applying for asylum if conditions change in the student's home country may lead not only to a refusal but to the student being returned to the country from which he appealed for safety. However, I made that point in Committee and we do not wish to divide on the matter.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 35, in page 5, line 8, after 'person', insert
  'concurrently with the notice under paragraph (b) above'—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Clause 7

  APPEALS TO SPECIAL ADJUDICATOR
  Mr. Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 30, leave out 'in consequence of the refusal.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 47, at end insert—
  '() Nothing in section 15(5) of the 1971 Act shall be taken to prevent a person appealing against a refusal to revoke a deportation order under the preceding subsection where that person remains in the United Kingdom.'.
  Mr. Fraser: The amendment may seem to make a trivial point, but we propose to leave out the words
  "in consequence of the refusal"
  because the appeal should be based on whatever grounds are available rather than simply on the consequence of the approval. I cannot understand why it is necessary for those words to appear in the Bill as they seem to restrict the right to appeal. The Minister may have an explanation. If he assures us that they do not inhibit the appeal, then so be it.
  Amendment No. 12 was raised in Committee. As the Minister knows, section 15 of the Immigration Act 1971 prevents an appeal against a revocation of a deportation order while the appellant is in the United Kingdom. The Minister promised to ensure that the law was amended so that, if the application for revocation of the deportation order could be made to raise a political asylum matter under the convention, section 15 of the 1971 Act would not prevent that application from being made. Unless it was intended for the issue to be covered by Government new clause 6, it is still not clear to us how an application for revocation can be made while a person remains in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: Amendment No. 11 is unnecessary since removal is only at issue following a refusal. The
  700
  wording of the current draft thus accurately and clearly reflects the appeal rights of a person who has been refused leave to enter.
  Amendment No. 12 appears to reflect misunderstanding about the way in which the new rights of appeal against a deportation decision for asylum seekers will work. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the issues raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser).
  Clause 7(3) confers a right of appeal against a decision to make a deportation order under section 3(5) of the 1971 Act. It also confers a right of appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order which has already been made, either under section 3(5) or, on the recommendation of a court, under section 3(6). Unlike the equivalent provision in the 1971 Act, there is no requirement in the Bill that an appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order should be made from abroad. The only restriction is that a person may not bring an appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order if he has already appealed under clause 7 against the decision to make the order.
  Amendment No. 12 seeks to provide that nothing in section 15(5) of the 1971 Act shall prevent an appeal under clause 7 against a refusal to revoke a deportation order being made while the person is still in this country. But the key words of section 15(5) are:
  "A person shall not be entitled to appeal under this section against a refusal to revoke a deportation order so long as he is in the United Kingdom".
  The restriction clearly applies only to appeals under section 15 of the 1971 Act, not to appeals under clause 7 of the Bill.
  Therefore, I trust that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Norwood will accept that both amendments are unnecessary, and I urge the House to reject them.
  Mr. Fraser: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

  APPEALS FROM IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
  Amendment proposed: No. 13, in page 6, line 22, after 'law' insert 'or fact'.—[Mr. Allen.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 14, in page 6, leave out lines 23 to 25.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I am sorry for my delay, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hours have been dragging on and I get the strong impression from the helpful hint of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that I may deal with the amendments fairly swiftly.
  Both amendments seek to widen the scope of clause 8. In respect of amendment No. 13, the final tier of appeal in immigration and asylum matters from the immigration appeal tribunal to the Court of Appeal is intended only for the resolution of questions of law. Questions of fact should already have been resolved by the appeal structure leading up to this tribunal. Asylum claims are initially decided on behalf of the Secretary of State by officers of the asylum division. Appeals against the initial decisions can be made on questions of either fact or law to a special adjudicator. Provision is made for appeals, with leave, from the special adjudicator's determination to the tribunal on questions of either fact or law. As a matter of general practice, the Court of Appeal does not usually interfere with a

  701
  tribunal's findings of fact, particularly where such findings turn on which witnesses are to be believed or the weight to be attached to particular evidence. I can see no reason to make an exception to this practice in the situation covered by clause 8.
  With regard to amendment No. 14, a leave requirement is routinely provided for in the case of appeals to the Court of Appeal from courts, such as the county courts, and tribunals, such as the employment appeal tribunal. I can see no reason why a special exception should be made in the present case. In addition, the absence of a leave requirement would be likely to result in an unacceptably large number of unmeritorious appeals having to be heard by the Court of Appeal, thereby causing significant delays in those courts and consequent hardship for litigants.
  For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the amendment.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

  VISITORS, SHORT-TERM AND PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS AND THEM DEPENDANTS
  Mr. Allen: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 36, leave out from line 36 to line 5 on page 7.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 16, in clause 10, page 7, leave out lines 6 to 33, and Government amendments Nos. 36 to 39.
  Mr. Allen: It is hard to choose the most obnoxious clause in this Bill, but I suppose that this one would get my vote. In its previous incarnation this Bill was known as the Asylum Bill; it has now turned into the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. Why "Immigration"? My colleagues and I do not believe that immigration matters have any place in an asylum Bill. If the Government were serious about helping people whose desperate plight we outlined so vividly in Committee, they would have introduced measures that related only to political asylum. The Government threw in immigration only in order to make what they see as political capital out of the Bill. This looks more like a ploy to assist the Secretary of State's campaign for the leadership of the Conservative party than a conscious effort to help people seeking political asylum or wanting to visit relatives and friends in this country.
  This deliberate confusion is a smokescreen to sell the idea which the Secretary of State tried to sell in his wild contribution on fingerprinting that asylum seeking is somehow linked to the mass immigration policies pursued 30 years ago. He tried to raise the spectre of mass immigration. That pre-election scare is also part of the new ideology which the Secretary of State is using to improve his image with the right wing of the Conservative party.
  What worries me most about the Secretary of State's cavalier attitude to civil liberties, in fingerprinting and other matters, is that certain fundamental principles which have long been part of British law are being undermined because there is seen to be political advantage in that. I am thinking particularly of the principle of natural justice. In almost every other walk of life there is a right of appeal. Even a convicted murderer has a right of appeal. A social security claimant who believes that his claim has been wrongly assessed has such a right. For all systems of administration this right offers the possibility of redress
  702
  when a decision has been wrongly taken. This basic tenet of natural justice has survived intact for several hundred years—until the advent of this Government.
  It is a dangerous step to throw away such a principle of natural justice. Today, the right of appeal for people refused applications for visitors visas is being dispensed with. What group will be the next to lose their right of appeal? Let us not forget that this is not a little-used appeal system. Only last year, 1,700 successful appeals were heard from the Indian sub-continent. If a similar number are unjustly refused next year, however, they will not have the chance to put the matter right by appeal because their right to do so will have been abolished. It is argued that many more might have lodged successful appeals had they wished to pursue them.
  As the Secretary of State pointed out, in his usual callous manner, at the press conference that launched this Bill, there is no point in giving these people the right of appeal as many of them have now lost their reason for coming to this country because of delays. He took an almost perverse pride in the fact that the weddings, funerals, christenings or religious ceremonies which had provided the original reasons for coming had now taken place—so why give these people the right of appeal? That was the Minister's attitude when he should have been admitting that officers in his charge continually make wrong judgments that require to be put right on appeal. He almost took pride in saying that there was no need for appeals.
  9.30 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) hit the nail on the head when he spoke about the European dimension. In the harmonisation process, Britain seeks to become the lowest common denominator in the Community. Britain still retains a right of appeal which does not exist in many other countries. In seeking the abolition of the right to have a visitor's visa refusal heard again the Secretary of State is lowering to European level one of the few areas of immigration law in which Britain can take some pride.
  Thousands of unjustified refusals are being brought to light and corrected by the appeals system and only Conservatives would think that the answer is to abolish the appeals system rather than to find out why so many appeals go wrong and why so many unjust decisions are taken in the first place. There is a 20 per cent. failure rate by the civil servants. What an outcry there would be if one in five income tax assessments and one in five social security applications were wrong. The right of appeal has brought the problem to light, and rather than abolishing appeals the Secretary of State should find out why the system allows so many wrong decisions to be made in the first place.
  We shall later discuss the better training and supervision that is required for officials who take the decisions. Once again it is a question of openness versus secrecy and the way that the Government have pushed the Bill through Committee. When the Trevi group was meeting in the Queen Elizabeth conference centre the Committee was in session. The Committee was not informed about what was going on until we demanded papers from the Trevi meeting. It was almost as if the Trevi group had a life of its own and did not need to worry about what Parliament was deciding.

  703
  An example of that is the way in which immigration officers are virtually immune from having their responsibilities scrutinised in this place. Despite my best efforts and those of my hon. Friends, the immigration officers' training manual is not open to public view. On the day that we were debating that and the Trevi group were meeting we were told that there would be a European manual on immigration officers' practice and that it would be publicly available. However, the British manual is not to be seen.
  There is no rational justification for removal of the right of appeal against an administrative decision. It will give unfettered powers to civil servants and immigration officials and can only lead to worse decisions since they will not be subject to review by an independent authority. That is exemplified by experience. When the courts decided in 1976 that there was no right of appeal against a refusal to vary leave if the application was made late, more late applications were refused. When the Immigration Act 1988 removed the right of appeal on the merits of people threatened with deportation who had been in the United Kingdom for less than seven years, the number of deportation decisions shot up from 863 in 1987 to 3,440 in 1991. The removal of the right of appeal can therefore be expected to lead to a rise in the number of refusals.
  Many refused visitors do not appeal and, of those who do, many more do not pursue their case after the initial anger and humiliation and the need to understand have faded. That makes it clear that the number of people who win such appeals is only a small percentage of those refused wrongly and unjustly. Many more would have been successful had they pursued their case or kept in touch with their representatives and provided documents and information as necessary. There is room for reform of the immigration appeals system to ensure that all cases are heard and decisions are reached more speedily, but this should not be at the expense of justice.
  The Home Office reacted to the widespread criticism of this part of the Bill—in Committee and elsewhere—by issuing a press release on 8 December 1992 when the Minister made his response to the Committee. I will not delay the House by describing the pantomime in Committee, when the Minister as the dame was dragged, feigning reluctance, to announce one or two supposed concessions. As I hope to demonstrate, the concessions amounted to nothing.
  The Government's response does not meet the main concerns about the loss of the right of appeal. The main proposal is that refused visitors should receive a far more detailed refusal notice, setting out the reasons why a visa had been refused. This might help to explain the thought processes of the entry clearance officer dealing with the case, but may also be intended to pre-empt any application for judicial review of decisions—the only method of challenge remaining open. It was interesting to hear Lord Justice Taylor's remark, in the Dimbleby lecture, that if the due process is not gone through one will necessarily end up with more and more judicial reviews. If the intention is to speed up the process, the exact opposite may occur.
  The press release also stated that a previous refusal would not prejudice any subsequent applications. This should be a matter of course. Every application should be considered on its own merits, but it is known that this is not the case. The standard entry application form asks, in question 19:
  704
  "Have you ever been refused a visa or entry clearance at a UK diplomatic mission or Post?"
  It then asks people to complete an additional form if they have been refused. It is clear that the purpose of the question is to enable the entry clearance officer to find any previous papers about the earlier application and to compare them with the present one. It is not unknown for people to be asked whether anything has changed since the previous application and, if they say that it has not, for the application to be refused.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree that the so-called concession that the Under-Secretary announced in Committee, and to which my hon. Friend referred, is only what is happening at the moment? Any constituent can go to his Member of Parliament, who writes to the Foreign Office and gets a detailed response. There is nothing new here.
  Mr. Allen: A number of practices set out by the Minister in his press release are already standard. Equally, one does not need an asylum Bill to make the amendments that the Minister announced in Committee. If he wishes to make those amendments, they can be done easily, and with the agreement of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, provided that they are not a substitute for the right of appeal, which is the backdrop for all these matters.
  The press release issued by the Minister also sets out the other courses of action that are open to would-be visitors, and my hon. Friends have referred to them. The Home Office also states that the Foreign Office will revise its information leaflets for visitors and will consider a leaflet for sponsors. At present the leaflets are produced only in English and do not explain the pitfalls of immigration rules. It is our view that any leaflet produced should be translated into appropriate languages and should be accessible. They should be widely available, and not only on request, at British posts.
  Most seriously, the Home Office press release is exclusively about visitors and visas. It does not mention the other forms of entry clearance, entry certificates, letters of consent, refusals at ports of entry of people who do not require visas or students or prospective students.
  The Minister said in Committee that he meant to include all forms of entry clearance, but he said nothing about people who do not require prior entry clearance who are refused at a British port or airport. If the statements in the leaflets do not apply to port refusals, they amount to a further attempt to introduce a universal visa requirement through the back door. If they do not apply to students, there is no justification for this further discrimination against them. It is important that the Home Office provides further clarification.
  The clause will hit hard British families—black British families, Asian British families and other British families whose only crime will be the wish to see relatives—parents and grandparents, for example—on occasions such as holidays, religious ceremonies, marriages, christenings and funerals. It is one of the worst parts of an extremely poor Bill and the Opposition will divide the House when the Question is put on the amendment to ensure that the clause is thrown out of the Bill. If that is not done in this place, we hope that the clause will be seriously revised, if not thrown out completely, in the other place.
  Mr. Peter Shore: Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have a

  705
  substantial Asian or Commonwealth community residing in their constituencies. Much resentment has been expressed to me—I am sure that this has been the experience of many other Members with such a community—about the clause. It is difficult to understand why it is in the Bill. Such a clause was not in the 1991 Bill. Goodness knows what considerations led the Minister to decide to include it in this measure.
  The Minister has not taken aboard sufficiently the fact that settled in our country are hundreds of thousands of people from new Commonwealth countries who are here legitimately. Visitors from those countries have to obtain a visa to come here, and that puts them apart—in a sense it discriminates against them—from others who come to the United Kingdom who are not required to surmount the same hurdles. I talk, of course, of visitors from visa countries and their families who are in this country.
  Taking account of that, is it not extraordinary that given the number of appeals—it is not huge in relation to the number of appeals generally that remain outstanding within the system the Minister should ask the House to remove entirely the right of appeal for visitors who have been refused a visa and entry to the United Kingdom?
  I take the view that officials are nothing other than people who are trying to do their best in administering our laws. I am not mounting an attack on entry certificate officers, but obviously they are not infallible. Mistakes are made occasionally, and they are duly recorded, as is the number of successful appeals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said when addressing the House from the Opposition Front Bench, about 1,500 successful appeals were made last year. I think that that is the Minister's own figure. Are we saying that we are not interested in 1,500 examples of injustice that would otherwise be allowed to stand?
  Is it not the fact that the availability of appeal is an important element in the decision making of entry certificate officers generally? It is only a back-up power, as it were, but to some extent it enables there to be surveillance of their decision making. It is an important factor in the decisions that they make.
  9.45 pm
  The Government have made a grave error and I shall explain why. First, I want to emphasise the number of people from visa countries who want to come here simply as visitors for family reasons. Surely families, especially grandparents, have the right to see their children and their children's children. Unlike those of us who have our families of all generations with us in Britain, those families are separated not by 50, 100 or even 300 miles, but by thousands of miles. It requires great effort simply to get to this country. The Minister knows the considerable cost of air fares. For the most part they are poor families—and, quite frankly, their families in this country are often among the lowest paid workers. Those families already have to overcome many obstacles.
  There is another point of which I do not think the Minister has taken any account. However, I assure him that it is well understood and resented in our settled immigrant communities. I am referring to the fact that the Minister is actually imposing a double discrimination system—the visa system and the abolition of the right of appeal—at the very moment when the Single European Act has come into force and 300 million Europeans can come to this country at will. They are not required to prove
  706
  that they will not be a burden on public funds or that there is adequate housing and accommodation for them. They do not have to show that they will stay here for only six months—they can stay here for six years. That is what the Government have granted to 300 million Europeans, very few of whom have the human and family contacts with people in this country that is enjoyed by many of our constituents whose parents and grandparents come from the Indian sub-continent and some of the African Commonwealth nations.
  That policy is discrimination. It is granting truly extraordinary rights to millions of Europeans who do not have close family connections with this country, while erecting a new barrier, by abolishing the right of appeal, against the millions of people who have family connections with people who are settled here. The Minister has made an appalling error and I ask him to think carefully about what has been said. The matter was thoroughly turned over in Committee, when the arguments were put very powerfully. I ask him to think about the effect of such a double discrimination on the sentiments and thinking of hundreds and thousands of people in this country who believe—or at least hope—that all political parties are determined to rule and administer our laws in a way that is equitable to all.
  Mr. Madden: There is a common view that the clause represents a new and sinister dimension to the Bill that goes well beyond the provisions of the previous Bill. When news of the clause swept through our black and Asian communities there was panic among the Conservative Members who represent some of them. Soon after the Bill had been published and been given its Second Reading, there were newspaper reports that Conservative Members were concerned about the abolition of the right of appeal for those refused a visitor's visa. The reports suggested that those Conservative Members had warned the Government that they could not be certain of their support in the Lobby tonight during Report stage and Third Reading.
  We were told that Members of Parliament, including the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller)—I am pleased to see him in his place—the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and eight other Conservative Members were so concerned about the matter that they would not automatically support the Bill.
  In Committee, the wriggling and squirming of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) was a spectacle to behold on almost every occasion that the Committee sat. There were all sorts of gossiping and chats about how the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth and other Conservative Members could be got off the hook on which the Minister and the Home Secretary had put them. There were meetings at the Home Office between those worried Conservative Members and the Minister.
  Lo and behold, the day came—and on 8 December, in Committee, the Minister was able to read from a prepared press release that a number of concessions were to be made, which would meet the concerns and worries of the Conservative Members in question—it would be all right, lads and lasses, because they could all vote for clause 9 tonight with a clear conscience.
  As you have already heard, Madam Speaker, those concessions do not amount to a row of beans. In reality, if clause 9 becomes law, large numbers of people refused a visit visa will have no remedy. They will be able to write to,

  707
  or otherwise contact through their sponsors, Members of Parliament—including those worried Conservative Members who had doubts about clause 9 in the first place. We will then be able to write to a Foreign Office Minister responsible for visit visa administration, urging that a person refused permission to visit relatives, to attend a family wedding or funeral, or to visit for some other legitimate purpose should be allowed to do so. No doubt we will receive the same kind of letter that we already receive, expressing regret but saying that there is nothing that the Minister can do and that the applicant will just have to lump it.
  At present, such people have a right of appeal—and we heard that a large proportion of those who appeal are successful. That right is of central importance, and it is extremely worrying that the Government are proposing to abolish it—which is triggering in the minds of many black or Asian people in particular concern over further action and whether other rights of appeal might be abolished.
  I wonder how many other hon. and right hon. Members shared my concern when I saw tonight the gleam in the eye of the Home Secretary when he was saying how unsatisfactory are photographs as a means of identification. How much longer before a fiance applying to enter this country to be married, or a spouse seeking to join his or her partner in this country, will have to be fingerprinted before applying? How much longer will it be before settlement refusals will no longer be capable of being appealed against?
  In Committee, the Minister failed miserably to justify clause 9. He said:
  "With a backlog of 23,000 appeals awaiting hearings by adjudicators, it must be recognised that the system is not delivering a fair, effective and timely remedy either to would-be visitors or to those seeking to settle here. It is necessary to concentrate resources on those cases which vitally affect a person's future. We do not undervalue the importance to many people born or settled here of visits by relatives. We recognise that what we need is to develop measures to ensure that the small proportion of would-be visitors who at present succeed in their appeals are not disadvantaged."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1991; c. 649.]
  What disingenuous gobbledegook is that?
  The Minister was arguing that the inefficiencies of the appellate system, which have created a backlog of 23,000 cases, is the justification for abolishing a longstanding right of appeal.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: My hon. Friend speaks of justification. Is he aware that the right of appeal for visitors came about as a result of an initiative by the Wilson Government, and that a commission was set up specifically to examine the way in which new Commonwealth citizens were being treated at our ports of entry? Is it not strange that it takes a commission to establish a right of appeal, and that this Government can destroy that right of appeal at a stroke without even having the courtesy to justify their wish to get rid of it?
  Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No doubt that is why the director of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, writing to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 5 January, said:
  "We must convey the now widespread belief that there can be no rational justification for this proposal"—
  that is, clause 9.
  708
  "Removal of a right of appeal against an administrative decision, thus giving unfettered power to a civil servant or immigration official, can only lead to more careless decision-making since the officials know that their decisions will not be reviewed by any independent authority."
  Mr. Moraes continued:
  "You will already know from the statistics that this removal of an appeal right will disproportionately affect black British people and those settled here, as people from black and third world countries have a much higher chance of refusal."
  In the new spirit espoused by the Minister in Committee in November, I deliberately delayed writing to him until 17 December about a constituent of mine whose 63–year-old mother wished to come here for medical treatment that she had been advised urgently to undertake when she last visited the country in 1990. She wished to come accompanied by her daughter. Her son, who has lived here for five years, had arranged for private medical treatment to be provided in Bradford; he was already prepared to pay the £2,500 that was required. As a home owner in full-time employment, he was perfectly willing to accommodate his mother and sister during their stay.
  I was surprised to receive, on 31 December, a reply from a Foreign Office Minister, who informed me that he, rather than the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Department, was responsible for such matters. An official in the migration and visa correspondence unit told me:
  "Because of the break in diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Iraq and the closure of the Embassy in Baghdad, Mrs. A and Miss A have no alternative but to apply for entry clearance at one of our visa-issuing posts outside Iraq. I enclose a list of our visa-issuing posts in Europe which have a waiting time of two weeks or less for non-resident applicants, which I hope your constituent will find helpful. I suggest that Mrs. A and her daughter first telephone or write to the post they choose in order to answer any preliminary enquiries and to book an appointment for a personal interview, which is an essential part of the entry clearance procedure. This will save time and avoid the risk of a wasted journey."
  That came as very bad news to my constituent, who told me this weekend that there was no European country to which an Iraqi national could obtain a visa within Iraq, and that the nearest place where his mother and sister could obtain a visa was in Jordan. That would involve a 16–hour bus ride, and the lady concerned is now so badly disabled that she is wheelchair bound.
  That case clearly illustrates the difficulties that will confront the Minister, and many other Members of Parliament, in the coming months and years if this wretched clause becomes law. My constituent is right to argue that if the Government hold a compassionate view and want to help those who wish to visit this country for medical and other reasons, the information that I have received from the Foreign Office does not reinforce or strengthen any conviction that the public might have about the true intentions of this Government.
  Clause 9 is an integral part of this wretched, racist Bill. I hope that Conservative Members who, when it was first announced, were extremely worried about its consequences—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Madden: Once again I urge those Conservative Members who initially had reservations about the clause to have the courage of their true convictions and to vote against clause 9. We understand that they cannot bring themselves to vote against this wretched Bill, but I urge them to pluck up the courage to vote against the clause. To do so would reinforce whatever reputation they may have for their belief in principles, the right to natural justice and the right of appeal against judicial and quasi-judicial decisions. It would be appreciated by their constituents who, if the clause becomes law, will lose the right to have their relatives and friends visit them in this country, a right that many of them, as British citizens, hold very dear. I hope that the clause will be defeated, that this important right of appeal will be retained and that we shall be able to say to the British people, whatever their race, colour or religion, that we believe that they, as British citizens, are all equal before the law and have the right to appeal against administrative decisions.
  Mr. Maclennan: This is undoubtedly one of the most important amendments before the House and it should enjoy the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House. Certainly it should enjoy the support of those who earlier expressed their anxiety about the importation into a Bill, purportedly dealing with asylum matters, of a further measure to clamp down on visitors to this country who are not seeking asylum.
  It might tolerably be argued that a Bill to curb asylum seekers will not cause deep public concern. It may be thought that, after the passage of a modest amount of time, anxieties about fingerprinting and people coming from Angola and other countries who have no relatives in this country to welcome and support them when they arrive here will be blocked out and that no problems will arise from the asylum aspects of the Bill. The Government can have no such hope, however, regarding clause 9. It will directly affect the lives of many citizens in this country for many years to come. It will stimulate deep hostility among those who feel themselves to be discriminated against, when members of their families are denied the right to visit them here. Such people cannot experience the support and joy of temporary visits because the Government of the day believe that it is administratively inconvenient properly to scrutinise their applications. That must be bad for race relations in the United Kingdom.
  It may be that Governments of different political complexions have felt it necessary to have a firm immigration policy for the benefit of race relations in the United Kingdom. However, that firm policy must be seen to be fair if it is not to exacerbate the ill feeling among minority communities that those who are in the majority are abusing their power to their family disadvantage.
  I hope that the Minister will not seek to justify the inclusion of something in this Bill which even the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—stimulated as he was by a desire to split the House on the issue of race before an election—did not think it appropriate to include in his Bill. This nasty inclusion is the creation of someone who postured in the past as a liberal in matters of race. The Home Secretary appeared to relish that reputation. and I will not speculate on why he now chooses to cast off that mantle.
  710
  If the House fails tonight to extrude the obnoxious clause from the Bill, I hope that those in another place will examine with particular attention the possibility of restoring what successive Governments accepted as necessary to ensure that applications for visits to the United Kingdom were fairly perused and open to appeal. The obnoxious clause was not included by the Government on a whim in response to pressures from a particular group in society; it was introduced as a result of careful deliberation. It is true that the right of appeal was introduced by a Labour Government, but it was endorsed by Conservative Governments. No political parties were divided on the matter until this Government introduced the amendment.
  The Government's method and approach to immigration and race relations are obnoxious because they cause a split in the United Kingdom on not only the grounds of colour but the grounds of party. The Minister must remove the clause and accept the amendment. If he does, he will receive the thanks and appreciation of all hon. Members for having allowed sense to prevail over the corruption of administrative power that has been too long enjoyed.
  Mr. Gary Waller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for listening to the concerns which some of my hon. Friends and I have expressed about clause 9. My hon. Friend listened most courteously. He went away and thought about the issues which we had raised and proposed some changes. I am not critical of the changes. Indeed, I believe that they will help the way in which administrative decisions are made in the future. But they will remain essentially administrative decisions.
  I share the anxieties that have already been expressed tonight that there will be no possibility of appeal against administrative decisions which may be wrong because human decisions so often are fallible. One must bear in mind that those decisions are of great significance to many people. It is often difficult for people who have settled in Britain to travel to visit their relatives in their country of origin. People who have settled in Britain often have jobs from which it is difficult for them to spend much time away. Therefore, if a family is to be brought together from time to time, there is no alternative to a journey to Britain by a relative.
  Entry clearance officers certainly have difficult decisions to make. The information that they have is often limited. That is why adjudicators are often better placed. They will see the sponsor and perhaps others. As constituency Members we know that, while ultimately it is the intentions of the visitor which are important, the evidence given by sponsors can be absolutely vital. In the communities in Britain, a sponsor would be unlikely to co-operate in a decision to ignore immigration rules because that would do great damage in a close-knit community.
  When one reads the adjudicator's decision in the determination of many cases, one appreciates that where successful appeals are made there is often no credible reason for rejecting an application. As we have heard, every year there are 1,500 or so successful appeals. I am not satisfied that, because an applicant will have another opportunity to apply and the evidence will be heard by different entry clearance officers wherever possible, the decision will necessarily be right.

  711
  At present, we have a helpful safeguard and I regret that it will be lost in the future. I have had few representations against clause 9. It is not because of the number of representations that I have received that I intend to vote against the Government on amendment No. 15. I intend to vote against the amendment because of my knowledge of such cases as someone who has represented constituents and dealt with such cases for many years.
  If the amendment would make it essentially easier for people to overstay illegally or evade the immigration rules, one would have to think carefully about it. However, in my experience the people who appeal do not intend to overstay or evade the immigration rules. They are often people with a good case. It is because those good cases will not have an opportunity to be heard and because administrative decisions will not be overturned where they are weak that I am afraid that I shall have to go into the Opposition Lobby this evening.
  Mr. Corbyn: I compliment the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on what he said and his decision about how to vote this evening. That is a sign that at least some Conservative Members are not prepared to accept what the Government gave as a great retreat as anything more than a figleaf to cover them during the Committee proceedings. The removal of appeal rights for visitors is a disgraceful removal of the right of ordinary people to a proper hearing. It is also the removal of any accountability for public officials who grant or refuse the right of entry clearance or a visitor's visa.
  Earlier today, almost 1,000 people almost all of them black—were brought to the House of Commons by the National Black Caucus to lobby against this clause. I pay tribute to the National Black Caucus for doing so, for the spirit and intelligence of its lobby and for everything that it said, because it came directly from the heart.
  All hon. Members who represent constituencies that contain many people with families living in the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, the far east and many other parts of the world, are aware of the consequences of the system. To put it in context, last year there were 10,000 appeals against refusals of visits to this country. Those appeals were made by people who arrived in this country, sought entry, were refused and were sent back to the country that they had come from, where they went through the appeals system and 17 per cent. of those appeals were granted. Under the Government's cock-eyed system and by their own admission, 1,700 people were wrongly denied entry to this country.
  10.15 pm
  The existing appeals system is seriously flawed because the appeal must take place in the country of application. If someone who has saved up a great deal of money to come to this country from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India or the Caribbean is refused admission on arrival and has to return home, although he might win an appeal it is useless if he has spent the best part of a year's wages on the air fare to come here in the first place.
  I do not know whether the Minister understands the heartache and misery caused to families who prepare years in advance for a wedding or some other great family occasion, only to find that the grandparents, distant uncles or cousins whom they so desperately wanted to attend are
  712
  suddenly not allowed to come. Does he understand the humiliation of it? Families preparing for a great family occasion on a Saturday or Sunday often get an anguished call on Wednesday or Thursday the week before from relatives who cannot get permission to come into the country or who have arrived and been sent back. Hon. Members who represent inner-city constituencies regularly experience the hassle of trying to persuade immigration officers that there is some new evidence, or some merit in contacting the Minister's private office and all the rest of it.
  The way in which the system operates is wrong and the Minister should not be introducing clause 9 but should accept its removal and should introduce a new clause to allow an in-country right of appeal so that people would not have to suffer the nonsense of being removed from this country and told that they can appeal in the country that they have come from.
  Another side to the question is the way in which entry clearance officers at particular British missions abroad will be making the decisions. I have attended interviews for entry clearance for permanent residency and I am sorry to have to say that entry clearance officers indulge in a large degree of subjective decision-making, based on a person's wealth and on what they choose to call the immigration history of the family concerned. Basically, that subjective decision-making means that if one is poor, black and comes from Africa, the Caribbean or south Asia there is a high chance that one will be refused admission to this country for a visit, but if one is white and comes from the United States, South Africa or Australia one is unlikely to be refused admission to this country.
  If the present rather inadequate right of appeal is removed, immigration officials will have totally untrammelled power over the lives of many families and the happiness of many people. There will be no accountability. The system is racist because of whom it is directed at and it is flawed in its approach.
  I hope that the Minister will understand that the anger outside the House and throughout ethnic communities in this country will not go away, whatever the decision this evening. There will be challenges and I hope that successful amendments will be made to the Bill in the House of Lords and that the decision will be challenged legally by a judicial review. The Minister has not heard the end of it yet.
  I also remind the Minister that, although many people are badly treated when they apply to visit this country, British tourists who seek to visit India, Bangladesh or any other country are treated decently by their high commissions and embassies here. The Minister should think about the small rate of refusal for visitors' visas for British tourists who seek to visit those countries. I can imagine the screaming headlines in the Daily Mail if many British people seeking to visit India as tourists were denied entry. I can just imagine the way in which that newspaper would present such stories. Why cannot such papers turn their undoubted propaganda skills round to attack the Government for removing a basic right of appeal against an unjust decision by an unaccountable official?
  I ask the Minister to recognise the strength and justice of our case for the removal of clauses 9 and 10 from what is a wholly inadequate Bill in any case.
  Mr. Winnick: I wish more Conservative Members other than the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) had spoken against the clause. He rightly said why its inclusion

  713
  could not be supported and said that he would vote against it. I welcome that decision, but it will be rather unfortunate if he is the only hon. Member on the Conservative Benches so to vote because many people are deeply concerned about the clause. They rightly understand that it represents a form of discrimination against a section of people who will be discriminated basically because they intend to invite here relatives or friends from the West Indies or the Indian sub-continent.
  I regret that the Government have decided to include this clause in the Bill. We were not told that that was their intention when the Bill was submitted to the House prior to the general election. I am particularly worried because if the Bill as it now stands is passed, how long will it be, as my hon. Friends have already asked, before other rights of appeal are taken away? Does it mark the beginning of the end of the appeal system?
  The appeal system came into existence 22 years last July. I speak with some experience of it, because in the past I represented people, almost on a continuing basis, who appeared before adjudicators. As the Minister knows, one must prove before the adjudicator the relevance of circumstances at the time that the decision was made by an entry clearance officer. It is no use someone coming before an adjudicator and saying that the situation has improved because the appellant has more money than he did when he originally applied to visit this country. The adjudicator must simply decide whether the decision taken by the entry clearance officer at the time was right in law.
  One must argue the case on behalf of the appellant to show that the circumstances at the time of the original decision were such that that decision should have been different. The fact is that in nearly 20 per cent. of visitor cases appeals the adjudicators or the immigration appeals tribunal have found that the original decision by the entry clearance officer was wrong. Surely that is a matter of some concern.
  Mrs. Roche: Does my hon. Friend agree that another reason for having the appellate system is that it provides a check on the way in which entry clearance officers and immigration officers carry out their functions? That check is important even if those functions are not subject to an appeal. Recently an immigration officer at a port of entry changed his mind on a decision because, as he said frankly to me, he knew that he could not argue his decision on appeal. The mere existence of the appellate system changed his mind. That is why it is so important to keep it.
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a decision is appealed against, the entry clearance officer must write what is known as an explanatory statement, which can run to eight or 12 pages, and in which he or she must give, at length, the reasons it was decided to refuse the application.
  If there is no appeal system for visitors, entry clearance officers know that, however much they believe that they have done their job well, it will not be subject to appeal. At most what will happen is that the Member of Parliament representing the sponsor will write to the Minister. In reply the Minister will probably say—
  Mr. Madden: Sod off.
  Mr. Winnick: Well, he may not say that as such; he will put it in more dignified terms. He will say that the entry
  714
  clearance officer considered all the facts and circumstances, came to his or her decision and that he, the Minister, can see no reason for overruling it. The entry clearance officer will know that there will be no adjudicator, no immigration appeals tribunal, no judicial review in certain circumstances, and no High Court case. He will therefore have total power to decide whether a person can come to this country on a short visit. I believe that that is wrong.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) referred to the Wilson committee. That committee recommended an appeals system because it believed that if the United Kingdom were to have tight immigration controls, which most of us believe are necessary, there must also be elementary justice and that people who are denied the right to come here should have the right to appeal. That system has operated for some 22 years and if we are to take away certain people's right to appeal, how soon will it be before other rights are also taken away?
  Some people may say that few people are involved in sponsoring visitors. That is neither here nor there. Many people invite relatives to this country for perfectly genuine reasons. They want to see their parents or adult children and are willing to make sacrifices so that that close relative can come to the United Kingdom. When the relative from the Indian sub-continent or the West Indies is refused, they believe—rightly or wrongly—that it is because he or she has a black or Asian skin and that, had the person concerned been white, there would have been no trouble. Great harm may come to race relations in this country if people who are settled here, with every right to be here, find that their closest relatives cannot visit them. We are discussing not people coming here to live—that is not the issue—but people who wish to visit. Once they are here as visitors, they have no right to stay. The Minister is not arguing that the appeals system must go because people overstay their visit and go underground. He is nodding in agreement at that.
  A fundamental right is being taken away. We shall no doubt lose the vote tonight, especially if only one Conservative Member intends to vote with us. However, the principle is important and I hope that the other place will not reach the same decision as I fear this House will reach tonight. I hope that the other place will recognise that what the Labour party has been saying, supported by the Liberal party and the one Conservative Member, is extremely important and that it will successfully challenge the Government. We shall be unable to do so tonight because, although Conservative Members understand the issue, they fear opposing the Government. They do not have the courage to do so and they are abdicating their responsibility as Members of Parliament.
  Ms. Diane Abbott: I could not let the clause pass without making a few remarks because the Bill will affect so many of my constituents and has the potential to affect many British citizens throughout the country.
  We have heard that one Conservative Member will vote against the Bill. Although some Conservative Members may have the excuse of ignorance about the Bill's effects, some of them know only too well the misery, humiliation, financial loss, unfairness and racism that will flow from the Bill. If they march through the Lobbies with the Government tonight, they should look to their consciences.

  715
  One of the strengths of the appellate system in relation to visits is the guarantee of fairer decisions by administrators. I worked in the Home Office and I am familiar with the type and grade of official who makes such decisions, and I cannot understand how Ministers think that it is acceptable to remove checks and balances from middle-ranking, often not entirely satisfactorily trained, executive grade officials in the Home Office. They leave relatives of British citizens liable to arbitrary and unfair decisions.
  At this late stage I do not expect to change anyone's mind about clauses 9 and 10, but I should like to convey, both to my hon. Friends who may be wondering why we cannot proceed to a vote and Conservative Members who are to vote with the Government what it feels like to be a Jamaican, a Pakistani or a Turk who has lived in the countryside and saved the equivalent of many years' salary to come to this country for a wedding, birthday or christening. In the religions and cultures of such countries, weddings and christenings mean much more than they do to most of us. I want to try to convey to hon. Members what it means to have saved the equivalent of many years' salary, put on one's best clothes, left the Jamaican or Bengali countryside, travelled to a big city in one's own country for the first time and taken an aeroplane to Heathrow only to be humiliated by the sort of treatment that is ritually handed out to black people visiting this country.
  10.30 pm
  Like many Opposition Members, I have been telephoned at all hours of the night by frantic relatives who, at the last minute, have realised that a loved sister, cousin, grandparent or even parent will not be able to come to a wedding or a christening. It is hard to convey to people who are not familiar with those cultures what such a denial means to the families involved.
  It will be starkly obvious to black British citizens whose relatives are unable to visit them for such family occasions that if they were French or German—if they were white —their relatives would be able to visit them without encountering all the hindrances. No other clause in the Bill more clearly reveals the racist nature of immigration control than clause 9, which hits, not those who are coming to settle, but those who genuinely want to visit and who may not have seen their grandchildren, brothers, sisters or other relatives for 10, 20 or 30 years.
  The clause is an abuse of the process. It is wholly unjustified. The majority of hon. Members do not understand how much unhappiness, unfairness and wasted money the clause will cause. Anyone in the House who knows, understands and works among those whom the clause will affect cannot, in good conscience, vote for the clauses as they stand.
  Mr. Vaz: There is one brave man sitting on the Conservative Benches: the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who, through his experiences and his daily work dealing with immigration cases, has decided to come to the Chamber today to show his dissent over the Bill's proposals and to vote with the Opposition against the measure.
  Clauses 9 and 10 are squalid measures that will hit out at the rights that have, for many years, been accepted as
  716
  fundamental. Before I entered the House I worked as a lawyer in a law centre in Leicester. When people came to that centre the one guarantee that I could give them when their relatives were refused admission to this country was that they could use the appeal process. That right is to be removed and the one concession that the Minister is proposing to make is an administrative one that already exists.
  In Committee—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister does not wish to hear what I have to say because I want to comment directly on his visit to the sub-continent. In his submission to the Committee in which he discussed the administrative changes that he was proposing to introduce, he talked about his visit to the sub-continent. I, too, have visited the sub-continent in the past month and I, too, met the immigration and entry clearance officers whom he met. [Interruption.] He wants to know when and whom I visited. I do not think that the Minister can tell us the name of the First Secretary (Immigration) in Bombay. Can he remember it? It is no use his looking at his officials. Does he know the name of the First Secretary (Immigration) in New Delhi? He does not. I have met Martin Hilson and David O'Rourke and I have discussed with both of them and with other entry clearance officers what the Minister proposes to do by means of this squalid measure. He proposes to put these entry clearance officers in an intolerable position. They are supposed to become judge and jury in both first and second applications.
  I looked at the Official Report of the Committee's proceedings to find out whom the Minister consulted before he came to this conclusion. He did not discuss the Bill with the very people who will have to administer its provisions. He said of the system in Committee:
  "I then asked myself what could be done administratively to improve it".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1992; c. 650.]
  So the Minister consulted himself. Those who daily deal with these cases in Bombay and New Delhi have a wealth of experience and if the Minister would only ask them they would tell him that they will not be able to cope with the number of applications that will be made.
  The Minister went on to say that three Members of Parliament came to see him to discuss these matters and at the end of a great struggle and fracas he emerged with these concessions. They represent no more than what already happens. If a person cannot get his or her relative into this country as a visitor, he or she goes to see the relevant Member of Parliament. That Member writes to the migration and visas correspondence unit. That unit then writes to the post abroad and the post abroad writes back setting out reasons. It is not clear how the Minister's proposals differ from what already happens.
  The Minister goes on to talk about exceptional and compassionate circumstances. I refer him to the case of the gentleman who came to visit one of my constituents in Leicester. His former wife was dying in the royal infirmary in Leicester. Her last wish was to see her former husband whom she had not seen for several years. I submitted to Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials, the very people to whom the Minister suggests Members of Parliament should write, a doctor's certificate, signed by a consultant at the royal infirmary. It was faxed to the office of the Minister and from there to Bombay. We asked that exceptional and compelling circumstances be considered because the woman in question was dying.

  717
  When the visa was refused, I raised the matter with the Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, who is not here tonight even though these measures touch on his area of responsibility. He refused to overturn the decision. I gave a personal undertaking that if the person was allowed to come here he would return a month later, after he had seen his dying wife and attended her funeral.
  In the meantime, the woman died at the royal infirmary—while the administrative procedures on which the Minister wants us to rely were under way. Finally, I went and begged the Under-Secretary of State, in his office, to reconsider the matter and allow the man to come to this country. The Minister refused to make a decision until he had been briefed. He would not accept the personal undertaking of a Member of Parliament and a doctor's certificate. He saw me in the House at 11.30 pm the night before the funeral and on the basis of that meeting he at last overturned the decision of the entry clearance officer.
  Is this what Members of Parliament will have to do to get people into this country for exceptional and compassionate reasons?
  When in New Delhi I dealt with the case of a gentleman of substantial means—one of the wealthiest industrialists in India. He wanted to send his son to a university in this country and was prepared to pay the full overseas fee of £10,000. He was able to show that this young man had invested £500,000 in this country. The entry clearance officer in New Delhi would not allow that young man to undertake the course of study because he said that the last time that the young man was here he went through the appeal process and therefore manipulated the situation in order to stay longer.
  I appealed to the First Secretary (Immigration) in New Delhi and tried to contact the high commissioner, Sir Nicholas Fenn, who was unfortunately suffering from food poisoning that day and was unable to see me. I tried to get through to the deputy high commissioner, but unfortunatley he had gone to Uttar Pradesh and was also unable to see me. I left my discussions with the First Secretary, who would not change his mind. He said that he would look at the case and he discussed it with his officers, but could not overrule the decision.
  I gave a personal undertaking. I said, "This gentleman will return to India because his father is a substantial industrialist. He wants to remain in India and does not want to remain in Britain. He is prepared to give our country £10,000 a year in overseas fees." However, the First Secretary (Immigration) would not change his decision. He told me, "This young man has the right of appeal." I said, "That right is to be taken away by the Government." He said, "That does not matter: the right exists at the moment."
  I called a press conference to publicise the case in India so that people realised in advance of Prime Minister Major's visit on 26 January how Indian citizens were being treated. Lo and behold, half an hour before my press conference the visa was issued. Those are the lengths to which hon. Members will have to go to get genuine visitors into this country and that is totally unfair.
  The procedures outlined by the Minister will not solve the basic problem. During the general election campaign Conservative Members promised people that they would protect their rights, but at the first opportunity they are prepared to renege on those promises. The Minister knows
  718
  that the legislation will double the workload of every hon. Member who deals with immigration cases, but he has said that he will not restore it because of the backlog of cases.
  I shall tell the Minister what happened to me when I went to the immigration appeal tribunal on Thursday. He may not like to hear about it, but he shall. I went to give evidence for a constituent who had been waiting 12 months for a case to be considered. I arrived for the hearing, but the Home Office officer who was to present the case was not there. The appeal could not proceed and the adjudicator had to telephone my office and give me a personal apology because of the way in which the Home Office had operated. Does the Minister want us to place our confidence in people who cannot turn up for agreed engagements?
  It is getting late and hon. Members want to vote, but this right is extremely important and we should not be ashamed to stay here for as long as it takes to change the procedures. If the Minister does not change his mind, he will be remembered in the history of immigration law as the Minister who removed the right of appeal and wherever he goes in the country to whatever community event, he will be reminded of that.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: Understandably, strong feelings have emerged in the debate. Some hon. Members have spoken with passion and sincerity. However, the debate has not been without some confusion and humbug. I am frequently impressed by the contributions of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). If it were not for a trace of self-importance that seems to creep in, he would more frequently advance most impressive arguments.
  I will not stand by while any hon. Member seeks to malign officials. It is entirely wrong to name officials who cannot answer back. Some hon. Members said that entry clearance officers treat badly people who apply for visit visas. It has also been suggested that Home Office officials treat people badly and the calibre of immigration officers has been impugned.
  There has been confusion. For example, a person from the Indian sub-continent, as the House knows, will require a visa. Therefore, a citizen of that part of the world who has no visa should not travel here without it and would most definitely waste an air fare if he did so. However, if that individual has a proper and valid visa and arrives here having spent the air fare but is refused entry for whatever reason, he will still have a right of appeal because he would have been turned away while he had valid documentation.
  Other hon. Members spoke of the Caribbean. As was pointed out in Committee, most of the Caribbean islands are not countries whose nationals require a visa to visit here. Jamaica, which was once my home, has been mentioned. Jamaicans are not visa nationals for the purposes of visits to this country. In 1991, some 26,000 people from Jamaica visited the United Kingdom and just 392 were refused entry. As well as confusion, there has been humbug and not a little scaremongering to boot.
  It is worth bearing in mind the fact that in 1991, the last full year for which records are available, some 5,700,000 visitors were welcomed to the country, of which some 400,000 came on short stays, in one capacity or another, from the Indian sub-continent. The confusion and the humbug do not end there. Let us look at applications for 1991, globally, for visa applications. Some 919,000 applications were received, and 91.6 per cent. were successful at the first attempt. Of those refused, 12,300

  719
  appeals were made, of which 1,542 were allowed. I agree with Opposition Members that that is 1,542 cases about which one should think long and hard.
  We had a little humour and some fun from the hon. Member for Leicester, East—why not—when he spoke about me drawing my own conclusions. The hon. Gentleman told me that he has recently paid another visit to Bombay and Delhi, but he knows that I met every entry clearance officer on post there and listened to their advice. I did the same in Islamabad, Karachi, Colombo and Dakha. When I draw my conclusions, they are based on the research that I have carried out.
  Mr. Vaz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wardle: I wish to make some progress and the hon. Gentleman had a full go, but as he asks so charmingly, how can I resist his entreaties?
  Mr. Vaz: Let me try to be charming again. When the Minister went to see the entry clearance officers and immigration officers, did he discuss the removal of the right of appeal? Did he discuss the implications for their daily workload of removing the right of appeal?
  Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman's question is a little disingenuous because, if he had any pretensions to government, he would know full well that no Minister could talk about a Bill that had not been published and presented to Parliament. He will appreciate that the line of inquiries that I followed enabled me to learn a great deal while I was there.
  The appeals backlog on immigration cases is about 23,000 and about half those cases involve visas for short-term visits. Opposition Members are right, of course, to say that we should look to staffing, to the calibre and training of our entry clearance officers in posts abroad and to improve the facilities and training of personnel in the Home Office. It is right for me to say that we do all of those things. Why, I wonder, is there humbug when someone makes suggestions which, if implemented, would improve administrative measures? Why should it be said, "That is not a good thing"?
  Why not take a hard look at the reality of visit visa appeals, bearing in mind that no other country has quite the same mechanism? It is a creaking, improbable out-of-date appeal mechanism. It seems that its principal justification revolves round sponsors. The person who intends to make the visit will find under the present machinery that the term of his visit has long passed and the purpose of it has eluded him because it takes so long for an appeal to be sorted out. It must make much more sense to take a hard look at the procedures, instead of wallowing in compassion, and to say, "How can we improve the service for anyone who has to apply for a visit visa to come to the United Kingdom; what can we do to serve him or her better?" I assure the House that to leave the current creaking and outmoded appeal mechanism in place will do the applicant no service. It must make more sense to consider the realities and to abolish the appeals that run for so long, and instead to offer a service that will enable the genine visitor—let us bear in mind that there were 5.7 million such visitors in 1991—to continue to enjoy the object of his plans, which is to come to the United Kingdom.
  720
  Amendments Nos. 15 and 16—
  Ms. Abbott: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Wardle: Not for the moment—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I gave way to hon. Members throughout the consideration of the Bill in Committee and I have done so on the Floor of the House, so why should I make an exception of the hon. Lady, as long as she will be brief?
  Ms. Abbott: I listened with great care to the Minister and he has failed to clarify the matter for Opposition Members. Even if there is a creaking right of appeal, how will there be an improvement in the service if we take away people's rights?
  Mr. Wardle: People have a right to a decent, well-run service. Instead of indulging in all this compassion, the House should look for effective administrative measures, some of which are listed in the press release. It is a document that won much interest when it was published before Christmas.
  Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would, not surprisingly, delete clauses 9 and 10 from the Bill. Clause 9 amends section 13 of the Immigration Act 1971 to provide that a person shall not be entitled to appeal against the refusal of an entry clearance, or against refusal of leave to enter, if he is seeking to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor, if he is a short-term student on a course of not more than six months duration, if he is a prospective student or is a dependant of a person in one of those categories. Appeals remain in place for someone who is about to be deported or for someone who is seeking to obtain settlement in this country.
  Clause 9 is necessary to streamline the appeal system to make it work properly and so to enable it to provide an effective and timely remedy to those to whom I have just referred, who will be challenging decisions which vitally and centrally affect their lives. It is not an attack on the entitlement of people who are settled in this country to have their relatives come here to visit them. Those visitors —genuine visitors will always be welcomed to this country. It is scaremongering to suggest otherwise. The measures that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is putting in place, which were the subject of the press release, will provide a speedier means of having disputed decisions reviewed and treated.
  Clause 10 removes the right of appeal against decisions taken on certain specified grounds where the applicant does not meet a mandatory requirement of the immigration rules. It is worth explaining why such appeals cannot succeed at present. Again, there has been confusion. The power of the appellate authorities in determining an appeal are set out in section 19 of the 1971 Act. Subsection (1) provides that an adjudicator shall allow an appeal if he considers that the decision involved was not in accordance with the law or any applicable immigration rules, or, where a decision involved the exercise of a discretion, if he considers that the discretion should have been exercised differently. In all other cases he must dismiss the appeal. Subsection (2) provides that a decision which is in accordance with the immigration rules is not to be treated as involving an exercise of discretion simply because the Secretary of State has declined to depart from the rules.
  It is right and necessary that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State should retain a residual

  721
  discretion to waive the requirements of the immigration rules in exceptional circumstances as no set of rules can cater for every possible set of circumstances. The flexible use of exceptional leave in asylum cases is the obvious example of the need for that. However, the general expectation in the non-asylum cases with which clause 10 is concerned must be that the immigration rules, which reflect the policy laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend and approved by Parliament, will be applied and that the function of the appellate authorities is simply to ensure that the rules have been applied correctly in individual cases. If the appellate authorities were able to direct the Secretary of State to waive the rules in particular cases, in effect they would be determining immigration policy, which is not their proper function.
  Some immigration rules provide for the exercise of discretion—for example, a decision to deport will always be discretionary. Other rules contain requirements that the Secretary of State or the immigration officer has to be satisfied of certain matters that can be tested only in a balance of probabilities, such as a person's intention to leave the United Kingdom at the end of a period of study. In both those cases, there is room for argument as to whether the decision is correct and an appeal may be either allowed or dismissed.
  Some rules, however, contain requirements that must be met if the application is to succeed and where the question of whether the requirement is met can be easily determined on the basis of documentary evidence. When an application is refused because such a requirement is not met, the adjudicator has no option but to dismiss the appeal when it eventually comes before him. The existence of a right of appeal in such cases does nothing to redress genuine grievances; it serves only to enable those appellants who have no claim under the immigration rules to remain in this country and to spin out their stay here pursuing hopeless appeals, while delaying the hearing of other appeals that certainly do involve issues of substance. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
  Government Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 clarify the types of document that are involved in mandatory refusals for the purpose of clause 10. Those are essential official documents that must be held if an application is to succeed under the relevant immigration rules—entry clearances, passports or other identity documents and work permits. I believe that that clarification will be generally welcomed. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Mr. Fraser: Not a word that has been said by the Minister justifies clause 9 being included in the Bill. The clause can be summed up in two words—it stinks. When the Prime Minister was doing his memory lane stuff in Brixton, pointing out where he used to live in Loughborough junction, why did not he point out that we had a great big piece of redundant machinery that gave people rights of appeal which he would remove as soon as he got back into office? When the Home Secretary was going around ethnic constituencies in the midlands and Yorkshire at the time of the general election, why were not people told that there was a piece of creaking machinery that the Government proposed to remove?
  Clause 9 is a deceit for the ethnic communities of this country. It breaks a trust. Those people trusted the Government. There used to be a bipartisanship about fairness and decency in appeals on these matters. Clause 9
  722
  will split families, prevent reunion in times of joy, prevent visits in times of bereavement and give validity to decisions that often will be based on speculation, not evidence. Clause 9 will give credence to decisions that are often based on speculation, not evidence; and a spurious validity to previous refusals, so that people will have the stigma of an immigration refusal. It will also refuse the right of appeal at the very time that we have citizens charters which are supposed to improve the lot of those who challenge administrative decisions. This exception will remove them.
  Most of all, clause 9 will be a stain on the reputation of the Home Secretary who, on the whole, is a man who is aggressive rather than spiteful, tough rather than mean. I believe that he will come to regret this occasion. It will be a stain on the reputation also of the Under-Secretary who, even if we do not agree with him, is generally considered to be fair-minded. It will be a stain on the reputation of this country. Let no one be deceived about the kind of reputation that it will create when people's right of appeal is taken away. There will be a stain also on the reputation of every Conservative Member who votes for clause 9 tonight.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided:Ayes 248, Noes 299.

  Division No. 107]

  [11.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainger, Nick

  Connarty, Michael

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Alton, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cousins, Jim

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cox, Tom

  Ashton, Joe

  Cryer, Bob

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cummings, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Battle, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bayley, Hugh

  Darling, Alistair

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Davidson, Ian

  Bell, Stuart

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Denham, John

  Betts, Clive

  Dewar, Donald

  Blair, Tony

  Dixon, Don

  Blunkett, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Boateng, Paul

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Keith

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Enright, Derek

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Etherington, Bill

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Burden, Richard

  Fatchett, Derek

  Byers, Stephen

  Faulds, Andrew

  Caborn, Richard

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foulkes, George

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fraser, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gapes, Mike

  Clapham, Michael

  Garrett, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  George, Bruce

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clelland, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Godsiff, Roger

  Coffey, Ann

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  723

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Graham, Thomas

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mudie, George

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Murphy, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Gunnell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hain, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hall, Mike

  Olner, William

  Hanson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hardy, Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Pendry, Tom

  Harvey, Nick

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Henderson, Doug

  Pope, Greg

  Heppell, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Home Robertson, John

  Prescott, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Purchase, Ken

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Radice, Giles

  Hoyle, Doug

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Hutton, John

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Illsley, Eric

  Rogers, Allan

  Ingram, Adam

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jamieson, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Janner, Greville

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Short, Clare

  Jowell, Tessa

  Simpson, Alan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Keen, Alan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Snape, Peter

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Leighton, Ron

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Lewis, Terry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Stevenson, George

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Stott, Roger

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Straw, Jack

  McCartney, Ian

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McFall, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McKelvey, William

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Turner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Vaz, Keith

  Maclennan, Robert

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  McMaster, Gordon

  Wallace, James

  McNamara, Kevin

  Waller, Gary

  McWilliam, John

  Walley, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mahon, Alice

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mandelson, Peter

  Watson, Mike

  Marek, Dr John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Martlew, Eric

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Maxton, John

  Winnick, David

  Meale, Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Michael, Alun

  Wray, Jimmy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Milburn, Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Miller, Andrew

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

  Morley, Elliot

  Mr. John Spellar.

  724

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dunn, Bob

  Alexander, Richard

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Eggar, Tim

  Amess, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Ancram, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Ashby, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evennett, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Faber, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baldry, Tony

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Forman, Nigel

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bates, Michael

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forth, Eric

  Beggs, Roy

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Freeman, Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  French, Douglas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gallie, Phil

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Booth, Hartley

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bowden, Andrew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Gorst, John

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hague, William

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butler, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butterfill, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hawksley, Warren

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Heald, Oliver

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Hendry, Charles

  Clappison, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Horam, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Congdon, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dicks, Terry

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  725

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Norris, Steve

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Knox, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Page, Richard

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Paice, James

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Patnick, Irvine

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Legg, Barry

  Pawsey, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Pickles, Eric

  Lidington, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Luff, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Redwood, John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Maclean, David

  Richards, Rod

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Riddick, Graham

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Madel, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Malone, Gerald

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Mans, Keith

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Marland, Paul

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Marlow, Tony

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sackville, Tom

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Merchant, Piers

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Mills, Iain

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Moate, Roger

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Soames, Nicholas

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Moss, Malcolm

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Needham, Richard

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Sproat, Iain

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Steen, Anthony

  726

  Stephen, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stern, Michael

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Allan

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Streeter, Gary

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sumberg, David

  Watts, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wells, Bowen

  Sykes, John

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Willetts, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wilshire, David

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

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

  Wood, Timothy

  Tracey, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Trend, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Viggers, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 10

  REFUSALS WHICH ARE MANDATORY UNDER IMMIGRATION RULES
  Amendments made: No. 36, in page 7, line 10, at end insert 'relevant'.
  No. 37, in page 7, line 18, at end insert—
  '(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B)(a) above, the following are "relevant documents"—

  (a) entry clearances;

  (b) passports or other identity documents; and

  (c) work permits.'

  No. 38, in page 7, line 24, after 'a', insert 'relevant'.
  No. 39, in page 7, line 33, at end insert—
  '(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A)(a) above, the following are relevant documents—

  (a) entry clearances;

  (b) passports or other identity documents; and

  (c) work permits.'—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Clause 11

  CARRIERS' LIABILITY FOR TRANSIT PASSENGERS
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 8, line 11, after "territory", insert
  "but not by reference to race, colour or religion".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 41.
  Mr. Wardle: Amendment No. 40 provides that the criteria which are used to specify a group of persons who will be required to produce transit visas under the new provisions in clause 11 shall not be based on race, colour or religion. Amendment No. 41 makes a similar provision with regard to the different commencement dates which are permitted under clause 13.
  In Committee some Opposition Members expressed concern that the criteria of origin or connection with a particular country or territory might be operated in a racialy discriminating way. I am pleased to move amendments which make it clear that that is not the case. The criteria that will be used will relate only to matters akin to but not necessarily confined to nationality, such as the type of passport or travel document which a person holds. Like the existing immigration controls, the new provisions will be operated without racial prejudice or discrimination. I urge the House to support the amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

  COMMENCEMENT
  Mr. Allen: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 8, line 33, at beginning insert—
  `() Sections 3 to 11 above and section I so far as it relates to those sections shall not take effect until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament describing those arrangements which he has made for the consideration of and adjudication upon complaints about the conduct of those within his department engaged upon the work of immigration and nationality.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 26, in page 8, line 33, at beginning insert—
  '() Sections 3 and 6 to 10 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament describing the arrangements for the training of those within his department engaged in the examination and interviewing of those who are or who may be asylum-seekers.'.
  No. 27, in page 8, line 33, at beginning insert—
  `() Sections 3 and 6 to 10 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has by order made by statutory instrument specified standards of training and competence for those within his department engaged in the examination and interviewing of those who are or who may be asylum-seekers.'.
  Mr. Allen: Given the lengthy discussion in Committee on the complaints and training procedures, can the Minister give an assurance that he is still open to receive representations on that matter?
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I can give such an assurance. As I explained in Committee, the complaints procedure is currently under review with the object of examining whether there should be an independent element in the review.
  Amendment No. 22 will prevent the main provisions from being implemented until after the results of the review have been placed before Parliament. There is no particular reason why the results should be linked to the commencement of the Bill in such a way. I expect the results of the review to be available in the next month or so. In the meantime, representations from the hon. Members for Nottingham, North and for Islington, North will be welcomed.
  The immigration and nationality department of the Home Office places great emphasis on training in so far as it relates to asylum staff and immigration officers. Opposition Members may wish to pursue the idea which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North suggested some weeks ago about a visit to the Harmondsworth training facilities and Croyden to learn more about the operations of the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will take up that opportunity to learn more about the functions of interpreters. He will appreciate that we must deal with 100 languages. The staff face a difficult task. As I said in Committee, we have been reviewing the Department's requirements for interpreters. That review is not quite complete. Some of the improvements which we wish to put in place before the Bill is implemented include better and more consistent procedures for recruiting interpreters and monitoring their performance, together with new guidelines.
  Mr. Corbyn: The Minister was a little fast on his feet, so I hope that he does not mind if I now follow him. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North which will have the effect of delaying the Bill until the review has been completed. Frankly, I see nothing wrong in that. Many of us have complained for a long time that there should be better and more extensive training facilities for those who undertake interviews.
  Far more consideration needs to be given to security of those who are employed to do translation work. As the Home Secretary admitted earlier, the revelation of the true identity of a person seeking asylum is a sensitive process. People live in Britain under assumed names because of the threat to their families at home. He should also be aware that for many years secret agents have operated in Britain on behalf of several oppressive regimes, not least South Africa, Iran and Iraq. They pass information back to their Governments which is used as a basis for attacking the families, friends or comrades of those people. It is essential that anyone who is employed as an interpreter will maintain any confidences that are picked up during discussions and in translation work.
  Those who undertake interviews should also be given psychiatric training so that they can understand the degree of trauma, disturbance and disorientation which people who seek asylum have suffered. I will certainly take up the Minister's offer to visit the training facilities and discuss what goes on during training. Our constituents and the people seeking political asylum in Britain whom we represent are the ones who suffer if the system does not

  729
  work properly and those who are supposed to have been trained to undertake interviews do not undertake the work properly.
  Therefore, I wish that the Minister had paid slightly more attention to the amendments that we tabled and delayed the introduction of the Bill until such time as the training episode had been thoroughly examined, the report had been received and any suitable changes in it had been implemented.
  May I ask through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the Minister will make a report or statement to the House when the review has been completed so that Members can comment on it at the review stage as well as at the evidence-taking stage which we are apparently in at present?
  Mr. Wardle: The review is purely internal. I made it clear a few moments ago and in Committee that ideas suggested by Opposition Members and, indeed, other parties would be carefully considered. However, the review is an internal matter.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 41, in page 8, line 47, after `territory', insert
  `but not by reference to race, colour or religion'.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Schedule 2

  APPEALS TO SPECIAL ADJUDICATOR: SUPPLEMENTARY
  Mr. Wardle: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 13, line 34, at end insert
  `and the making of such a reference shall, accordingly, be regarded as disposing of the appeal'.
  The amendment is intended to clarify a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) in Committee. When a special adjudicator refers a case back to the Secretary of State for reconsideration because he does not agree that the asylum claim is without foundation, that will be the end of the proceedings on that appeal. The reconsideration will result in a new decision and if that decision is still unfavourable there will be a fresh right of appeal.
  Mr. Fraser: I was hoping for an assurance that if a case was referred back, the Home Secretary would not come a second time to a decision that the case was without foundation. It is a common cause for complaint, especially over visitor appeals, that people go to appeal and win their appeal and the matter is then referred back to an entry clearance officer or the home officer. Despite the success of the appeal, the same decision is reached all over again. It seems a double jeopardy that someone launches an appeal against the decision that the case was without foundation, the thing is referred back to the Home Office and the Home Secretary comes to exactly the same decision.
  It is a great pity if, as a matter of policy, the Home Office has two bites of the cherry. These people are in considerable jeopardy. They have only two days to appeal. It seems that enough harm is done if the decision is reached once, not twice.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill reported. with amendments.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  11.24 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill has been thoroughly considered this evening and it obviously arouses considerable concerns in some parts of the House, which I hope that we have satisfied and answered adequately.
  The need for the Bill is demonstrated and when it is on the statute book it will be a substantial improvement on our system for dealing with asylum applications. Despite the controversy over particular amendments, there is a wide range of agreement in most sections of the House.
  I think that every hon. Member is agreed that Britain must continue to honour its international obligations under the 1951 convention and to adhere to our long-standing tradition of giving political asylum to people who flee here fearing persecution in their own country. I also trust that there is widespread support for the proposition that we must maintain our improving race relations and improve our community relations. We all know that those relationships are far from perfect, but we have a good record of improvement. In many ways the situation in this country is more satisfactory than that in other parts of the European Community or north America. One contributory factor to that steady improvement is the fact that the host community feels comfortable with present immigration controls.
  We all know that in recent years we have faced sudden increased pressures, especially on the asylum front. About five years ago there was a sudden upsurge in the number of asylum applications. With hindsight, I do not think that that was because the world or certain key countries suddenly became more dangerous. For one reason or another there was sudden widespread awareness in the outside world that, because of the international obligations placed upon us to consider each application, an application for asylum was a way to establish residence in this country without satisfying the normal immigration rules.
  Just like every other European country, we have experienced a sudden upsurge in applications. We are not alone among European countries in deciding that procedures need to be considered carefully if we are to be able to cope with those added pressures.
  I could cover many of the provisions in the Bill at Third Reading, but I shall not do so as we have covered them exhaustively already. Essentially, the policy aim is to adhere to our international obligations, to investigate thoroughly each claim and to ensure that we continue to grant asylum in well-founded cases. To satisfy that obligation, it will help if we have a quicker system to deal with manifestly unfounded claims, to ensure that we turn away from these shores people who might otherwise come in excessive numbers—an important result—and who might impose a burden on our public services by establishing the right to live here when, in reality, they have no legal or any other basis for doing so.
  I am sure that the pressures that we have faced during the past few years will not diminish during the coming decade. At times during the passage of the Bill it has been argued that the pressures that we face are not as acute as those faced by other European Community countries. The number of asylum applications to this country is sometimes contrasted with the 0.5 million people who

  731
  enter the Federal Republic of Germany in one year to claim asylum, which is causing the Germans to reconsider their basic law and to find out what they can do.
  Because the world remains a dangerous and turbulent place and because it is easier to travel, we must expect that ever greater numbers of people will want to come to this country to improve their quality of life. I feel no resentment at that. I am convinced that if I were young and single and living in some destitute third-world country, I might regard coming to the United Kingdom to establish a different future for myself from that which I could expect to enjoy in a third-world country as a legitimate aspiration. There is a part of me—as there must be of most Members of Parliament that would like to satisfy vast numbers of those aspirations, but common sense tells us all, as it tells the majority of the British public, that we cannot accommodate flows on the scale that would follow from such a widespread and indiscriminate acceptance of entry into this country of people from poorer countries.
  The 1951 Geneva convention was meant to set bounds to the right of asylum. Political asylum still means what it has always meant—the right to refuge, from a well-founded fear of individual persecution. The systems in the Bill provide a better and more sensible way to deal with that, they protect against fraud and provide a quicker way to determine all the difficult cases that are near the border line, which need to be determined with some expedition.
  I therefore commend the Bill to the House. I believe that once it is in place we will see a marked improvement in our ability to deal with all the worrying pressures upon us. We will continue to discharge our obligations under the convention and in general in a humanitarian and sensible way. The Bill will enable us to do that in a practical manner.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. BlairThe Bill has been vigorously opposed by the Opposition for good reasons. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friends who served on the Committee for some 59 hours, which I am informed is more than twice the time spent on the same Bill when it was put to the House before the election.
  Such scrutiny of the Bill has been necessary because of the huge strength of feeling not just in the House but outside against some of its provisions. Many of its elements are thoroughly objectionable. The procedures for shortening the time in which applicants can appeal against refusal of asylum have been condemned, not just here but throughout the land, as unfair and arbitrary. Many of the rules reflecting on the credibility of applicants seem to bear little relation to the reality of their position as asylum seekers. In particular, as we learnt from earlier debates, the removal of the right to appeal from those seeking visitors' visas is a measure without any justification—no justification was put forward for the abolition of those rights.
  People who come here for a wedding, funeral or to pay a last visit to an elderly relative will have their right to appeal against refusal of entry taken from them. Last year, almost 2,000 such appeals were allowed. Injustices will mount up in the future and it is no surprise that this provision has caused deep and lasting offence within the
  732
  Asian and other ethnic minority communities. As was pointed earlier, not once was that provision put before the people in an election manifesto; it was concealed before the election and introduced afterwards.
  We do not take exception to the detailed provisions of the Bill alone, but to the ethos and prejudice that underlie it. We take exception to the assumption that asylum seekers should be treated as bogus until shown to be genuine. We take exception to the assumption that those from Pakistan or India who wish to visit their relatives will not feel the same sense of injustice and outrage as we would were we to be denied the right to visit our relatives in another country.
  That prejudice, which runs throughout the Bill and which was the unspoken sentiment behind the entire deliberations of the Committee is nasty—worse than that; it is calculated. It is part of a design to play up this issue not for any interests of the public or the country, but simply for the interests of the Conservative party which sees that political capital can be made out of it. We saw that in debate after debate. The Home Secretary may have been fairly moderate on Third Reading, but hysterical claims were made earlier when isolated cases of fraud were used to construct an entire argument to provide that the current system is subject to wide-scale abuse.
  An attempt has been made to portray anyone who has opposed the provisions on the ground of natural justice as someone who is advocating an irresponsible or open-door policy for immigration. All that has been done in the knowledge that those who will be most affected by the Bill will be of a different race or colour. I cannot believe that that is irrelevant to the way in which the Bill has been handled. This is a matter which arouses alarm among some of the population and which is designed to arouse the most virulent type of nationalism among others. An attempt has been made to pretend with varying degrees of crudity that those who seek to enter this country do so from the worst of motives rather than the worst of circumstances. Some elements of the debate may have been more elevated than that, but in several respects we have witnessed a fairly distasteful exercise—an attempt, under the guise of making necessary regulations, to stir up passions and prejudices that were better left dormant.
  It will not be Members of Parliament who suffer once the Bill is enacted: it will be those who are least able to defend themselves and in the poorest condition to withstand some of its provisions—those most vulnerable to racial sentiment. I do not believe that that can possibly help good race relations in this country. The way in which the Bill is presented and the sentiment that underlies it do not merely make it objectionable in its provisions and unjust and arbitrary in its operation but reflect discredit on the Government who have introduced it.
  11.35 pm
  Mr. Maclennan: The Bill reflects no credit on the Home Secretary or on the Government who have introduced it. It was conceived before the election in circumstances of political exaggeration. It was designed not to deal with an administrative problem that was out of control but to suggest that the party of government had a peculiar concern about the prospects of the people of Britain being faced with uncontrollable immigration if the party or parties of opposition were to gain office.

  733
  The then Home Secretary flagrantly stirred up racial animosity. In introducing this Bill, the present Home Secretary has, in large measure, fallen heir to a Bill designed by his predecessor—whom the Prime Minister, for whatever reason, decided should not continue in office. The present Home Secretary has compounded this unacceptable measure's ugly face by including clause 9, which enjoys little support among any of those concerned about race relations in Britain and which some of the Conservative Members who are most closely involved in these matters find distasteful at best and certainly unnecessary.
  It is also an indication of the futility of our legislative process, particularly after the dominance of one party in government for well over a decade, that it has proved almost impossible to obtain any significant amendment to the Bill, even though those who have to deal with the problems of those seeking asylum and immigration agree, almost unanimously, that the Bill is misconceived. That has been true notably of those parts of the Bill that deal with the housing of asylum seekers. Local authorities, social work departments, voluntary agencies and all those agencies to whose advice the Government pay lip service have been united in saying that the Bill would work injustice and place intolerable administrative burdens upon the local authorities.
  The Bill limits due process. If we had a decent constitution, the curtailment of rights of appeal would be unlikely to pass muster in the courts. But we do not have a proper constitutional system for dealing with these matters. We have to rely upon the sense of virtually all-powerful Ministers who cannot be shamed even by the more sensitive members of their own party into conceding the most modest amendments. That is why we shall vote against the Bill tonight.
  11.39 pm
  Mr. Madden: As a member of the Standing Committee on both asylum Bills, I have listened for many hours to Ministers seeking to justify the legislation. They have lamentably failed to do so, not only throughout those two Standing Committees, but again tonight. We heard nothing from the Home Secretary or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary or their predecessors to justify the legislation. They have been unable to call in aid any objective evidence or the views of any reputable organisation or individual to justify the legislation. I very much hope that the other place will defeat parts, if not all, of the Bill. If that is not the case and the legislation becomes law, and if, because of the unrealistic appeal rights given to those seeking asylum in this country, even one man or woman is sent back to torture or death, the responsibility for that will fall squarely on the Government.
  The Bill's antecedents lie in the planning that was carried out by this Administration in 1982–83 when careful decisions were taken to restrict entry into this country, predominantly by black and Asian people, whether visitors, those seeking settlement, those coming for marriage or those seeking asylum. Almost every year, more and more restrictions have been introduced by legislation or by administrative action. Each year a few more rights have been chipped away. The Bill has substantially accelerated that process.
  734
  I very much regret clause 9, which did not form part of the original Bill. As has been said, I believe that that action was deliberately taken to avoid the embarrassment of criticism during a general election. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who had the courage of his convictions and voted against clause 9. I have not had an opportunity of checking the voting list, but I suspect that a number of other Conservative Members who serve constituencies with substantial numbers of black and Asian constituents know the heartache that clause 9 will cause. It will divide families, and cause considerable concern, anger and resentment in the homes of many black and Asian constituents throughout the country.
  There is no justification for the abolition of that right of appeal. That abolition sends out a signal to those people settled in this country, in some cases for two and three generations, that they are not welcome here or trusted, and that their relatives and friends are not even to be given the right to visit them in this country. Feelings will run deep.
  Today more than a thousand people from this country, predominantly black and Asian people, expressed their anger at the abolition of the right of appeal against a refusal to grant a holiday in this country. They fear their fears have been reinforced by some of the expressions used by the Home Secretary and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary today—that there may well be more to come. Will those seeking settlement applications in this country be fingerprinted? Will other rights of appeal on applications to enter this country be abolished? Is it the beginning of the slippery slope towards more restrictions and more difficulty?
  Those involved look to the European Community. As has been said, it is possible in theory for 300 million EC nationals—predominantly white people—to enter this country without a visa, establish a business without any recognisable assets and have their parents, grandparents and children up to the age of 21 come to join them without any difficulty. Given that such people are not obliged to apply for permission to enter or for visas of any kind, the sense is created that there are two sets of citizens in this country: first-class citizens, who are predominantly white, and second-class citizens, who are predominantly black or Asian. The thrust of this legislation, which the Home Secretary is steamrolling through the House tonight, intensifies the feeling that there are indeed two such classes of citizen.
  If we are to unite and overcome the great difficulties affecting race and community relations in this country, we should not pass such legislation. We need only a one-clause Bill to introduce an effective right of appeal for all a system that will lead to applications being dealt with quickly and fairly, which is what Ministers say that they want. Such a right would help the general public. If Ministers really want to help them, there is no need for this Bill. All they need to do is inject more money into the system, providing more officials to deal with the applications.
  There is no reason why applications for political asylum cannot be dealt with in six months, or 12 months at most. I do not seek to defend or justify delays of up to five years. Someone who came to see me last week had put in an application that has been considered now for five years. There is no justification for that, but we do not need the Bill to remedy it. We need a Government that is anxious

  735
  to provide justice and efficiency, not a Minister who accuses those of us who are concerned with such matters of wallowing in compassion.
  11.46 pm
  Mr. Corbyn: I deeply regret the fact that the Bill has reached Third Reading. We saw off the last attempt to introduce such a Bill, with the onset of the general election, but now another Bill has returned to us.
  There is enormous opposition to the Bill outside the House. Despite the attempts by newspapers to whip up support for limiting rights to political asylum in this country, considerable numbers of people have expressed concern and signed petitions when they have seen asylum seekers from former Yugoslavia, Zaire, Somalia and other countries denied entry. More than 6,000 people have signed a petition to be presented to the House tomorrow, supported by the Refugee Council. Large numbers of people are deeply worried about turning our backs on people who seek safety within our shores.
  People are also worried about the barbed wire barrier constructed around western Europe to limit the numbers of people seeking safety here. In response to the racist and fascist attacks in Germany, the response has not been, as it should have been, a wholehearted attack on the fascists. Instead, the system which grants people political asylum has been blamed for the rise of the far right. People should read the history of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s and recognise what appeasement did then and what the appeasement of fascists and racists will do now.
  The Bill has implications for democracy, too. Increasingly, decisions are being taken in secret by the Trevi group of Ministers, not in open debates in Parliaments. The Bill has implications for local authorities, which are expected to become the agents of the Home Office in dealing with refugee matters. It has implications for everyone's civil liberties because it will enable children to be fingerprinted merely because their parents or guardians have brought them here to seek political asylum. It will sweep away the right of appeal against totally erroneous decisions by immigration officers. It is surely a basis of democracy that anyone who makes a decision affecting others should be subject to challenge. People should have a right of redress, but the Bill will take it away.
  The introduction of a visa requirement for transit passengers travelling through British airports is an extension of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. That Act stops people seeking political asylum in this country and those people are primarily from Sri Lanka. The visa requirement for transit passengers will stop people in transit at airports such as Heathrow from approaching an immigration officer and seeking political asylum. The effects are quite appalling. There are obvious commercial effects, but I am more concerned about the effects on the rights of asylum seekers.
  I hope that no hon. Member will ever have to seek political asylum. Millions of people who lived under oppressive regimes and sought safety and asylum in various parts of the world are now venerated as a good part of history. When the history of the 1980s and 1990s is written and people read that those who tried to escape from tyrannical regimes were denied entry to Britain, our
  736
  history will be seen as just as infamous as the histories of countries in western Europe in the 1920s and 1930s that refused asylum to Jewish people who subsequently perished in the gas chambers. The issue is as serious as that, and the Bill is part of a process of turning our backs on oppression and its causes, perhaps because we make too much money from selling arms to regimes which use them to kill their own people.
  Cheap remarks have been made about those of us who supported the right of Viraj Mendes to stay in this country. I remind hon. Members who made those remarks that in the year after he was deported back to Sri Lanka, after being in this country for 16 years, 60,000 illegal killings occurred in that country. The British high commissioner was expelled from Sri Lanka a year later because he had the temerity to criticise the human rights record of its Government. Could anyone say that Mendes was sent back to a place of safety? He had to live in hiding for more than a year.
  We oppose the Bill. If it is passed, I hope that the House of Lords will amend it in a way that makes it virtually useless. I hope that the campaign for decency, civil rights and the right of appeal will continue. Above all, I hope that the campaign for genuine internationalism and understanding outside the House will continue. I hope that we shall stop turning our backs on people who plead for our help and support and a place of safety. We have had enough newspaper campaigns and racist remarks in support of the Bill. I hope that future campaigns will operate differently and that we can look forward to a world based on humanity and sanity rather than one that closes doors on people who need help.
  11.52 pm
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I spoke on Second Reading and voted against the Bill. It is a sad day when Conservative Members are forced against their consciences to support the Bill. The legislation will have its worst effect in my constituency because many people from the Indian sub-continent come here to stay with relatives. They do that for various reasons.
  In the past this country has provided natural justice and people had recourse to the courts for mistaken decisions. That fundamental right is being taken away and that is against this country's history and traditions and its natural justice. The Bill is evil and immoral. I have opposed it and I shall oppose it again.
  The Secretary of State knows that, when I last went to India, I was able to see Sir Nicholas Fenn, our high commissioner. I was given the opportunity to see some of the officers working in the British high commission in New Delhi. I am sure that they are not happy about the Bill. They did not want to spell out why they were not happy, but they knew that until now, if the entry clearance officer made a mistake, those involved could go to a court of law to test his decisions.
  I am not happy about the Bill. It will affect the position of many Tory Members of Parliament in the next election. I know that during the last general election campaign many Ministers visited constituencies with a large number of Asians. Many Tory Members, who have thousands of Asians and black people in their constituencies, know that they now have potential political foes. I know that promises were given to the Asian communities and lies were told to the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can rephrase that.
  Mr. Khabra: I can put it this way. Untruths were told to the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is in order as long as he is not saying that anyone has told lies in the House.
  Mr. Khabra: The Conservative party is the party of family. It believes in family unity. Family members should be able to meet each other in this country. A false promise had been made. People were not told the truth. Conservative Members should take note of the fact that in the next election—perhaps the council elections in 1994, or the elections for the European Parliament—their party will not be spared. They should consider their position. I know that many of them are already searching their consciences and they should have the courage of their convictions and vote against this wicked, evil Bill. I oppose it and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 243.

  Division No. 108]

  [11.58 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Churchill, Mr

  Alexander, Richard

  Clappison, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Amess, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ancram, Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Congdon, David

  Ashby, David

  Conway, Derek

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cran, James

  Bates, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Beggs, Roy

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Day, Stephen

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Devlin, Tim

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dicks, Terry

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boswell, Tim

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowis, John

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Eggar, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Elletson, Harold

  Bright, Graham

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evennett, David

  Butler, Peter

  Faber, David

  Butterfill, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Carrington, Matthew

  Forman, Nigel

  Carttiss, Michael

  Forman, Michael (Stirling)

  Cash, William

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  738

  Freeman, Roger

  Madel, David

  French, Douglas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gale, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  Gallie, Phil

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marland, Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Marlow, Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Merchant, Piers

  Gorst, John

  Milligan, Stephen

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Moate, Roger

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hague, William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Norris, Steve

  Hawkins, Nick

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hawksley, Warren

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayes, Jerry

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Page, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Paice, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hicks, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Redwood, John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jack, Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sackville, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knox, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Legg, Barry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sproat, Iain

  Lidington, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lightbown, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stephen, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Stewart, Allan

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Streeter, Gary

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sumberg, David

  Maclean, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sykes, John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  739

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whittingdale, John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

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

  Wilkinson, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilshire, David

  Trend, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Wolfson, Mark

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wood, Timothy

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Yeo, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Waller, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ward, John

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ainger, Nick

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cox, Tom

  Allen, Graham

  Cryer, Bob

  Alton, David

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashton, Joe

  Davidson, Ian

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Battle, John

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Denham, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Dewar, Donald

  Bell, Stuart

  Dixon, Don

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dobson, Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Blair, Tony

  Enright, Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Boateng, Paul

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Byers, Stephen

  Fraser, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Garrett, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  George, Bruce

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Canavan, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clapham, Michael

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Coffey, Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Gunnell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hall, Mike

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hanson, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Hardy, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  740

  Harvey, Nick

  Olner, William

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Henderson, Doug

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Heppell, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Home Robertson, John

  Pope, Greg

  Hood, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prescott, John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Randall, Stuart

  Mutton, John

  Redmond, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Reid, Dr John

  Ingram, Adam

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jamieson, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'slde)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jowell, Tessa

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Keen, Alan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Short, Clare

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Simpson, Alan

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Leighton, Ron

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Snape, Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Soley, Clive

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Spellar, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McKelvey, William

  Stevenson, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stott, Roger

  McLeish, Henry

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Maclennan, Robert

  Straw, Jack

  McMaster, Gordon

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McWilliam, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Madden, Max

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mahon, Alice

  Turner, Dennis

  Mandelson, Peter

  Vaz, Keith

  Marek, Dr John

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Wallace, James

  Martlew, Eric

  Walley, Joan

  Maxton, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Meale, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Michael, Alun

  Watson, Mike

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Milburn, Alan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Winnick, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Worthington, Tony

  Morley, Elliot

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mudie, George

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  O'Hara, Edward

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Ordered,
That Mr. William Ross be added to the Select Committee on Members' Interests.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Procedure (Public Petitions)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move,
That this House approves the recommendations contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Fourth Report of Session 1991–92 from the Select Committee on Procedure, relating to Public Petitions (HC 286).
Mr. Gary Waller rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order, order.

PETITION

  Garden Centre, Stockton-on-Tees
  12.10 am
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I beg leave to present a petition collected by Peter Barratt's garden centre, Yarm road, Stockton-on-Tees, and signed by 1,324 people. It says simply that they want to be able to continue to shop at their local garden centre on Sunday mornings and afternoons.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Hillingdon Hospital (Incinerator)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  12.11 am
  Mr. Michael Shersby: My purpose in speaking in this Adjournment debate is to make the House aware of the deep sense of grievance felt by my constituents in Hillingdon about the pollution of their environment caused by the operation of the Hillingdon hospital incinerator plant. It is also to call on my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to use his considerable influence and powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to protect the people whom I represent from the emission of noxious substances into the atmosphere, the noise caused by the operation of the incinerator and the disturbance caused by the delivery of clinical waste at all hours in large vehicles in a residential area.
  I also call upon my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the people who sent me to the House to represent them can enjoy the peace and quiet of their homes and gardens—which is surely every Englishman's right—and to see that the statutory body established by Parliament to license the proper disposal of waste puts the interests of residents first, not last, and that it cracks down on the illegal activities of those who seek to avoid responsibility for their actions. Above all, I want the existing operation of the incinerator plant in a residential area brought to an end as quickly as possible.
  This is a classic example of the kind of case that a Member of Parliament brings to the House in his representative capacity. The background is that an application was submitted by Hillingdon area health authority to Hillingdon council in July 1990 for an extension to the incinerator plant at Hillingdon hospital. It was made at a time when the authority had the benefit of Crown immunity. Subsequently the incinerator plant was extended to include a condenser unit and a gas plant. It was not a planning application in the accepted sense because the area health authority enjoyed the benefit of Crown immunity. It was, therefore, required only to consult the local planning authority before proceeding with a development that would otherwise have required planning permission in the normal way.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, that immunity was removed from health authorities on 1 April 1991, but still existed when the proposals were considered. Local residents were consulted by Hillingdon council's planning department, and six residents responded. In November 1990, the council's environment sub-committee decided that, had this been an application for normal planning permission, approval would have been granted subject to conditions. However, it was not, and still is not, possible for the council to attach conditions in respect of consultations. Consequently, the council states that there are no conditions to fulfil. As far as I can tell, the only body able to attach conditions was, and is, the London Waste Regulatory Authority, which is responsible for licensing the operation of the disposal of waste.
  Having said that, I should add that it is important to put the proposed extension into perspective. I understand that, at the time when residents were consulted by the local planning authority, the original incinerator burnt 10 to 15 tonnes of clinical waste each week; it was burnt during the

  743
  daytime only. The waste originated from three local hospitals in the health authority's jurisdiction. The only annoyance to local residents was the occasional emission of smuts which spoilt the washing on local washing lines, and minor damage to the paintwork of cars parked in the area. Even those difficulties had been minimised following representations that I had made, over a number of years, on behalf of my constituents.
  It was against that background that local residents were advised that the proposed extension to the original incinerator was needed to facilitate the installation of a cleaner burning plant to enable compliance with legislation governing emissions to the atmosphere. Local people also believed that the extension was to cater for local needs alone. It was therefore not surprising that only six residents responded to the consultative process, and that the planning authority would have recommended acceptance had this been a normal planning application. In fact, the position has turned out to be very different from what was expected.
  A number of local residents consider that the local planning authority misjudged, or was not properly informed about, the scale of the development and the impact that it would have on a residential area. They also tell me that they consider that the use of Crown immunity was inappropiate, and that the local health authority's proposals should have been subjected to statutory "bad neighbour" development procedures. I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on that when he replies.
  Let me now describe the reality of the situation that faces my constituents. It is not a comparatively minor extension to the incinerator plant, or just an improvement in measures to control emissions to the atmosphere adopted by a benevolent health authority; in fact, it has turned out to be a fairly substantial clinical waste incineration operation, run by Basic Energy (UK) Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Blue Circle Industries. In other words, it is a commercial waste disposal industry, operating 24 hours a day in the middle of a residential area and burning not 10 to 15 tonnes—as happened previously —but 300 tonnes of waste each week.
  It appears that to achieve that massive increase in throughput, the old incinerator plant was virtually demolished, and has been replaced with a new and larger building. At the outset, the operators began burning rubber tyres, and stopped only as a result of local opposition. Moreover, it started to operate before a certificate of registration had been obtained from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Although an application was made on 21 March, it was not granted until 27 November 1991. Despite requests by local residents to Basic Energy to see the licence and the authorisation by HMIP, they were not granted.
  Another aspect of the matter that infuriates my constituents is that clinical waste is being delivered to the plant from all over the country—from places as far away as Durham and Newcastle. There are inadequate storage facilities for the waste. I am talking about dressings, disposable syringes and similar material that one would expect would have to be disposed of by hospitals carrying out surgical operations and the like.
  For this and other reasons, large vehicles are being unloaded throughout the night, with all the associated
  744
  noise that that causes. I am told that there is no ash facility under cover and that ash was stored in open containers adjacent to the hospital swimming pool. This ash contained unburnt clinical dressings and syringes. Consequently, my constituents maintained that Basic Energy was not observing the conditions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's registration, although that was subsequently remedied. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution also issued an eight-point improvement notice on this operator, but unfortunately the problems persist.
  I come now to the responsibilities of the London Waste Regulatory Authority. What action has it taken to deal with the problems faced by local residents who are unable to use their gardens in the summer because of noise, smells and other similar manifestations? The London Waste Regulatory Authority does not seem to have acted promptly, and it was not until comparatively recently that it took action and insisted that the plant should be run properly.
  Why did the LWRA apparently permit an unauthorised incinerator plant to continue in operation without a licence? Why did it take so long to act, following alleged breaches of conditions of its licence? It was, after all, at a meeting of the authority's licensing and registration sub-committee on 21 July 1992 that the licence was eventually granted. At that meeting, the officers were instructed to
  "take further appropriate enforcement action in consultation with the Chief Solicitor, should operations at the facility not be in full compliance with the licence, including the working plan, within one week of its issue, save that no enforcement action shall be taken if the facility has ceased to operate by the end of that week and remains non-operational until such time as full compliance with the terms of the licence can be achieved."
  Subsequently, following the alleged breaches of the conditions, LWRA officers visited the site. A prosecution is now pending at Uxbridge magistrates court. I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot comment on the prosecution. However, I ask him to tell me how the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 can and will be activated to protect my constituents. Following a meeting with my hon. Friend, I understand that it is necessary for the operator of this incinerator plant to reapply for a new licence. As I understand the position, it must be applied for between 1 October 1992 and the spring of this year.
  I believe that the views of HMIP will be of the utmost importance in considering whether a new licence should be granted. I believe that it should not be granted. I consider it to be unacceptable to permit the storage and burning of clinical waste from all over Britain in an incinerator plant located in the middle of a residential area. There are other commercial incineration facilities well away from people's homes that could be utilised for this purpose. That is where hospitals from all round the country should send bandages, syringes, low-level radioactive waste material and other material which needs to be disposed of. Surely, if the Environmental Protection Act 1990 means anything, we should insist on the closure of this plant now.
  This is an important test case. If the incinerator continues as it is at present, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be shown to be wanting. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to act and to show that he and HMIP are determined to stop this pollution without delay.
  12.25 am
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): I am well aware of the public complaint surrounding the Hillingdon hospital incinerator. I have corresponded with my hon. Friend several times, and met him to discuss this distressing matter. I am sorry to hear that his constituents are still unhappy with the situation. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for vigorously pursuing the matter in the interests of his constituents.
  It might be helpful to the House if I were to set out some of the background to this matter because it is slightly complicated. In July 1990, Hillingdon health authority referred a proposal to the London borough of Hillingdon, as the local planning authority, to replace its existing incinerator, which was a very rudimentary affair, and could not possibly have met present day standards for pollution control. That was done under the arrangements then in force for Crown development as set out in circular 18/84. By this procedure, the developing department, although benefiting from Crown immunity, notifies the planning authority of its proposal either in outline or in full detail. If the planning authority objects and the dispute cannot be resolved, the developing department may refer the case to the Secretary of State. Although the new incinerator was considerably larger than the old one, the local authority raised no objections, and the proposal was not referred to the Department.
  The new incinerator was subsequently built during 1991 and is owned and operated by Basic Energy (UK) Ltd., a member of the Blue Circle group of companies. The incinerator built by Basic Energy has up-to-date pollution abatement equipment and monitoring and control systems, and was designed to achieve present day standards. In principle, that is surely a most beneficial way of disposing of waste of this kind, both rendering the waste biologically and chemically harmless and reducing the emission of combustion products from the hospital's own heavy oil-fired boilers. In addition, the heat generated from the incinerator of the clinical waste is used to raise steam to heat the hospital.
  Under current legislation releases to the air from the incinerator are regulated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The London Waste Regulatory Authority regulates the waste disposal operation. Both bodies are obliged to register or licence a proposed activity unless they believe that harm will be done to the environment or that there is a danger to public health.
  HMIP registered the incinerator in November 1991 under the legislation current at the time, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. As required by statutory instrument 318 of 1989, the public was consulted, but no responses were received from local residents.
  The regulation of the delivery, handling and storage of clinical waste, and the disposal of the ash from the incinerator, fell to the LWRA. Initially, there was some uncertainty in the LWRA about whether the site required a waste disposal licence under the Control of Pollution Act because of the imminent application of integrated pollution control under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  At the end of 1991, the LWRA advised Basic Energy that a licence would be required. A licence was granted in July 1992 after extensive public consultation, although under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 the only statutory consultees are the National Rivers Authority and the local
  746
  waste collection authority. However, since the plant has come into operation over the last year I am aware that there have been problems and that many complaints have been received from the public and routed through to my hon. Friend.
  The LWRA considers that the site is being operated in breach of its licence conditions, but the company is disputing the interpretation of some of the conditions and the matter is to go to court on 25 January. I understand that the company has notified the Department of its intention to appeal to the Secretary of State against the licence conditions. In view of these developments, it would be inappropraite for me to comment any further on this matter because my hon. Friend will appreciate that we are in a quasi-judicial position.
  Since the operation started, HMIP for its part has not been fully satisfied with the management of the releases to the atmosphere. Inspectors visited the site 34 times in 1992—far more than is usual for plants of this type and size—and met representatives of the local community on a number of occasions to hear their complaints at first hand. They have considered prosecution on specific occasions, but there has never been sufficient evidence to support this. However, they have served two improvement notices which have secured specific improvements over and above those obtained by the constant pressure exerted by inspectors.
  HMIP has arranged for independent tests on emissions to air on a number of occasions as well as requiring more tests from the company. The most recent tests done on behalf of HMIP show that the incinerator emissions are within the current standards set by the conditions of the certificate of registration.
  I also know that offensive odours have occasioned complaints and HMIP has arranged for Warren Spring laboratory to carry out an odour assessment. The results are due shortly and I will let my hon. Friend have a copy of them in due course.
  HMIP has also received complaints about the frequency with which the incinerator dump stack operates. The dump stack is necessary for safety reasons and HMIP is satisfied that its operation does not harm the environment. None the less, it has called for a programme, which is shortly to be completed, to reduce the number of times that the dump stack is used and to improve the standards of maintenance of the dump stack and its control system.
  As well as releases to the atmosphere, I understand that local residents have complained about noise pollution and my hon. Friend mentioned it tonight. This is primarily a matter for the local authority. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 now provides environmental health officers with extensive powers to control noise which they consider to be a statutory nuisance.
  For completeness, the House may want to know that the operation of the incinerator is also authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to continue the disposal of small quantities of radioactive waste from patient care. This is a common practice at hospitals and HMIP has reassessed the emissions and remains fully satisfied that the public are properly protected.
  Under the legislation operating at the time the new incinerator was commissioned, the regulation of the site was split between HMIP and LWRA. On 31 October 1992, the incinerator fell to regulation under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That is powerful new legislation

  747
  which applies integrated pollution control to air, water and land. Basic Energy has submitted an application for authorisation as required by the Act and this will be placed on the public registers held by HMIP, the local authority and the National Rivers Authority.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that HMIP will scrutinise the application closely and, before determining it, will take into account all comments from members of the public and the statutory consultees. The company will have to demonstrate that it can meet the new plant standards laid down by the chief inspector's guidance notes for clinical waste incinerators. In anticipation of that, and under pressure from the LWRA, I understand that the company has already applied for planning permission to extend the incinerator building to improve its waste handling practices, and I presume that that is an attempt to deal with the problem of bins being loaded, as shown by the photos that my hon. Friend kindly sent me.
  I do not wish to say anything tonight about the conditions to be set in any authorisation as that could prejudice the position of the Secretary of State as regards appeals against decisions by Her Majesty's chief inspector of pollution. Indeed I am afraid that I must tell my hon. Friend that in this matter there are a number of things which I cannot say because of legal reasons and which prevent me from appearing as sympathetic as I would like to be to the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised and to his constituents. I cannot discuss any appeal against the licence condition, nor any matter which is to come before the courts. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also understand that I cannot discuss any matter relating to the
  748
  planning permission currently being sought nor, as I have just said, any condition to be set under integrated pollution-control legislation.
  Although I cannot go into those issues now, I am very well aware of local public concern about the plant. I can assure my hon. Friend that laws against pollution will be firmly upheld. HMIP, the LWRA and the local authority have, I know, all been doing what they can, within the powers that they have, and have secured improvements in the operation of the plant, which will be consolidated in any authorisation issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I am confident that they will continue to keep the operation under close supervision so as properly to protect the environment for us all.
  But it is only fair to my hon. Friend that I should make it clear to the House that I will not permit pollution control legislation to be used to close an industrial site which local residents feel is sited in the wrong place. That would be a misuse of pollution control law to deal with a matter which is properly for planning law. Therefore, I cannot—to use my hon. Friend's words—bring its operation to an end, as he asks, merely because it is sited in a residential area, even though I have every sympathy for him and for his constituents. I repeat my assurance that, now that the incinerator is under the control of the integrated pollution control provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, its tough provisions will be fairly applied—but applied they will be. I hope that that will improve the local environment and that my hon. Friend's constituents will see that the law is adequate to protect them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Conduct of Inquiries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations have been made to him about those conducting legal inquiries on behalf of Her Majesty's Government giving press briefings during the inquiry.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The hon. Member has omitted to mention the inquiry in which he is interested, and therefore I regret I am unable to answer his question without further detail being provided.

  Complaints Body
  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to establish a body equivalent to the Solicitors Complaints Bureau as a statutory body.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government believe that the maintenance of professional standards is, in the first instance, for the professional body concerned. The Law Society has since 1986 delegated its statutory powers in respect of professional misconduct to the Solicitors Complaints Bureau. Matters of discipline and serious breaches of the society's rules of professional conduct are for the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, a statutory and independent body with a lay majority, to consider and act upon. In order to ensure that public confidence is maintained, the Government also established the Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman, under provisions in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The ombudsman acts as an effective independent scrutiny of the way in which the Law Society carries out its statutory duties; he also has the same powers in respect of the General Council of the Bar and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers.

  Legal Aid Leaflets
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the languages in which legal aid leaflets are available in courts or prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board produces leaflets in the following languages: English, Welsh, Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Farsi, French, German, Greek, Gujerati, Hindi, Italian, Portuguese, Punjabi, Spanish, Turkish, Urdu and Vietnamese. The board supplies leaflets in any of these languages to courts or prisons on request.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Butte Mining
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his current estimate of the date of completion of the inquiries by the Serious Fraud Office into share dealings in Butte Mining.

  The Attorney-General
  An SFO investigation into aspects of the affairs of Butte Mining plc commenced in June 1992. The SFO target for cases generally is one year from acceptance for investigation to transfer to Crown court. It is policy not to divulge operational details relating to the progress of particular investigations.

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the findings of the research commissioned in 1990 as to how aircraft noise affects people's sleep will be made available.

  Mr. Norris
  My noble Friend Lord Caithness has received a report on the field study into aircraft noise and sleep disturbance which describes the study and its results. This is published today by the Department of Transport. Copies will be placed in the House libraries.

  This has been one of the most comprehensive studies of the subject carried out anywhere in the world. The research has been carried out by teams led by Professor J. A. Horne, Loughborough University of Technology; Dr. K. I. Hume, Manchester Metropolitan University; and Professor I. D. Diamond, University of Southampton; under the overall direction of Dr. J. B. Ollerhead of the Civil Aviation Authority's Department of Safety, Environment and Engineering. I am grateful for the effort and expertise which they have devoted to this study.

  People vary greatly in how they react to noise. This is true also of the effect of aircraft noise on people's sleep. However, one of the conclusions of this study is that, once asleep, very few people living near airports are at risk of any substantial sleep disturbance due to aircraft noise.

  Road Building (Filler)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the extent to which blast furnace slag has been approved for use in motorway embankments.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Blast furnace slag is approved in the Department's Specification for Highway Works for use as general fill, as selected granular fill and as a capping material in motorway embankments. A copy of the specification is in the Library.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations govern the choice by contractors of the type of fill material for use in major road building projects.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Contractors are required to satisfy the specification for each particular scheme. This specification incorporates the Department's Specification for Highway Works and lays down additional requirements as necessary including any environmental constraints.
  517
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake and publish a comparative study of the costs of using(a) blast furnace slag and (b) freshly quarried stone as fill material for major road building projects.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A study was carried out in 1991 by the Department of the Environment into the economics of using mineral and industrial waste materials as substitutes for naturally occurring aggregates. The study included a comparison of the costs of using steel blast furnace slag as a replacement for crushed rock. The report was published (ISBN 0 11 7524840) and a copy was placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent on traffic calming measures in each of the last three years; and what savings in deaths and serious injuries on roads are estimated to have resulted.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Traffic calming is one part of a range of measures used in undertaking accident remedial schemes. The information requested is not available centrally, and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to introduce the regulations enabling local authorities to introduce traffic calming measures on class A roads.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We hope to lay traffic calming regulations before the House in the new year. These will apply to class A as well as to other roads.

  Channel Tunnel (Rail Freight)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will name the parliamentary constituencies in Greater London through which channel tunnel rail freight services will run when the tunnel opens.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail expects channel tunnel freight services to run on railway lines in the following Greater London parliamentary constituencies:

  Battersea, Beckenham, Brent East, Brent North, Brent South, Chelsea, Chislehurst, Croydon Central, Croydon North East, Croydon North West, Croydon South, Dulwich, Ealing Acton, Ealing North, Ealing Southall, Enfield North, Enfield Southgate, Fulham, Hackney South and Shoreditch, Hammersmith, Hampstead and

  Contracts let in 1992

  Scheme

  Contractor

  £

  A46 Leicester Western bypass

  AMEC/Alfred McAlpine joint venture

  35,981,698

  A423 Benson roundabout improvement

  Amey Construction Ltd.

  253,857

  A650 Park Road, Bingley

  Amey Construction Ltd.

  4,054,039

  A27 Crossbush bypass

  Associated Asphalt Co. Ltd.

  2,951,714

  M5 Junction 27 hardshoulders

  Associated Asphalt Co. Ltd.

  721,702

  A1 Marshall Meadows dualling

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  2,244,952

  A1 Brownieside improvement

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  3,174,832

  A638 Doncaster North Bridge relief road

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  5,594,403

  A568 Widnes Eastern bypass (north section)

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  14,557,435

  A16 Spalding to Sutterton

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  22,639,443

  A42 construction of 18 laybys

  Charles Gregory (Civil Engineering) Ltd.

  1,239,028

  A339 Basingstoke bypass

  Costain Building & Civil Engineering Ltd.

  8,597,625

  M42 Junction 6 improvement

  Costain Building & Civil Engineering Ltd.

  252,031

  518
  Highgate, Harrow East, Harrow West, Hayes and Harlington, Holborn and St. Pancras, Hornsey and Wood Green, Islington North, Islington South and Finsbury, Kensington, Lewisham Deptford, Lewisham East, Lewisham West, Newham North West, Norwood, Orpington, Peckham, Streatham, Tooting, Tottenham, Uxbridge, Vauxhall.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects British Rail to receive for trialling on rails in Great Britain a pre-production series channel tunnel passenger service train.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand from British Rail that it hopes to begin trials in June 1993.

  Rear Seat Belts
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has of(a) the reduction in deaths and serious injuries resulting from the requirement for car passengers to wear rear seat belts and (b) the cost to the motor manufacturers of the requirement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It has been estimated that full compliance with the rear seat belt wearing requirements would save at least 100 lives and 1,000 serious injuries a year, but since the requirement has applied to adults only since July 1991, there is insufficient statistical evidence to demonstrate the actual savings. In the six months July to December 1991 deaths and serious injuries to adult rear seat passengers fell by 14 per cent. and to child rear seat passengers by 12 per cent. compared with the corresponding period in 1990, but it is not known how much of this reduction can be attributed to seat belt wearing.

  The wearing regulations impose no additional cost to motor manufacturers: all new cars since October 1987 have been required to be fitted with rear seat belts.

  Construction Contracts
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of state for Transport if he will list for each of the last 10 years major construction contracts awarded by his Department worth over £250,000 at current prices, indicating in each case which construction company was awarded the contract; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I regret that the full information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the following information shows, for each of the last five years, all new road construction contracts with award (cash) prices of £250,000 or more.
  519

  Scheme

  Contractor

  £

  M602 Junctions 2–3 central reserve

  Edmund Nuttall Ltd.

  286,551

  A420 Kingston Bagpuize

  Edmund Nuttall Ltd.

  4,296,787

  A40 Headington roundabout improvement

  Ernest Ireland Construction Ltd.

  529,040

  A21 Blackbrook Sedlecombe improvement

  ESCC Contract Services Ltd.

  264,628

  A27 Westhampnett bypass

  Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd.

  6,923,494

  A23 Pease Pottage to Handcross

  Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd.

  8,160,560

  A59 Greengates to Gutteridge improvement

  Galliford (UK) Ltd.

  906,890

  M62 Junction 18 to M66 Junction 4

  Galliford (UK) Ltd.

  662,312

  M1 Junction 34 exit slip improvement

  Henry Boot Northern Ltd.

  327,084

  A40 Headington roundabout improvement

  John Mowlem Construction Ltd.

  529,040

  A11 Four Wentways to Newmarket

  Lilley Construction Ltd.

  9,251,976

  A40 Denham roundabout alterations

  M. J. Cagney (Civil Engineering) Ltd.

  290,475

  A11 Thetford to Bridgham Heath

  May Gurney & Co. Ltd.

  2,223,422

  A1 Haggerston to Bridgemill

  Northumberland County Council DLO

  279,681

  A43 Radstone Turn improvements

  Serco Contracting Ltd.

  411,133

  M3 Bar End to Compton

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  25,882,357

  M25 Junctions 15–16 widening (M4 to M40)

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  24,446,155

  M6 widening Junctions 20 to 21A

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  52,512,897

  A27 Brighton bypass contract 4

  Taylor Woodrow Civil Engineering Ltd.

  19,526,438

  A27 Shoreham Kingston roundabout

  Taylor Woodrow Civil Engineering Ltd.

  436,293

  A41 Edgware Way John Grooms footbridge

  Walcon Construction plc

  444,370

  A34 Redhill to Woodfarm

  Wrekin Construction Co. Ltd.

  595,878

  A663 Broadway to Whitegate Lane

  Wrekin Construction Co. Ltd.

  292,700

  Total 1992

  261,742,920

  Contracts let in 1991

  Scheme

  Contractor

  £

  A41 Kings Langley bypass

  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd.

  19,967,881

  A52 Sherwin Arms Junction improvement

  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd.

  463,108

  A167 Chester Moor improvement

  Alan Davison Construction Ltd.

  321,024

  A595 Egremont bypass

  Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd.

  6,666,666

  A596 Wigton bypass

  Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd.

  4,052,697

  A38 Two Watersfoot improvement

  Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd.

  497,547

  A41 Berkhamsted bypass

  Amey Construction Ltd.

  18,139,479

  A421 Wendlebury to Bicester dualling

  Amey Construction Ltd.

  3,904,118

  M4 Severn Crossing Toll Plaza

  Avon Construction Ltd.

  206,010

  A1001 Park Plaza roundabout

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  355,053

  A39 Wadebridge bypass

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  8,305,268

  M20 Widening Junctions 5 to 8

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  68,804,939

  M62 Widening Junctions 17 to 18

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  3,752,243

  A406 Hangar Lane to Harrow Road

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  26,562,359

  A20 Folkestone to Court Wood Contract 2

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  11,550,041

  M25 Clacket Lane slip roads

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  3,896,152

  A6 Market Harborough bypass

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  7,866,660

  A12 Gisleham Roundabout

  Bovis Construction Ltd.

  494,436

  A3 Milford bypass

  Costain Civil Engineering Ltd.

  7,889,074

  A23 Warninglid Flyover to Sayers Common

  Costain Civil Engineering Ltd.

  15,685,563

  A585 Fleetwood Dock Street diversion

  Cumbrian Industrials Ltd.

  2,190,000

  A27/A26 Beddingham Roundabout approach

  East Sussex County Council DLO

  366,098

  M6 widening Junctions 20 to 21A advance works

  Edmund Nuttall Ltd.

  1,812,266

  M62 Junction 18 Turning Lane

  Edmund Nuttall Ltd.

  329,943

  A19 Blue Bridge Bends improvement

  Edmund Nuttall Ltd.

  775,492

  A40 Long Lane

  Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd.

  17,194,536

  A41 Friarscroft to Aylesbury

  Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd.

  994,758

  A47 Norwich Southern bypass Contract 1

  Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd.

  7,933,859

  A134 Fornham St. Martin bypass

  Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd.

  2,670,577

  A47 East Dereham to North Tuddenham

  Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd.

  6,895,877

  M27 Junction 7 improvements

  Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd.

  250,018

  A604 (M1-A1 Link) Contract 5 North

  Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd.

  3,752,268

  A41 Glendale Avenue Footbridge

  Gabriel (Contractors) Ltd.

  406,175

  A41 Edgwarebury Lane Footbridge

  Gabriel (Contractors) Ltd.

  398,675

  M67/A57 Junction improvement

  Galliford (UK) Ltd.

  256,579

  A5 Little Brickhill bypass

  Galliford (UK) Ltd.

  5,837,410

  A5 Kilsby diversion

  Galliford (UK) Ltd.

  830,878

  A604 (M1/A1 Link) Contract 8

  Henry Boot Southern Ltd.

  7,042,636

  A303 Stockton Wood to Chicklade

  HT Construction Ltd.

  1,295,105

  M5 widening Junctions 6 to 8

  John Laing Construction Ltd.

  59,368,900

  A40 Denham Viaduct improvement

  John Mowlem Construction Ltd.

  608,150

  A1 Gatenby Lane Junction improvement

  John Mowlem Construction Ltd.

  2,659,610

  M3 Bar End—Compton advance works

  John Mowlem Construction Ltd.

  1,300,324

  A1 Red Lodge to Newmarket

  Kier Construction Ltd.

  4,075,310

  A16 Stickford bypass

  Kimbell Construction Ltd.

  1,013,087

  A1 Girtford underpass

  Kimbell Construction Ltd.

  812,931

  520 521

  Scheme

  Contractor

  £

  A47 Narborough bypass

  May Gurney & Co. Ltd.

  2,244,845

  A423 Southam bypass

  Midland Oak Construction Ltd.

  2,224,307

  A590 Dalton-in-Furness bypass

  Miller Construction Ltd.

  7,908,250

  A453 Ratcliffe on Soar

  Monk Construction Ltd.

  1,159,587

  A20 Court Wood to Dover Contract 3

  Norwest Holst Construction Ltd.

  21,684,567

  A13 West India Dock Road improvement

  Percy Bilton plc

  999,412

  A13 Isle of Dogs/Cotton St. footbridge

  Roadworks (1952) Ltd.

  302,088

  A16 Ludborough bypass

  Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Ltd.

  1,233,511

  A12 Gorleston Relief Road

  Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Ltd.

  15,934,883

  A1 Alnwick bypass improvement

  Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons Ltd.

  326,120

  A604 (M1-A1 Link) Contracts 2 & 3

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  35,617,820

  A30 Okehampton-Launceston

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  26,809,215

  A604 (M1-A1 Link) Contract 9

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  16,364,732

  A23 Tilgate Forest Row footbridge

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  313,837

  M5 Warndon Maintenance Compound

  Thomas Vale Construction plc

  1,134,037

  A3 Beechcroft Drive footbridge

  Walcon Construction Ltd.

  386,590

  A420 Fyfield to Tubney improvement

  Walcon Construction Ltd.

  339,814

  A259 Shorncliffe Road

  Walker Bros. (Civil Engineering) Ltd.

  271,528

  Total 1991

  £475,506,923

  Contracts let in 1990

  Scheme

  Contractor

  £

  A35 Axminster bypass

  A. E. Farr Ltd.

  8,071,374

  A47 Norwich Southern bypass Contract 4

  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd.

  29,860,233

  A650 Drighlington bypass

  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd.

  4,987,347

  A47 Norwich Southern bypass Contract 2

  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd.

  8,586,288

  A38 Burnaston improvement

  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd.

  6,384,490

  A516 Etwall bypass

  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd.

  2,656,861

  A5 Telford to Shrewsbury Contract 2

  Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd.

  38,596,977

  A23 Muddleswood to Patcham

  Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd.

  14,322,344

  A16 Boston Algarkirk Diversion

  Amey Construction Ltd.

  8,961,439

  A23 Sayers Common to Muddleswood

  Amey Construction Ltd.

  10,466,746

  A27 Patcham to Coldean

  Amey Construction Ltd.

  14,766,437

  M4 Junction 12 improvements

  Associated Asphalt Ltd.

  1,265,236

  A34 Wytham Turn Stage 2

  Associated Asphalt Ltd.

  396,604

  A604 (Ml-A1 Link) Contract 5S

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  30,741,927

  A20 Folkestone to Court Wood Contract 1

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  27,305,364

  A6 Burton Latimer bypass

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  2,633,257

  A30 Plusha to Bolventor

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  10,673,774

  A49 Weaverham Diversion

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  4,230,071

  A423 Maidenhead Thicket

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  8,439,669

  A41 Whitchurch bypass

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  8,947,176

  A1079 Market Weighton bypass

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  3,360,937

  QEII Bridge Northern Approach Roads

  Cementation Construction Ltd.

  8,318,692

  A41 Ruscote Avenue improvement

  Charles Gregory (Civil Engineering) Ltd.

  381,604

  A16 Louth bypass

  Clugston Construction Ltd.

  4,995,421

  A23 Purley Cross Junction improvement

  Costain Civil Engineering Ltd.

  1,487,469

  A34 Robin Hood Roundabout

  Dean & Dyball Ltd.

  463,341

  A30 Zelah bypass

  Dean & Dyball Ltd.

  2,632,265

  A595 Hensingham bypass

  Eden Construction Ltd.

  4,285,308

  A1/A19 Testos roundabout improvement

  Eden Construction Ltd.

  795,388

  A59 Salmesbury to Skipton

  Eden Construction Ltd.

  1,943,322

  A5 Telford to Shrewsbury Contract 1

  Edmund Nuttall Ltd.

  25,858,870

  A523 Macclesfield Relief Road

  Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd.

  18,749,030

  A30 Penhale to Carland Cross

  Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd.

  9,140,689

  A12/M25 Brook Street

  Fitzpatrick & Son Ltd.

  309,567

  A46/A52 Weighbridge

  G. F. Tomlinson & Sons Ltd.

  291,367

  A43 Blisworth bypass

  Galliford Civil Engineering Ltd.

  15,074,800

  A36 Codford bypass Phase 2

  HT Construction Ltd.

  441,206

  A38 Marsh Mills

  Hochtief Ag

  22,478,528

  A614 Howdendyke Cross Roads

  Humberside County Council DLO

  357,786

  A140 Dickleburgh bypass

  J. Breheny (Contractors) Ltd.

  2,212,177

  A10 Brandon Creek

  J. Breheny (Contractors) Ltd.

  1,039,521

  A11 Red Lodge bypass

  J. Breheny (Contractors) Ltd.

  4,839,174

  A31 Picket Post Junction improvement

  John Mowlem Construction Ltd.

  1,791,225

  A4 Littlewick Green

  John Mowlem Construction Ltd.

  535,936

  A339 Roman Road Roundabout improvement

  Kimbell Construction Ltd.

  336,899

  A604 (M1–A1 Link) Contract 4

  May Gurney & Co. Ltd.

  4,410,721

  A47 Norwich Southern bypass Contract 3

  May Gurney & Co. Ltd.

  14,752,896

  A47 East Norton bypass

  Midland Oak (Contractors) Ltd.

  1,174,621

  M40 Maintenance Compound at Longbridge

  Midland Oak (Contractors) Ltd.

  1,097,303

  A66 Bowes bypass

  Miller Construction Ltd.

  8,978,565

  A27 Brighton bypass Contract 2

  M. J. Gleeson Group plc

  8,767,755

  522 523

  Scheme

  Contractor

  £

  M42/M40 Umberslade

  Monk Construction Ltd.

  1,504,780

  A1 Bramham to Wetherby

  Monk Construction Ltd.

  14,911,151

  A47 Etling Green Junction improvement

  Norfolk County Council DLO

  265,927

  A696/B6323 Callerton Lane Link Road

  Northumberland County Council DLO

  823,240

  A1 Shilbottle Junction

  Northumberland County Council DLO

  254,750

  A27 Lyons Farm Junction improvement

  P. Trant Ltd.

  581,058

  A23/M23 improvement (Gatwick Airport)

  Percy Bilton plc

  352,152

  A42 Castle Donington Contract 3

  Redland Aggregates Ltd.

  2,772,379

  A12 Capel St. Mary

  Roadworks (1952) Ltd.

  3,518,293

  A47 Caistor and Ailsworth bypass

  Roadworks (1952) Ltd.

  7,506,331

  A65 Draughton bypass

  Shand Construction Ltd.

  2,185,404

  A43/A423 Kidlington Roundabout

  SIAC Construction Ltd.

  296,674

  A604 (Ml-A1 Link) Contract 1

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  3,085,649

  A6 Quorn and Mountsorrel bypass

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  31,756,673

  A42 Castle Donington Contract 2

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  16,789,402

  A3 Liphook to Petersfield bypass

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  35,841,789

  M40 widening Junctions 4–5

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  35,818,203

  A120 Horsley Roundabout

  Watson Construction Ltd.

  252,536

  A303 Mere to Wincanton

  Wimpey Construction Ltd.

  15,275,717

  Total 1990

  587,388,105

  Contracts let in 1989

  Scheme

  Contractor

  £

  A604 (M1-A1 Link) Contract 6

  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd.

  25,660,650

  A42 Castle Donington

  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd.

  24,730,506

  A650 Airedale Route Contract 2

  A. Monk Building & Civil Engineering Ltd.

  536,180

  M40 Waterstock to Wendlebury

  Alfred McAlpine/Fairclough joint venture

  64,100,726

  A23 Waddon Marsh

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  1,000,000

  QEII Bridge Southern Approach Roads

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  27,690,340

  A19 Peterlee Junction Stage 2

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  3,239,909

  A66 Stockton Racecourse Interchange

  Birse Construction Ltd.

  5,466,972

  A47 Easton Hornstocks Bends

  Charles Gregory Civil Engineering Ltd.

  874,739

  A45 Barford Road Junction

  Clugston Construction Ltd.

  499,516

  A69 Brampton bypass

  Cumbrian Industrials Ltd.

  4,944,000

  A65 Addingham bypass

  Cumbrian Industrials Ltd.

  3,669,000

  A361 North Devon Link Road Stage 2

  Devon Contractors Ltd.

  365,992

  A406 Hanger Lane (Twyford Tip)

  Edmund Nuttall Ltd.

  10,304,298

  M62 Climbing Lane Junctions 21 and 22

  Edmund Nuttall Ltd.

  562,440

  A259 Glyne Gap roundabout

  East Sussex County Council DLO

  297,416

  A167 Pity Me roundabout

  Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd.

  253,754

  A41 Improvement at Chester

  Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd.

  17,491,969

  A500 Nantwich bypass

  Galliford Civil Engineering Ltd.

  5,094,318

  A27 Farlington bypass

  Geoffrey Osborne Ltd.

  1,206,591

  M3 Bassett to Compton advance works

  Geoffrey Osborne Ltd.

  489,250

  M3/A339 Basingstoke

  Hampshire County Council DLO

  399,107

  M3 Bassett to Compton widening

  John Mowlem Construction Ltd.

  41,662,080

  A41 Bicester bypass Stage 1

  John Mowlem Construction Ltd.

  4,731,992

  A604 (M1–A1 Link) Contract 6A

  Midland Oak Contractors Ltd.

  819,791

  A696 Woolsington bypass

  Miller Construction Ltd.

  10,358,496

  A1 Dualling South of Alnwick

  Northumberland County Council DLO

  622,018

  A60 Mansfield Road improvement

  Nottingham County Council DLO

  363,123

  A47 Eye bypass

  Redland Aggregates Ltd.

  5,199,976

  A23 Waddon Way Junction improvement

  Ringway Surfacing Ltd.

  803,964

  A36 Codford bypass

  Rush & Tompkins Ltd.

  2,084,710

  A49 Shrewsbury improvement

  Shropshire County Council DLO

  697,632

  A30 Launceston to Plusha

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  8,775,795

  A604 (M1-A1 Link) Contract 7

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  14,188,340

  A27/A22 Lewes Road

  Walker Brothers Civil Engineering Ltd.

  270,959

  A303 Ilchester to South Petherton

  Wimpey Construction Ltd.

  12,773,286

  M20 Maidstone to Ashford Contract 2

  Wimpey Construction Ltd.

  28,667,972

  A435 Alcester bypass

  Wrekin Construction Co. Ltd.

  8,780,768

  Total 1989

  339,678,575

  Contracts let in 1988

  Scheme

  Contractor

  £

  A35 Charmouth bypass

  A. E. Farr Ltd.

  10,725,435

  A36 Beckington bypass

  A. E. Farr Ltd.

  2,983,063

  A46/A17 Newark Relief Road

  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd.

  31,478,637

  A550 Ledsham Station diversion

  A. McFadden & Co. Ltd.

  880,938

  M5 Catshill & M42/M5 Northern Link

  A. Monk Building & Civil Engineering Ltd.

  20,572,186

  524 525

  Scheme

  Contractor

  £

  M62 Climbing Lane Greater Manchester

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  10,075,245

  A69 Newcastle Western bypass Contract 3

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  24,854,460

  M40 Banbury Contract 4

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  51,712,702

  M25 Junctions 10–13 widening

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  30,060,635

  A417 Birdlip bypass

  Biwater Construction Ltd.

  1,926,589

  A49 Frees bypass

  C. J. Pearce Ltd.

  1,193,125

  A406 Chingford to Hale End

  Cementation Construction Ltd.

  60,587,621

  A1 Coldstone Lane to B6267

  Colas Roads Ltd.

  316,743

  M62 Climbing Lane West Yorkshire

  Cumbrian Industrials Ltd.

  2,089,000

  A303 Sparkford bypass

  Davies Middleton & Davies Ltd.

  7,654,577

  A11(T) High Road Leytonstone

  Gabriel (Contractors) Ltd.

  597,872

  A34 Tidbury Ring improvement

  Hampshire County Council DLO

  852,773

  A1 Dishforth interchange

  Henry Boot (Northern) Ltd.

  6,790,485

  A41 Rodney House roundabout

  J. J. Gallagher Ltd.

  275,688

  M40 Banbury Contract 2

  John Mowlem Construction Ltd.

  17,910,558

  A47 Guyhirn diversion

  Kier Construction Ltd.

  3,656,000

  A16 South Haven Bridge diversion

  Kier Construction Ltd.

  2,567,174

  A19/A1290 Downhill Lane

  M. J. Gleeson Group plc

  1,238,401

  A21 Robertsbridge bypass

  M. J. Gleeson Group plc

  3,595,802

  A11 Thetford bypass

  May Gurney & Co. Ltd.

  8,545,654

  A435 Sedgeberrow

  Mowlem Regional Construction Ltd.

  1,738,362

  A23 Brighton Road/Purley Road improvement

  Percy Bilton plc

  312,538

  A35 Bridport Link

  R. C. & G. Coles Ltd.

  428,337

  M40 Gaydon Section

  R. M. Douglas Construction Ltd.

  33,985,302

  A36 Steeple Langford bypass

  Rush & Tomkins Ltd.

  1,324,847

  A565 Derby Road improvement

  Shand Northern Ltd.

  1,588,794

  A6 Barton Le Clay bypass

  Shanks & McEwan (Contractors) Ltd.

  6,959,596

  A52/A6005 improvement

  Shephard Hill & Co. Ltd.

  4,590,613

  M40 Banbury Contract 1

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  24,197,510

  M40 Banbury Contract 3

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  52,199,044

  M27 Swaythling Link

  Walcon Construction Ltd.

  326,125

  A41 Harwoods Close roundabout

  Wrekin Construction Co. Ltd.

  446,467

  Total 1988

  431,238,898

  Rail Privatisation
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 32, if he will make it his policy to make the draft guidance to be given to the franchising authority available to hon. Members before the Second Reading debate on the British Rail privatisation legislation.

  Mr. Freeman
  We intend to make the draft guidance to be issued to the franchising authority available to hon. Members at the commencement of the Committee stage of the Bill.

  Expenditure (London Boroughs)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give his Department's expenditure, by London borough, for each of the past five years, on(a) major trunk roads, (b) local main roads via transport supplementary grant, (c) bus improvements, (d) rail improvements and (e) cycle facilities.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not held in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the expenditure, by borough, of funds from his Department on roads adjacent to red routes in London.

  Mr. Norris
  The latest estimates of expenditure on approved works on roads adjacent to the pilot red route are:
  526

  £

  (a) Haringey

  717,000

  (b) Islington

  690,000

  (c) Hackney

  229,000

  (d) Tower Hamlets

  954,000

  Private Car Ownership
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his Department's projections on the increase in private car ownership in(a) Greater London, (b) England and Wales and (c) Scotland over (i) the next five years, (ii) 10 years and (iii) 15 years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The number of private cars alone is not forecast. The Department's forecasts of the number of cars normally kept in(a) Greater London and (b) England and Wales and (c) Scotland are:

  Millions

  (a)

  1(b)

  (c)

  1991

  2·4

  18·7

  1·5

  1997

  2·7 to 2·8

  21·1 to 22·0

  1·7 to 1·8

  2002

  2·9 to 3·1

  22·9 to 24·6

  1·9 to 2·0

  2007

  3·0 to 3·4

  24·5 to 26·9

  2·0 to 2·2

  1 (b) includes (a).

  The range in the forecasts is associated with the expected range in GDP growth and fuel prices.

  Cycles
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has held with(a) Westminster city council and (b) the City of London regarding their policies on cycling and parking of cycles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department discusses cycling issues with the London boroughs collectively through the London Cycling Forum, chaired by the London Planning Advisory Committee. We have given advice in a series of local transport notes on provision for cyclists, including cycle parking.

  Parking
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's estimate of the number of(a) on-street, (b) public off-street and (c) private off-street parking facilities in inner London; what the figures were for 1988; and what he expects to be the provision in 1994.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has not made any estimates of parking provision in inner London. However, a survey conducted for the London Planning Advisory Committee in 1990 found(a) 81,000 on-street parking places, and (b) 42,000 places in off-street public car parks. These estimates cover all boroughs in inner and central London except Islington and the London Docklands Development Corporation who did not respond to the survey, and Hackney who did not provide information about on-street parking. Information on (c) private off-street parking facilities is not available.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the total number of residential properties owned by his Department, (b) the number of such properties which are empty, and (c), (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. Norris
  Yes. On 30 September 1992, when the last return was compiled:

  (a) the total number of residential properties was 3,283: apart from 15 used by coastguard services they were held as a result of road schemes;

  (b) 666 were empty; and

  (c) the empty properties were 20.4 per cent. of the total. However, of these, 597 (18.3 per cent.) either have been in the Department's ownership for three months or less; are awaiting demolition; are in the process of being sold or are vacant for other good reasons, for example, because they are uninhabitable or are specialised and particularly difficult to let. Only 69 properties (2.1 per cent.) remain unlet without good reason.

  British Rail Rolling Stock
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish details of all locomotives and rolling stock that British Rail(a) has moth-balled, (b) intends to declare surplus to requirements or to dispose of for scrap and (c) has disposed of, or sold for scrap, during the past year.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has provided the following information:

  (a) InterCity has 40 coaches in store, with plans to store another 35; 40 surplus sleeper coaches are also in
  528
  store, and a purchaser is being sought for these; 74 damaged or defective locomotives are in store awaiting a decision.

  (b) About 300 locomotives have been withdrawn and are awaiting sale by competitive tender.

  (c) Sixty-seven locomotives were sold during 1992, of which 12 went to preservation societies or other private users. In the past two years InterCity has disposed of 235 life-expired coaches for scrap; a further 100 coaches have been sold to the private sector or transferred to other parts of BR.

  Some life-expired electric and diesel multiple units are becoming surplus as new rolling stock is introduced on Network SouthEast regional railways. Detailed figures are not readily available.

  BR is always interested to hear from those who wish to be included in tender lists for surplus rolling stock. Stock which contains asbestos may require the attention of a special contractor.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons differing provisions apply in respect of the consequences of failure to pass a test within two years to(a) holders of provisional motorcyclist licences and (b) car drivers holding provisional licences; and what plans he has to bring the two provisional licences into line with each other.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A provisional motorcycle licence is valid for a maximum period of two years and may not be renewed within a year of expiring. Provisional car driving licences remain valid until the holder reaches the age of 70. The reason for these differing provisions is that the holder of a provisional motorcycle licence is entitled to ride unaccompanied and, without this limitation on the period of validity of such a licence, there would be no incentive to attain the standard required to obtain a full licence.

  A2 (Dualling)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the design consultancy project for the dualling of the A2 between Lydden and Dover; and when, how, and for how long the public consultation process is to operate.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The design consultants are continuing to investigate route options for the A2 Lydden to Dover scheme. Public consultation is planned for late spring 1993. It will include the distribution of information leaflets with questionnaires, a press notice, advertisement in the local press and a public exhibition. A six-week period is proposed for receipt of comments from the public.

  Road Schemes
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those road schemes added to the Government's roads programme since the publication of the White Paper, "Trunk Roads: England into the 1990s."

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The 32 schemes which have been added to the national roads programme since the 1990 White Paper are as follows:

  National roads programme entries

  A303—Ilminster bypass

  529

  A41—Christleton bypass

  A428—Turvey bypass

  A39—Kilkhampton bypass

  A49—Woofferton bypass

  A65—West of Gargrave bypass

  A3—Thursley—Milford

  A65—Chelker Bends

  A1079—Bishop Burton bypass

  A39—Stratton diversion

  A31—Sturt Lane—Red Post

  A59—Skipton bypass—Low Lodge Skeffington Bends

  A64—Malton—Seamer

  A41—Aylesbury: prop. junction improvement

  A2—Honeywood junction

  A650—Airedale Route: section 4

  A259—Guestling Thorn/Icklesham bypass

  A205/A2212—Burnt Ash hill

  A1—Willow Burn—Denwick

  A1—Hitchcroft—Cawledge

  A1—Wetherby bypass

  A1—Bramham—Wetherby

  A1—Stamford—Newark

  A1—Newark—A1(M) south of Doncaster

  A49—Marshbrook improvement

  Manchester outer ring road re-signing

  M25—Slip road—Clacket lane motorway service area

  M5—Junction 29–30

  M23—Widening junctions 9–10

  M27—Widening junctions 4–12

  M25—Second stage widening

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the trunk road and motorway schemes that have been through a formal period of public consultation during the last 12 months and indicate those schemes where comments on a no-road option were specifically invited.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The following trunk road and motorway schemes have been through a period of formal consultation within the last 12 months:

  M1—Widening of junctions 6A–10.

  M1—Widening of junctions 10–15.

  M1–M62 link.

  M3—Widening of junctions 2–4.

  M6—Widening of junctions 11–16.

  M6—Widening of junctions 16–20.

  M25—Junctions 12–15 improvement.

  M40—Widening of junctions 1A–3.

  M56-M62—Greater Manchester western and northern relief road stage 2*.

  M62–M606 link.

  M63—Widening of junctions 6–9.

  A1(M)—Redhouse to Ferrybridge.

  A1—Gateshead western bypass.

  A2–A282—Dartford improvement.

  A3—Hindhead improvement.

  A3—M40 to B4031 improvement.

  A12—Pakefield to Kessingland.

  A16—East Keal bypass.

  A17—Leadenham to Sleaford improvement.

  A19—Norton to Parkway improvement.

  A19—Shipton-by-Beningbrough bypass.

  A19—Thormanby bypass.

  A21—Silverhill improvement.

  A26—Beddingham to Itford Farm diversion.

  A27—Lewes to Polegate improvement.

  A30—Woodleigh junction.

  A36—Beckington to east of Bath.

  A39—Allins to south Penlean improvement.

  A41—No Mans Heath and Macefen bypass.

  A41—Milton Green bypass.

  A46—Newark Widmerpool improvement.

  A49—Woofferton bypass*.

  A50—Blythe Bridge Queensway Meir section.

  A51—Improvement at Burford and the Green bypass.

  A52—Radcliffe-on-Trent to Grantham improvement.

  A54—Kelsall bypass to A556 improvement.

  A57–A628—Mottram/Hollingworth/Tintwistle bypass*.

  530

  A63—Castle street.

  A63—West of A1.

  A64—Malton-Seamer.

  A64—York-Malton.

  A65—Coniston Cold bypass.

  A66—Longnewton grade separated junction.

  A259—Walland Marsh improvement.

  A303—Ilminster bypass dualling.

  A516—North of Etwall improvement.

  A523—Improvements Poynton-Macclesfield*.

  A595—Duddon Bridge improvement.

  A1079—Shiptonthorpe bypass.

  A6120—Seacroft and Crossgates bypass.

  While none of the public consultations had a "no road" option, those schemes marked with an * did contain a question of whether a new road/bypass was necessary. It is, however, our policy to put forward only routes which we consider feasible and are prepared to build.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those road schemes deleted from the Government's road programmes on(a) economic, (b) environmental and (c) other grounds since the White Paper, "Trunk Roads: England into the 1990s".

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  One scheme, A59 Copster Green bypass, has been deleted from the national roads programme since the White Paper, "Trunk Roads, England into the 1990s". This was on economic grounds. The A6 Market Harborough to Desborough scheme has been transferred from the national programme to the regional programme of under £1 million schemes.

  National Parks
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made concerning transport policy implications in respect of the Countryside Commission's proposals to strengthen national parks for the 21st century; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Government made a full response to the Countryside Commission's national parks review in January this year.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Wales are responsible for policy on trunk roads in national parks. The Government's policy remains as it has been: no new trunk roads will be constructed or an existing road upgraded unless there is a compelling need which cannot be met by any reasonable alternative means. This policy has been most recently reflected in our announcement in September that the A628/A616 would not be upgraded to dual carriageway through the Peak district national park.

  Other transport needs are a matter for local authorities, passenger transport executives and British Rail, in consultation with the national park authorities where appropriate.

  Nuclear Material
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 8 December,Official Report, column 599–600, relating to the transport of small quantities of plutonium, what was the mass of the largest single small quantity exported for which he has records; and whether his answer encompasses all nuclear materials transported from the United Kingdom since such transport began.
  531
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Individual shipments of small quantities of radioactive material are not notifiable to the Department.

  The previous response referred to shipments made by British Nuclear Fuels plc and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority since 1981.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to re-establish his Department's advisory committee on the safe transport of nuclear materials.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No: ACTRAM was disbanded because its work was completed. Any future issues relating to the transport of radioactive waste will be covered by the Department of the Environment's radioactive waste management advisory committee.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received over the transport of nuclear materials to, from and within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  Forty-three parliamentary questions (including this one).

  Freight Traffic
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about his plans to implement his policy of encouraging freight to transfer from road to rail.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government want to see freight moving by rail wherever practical. If rail freight is to flourish it must be competitive with road and other forms of transport. The introduction of private sector skills and access to new sources of funding is the best means of securing an efficient and competitive rail freight industry in the United Kingdom.

  Heavy Lorries
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the increase in heavy lorries registered outside the United Kingdom on United Kingdom roads after the opening up of the single market; and if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure the roadworthiness of such vehicles.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The number of foreign lorries on our roads has risen by 19 per cent. in the past five years. This compares with a 52 per cent. increase in the number of British lorries travelling to the continent in the same period. British and foreign vehicles are checked at ports and at the roadside for compliance with the law on safety, weight limits and drivers' hours.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of financial support he will give to local authorities through the transport supplementary grant.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  As explained in my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 15 December 1992, the funds available through transport supplementary grant for 1993–94 total £1,047 million. Of this, £431 million is transport supplementary grant and the rest is allocated as borrowing approvals.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the most recent state of the arrangements for the commencement of work on the Jubilee line extension; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  We have made provision for the Jubilee line extension to be constructed subject to a satisfactory agreement being reached with the administrators of Olympia and York Canary Wharf on the terms on which they are to contribute towards its cost. Negotiations with the administrators are continuing.

  Roads (Private Investment)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the measures which he is taking to attract private investment in capital spending on roads.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I shall publish this year a Green Paper on the basis for charging for the use of inter-urban roads. One option to be considered is direct charging, for use of such roads, which would greatly increase opportunities for private investment. The Green Paper will also examine the scope for attracting more private finance through joint ventures and through contracts for the design, build and operation of roads.

  Rail Fares
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take the necessary steps to ensure that the fares charged for travel on British railways are broadly in line with those which apply in other EC member states; and what assessment he has made of the service provided by such railways.

  Mr. Freeman
  Meaningful comparisons are difficult to make, given the very different operating conditions in each country. However, it is clear that fares could be reduced only if subsidies were increased. It would be wrong to ask taxpayers to fund bigger subsidies. Passengers, who are the main beneficiaries of rail services, should bear as much as possible of the costs.

  Passengers Charter
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to assess the effectiveness of the passengers charter.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the British Rail chairman frequently and discuss a range of issues including the operation of the passengers charter.

  InterCity Services (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effects of British Rail privatisation on InterCity services to and from towns in Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Freeman
  Involving the private sector in the operation of the railways through franchising will lead to an improvement in the quality of all passenger rail services, including InterCity services to and from Gloucestershire.

  Road Lighting
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to reduce the level of pollution from road lights in rural areas.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In future, trunk road lighting in rural areas will use lanterns designed to limit light pollution. General guidance will be published to make lighting more environmentally sensitive.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the increased energy costs that will arise as a result of increased street, road and motorway lighting over the next five years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The energy costs for road lighting over the next five years will depend on a number of factors such as the type of lamp used, increases in the road length lit, and any changes in the unit costs of electricity.

  By far the largest users of energy for street and road lighting are local highway authorities and no central records are kept. On all-purpose trunk roads and motorways, detailed plans are subject to change according to circumstances, but on present assumptions the overall energy consumption seems likely to rise in the order of 20 per cent. over the next five years.

  Networker Trains (Kent)
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail about the ordering of the proposed networker express trains for the Kent coast services.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Rail regularly to discuss current issues. The Chancellor's autumn statement enables BR to order on lease an additional £150 million of new rolling stock over the next three years. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) on 17 December,Official Report, c. 337–38.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in reducing deaths linked to drink-driving.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Considerable progress has been made in our continuing campaign against drinking and driving in changing public attitudes and so reducing the number of deaths caused by those who drink and drive.

  The percentage of drivers/riders killed who were over the legal limit has fallen from 30 per cent. in 1981 to 19 per cent. in 1991. In 1991 some 700 people were killed in accidents where a driver or rider was over the legal limit compared with 1,540 in 1981 and 800 in 1990.

  London Buses Ltd.
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he has made for the disposal of assets held by London Buses Ltd.

  Mr. Norris
  Following my announcement on 4 December that we intend to proceed with early privatisation of London Buses Ltd., we shall be working 534
  up our proposals in more detail, including their implications for the assets held by the company, over the coming months.

  EC Environmental Rules
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last had discussions with the European Commissioner for the Environment on the application of the Community's environmental rules to the United Kingdom road programmes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  During the United Kingdom presidency, my right hon. Friend met Mr. van Miert, then Commissioner for Transport and the Environment, on a number of occasions to discuss various matters including the national road programme in England. Trunk roads in the rest of the United Kingdom are the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  A20 (Dualling)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current progress of the A20 road dualling between Dover and Folkstone and the expected date for completion.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The A20 Folkestone-Dover scheme is being constructed in three contract lengths. The scheme is expected to be completed by late summer 1993.

  Submarine Notification Scheme
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the responsibility of Commander Ancona with respect to the Subfacts scheme; to whom he is directly responsible; and what is the working relationship of Her Majesty's Coastguard with the Royal Navy and the Ministry of Defence in the operation of the scheme;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the comments of Commander Ancona of Her Majesty's Coastguard regarding the operation of the Subfacts notification scheme; what action he has taken as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Commander Ancona as Chief Coastguard is head of Her Majesty's Coastguard which, as part of marine directorate of the Department of Transport, is responsible for the initiation and co-ordination of civil maritime search and rescue (SAR). He is directly responsible to the director of marine emergency operations. Responsibility for fishing vessel safety rests with the surveyor general's organisation within the Department.

  Following the sinking of the fishing vessel Antares in November 1990, the Chief Coastguard, agreed to HM Coastguard broadcasting Subfacts information for the inner Clyde submarine exercise areas on behalf of MOD. The scheme was subsequently extended to the outer Clyde, and Rona and Raasay exercise areas. The Royal Navy under the aegis of the Ministry of Defence provides HM Coastguard rescue centres Clyde, Oban and Belfast with Subfacts information, which is broadcast on marine VHF 6 times per day at staggered four-hourly intervals from several aerials. Subsequently consideration has been given to the most appropriate way of continuing to promulgate this information to fishermen.

  Infectious Waste (Imports)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of all shipments of infectious clinical waste for disposal from Germany to the United Kingdom in the last 12 months, including tonnage, port of entry, packaging, labelling and temperature-controlled conditions.

  Mr. Norris
  The details of individual shipments of clinical waste are not normally recorded by the Department. In these instances, permission has been given for the importation of certain goods subject to stringent conditions.

  The packages are of a type designed and tested to comply with standards laid down by the United Nations Economic and Social Council's Committee of Experts' Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and those of the German Federal Institute for Material Research and Material Tests. Packages are labelled and marked "WASTE, INFECTIOUS SUBSTANCES AFFECTING HUMANS" UN 2814, Class 6.2 and carried in refrigerated containers where the temperature is kept below 5 deg. C. We have been informed that about 400 tonnes have been shipped through Harwich during the last 12 months.

  Baggage Reconciliation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the airlines on baggage reconciliation.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has had considerable discussion and consultation with the airlines and their representative bodies over a number of years.

  Manchester Airport
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the ownership of Manchester airport.

  Mr. Norris
  It is for the local authorities who own the airport to decide, taking into account the needs of those who live in the area and the customers who use the airport. Manchester airport has developed over the last decade into one of the major world airports. We understand the airport company has plans for substantial further development, including in particular a second runway and the second phase of the new terminal. In view of our desire to see more private sector participation in airport provision, supplementary credit approvals will not be granted for such development work. So if the owners wish to see the airport continue to develop, they will need to use their own resources or look to the private sector to fund major expansion, either through a joint venture or outright sale.

  Harrogate Western Bypass
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will order an official environmental impact assessment of the chosen route for the western bypass for Harrogate adopted by the North Yorkshire county council.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I understand that an environmental statement will accompany a planning application 536
  for the Harrogate western bypass to the county planning authority. In the event that no statement is provided, reserve powers are available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to require As preparation. A decision on the use of such powers would be taken at the time.

  Loan Capital
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the extent to which local authorities plan to obtain capital receipts from the sale of share or loan capital in airport companies between 13 November and 31 December 1993.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend has made no estimates. All capital receipts by local authorities from the disposal of share or loan capital in public airport companies realised during the period referred to will be usable to finance expenditure for capital purposes.

  West Coast Main Line
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the estimated cost of the British Rail proposals of essential investment in the west coast main line over the next three years.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that British Rail intends to commence work soon on renewing infrastructure on the west coast main line. The timing of this work, and therefore the cost over the next three years, will be decided in the spring when British Rail have completed its next corporate plan.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account he takes of householders' mortgage debts in the compulsory purchase of property required for road schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Mortgage debts are not a factor. Compensation is assessed at full market value and may be used to release an outstanding mortgage debt. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is actively reviewing what action might be necessary in the event of compensation for properties acquired by compulsory purchase orders falling short of the mortgage debt. We have no evidence of such cases at present.

  Coach Accidents
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the statistics for(a) serious injuries and (b) minor injuries incurred in accidents involving coaches in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The attached table shows the number of people killed, seriously injured and slightly injured in road accidents involving buses and coaches in Great Britain from 1982 to 1991.

  Casualties in accidents involving bus and coaches, by severity: Great Britain 1982–1991

  Casualties

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  Slightly injured

  Total

  1982

  279

  2,508

  13,803

  16,590

  1983

  263

  2,376

  13,669

  16,308

  1984

  245

  2,263

  13,867

  16,375

  537

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  Slightly injured

  Total

  1985

  211

  2,397

  13,666

  16,274

  1986

  227

  2,204

  13,234

  15,665

  1987

  199

  2,179

  13,040

  15,418

  1988

  188

  2,214

  13,321

  15,723

  1989

  223

  2,088

  14,467

  16,778

  1990

  225

  2,000

  14,232

  16,457

  1991

  189

  1,771

  12,637

  14,597

  M6
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the estimated cost of the widening of the M6 motorway from junctions 11 to 20.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The estimated works cost is £570 million.

  Electric-powered Cars
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy towards the Coventry city council plans to introduce a public network of electric-powered cars.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 17 December 1992]I welcome Coventry city council's efforts to seek involvement in a trial of a limited rental fleet of electric cars under the collaborative European THERMIE programme.

  The results of such trials should help inform customers, who ultimately determine the success of any vehicle development, and give useful data to those with specific technical, research and commercial interests.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will undertake a review of market testing in the light of the European Court of Justice rulings on the validity of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on public sector activities which have been or could be contracted out.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The general position in relation to the services which are being market tested by central Government Departments and agencies is unaffected by recent decisions of the European Court of Justice it remains the case that in some cases the regulations will apply if the service is subsequently supplied by an outside contractor; in others they will not.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list(a) the total number of residential properties owned by his Department, (b) the number of such properties which are empty and (c), (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. Jackson
  The Office of Public Service and Science does not own any residential properties.

  AIDS
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the present and past members of the AIDS-directed programme committee.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The present members of the Medical Research Council AIDS-directed programme steering committee are:

  Dr. G. C. Schild (Chairman)

  Dr. J. Karn

  Professor J. Neil

  Dr. D. Tyrell FRS

  Professor A. J. McMichael

  Professor J. Almond

  Professor G. Dodson

  Dr. J. Darbyshire

  Professor A. C. Minson

  Professor A. Rickinson

  There are three vacant positions on the Committee at present in the process of being filled.

  Past members of the Committee are:

  Professor T. Blundell

  Dr. M. Crumpton

  Dr. R. Dwek

  Professor W. Jarrett

  Professor K. Murray

  Dr. M. Perutz

  Dr. D. A. Rees

  Professor C. B. Reese

  Dr. P. Greenaway

  Dr. J. Skehel

  Professor A. Williams

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total spending on the Medical Research Council AIDS-directed programme; to which research projects grants have been made under this programme; what is the amount of each grant awarded; and who are the heads of the research groups for each project funded by this programme.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Between 1987–88 (when the programme began) and 1991–92, the Medical Research Council has spent £27·8 million on its AIDS-directed programme.

  A list of research project grants made under this programme, the amount of each grant awarded and the heads of the research groups for the projects funded by this programme has been placed in the Library.

  Research Vessels
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultations he has had with the Natural Environmental Research Council on(a) the deficit in the budget of the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, (b) the laying up of research vessels and (c) the proposed relocation of the research vessels service from Barry to Southampton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  None. These are matters for the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide, by outlet, a breakdown of the amount spent on recruitment advertising for the civil service in the ethnic minority media in the last year for which figures are available.
  539
  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not centrally held. The majority of civil service recruitment is undertaken by individual departments and agencies who are responsible for selecting their own advertising media.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the guidelines governing the appointment of full-time civil servants to be non-executive directors of private companies; how many full-time civil servants are non-executive directors of private companies; what studies he has undertaken into potential conflicts of interests involving such appointments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  One of the principles of conduct which binds the civil service, set out in the personnel management handbook, is that civil servants must not take part in activities which might conflict with the interests of their Departments; or impair their usefulness as public servants; or be inconsistent with their position as public servants. It is for the Departments and individuals concerned to ensure that these requirements are met in each case.

  In addition, my Department is publishing this month a new guidance note on the appointment of civil servants as non-executive directors to supplement the rules and procedures followed in departments. I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Government continue to support and encourage this and other forms of interchange between the civil service and outside organisations. Approximately 65 full-time civil servants are currently non-executive directors of private companies.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  English Tourist Board
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying the decision to reduce the English tourist board's grant for the coming financial year.

  Mr. Key
  I refer to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on 13 November 1992,Official Report, columns 997–98. I believe that the case is now much less strong for central Government funding of the promotion of tourism in England. The English tourist board (ETB) has done a great deal over the years to raise standards, to improve access to information, and to show the industry how their products can be developed and marketed. As the industry matures, and the regional tourist boards develop, it is appropriate for other bodies to carry on many of the ETB's central activities. That is reflected in the allocations of Exchequer grants for tourism over the next three years.

  However, I also believe that central Government support for the regional tourist boards should continue. I believe that this support should be targeted much more closely than at present on areas of need where tourism might be an instrument of economic regeneration. The English tourist board is currently working on proposals for support to the regional tourist boards.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) pursuant to his answer, 30 November 1992,Official Report, column 43, what definition is used of works of art;

  (2) pursuant to his answer, 30 November 1992, Official Report, column 43, when the computerised inventory of the works of art in the occupied royal palaces was begun; and when it is expected that the exercise will be completed;

  (3) if he will publish an inventory of the contents of the occupied royal palaces, excluding works of art, which are public property and not owned by the sovereign.

  Mr. Brooke
  Work on preparing a computerised inventory of the royal collection, which is being carried out by the royal collection department of the royal household, began in early 1991, and it is expected that the exercise will be completed in 1997. This is a major undertaking, involving the individual inspection, numbering and recording of every object. Information about the contents of the royal palaces, other than works of art, is not available.

  The inventory will cover pictures, drawings, books, furniture, sculpture, metalwork, textiles and ceramics.

  Sports Fields
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has in regard to the number and areas of public sports fields that have been sold to the construction of buildings over the past two years.

  Mr. Key
  No such information is held centrally. That is why the Great Britain Sports Council's grant in aid settlement from the Government for 1991–92 included £500,000 to enable the establishment of a register of recreational land, in conjunction with the National Playing Fields Association, and Central Council for Physical Recreation. We will then, for the first time, know the number and size of playing fields in England. The register should be up and running by June 1993.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales will be considering with the Welsh Sports Council whether the register of recreational land should be extended to Wales.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Benefits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the number and proportion of people who were(a) claiming and (b) receiving supplementary benefit or income support in 1979 and 1991 in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie, who replied to the hon. Member on 23 December 1992.

  Letter from Mr. Wylie, to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 23 December 1992:
  As I am responsible for social security operational matters your recent Parliamentary Question on the number and

  541
  proportion of people who were claiming and receiving Supplementary Benefit or Income Support in 1979 and 1991 has been passed to me for reply.

  Year

  Number of new and repeat claims for supplementary benefit or income support

  Number of customers receiving supplementary benefit or income support

  Proportion of population receiving supplementary benefit or income support Percentage

  1979

  42,098

  115,359

  110·75

  1991

  146,563

  201,265

  17·00

  1 Estimated figures can only be given for 1979 as there was no census held that year.

  A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the number and proportion of children who were in families receiving supplementary benefit or income support in 1979 and 1991 in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. However, I understand that the information is not available in the form requested.

  Waterways
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to develop(a) the Newry canal and (b) other waterways in Northern Ireland for recreational and tourist use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The future development of the Newry canal for tourism and leisure use will be considered upon completion of the feasibility study which I understand is to be commissioned shortly by the four councils through whose area the canal flows. The Department of Agriculture, as the drainage authority for Northern Ireland, and the Northern Ireland tourist board will contribute to the cost of the study. The tourist board is prepared to consider reasoned proposals for the tourism and leisure development of Northern Ireland's heritage waterways where the investment of public funds will yield commensurate benefit to the local economy without damage to the environment.

  Ferry Service (Ballycastle)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards provision of roll-on, roll-off facilities at Ballycastle; and if it will make it his Department's policy to introduce ferry services between Ballycastle and Scotland.

  Mr. Atkins
  Ballycastle harbour is owned by Moyle district council. Subject to the availability of a Government grant the council hopes to undertake improvements at both Ballycastle and Rathlin harbours to enable the upgrading of the Rathlin island ferry service. The council's plans include the construction of a roll-on/roll-off ramp at Ballycastle. It has not been possible to allocate the necessary resources to these proposals within the current public expenditure round.

  It is the Government's view that the introduction of ferry services between Ballycastle and Scotland is a matter for the commercial judgment of ferry operators.
  542
  I regret that there are no statistics available on the number and proportion of people who were claiming Supplementary Benefit or Income Support as the data held does not distinguish new claims from repeat claims. I hope however that the following information will be helpful.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in how many cases, where income support is being paid to a single mother, the absent parent is paying maintenance.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie, who replied to the hon. Member on 5 January 1993.

  Letter from Mr. Wylie to Mr. Seamus Mallon, dated 5 January 1993:
  As I am responsible for Social Security operational matters your recent Parliamentary Question on the number of cases where income support is being paid to a single mother and the absent parent is paying maintenance, has been passed to me for reply.
  The most recent information available is set out below.

  Year

  Court Order paid direct to single parent

  Voluntary Payment paid direct to single parent

  Court Order diverted to Department

  Voluntary Payment diverted to Department

  Total

  1990

  3,640

  660

  580

  80

  4,960

  These figures include a small number of single fathers for whom there is no separate data available.

  I hope you find this information helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many single parents are in receipt of income support; and how many of these are(a) male and (b) female.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie, who replied to the hon. Member on 5 January 1993.

  Letter from Mr. Wylie to Mr. Seamus Mallon, dated 5 January 1993:
  As I am responsible for Social Security operational matters your recent Parliamentary Question on the number of single parents in receipt of Income Support and how many of these are (a) male and (b) female has been passed to me for reply.
  The most recent information available is set out below.
  543

  Year

  Total number of one parent families

  Total fatherless families1 (female claimants)

  Total male claimants2

  1990

  27,060

  26,020

  1,040

  Notes:

  1 the total number of female single parents includes 860 widows and 160 partners of prisoners, and

  2 the total number of male single parents includes those who are widowed or divorced, for which there are no separate statistics.

  I hope you find this information helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to ensure that single parents, in receipt of state benefit, will not be penalised either because the absent parent fails to pay maintenance, or because the absent parent cannot be identified because of a perceived threat to the child or its mother.

  Mr. Hanley
  It already is Government policy to ensure that whenever the child support scheme is introduced in April 1993, parents with care who are in receipt of benefit and who have co-operated with the Child Support Agency in providing information about the absent parent, will not be penalised as a result of the absent parent failing to pay maintenance.

  Similarly it is already Government policy to ensure that parents with care in receipt of income support, family credit or disability working allowance are not penalised for refusing to name the father of the child if they can show to the satisfaction of the Child Support Agency that to do so would carry the risk of causing harm or undue distress to the parent with care or to the child.

  Electricity
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what statutory right of access for third parties there will be to the proposed Scotland-Northern Ireland electricity interconnector.

  Mr. Atkins
  During the first 15 years the capacity of the interconnector is reserved to NIE plc. Thereafter, subject to the interconnector having spare capacity and the regulator establishing a suitable trading system, direct trade across the interconnector will be possible.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what capacity in megawatts is presently proposed for the Scotland-Northern Ireland electricity interconnector; and to what extent this proposed capacity is sufficient to allow third party access.

  Mr. Atkins
  The capacity of the proposed interconnector is 250 megawatts. All the available capacity is reserved to NIE plc during the first 15 years. Thereafter, subject to the regulator establishing a suitable trading system, generators, NIE and its supply competitors will be able to trade across the interconnector up to its maximum capacity.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the agreement between Northern Ireland Electricity and Scottish Power on the proposed Scotland-Northern Ireland electricity interconnector constitutes a formal contract.
  544
  Mr. Atkins
  NIE and Scottish Power have entered into legally binding heads of agreement and formal contracts are being drawn up.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what calculation his Department has made of the differential in electricity prices for large industrial users in Northern Ireland as opposed to the rest of the United Kingdom following(a) the introduction of the new bulk supply tariff, (b) the application of the transitional arrangements to the BST and (c) the expiry of these arrangements in 1994–95.

  Mr. Atkins
  Terms to supply consumers using more than 1MW of electricity are contained in individual commercially confidential contracts. It is not, therefore, possible for the Department to make such comparisons.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Birmingham Airport
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the numbers of customs officers at Birmingham airport engaged in anti-smuggling activities in 1993; and what plans he has to respond to the proposed introduction of flights from the United States of America.

  Sir John Cope
  The Birmingham collection executive unit, as part of its ongoing analysis of staffing needs, has increased from 1 January 1993 the anti-smuggling staff based at Birmingham international airport. This is to take into account the perceived increase in risks in relation to the new American traffic.

  Discussions are also taking place with both the airport authority and the major operator of transatlantic flights for provision by Customs of the appropriate number of staff for duties other than anti-smuggling.

  Eurofed
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what stage are negotiations on the location of the Eurofed; when a final decision is to be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  No decision has been taken on the location of the European Monetary Institute or the European Central Bank and there is no firm timetable for this decision.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what efforts he has made to support the case for locating all or part of the proposed Eurofed, or the EMI which precedes it, in Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have consistently drawn the attention of my EC colleagues to the advantages for the Community in establishing the new monetary institutions in the United Kingdom.

  Alcohol Tax
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to move towards a uniform method of drinks taxation, and to eliminate the higher rates of duty on Scotch whisky and other United Kingdom spirits.
  545
  Mr. Lamont
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on 17 December 1992,Official Report, col. 377.

  Bonus Payments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce proposals for higher rate tax bands for bonus payments in excess of £6 million per year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table which sets out for a two-child family on(a) half average earnings, (b) three quarters average earnings, (c) average earnings, (d) one and a half average earnings, (e) twice average earnings, (f) five times average earnings and (g) 10 times average earnings the increase in net income to be derived from (i) a 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax in the 1993–94 financial year, (ii) an increase in personal allowances, over and above indexation, which incurred the same cost as a 1p cut in the

  Increase in income after tax1 (£ per week) compared with indexation2 in 1993–94 for a married man3 with two children

  Multiple of average earnings4

  ½

  ¾

  1

  1½

  2

  5

  10

  Increase derived from

  (i) 1p cut in basic rate

  0·39

  1·29

  2·20

  4·02

  4·31

  4·31

  4·31

  (ii) 10·25 per cent· increase in personal allowances

  1·16

  1·16

  1·16

  1·16

  1·84

  1·84

  1·84

  (iii) increase in child benefit

  (a) £3·35 per week per child5

  6·70

  6·70

  6·70

  6·70

  6·70

  6·70

  6·70

  (b) £2·15 per week per child6

  4·30

  4·30

  4·30

  4·30

  4·30

  4·30

  4·30

  Notes:

  1 Disregarding any change to entitlement to social security income—related benefits except in item (iii)b.

  2 Calculations based on the standard assumption that 1992–93 allowances' lower rate band and the basic rate limit have been indexed by 3.25 per cent. for 1993–94.

  3 Assumed to have no tax reliefs and allowances other than the personal allowance and the married couple's allowance.

  4 Average earnings assumed to be £363.3 per week.

  5 Assuming no change in income support and family credit children's rates.

  6 Assuming corresponding changes in income support and family credit children's rates.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures for 1979 and 1989 showing, on an equivalent income basis, the proportion of households consisting of(a) one adult with children, (b) two adults with children, (c) non-retired without children and (d) retired in each quintile of (a) original income and (b) post-tax income, as defined in the annual articles in Economic Trends on the effects of taxes and benefits.

  Percentage of household types within each quintile group of eqivalised disposable income, 1979 and 1989

  Quintile groups of equivalised disposable income

  Household type

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All households

  1979

  1 adult with children

  6

  3

  2

  2

  1

  3

  2 adults with children

  16

  32

  43

  33

  18

  28

  Non-retired without children

  11

  23

  33

  51

  73

  38

  Retired

  65

  33

  10

  4

  4

  23

  3 or more adults with children

  2

  8

  12

  10

  5

  8

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1989

  1 adult with children

  10

  6

  3

  1

  1

  4

  2 adults with children

  15

  20

  33

  29

  22

  24

  Non-retired without children

  19

  24

  40

  55

  67

  41

  Retired

  52

  45

  17

  9

  7

  26

  546
  standard rate of income tax and (iii) an increase in child benefit which incurred the same cost as a 1p cut in standard rate income tax, both assuming and not assuming similar increases in the income support and family credit children's rates separately.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate, on the same basis as the ready reckoner published in the autumn statement, what is the effect on a one-earner, two-child family of spending in 1993–94 the same sum on(a) a 1p cut in the basic rate of income tax, (b) raising income tax thresholds above their indexed levels, (c) raising child benefits assuming (i) no change in income support and family credit rates and (ii) corresponding changes in income support and family credit rates.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The effects of the various changes to income tax and child benefit on a married man with two children are shown in the table. Each of the changes would cost £1.5 billion a year, that is the cost in a full year of a 1p cut in the basic rate of income tax. Estimates are based on projections of the 1990–91 survey of personal incomes.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is not available in the precise form requested because only one method of ranking is used to produce the annual article in Economic Trends and this uses equivalised disposal income. The data for 1979 were first published on an unequivalised basis and have been reworked on an equivalised basis. The figures are given in the table:
  547

  Quintile groups of equivalised disposable income

  Household type

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All house holds

  3 or more adults with children

  3

  6

  7

  6

  3

  5

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  The figures in the table are rounded and may not add up to 100.

  Source: Central Statistical Office, based on Family Expenditure Survey.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) working families with children and (b) childless people in work had incomes below the tax threshold at the latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are an estimated 450,000 working families with children and 1.1 million childless people at work who have incomes below the income tax threshold and are therefore not liable to income tax in 1992–93. For this purpose, income is calculated as total income for income tax purposes, excluding any non-taxable social security benefits, less tax reliefs and is compared witht he appropriate levels of personal tax allowances. The estimates are based on information projected from the 1990 and 1991 family expenditure surveys and are therefore provisional.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the effect on levels of employment and prices and on the balance of payments of(a) an additional £2 billion of local authority revenue expenditure financed by (i) local taxation and (ii) additional revenue support grant and (b) an additional £2 billion of local authority capital expenditure financed by (1) the use of set aside capital receipts and (2) borrowing.

  Mr. Portillo
  The effects on levels of employment, prices and on the balance of payments of the measures mentioned would depend on a number of assumptions about economic behaviour at both local and national level, as well as the precise details of these measures.

  EC Spending
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of spending by the EC, expressed in pounds sterling in 1992; and what percentage increase in this spending is envisaged by 1999 following the Edinburgh Council of 11–12 December.

  Sir John Cope
  Following the adoption of the third supplementary and amending budget, the budget of the European Communities for 1992 amounts to 63,907 million ecu in commitment appropriations, or £52 billion, at the exchange rate prevailing on 30 November 1992 (£1 = ECU 1·2290) and 61,097 million ecu in payment appropriations, or £49·7 billion. The Edinburgh European Council agreed a financial perspective for the next seven years which provides ceilings for spending in 1999 of 84,089 million ecu, £68·4 billion, for commitment appropriation and 80,114 million ecu, £65·2 billion, for payment appropriations—all in 1992 prices. These represent increases of 31·6 per cent. and 31·1 per cent. respectively over spending in 1992.

  However, the 1999 figures are ceilings for the budget, not targets for spending levels. Actual spending in 1999
  548
  will be set in the budgetary procedure for that year and will reflect the rate of economic growth achieved in the next seven years, as well as other factors such as enlargement of the Community. Spending is constrained by the legally binding ceiling on own resources for payment appropriations, which will be 1·27 per cent. of Community GNP in 1999.

  Personal Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much in real terms the average annual tax payments of a man with no allowances and reliefs other than the married couple's allowance earning(a) £5,000, (b) £10,000, (c) £15,000 and (d) £20,000 have changed since 1978–79.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Income tax for a married man as a percentage of gross income is as follows:

  Income in 1992–93 £

  Income tax1

  1992–93 per cent.

  1978–792

  5,000

  0

  0

  10,000

  11·1

  11·9

  15,000

  15·7

  18·9

  20,000

  18·0

  22·4

  1 Assuming that the only allowances and reliefs available are the married man's allowance in 1978–79 and the personal allowance plus the married couple's allowance in 1992–93. In each case the wife is assumed to have no income.

  2 Calculations for 1978–79 are based on the income tax regime for that year applied to levels of income adjusted from the 1992–93 figures in line with the change in average male earnings.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are to be made for the publication of statistics of trade with the European Community in 1993.

  Mr. Nelson
  With the completion of the single market on 1 January, most border formalities for goods traded with other member states are abolished. As the associated documentation forms the source of the current visible trade statistics, normal publication of figures for trade with the European Community will be suspended while a new system for the collection of the statistics, Intrastat, becomes established. The monthly press notice published on 28 January, showing December's trade figures, will be the last in the present form. Details of our trade with non-EC countries will continue to be published monthly.

  Aggregate figures for whole world trade, including that with the European Community, for the first quarter 1993 balance of payments and GDP will be published in mid-June 1993. Shortly thereafter it is planned to resume the publication of the monthly "Balance of Payments—Current Account" press notices with aggregate figures for intra-Community trade.
  549
  The initial pattern of publication of detailed figures for visible trade with the European Community will be a quarterly volume containing monthly details at eight-digit commodity code level, which should be available shortly after the resumption of the monthly press notices. The monthly information will also be available from Customs and Excise-approved marketing agents.

  This initial delay in the publication of figures is planned to be reduced as the year progresses.

  Unit Trust Holdings
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the tax rules which apply to unit trust holdings owned by life assurance companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  On 30 December 1992 I announced changes to the new charge to tax on life assurance companies brought in by the Finance Act 1990. The charge arises on the deemed disposal of their holdings in authorised unit trusts and certain offshore funds.

  For most companies the charge is due to come into effect for accounting periods beginning on 1 January 1992. We propose to defer the charge for one year so that it relates first to accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 1993.

  The existing measures can, however, produce a higher tax charge than was intended; and we propose to bring forward amending legislation in the 1993 Finance Bill to counter this effect. There will also be amendments to the transitional provisions.

  The Inland Revenue press release of 30 December 1992 containing the text of my announcement, and further details of the proposals, has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Employee Share Schemes
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how soon he expects to announce details of the introduction and operation of approved employee share schemes up to the end of March 1992.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimated figures for the year ended March 1992 will be issued shortly in an Inland Revenue press release.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue next intends to revise and update its booklets and leaflets on approved employee share schemes to include in particular reference to buy one get one free matching share offers and the single company PEPs facilities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue is planning to issue revised versions of these booklets and leaflets, reflecting recent changes in legislation, in the course of this year.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the actions of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in respect of its dealings with Matrix Churchill to assess whether compensation should be paid to the ex-employees of Matrix Churchill.

  Sir John Cope
  The Government have already established an independent inquiry under Lord Justice Scott with broad terms of reference which will enable Her 550
  Majesty's Customs and Excise actions in the Matrix Churchill case to be fully examined. It would be inappropriate for me to undertake a separate review.

  As regards the issue of compensation, I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to the House on 10 November 1992, Official Report, c. 746–47, that if there is a prosecution which subsequently fails or is withdrawn for any particular reason, representations can be made, but is has never been the policy for there to be formal compensation in these circumstances.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the total number of residential properties owned by his Departments, (b) the number of such properties which are empty and (c), (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Sir John Cope
  The only residential properties owned by the Chancellor's Departments are two owned by Customs and Excise. Both are fully occupied.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the implications for staffing levels and confidentiality of Inland Revenue services being offered to private tender; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received a number of representations about the market testing of services in the Inland Revenue. Any implications for staffing levels will depend on the outcome of particular market tests; we believe that, if work is contracted out, there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that the privacy of information about taxpayers will continue to be properly protected.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims have been submitted in the former deposits of BCCI under the provisions of the Deposit Protection Board; how much has so far been paid to them; and how much is to be paid.

  Mr. Nelson
  As at 7 January 1993 some 16,700 claims had been lodged with the Deposit Protection Board. Of these the claims so far processed have given rise to compensation payments totalling £60.5 million. The size of the eventual payment to these claimants will depend on the scale and nature of claims still to be processed.

  Redundancy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what guidelines he has established for the use of non-disclosure agreements as part of redundancy and early retirement settlements in the public service; if he will set up a study into how many former officials of non-departmental public bodies have signed such agreements in such circumstances; and what premium was paid to them for signing such agreements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Employees generally have an implied duty not to misuse confidential information which they have
  551
  obtained in the course of their employment. In most situations, this would restrict disclosure of confidential information without proper authority. The duty continues to apply even after they have left.

  There are no central guidelines or instructions which require former employees of non-departmental public bodies not to disclose the terms of their redundancy or early retirement settlements. My right hon. Friend has no plans to set up a study of the kind suggested. I should not expect redundancy or early retirement arrangements to include an agreement restricting disclosure of the terms of any financial settlement. Details of such settlements will in any event be available to the Comptroller and Auditor General in the course of any audit or inspection he undertakes of a body's records.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Financial Management
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what developments have taken place in financial management and scrutiny of House expenditure in the current financial year.

  Mr. Beith
  As well as the establishment of the domestic committees and the Finance and Services Committee, good progress has been made in improving financial management systems in House Departments. These include the allocation of departmental budgets and delegation of authority to incur expenditure and approve payments. Further improvements are planned by the Director of Finance and Administration.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on policy towards contracting out of House of Commons services.

  Mr. Beith
  Services are contracted out where this can meet the requirements of the House and provide benefits in quality, efficiency and value for money.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement on the resources available to the National Audit Office to undertake effective auditing of all projected next steps agencies.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  The Comptroller and Auditor General is the statutory auditor of all the agencies. The National Audit Office's corporate plan for 1993–94 to 1997–98, considered and approved by the commission in July 1992, includes resources for the audit of existing agencies and those expected to be established over the next five years.

  Domestic Committees (Oral Questions)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to allow time for answering of oral questions by Chairmen of the domestic Committees.
  552
  Mr. Newton
  None. Oral questions are already answered on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, and now that the Finance and Services Committee has been nominated, arrangements will be made for its Chairman also to answer oral questions as appropriate. For the other domestic committees, there are no plans to go beyond the existing provision for their Chairmen to answer written questions.

PRIME MINISTER

  Scottish Constitution
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the people whom he has consulted in connection with his stocktaking exercise about Scotland's constitutional position.

  The Prime Minister
  I have had frequent opportunities to hear views from people of all political persuasions and from many backgrounds, including the church, the law, business, academic life, the arts and the media.

  India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister which cities he intends to visit on his next visit to India.

  The Prime Minister
  I shall visit Delhi as a guest of the Indian Government on republic day on 26 January. I shall also visit Bombay.

  UN Population Conference
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) in which country the United Nations conference on world population will be held; and on what dates;

  (2) what proposals the Government have to involve relevant non-governmental organisations in preparation for the 1994 United Nations conference on world population;

  (3) what proposals the Government have to enable (a) relevant non-governmental organisations and (b) hon. Members to attend the 1994 United Nations conference on world population;

  (4) which Government Department is to be responsible for the 1994 United Nations population conference.

  The Prime Minister
  The international conference on population and development will take place in Cairo from 5 to 13 September 1994. A decision will be taken shortly on which Government Department will also take prime responsibility for United Kingdom preparations for the conference. The Government will make proposals shortly for how hon. Members and relevant non-governmental organisations might be involved in the preparations.

  Committee of Permanent Representatives
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to apply the decision to improve transparency in the activities of the European Council to the availability to Parliament of(a) the minutes of COREPER and (b) proposals prepared by COREPER for the Council prior to their consideration by the Council.

  The Prime Minister
  There are no such plans.

  EC Monetary Reserve
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister why the European Council in Edinburgh concluded that the EC's monetary reserve should be halved between 1994 and 1995; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The decision was taken in the light of the recent reform of the CAP, which involves a shift away from price support towards direct payments to producers. That should make CAP expenditure progressively less susceptible to the impact of fluctuations in the dollar/ecu exchange rate.

  EC Agriculture Spending
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister why the European Council concluded on 11–12 December that agriculture spending by the EC would fall between 1993 and 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The figures to which my hon. Friend refers are those for the agricultural guidelines in constant 1992 prices. The guideline is calculated in real terms by up-rating the 1988 baseline figure by 74 per cent. of the estimated growth in real Community gross national product (GNP) between 1988 and the year in question. This calculation takes place when the Commission submits its preliminary draft budget. For 1993, therefore, the guideline was calculated in May 1992. Subsequently, the estimate of Community GNP was revised downwards. Although the decision was too late to affect the 1993 figure it will be reflected in the guideline for 1994 and thereafter. The estimate for the guideline for 1994 to 1999, used by the European Council in its future financing plans, takes account of this latest information.

  European Environmental Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements were agreed at the Edinburgh summit for the siting of the European Environmental Agency.

  The Prime Minister
  It was agreed at the European Council that the siting of the European Environmental Agency will be decided by common agreement between member states at a forthcoming European Council, giving appropriate priority to member states who do not at present provide the sites for Community institutions.

  Edinburgh Summit
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if section A (Citizenship) on page 5 B of part B of the "Conclusions of the Presidency" in Edinburgh was designed by the Council to apply to all member states.

  The Prime Minister
  The section referred to by the hon. Member was designed to meet Danish concerns but it represents an interpretation of the provisions of the Maastricht treaty relating to citizenship of the union which was agreed by all member states and is true for all of them.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what procedures he proposes for ratification of the intergovernmental agreement reached at Edinburgh on Danish qualifications to the Maastricht treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  The decision does not require ratification.
  554
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on how Her Majesty's Government propose to implement the decision set out at paragraph 7 of the Edinburgh declaration on the conclusions of the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council to increase public investment in decision-making.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom will work closely with other members of the Council, the Commission and Parliament to ensure that the measures on transparency agreed in Edinburgh are put into practice as soon as possible.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister why the European Council in Edinburgh concluded that there should be no increase in the provision of loan guarantees between 1993 and 1999; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Edinburgh European Council endorsed the conclusions of the ECOFIN Council in October that the Community's growing international responsibilities had led to an increase in the level and scope of lending to non-member states backed by guarantees on the EC budget, and that considerations of prudent budgetary management and financial discipline called for the establishment of a new financial framework, including an appropriate form of provisioning. The European Council accordingly agreed that a guarantee fund should be established, with a target size of 10 per cent. of the Community's outstanding liabilities arising from external loans and guarantees; and that this should be financed by a reserve in the financial perspective not exceeding 300 million ECU in each year from 1993 to 1999 (in 1992 prices), from which payments would be made into the fund in proportion to the value of new loans agreed. This framework will be sufficient to allow continuing significant levels of new lending to non-member states guaranteed on the EC budget.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the names of the persons signing their names as plenipotentiary of each relevant state to the intergovernmental decision relating to Denmark at the European Council meeting in Edinburgh.

  The Prime Minister
  The decision relating to Denmark was not signed. This does not affect its character as an agreement binding in international law between the parties to the treaty on European union on how certain of its provisions are to be interpreted and applied.

  Princess of Wales
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister what advice he received from sources outside the Government concerning the constitutional position of the accession to the throne of the Princess of Wales, before making his statement to the House of 9 December.

  The Prime Minister
  The advice which I took on this matter is confidential.

  Gambling
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will describe the process by which concerned people can contribute to and respond to Government ideas on maintaining, abolishing or changing the restrictions on stimulation of gaming or gambling.
  555
  The Prime Minister
  The processes are the same as those for any other aspect of Government policy. As necessary, the Government issue consultation documents on particular aspects of the gambling controls. In addition, interested parties may at any time make their views known direct to Government or via Members of Parliament.

  Iraq (Equipment)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Prime Minister what information he has on the comparative sales of machine tools to Iraq from(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America, (c) France, (d) Italy and (e) COMECON countries in 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: The information requested for the first four countries is set out in the following table:

  US $000s

  SITC (Standard International Trade Classification)

  Code

  United Kingdom

  United States of America

  France

  Italy

  1987

  728·1

  359

  116

  63

  208

  7361

  5,130

  33

  1,161

  5,224

  Total

  5,489

  149

  1,224

  5,432

  1988

  728·1

  529

  168

  111

  1,287

  731

  53,951

  n/a

  239

  10,920

  733

  2,160

  n/a

  5,922

  7,306

  735

  6,436

  n/a

  4,711

  2,754

  Total

  63,076

  168

  10,983

  22,267

  1989

  728·1

  991

  43

  61

  1,601

  731

  18,990

  2,272

  609

  1,545

  733

  1,208

  1,857

  1,385

  6,890

  735

  3,138

  7,080

  2,637

  4,391

  Total

  24,327

  11,252

  4,692

  14,427

  Code

  Description

  728·1

  Machine tools specialised for particular industries.

  731

  Machine tools operated by laser or other light beam process.

  733

  Forging or die-stamping machines (including presses) and hammers.

  735

  Tool holders and self opening dieheads.

  736

  Metal working machine tools.

  1 Replaced by codes 731, 733 and 735 from 1988 onwards.

  Source: OECD.

  The corresponding information for COMECON countries is not available.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will be responsible for paying compensation as a result of the late delivery to St. Helena of a new power generator.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A 1 MW diesel generator was provided last year for the use of St. Helena's public works and services department at a cost of £562,000 to aid funds. It was supplied by Mirrlees Blackstone Ltd., shipped on schedule abord the RMS St. Helena arriving on 4 May 1992, and taken over by the public works and services 556
  department on 21 July 1992 following installation and commissioning tests. No delay in delivery occurred and the question of compensation does not arise.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the current and forecast rains on the prospects for the drought-affected areas of southern Africa; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Initial reports of the rains are encouraging for most parts of the region, but good rains over the next two months are critical. We shall continue to monitor the situation closely with the relevant international organisations and NGOs; and are ready to assist, particularly in areas where the rains have failed or where for other reasons people have been unable to plant.

  Timber
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that timber imported into the United Kingdom has not been logged from tribal people's land without their free and informed consent.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Except as provided for under the convention on international trade in endangered species, the United Kingdom does not restrict timber imports and has no plans to do so. Questions of land and forest ownership rights are primarily the responsibility of the Governments of the countries where the forest lie. We are prepared to consider requests from developing countries for aid in forest resource conservation and management.

  Malagasy Republic
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress the Minister for Overseas Development has made in sourcing the most appropriate items of equipment, and identifying suitable people to fill the supporting personnel requirements, to implement the Food and Agriculture Organisation consultant's recommendations on locusts in the Malagasy Republic.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Sources for the provision of equipment have been identified. The specification and frequency acceptability of the telecommunications equipment is still being cleared with the Food and Agriculture Organisation co-ordinator and the Madagascan authorities. As soon as these matters are formally cleared procurement of all the equipment will be undertaken and the associated training input put in hand.

  Debtor Countries
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total amount of debt interest payments made to the United Kingdom in the past 10 years by each of the severely indebted countries, according to the UN definition; and how much was received by each of them in aid over the same period.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will write to the hon. Member.

  Forests
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he plans to address the question of tribal people's ownership of their land and resources in the United Kingdom's national plan for forests.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Questions of the ownership of land and resources by tribal peoples are primarily the 558
  responsibility of the Governments of the countries in which they live. The United Kingdom national plan for forests will concentrate on activities within this country.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Argentina (Fisheries)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to oppose the proposed fishery agreement between the European Community and the Argentine Government unless and until it has agreed to the joint management by Britain and Argentina of stocks of illex squid in the waters of the south west Atlantic.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We support the principle of an EC fisheries agreement with Argentina. We have obtained several improvements to the original proposals and shall discuss them further with Community partners. We have now reached a bilateral interim agreement on fisheries management with the Argentine Government. We shall continue our dialogue with them to achieve adequate conservation measures which protect the economic interests of the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of contributing to the 28 million ecu financial assistance programme to Argentina under the proposed EC fishery agreement to enable Spanish and Portuguese vessels to fish in Argentinian waters.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The draft EC/Argentina Fisheries Agreement provides for the granting of 27.5 mecu in technical and scientific assistance to Argentina over a five year period; at the normal rate of United Kingdom contributions to the Budget the cost to the Exchequer would be about £800,000 per annum. Additional sums will be paid to EC vessel owners and their Argentinian partners for joint ventures involving EC vessels fishing in Argentinian waters and the cost would depend upon the number of boats taking up the opportunities. The fishing opportunities available under the draft agreement are not confined to Spain and Portugal but are available to vessel owners throughout the Community.

  British Consular Offices
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British consular offices there are in each Latin American country; if he will list their locations; and what was the number of such offices in 1987.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In Latin America there are currently 41 British consular offices, including honorary consular offices. A list follows. In 1987 there were 33 such offices. The increase in the number of consular offices is the result of the extension of the honorary network. Honorary consuls provide assistance and advice to British national at minimal cost.

  British Consular Offices in Latin America—1992

  Country

  Location

  Position

  Paraguay

  1

  Ascuncion

  Columbia

  4

  Bogota

  Columbia

  Barranquilla

  Honorary Consul

  Columbia

  Cali

  Honorary Consul

  Columbia

  Medellin

  Honorary Consul

  560

  Country

  Location

  Position

  Brazil

  13

  Brasilia

  Brazil

  Belem

  Honorary Consul

  Brazil

  Manuas

  Honorary Vice Consul

  Rio De Janeiro

  Brazil

  Belo Horizonte

  Honorary Consul

  Brazil

  Fortaleza

  Honorary Consul

  Brazil

  Recife

  Honorary Consul

  Brazil

  Salvador

  Honorary Consul

  Brazil

  Sao Paulo

  Brazil

  Porto Alegre

  Honorary Consul

  Brazil

  Rio Grande

  Honorary Consul

  Brazil

  Santos

  Honorary Consul

  Brazil

  Curitiba

  Honorary Consul

  Venezuela

  3

  Caracas

  Venezuela

  Maracaibo

  Honorary Vice Consul

  Venezuela

  Merida

  Honorary Vice Consul

  Guyana

  1

  Georgetown

  Bolivia

  2

  La Paz

  Bolivia

  Santa Cruz

  Honorary Consul

  Peru

  6

  Lima

  Peru

  Arequipa

  Honorary Consul

  Peru

  Cusco

  Honorary Consul

  Peru

  Iquitos

  Honorary Consul

  Peru

  Piura

  Honorary Consul

  Peru

  Trujillo

  Honorary Consul

  Uruguay

  1

  Montevideo

  Ecuador

  4

  Quito

  Ecuador

  Guayaquil

  Honorary Consul

  Ecuador

  Cuenca

  Honorary Consul

  Ecuador

  Galapagos

  Honorary Consul

  Chile

  5

  Santiago

  Chile

  Arica

  Honorary Consul

  Chile

  Concepcion

  Honorary Consul

  Chile

  Punta Arenas

  Honorary Consul

  Chile

  Valparaiso

  Honorary Consul

  Argentina

  1

  Buenos Aires

  TOTAL

  41

  Kazakhstan
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he, or his officials, have had with the President of Kazakhstan; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met President Nazerbayev of Kazakhstan during his visit to Britain in October 1991 and during his visit to Alma Ata in January 1992. The development of relations between the United Kingdom and Kazakhstan, including the good prospects for trade and other matters, including regional and security matters, were discussed.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current diplomatic link between the United Kingdom and Kazakhstan; and when he expects to appoint a British ambassador to Kazakhstan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom recognised Kazakhstan on 31 December 1991. Sir Brian Fall, who resides at Moscow, is accredited as Her Majesty's
  561
  ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan and presented his credentials in Alma Ata on 27 October 1992. We have established a small British embassy in Alma Ata, headed by a resident chargé d'affaires.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made in implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 789 of 24 November on Cyprus; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on Cyprus.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Inter-communal negotiations chaired by the United Nations Secretary-General will resume in New York in March. Security Council Resolution 789 sets out a series of confidence-building measures. These have been accepted in principle by President Vassiliou of Cyprus, but not yet by the Turkish side.

  We continue to play a full part in supporting the efforts of the United Nations to achieve a negotiated settlement to this tragic dispute.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to station British forces in Macedonia in former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom was not asked to contribute forces to this operation and has no plans to do so. United Nations Security Council resolution 795 authorised deployment of troops and observers in Macedonia which has initially involved Canadian troops pending the arrival of Scandinavian forces.

  CSCE
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe Council meeting in Stockholm of 15 and 16 December.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, represented the United Kingdom at the Council Meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe which took place on 14 and 15 December in Stockholm.

  The Stockholm meeting marked a further stage in the transition of the CSCE from an organisation primarily involved with setting standards of behaviour in the fields of human rights and international security to one whose task is also to prevent and if necessary end conflicts.

  The Council endorsed the work of the international conference on former Yugoslavia. It agreed a detailed policy intended to help prevent the spread of the fighting into other parts of the former Yugoslavia and to tighten sanctions. The CSCE missions in Kosovo, Sandjak and Vojvodina will be reinforced.

  The Council took steps to promote long-term solutions to the conflict in Moldova. The CSCE will continue to press for agreements to be concluded on the early and complete withdrawal of foreign troops from the territories of the Baltic states and will also dispatch a mission to Estonia to address human rights issues between the different communities in Estonia.

  Plutonium Shipments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations from other Governments the United Kingdom Government have received concerning the sea shipment of plutonium from the European Community.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom has received few such representations from other Governments. It is for those Governments to decide whether to make their views public. Any shipments of plutonium from the United Kingdom would meet or exceed the relevant international safety standards.

  UNESCO
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government now have to rejoin UNESCO; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No decision has yet been taken on a possible resumption of membership.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 June 1992,Official Report, columns 490–91, if he has signed a certificate under section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984 since his answer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has signed no such certificate since my previous answer, Vol. 209, c.491.

  Turkey
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the British Government are making to the Government of Turkey on the recognition of the rights of minorities and people of non-Turkish origin.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are in regular contact with the Turkish Government on the subject of human rights.

  The issue was more recently discussed during the visit of the Turkish Prime Minister in November. Mr. Demirel reiterated his Government's commitment to their programme of reforms which aims at improving human rights, including those of members of minorities, and increasing democratisation in the country.

  We welcome this commitment on the part of the Turks and look forward to the early implementation of the Government's programme.

  Russia
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what complaints have been received from United Kingdom students now studying in Russia; and what action has been taken by the British embassy.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In May 1992, during a routine visit by the student liaison officer of the British embassy in Moscow, British students studying at Voronezh state
  563
  university complained about poor conditions at their hostel. Representations were duly made to the university in May, and again in September by the student liaison officer.

  The student liaison officer next visited the university on 9 December 1992, accompanied by the embassy doctor. The doctor judged that the repairs satisfied the minimum requirements for student accommodation.

  Angola
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations is continuing its efforts to secure full implementation of the Bicesse peace accords. We strongly support these efforts and deplore the recent violence in Lubango and elsewhere in Angola. Dialogue between the government of Angola and UNITA based on respect for the Bicesse accords and the outcome of the elections of 29 and 30 September is now essential if progress is to be made towards peace and democracy in Angola.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current state of relations between Her Majesty's Government and Angola; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have a good working relationship with the Government of the Republic of Angola.

  Somalia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the current and incoming United States Administration on the role and objectives of the United States and other troops in Somalia, their command structure, and their date of evacuation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We maintain close contact with United States authorities and the coalition forces on all aspects of the Somali crisis. The United States authorities have made clear that United States troops will not be withdrawn until the objectives of Security Council resolution 794 have been achieved.

  EC Summits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the(a) security costs and (b) total costs of holding the (i) Birmingham and (ii) Edinburgh summits.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The costs for the two European Councils are as follows:

  £ million

  (a) Security costs:

  Birmingham

  0·35

  Edinburgh

  2·50

  (b) Total costs:

  Birmingham

  2·65

  Edinburgh

  9·30

  564
  These figures are approximate as not all bills have been received.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each of the subject areas of EC legislation that may fall within the negative assent procedure under the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under the Maastricht treaty the negative assent procedure applies to the following areas:

  Article 49:

  Free movement of workers

  Article 54(2):

  Right of establishment

  Article 56(2):

  Treatment of foreign nationals

  Article 57(1):

  Mutual recognition of qualifications

  Article 57(2):

  Right of establishment

  Article 100a(1):

  Single market legislation

  Article 126(4):

  Education incentive measures

  Article 128(5):

  Culture (with unanimity)

  Article 129(4):

  Public health

  Article 129a(2):

  Consumer Protection

  Article 129d:

  Trans-European networks

  Article 130i:

  R & D framework programmes (with unanimity)

  Article 130s(3):

  Environment multiannual action programmes

  Thailand
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current position relating to Karyn Smith, convicted of drug smuggling in Thailand.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Karyn Smith is serving a 25-year prison sentence in Klong Prem women's prison, Bangkok. She was sentenced on 20 December 1990. With the support of our embassy in Bangkok, Miss Smith has submitted an appeal for clemency to the King of Thailand.

  EC Legislation
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each of the subject areas of EC legislation that are now subject to qualified majority voting.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The articles under which the Council of Ministers may currently act by qualified majority, together with the subject areas to which they apply, are set out in the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act.

  Alois Brunner
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Prime Minister's answer of 10 December,Official Report, column 755, what representations he has received calling for actions by the United Kingdom Government in respect of Alois Brunner.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Apart from the hon. Member's previous question, we have received no recent representations in respect of Alois Brunner. Brunner was recently reported to have died, although we have no confirmation of this.

  Visas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visas at each British overseas post have been(a) applied for, (b) granted, (c) refused and (d) have a decision pending since visa requirements were introduced upon certain former Yugoslav nationals wishing to visit the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The method of collecting statistics at posts worldwide does not normally allow us to establish the number of applications by nationality. For an initial period, however, we are monitoring the effect of the visa regime on former Yugoslav nationals on the visa sections at Belgrade, Vienna, Zagreb, Budapest, Sofia, Rome, Milan, Florence, Naples, Dusseldorf and Paris. At these posts 1,715 applications were received from former Yugoslav nationals: 1,251 were granted, 238 were refused and 203 have a decision pending.

  Spain
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff of the British embassy in Madrid monitor the enforcement of EC legislation relating to animal welfare in Spain.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There is one agricultural attache in the British embassy in Madrid who is responsible for the full range of agricultural matters, including animal welfare.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1992,Official Report, column 357, in how many instances the Governor of St. Helena has refused a request to enable any public officer to be qualified for election to the Legislative Council.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what arrangements fishing vessels from member states of the European Community can fish in St. Helena waters; and what reciprocity there is for British fishermen.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no arrangements for European Community vessels to fish within the fishery limits of St. Helena. There is no agreement with the Community over fishing rights in these waters.

  Chile
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions in Santiago on the case of Jonathan Moyle during his official visit to Chile.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is in Santiago today. He intends to discuss the Moyle case with the Chilean Government.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received 566
  for co-operation with the inquiry handled by Judge Alejandro Solis in relation to the death of Jonathan Moyle.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have been in regular contact with Judge Solis since the beginning of his inquiry. On 9 December 1992 the judge expressed his gratitude to our embassy in Santiago for the help he had received. On 4 January 1993 Her Majesty's ambassador asked the judge whether there was anything we could do to assist him. Judge Solis expressed his thanks but had no request for further assistance.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will represent the United Kingdom at the chemical weapons convention signing conference in Paris; what is Her Majesty's Government's attitude toward the preparatory commission and its method of operation; what initiatives are proposed by the United Kingdom to advance the elimination of chemical weapons at the conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey will represent the United Kingdom at the chemical weapons convention signing ceremony in Paris. We look forward to the establishment of the preparatory commission and expect to make a full and positive contribution to its work.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), 4 November,Official Report, column 308, what will be the proportional increase over current stockpiles of (a) reprocessed uranium and (b) plutonium by 2000 over the current stockpiles; and to what use the additional plutonium and uranium to which he refers will be put.

  Mr. Eggar
  The quantities of uranium and plutonium that will arise from the reprocessing in the thermal oxide reprocessing plant of spent fuel from nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom represents some 20 per cent. of stocks currently held by British Nuclear Fuels plc on behalf of the generating companies as owners of the material. It is expected that the material will ultimately be burnt in reactors to generate electricity.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what resources have been made available to the British Coal Corporation to assist in the retention of methane gas from mines to avoid adding to the release of greenhouse gases.

  Mr. Eggar
  The process of mining frees the methane contained in coal; for reasons of mine safety, it has to be released from the mines. British Coal work to the practical limits of current technology and make use of about 10 per cent. of this methane. Availability of finance is not a limitation.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to propose amendments to the existing proposals to establish a multilateral trade organisation set out in the draft final act of the Uruguay round of GATT to secure(a) explicit commitments to the protection of the environment and incomes of the poor in Third-world countries and (b) revisions to the dispute procedures enabling increased accountability of panel members.

  Mr. Needham
  The GATT already allows for measures to be taken to protect the environment. The proposed Multilateral Trade Organisation (MTO), which is intended to provide the vehicle for the implementation of the results of the Uruguay round, would strengthen the ability of the international trading system to respond to environmental concerns. The Community has made proposals to improve the references to the environment, including wording on sustainable development in the preamble, a ministerial declaration on the environment with a work programme, and giving permanent status to the working party on trade and environment. The members of GATT dispute settlement panels do not act in their own right, but advise the GATT contracting parties, and are accountable in this way to national Governments.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the documents released to the defence at the Matrix Churchill trial.

  Mr. Needham
  No.

  Record Industry
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates his Department have made as to the contribution made by the British record industry to British exports.

  Mr. Needham
  Such estimates are not made by the Department. Exports of the finished product reported by Customs and Excise and published by the British Phonographic Industry Ltd. (BPI) were £196.3 million in 1991. Invisible earnings in the form of royalties returning from overseas were assessed in a report published by British Invisibles to be £486 million in 1988–89. Figures for all exports are shown in the Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics published by the Central Statistical Office.

  Toy Imports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer on 11 December,Official Report, column 838, if he will name the two member states of the EC who impose national quotas on the import of toys made in China.

  Mr. Needham
  The two member states are Germany and Spain.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish his estimate of the average avoidable costs of electricity generation by different means.
  568
  Mr. Eggar
  The relative costs of electricity generated from different sources are being considered as part of the coal review. The Government intend to publish the conclusions of the review in a White Paper shortly.

  Caminus Energy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when Caminus Energy was appointed as consultants to his Department's energy review; what are its full terms of reference; when he expects to receive their report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on 20 November 1992,Official Report, column 433.

  Industrial Competitiveness
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce the results of the review being conducted by the industrial competitiveness division of his Department into lessons that can be learnt from other leading industrialised countries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade receives frequent reports from the industrial competitiveness division, and these are taken into account when considering Government policy.

  Trawsfynydd Power Station
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has had on matters concerning Trawsfynydd nuclear power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received some 10 letters from hon. Members forwarding representations from their constituents about the safety of Trawsfynydd nuclear power station. As I have made clear in my replies there is no question of the power station commencing operation until the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate are convinced that it is safe to do so.

  Coal Mines
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the amount of investment in new capital machinery at each of the 10 pits currently in the 90-day consultation period in the financial year 1990–91 to 1991–92 and April to September 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amount of investment in new capital machinery at individual pits is a matter for British Coal.

  Miners' Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Coal about extending the corporation's present redundancy terms beyond 31 March 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions. British Coal's redundancy terms are a matter for British Coal. It would, however, seem reasonable for the corporation not to determine their redundancy arrangements from 1 April 1993 until at least the outcome of the coal review is known.

  Colliery Visits
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the collieries that he and his ministerial colleagues have visited, and the date upon which the visits were made, since taking their present offices.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 4 November 1992,Official Report, column 314. No further visits have taken place since.

  Waste-to-energy Schemes
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made in his review of energy policy of the economic contribution in terms of job creation and private capital investment which waste-to-energy schemes could make.

  Mr. Eggar
  The coal review is taking full account of the contribution renewable energy sources can make to meeting the United Kingdom's energy needs.

  Personal Protective Equipment
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will establish the necessary validation procedures to enable United Kingdom manufacturers of personal protective equipment to obtain a CE mark for their products as required under directive 89/686/EC which came into effect on 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Personal Protective Equipment (EC Directive) Regulations 1992, Statutory Instrument 3139, came into force on 1 January 1993. Bodies approved to undertake testing and certification work in relation to the categories of personal protective equipment (PPE) required under the Directive to undergo type examination, will be appointed and notified to the EC Commission in Brussels very shortly. Manufacturers of PPE of simple design protecting against minimal risks are able to self-certify conformity and do not need third party approval to affix the CE mark to such products.

  Exporters
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department provides for exporters in the north east; how many firms benefit from such assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under overseas trade services my Department provides a wide range of assistance to companies. In conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office we are able to offer exporters access to market information facilities and a range of services designed to meet precisely the requirements of business. In the North East there is close co-operation with the chamber movement which has benefited from extra resources through the Department's active exporting initiative and with the Northern Development Company which is responsible for a DTI assisted outward missions programme.

  Northern companies may also access the Department's overseas trade divisions, particularly its country desks, its market information services and its major project sections in London. The Department's overseas trade service
  570
  operates throughout the United Kingdom with various access points, and therefore separate figures are not readily available for take-up by North East firms.

  Coal/Water Mixtures
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider applying for funds under the European Commission's THERMIE programme to finance further research into coal/water mixtures as fuel.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for industry, rather than member state Governments, to apply for financial support for projects under the THERMIE programme. The Commission may invite proposals for demonstration projects using coal/water mixtures later this year in the last call for proposals under the THERMIE programme.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications his Department received since 1990 for export licences of(a) machine tools and (b) weapons; and how many of these were (i) approved and (ii) covered by export credit guarantees.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: Following is the information:

  Applications from 1 January 1990 to 8 December 1992

  Received

  Licences issued

  Machine tools

  1,028

  926

  Weapons

  29,670

  27,937

  Note: For this purpose "machine tools" is taken to cover any applications falling within headings IL 1075, IL 1088, IL 1091, IL 1370, PL 7027 or ML 18 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1991 as amended. "Weapons" is taken to cover all ML headings in the Order except ML 18.

  Under arrangements applying up to privatisation of ECGD's Insurance Services Group in December 1991, the vast bulk of ECGD's business was underwritten on a basis which did not involve identification of the nature of the goods. It is therefore not possible to provide the information requested in respect of export credit guarantees.

  Weapons Exports
  Mr. Peter Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of weapons exported to(a) Iraq and (b) Iran in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 8 December 1992]No lethal defence equipment was exported to either country in 1991, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Official Engagements
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the official engagements he attended in October and November before 9 am.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]The engagements were as follows: on 13 October a Cabinet Committee meeting; on 14 October a meeting with United States trade representatives; on 15 October a Cabinet Committee meeting; on 6 November a meeting with the
  571
  head of the efficiency unit; on 9 November a regional visit to Folkestone; on 10 November a visit to Yorkshire and Humberside; on 11 November departure for the Anglo-German Summit; on 17 November a regional visit to Liverpool and Manchester; on 24 November departure for Brussels and a briefing session for the Industry Council; and on 25 November a working breakfast with business men in the North West.

EDUCATION

  Secondary Heads Association
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to meet the Secondary Heads Association; and how many times he has met the Secondary Heads Association since April.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend expects to meet representatives of the Secondary Heads Association in due course to hear their views on the second report of the School Teachers Review Body. Since April 1992 he has met representatives of the Secondary Heads Association on at least three occasions.

  School Visits
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for of Education how many(a) county infant schools, (b) county primary schools and (c) high schools he has visited since April.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has visited a total of 16 maintained schools since April, including one special school and:

  (i) First/Infants

  1 county; 1 voluntary controlled

  (ii) Primary

  2 county; 3 voluntary aided

  (iii) Middle

  1 voluntary aided

  (iv) 3 county; 3 voluntary aided; 1 grant-maintained.

  Teacher Organisations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the teacher organisations he has met since April.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has met representatives from each of the six main school teacher associations: the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association; the National Association of Head Teachers; the National Association of School Masters/Union of Women Teachers; the National Union of Teachers; the Professional Association of Teachers; and the Secondary Heads Association.

  Education Staff
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many full-time and part-time staff are available to each local education authority for education other than at school.

  Mr. Forth
  The total number of staff employed by local education authorities in England to provide education other than at school is estimated at 2,600 full-time equivalents in January 1992. Reliable figures for individual authorities are not available.

  Examinations
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what methods and standards will be used to select pupils for the proposed level 10 examinations in 1994.

  Mr. Forth
  From 1994, all GCSE examination results will be awarded in terms of levels 10 to 4 instead of the present grades A to G. For each subject, there will be a set of tiered question papers each targeted on a range of levels between 10 to 4. Decisions on the appropriate tier of entry for each candidate will be matters for teachers' professional judgment.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of pupils passed(a) 0-levels and (b) CSE for each year from 1980 to 1987; and what percentage passed GCSE in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  The available information is as follows.

  The estimated percentages of school leavers in England who passed 0-level and or CSE from 1980 to 1987 are shown in the table, together with the percentages for GCSE from 1988.

  Percentages of leavers who passed O-level and/or CSE1

  Percentages of 16 year olds who passed GCSE1

  1980

  87·7

  —

  1981

  88·5

  —

  1982

  89·3

  —

  1983

  90·1

  —

  1984

  90·2

  —

  1985

  90·3

  —

  1986

  90·0

  —

  1987

  90·2

  —

  21988

  89·9

  —

  31989

  90·9

  92·5

  1990

  91·5

  92·7

  1991

  91·8

  93·2

  1 The figures from 1980 to 1991 are based on sample surveys. For the years 1980 to 1987 the percentages relate to those school leavers who gained grades A to E in O-level and/or grade 1 to 5 in CSE examinations.

  2 The GCSE examination was introduced in 1988 and therefore the percentages from that year onwards include leavers who gained grades A to G in that examination and/or O-level or CSE.

  3 From 1989, the school examination survey also collected data for the 16 year old cohort. For these years the percentages of 16-year-olds are also shown.

  Ethnic Minorities (Local Government Grants)
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will introduce a grant designed to meet the educational needs of the ethnic minority population of all ages similar to the previous section 11 funding.

  Mr. Forth
  The assumption that Home Office section 11 grant is to cease is incorrect. Section 11 grant will continue to support existing projects in 1993–94 at the current grant rate of 75 per cent. Thereafter, on current planning assumptions, grant will be available to support the same volume of posts albeit at a reduced rate.

  A-level Appeals
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many appeals against A-level results were lodged in the last year for which figures are available; and what were their outcomes.

  Mr. Boswell
  Appeals against A-level results are made in the first instance to the GCE examination boards. Information on such appeals is not held centrally. If appellants remain dissatisfied they may pursue their concerns with the Independent Appeals Authority for School Examinations, IAASE. In 1991–92 the IAASE heard eight formal appeals on A-level matters. It rejected three, and required the relevant board to reconsider its decision in five.

  Parent-Governor Meetings
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools in England hold annual parent-governor meetings which are attended by fewer than 10 per cent. of the parents entitled to attend.

  Mr. Forth
  All parents of pupils registered at a school are eligible to attend the annual parents' meeting. Information as to the numbers of parents attending annual parents meetings is not collected by the Department.

  Further Education
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will set out the actual spending by Nottinghamshire county council on further education and sixth form colleges for the financial year 1991–92 and the planned expenditure for 1992–93.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my predecessor gave to him on 8 December 1992,Official Report, cols. 563–65, where the provisional further education adjustment in respect of Nottinghamshire county council is given as £50.874 million. Its actual expenditure in respect of 1991–92 is not available.

  Teacher Education
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the future of existing teacher education in higher education institutions.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) on 17 November 1992,Official Report, column 123.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the bids for capital allocations from grant-maintained schools and the actual allowances for the 1993–94 financial year.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is contained in the following tables. Table A lists the applications received for named capital projects from schools with grant-maintained status as at December 1992. Decisions on allocations to these schools have not yet been taken. Table B gives details of the bids received and the actual allocations made to grant-maintained schools under the 574
  technology schools initiative. Schools which became grant-maintained on 1 January 1993 have been invited to submit bids by 25 January 1993 for named capital projects and for resources under the technology schools initiative.

  Table A Grant-maintained schools capital bids for named projects 1993–94 Complete list of bids

  School

  Project

  Total cost £K

  Acle

  Conversion to provide technology facilities

  145

  Single Classroom extension

  75

  Adams

  Repair support & facade of main entrance

  105

  Replace 2 temporary classrooms

  100

  Ancaster High

  Roof conversion

  106

  Angley

  Re-modelling of design/technology department

  599

  Archbishop's

  Refurbishment of laboratories and classrooms

  657

  4 new classrooms

  147

  Ash Green

  Replacement of boilers

  150

  Audenshaw

  2 new classrooms

  120

  4 new classrooms

  260

  Avonbourne

  Adaptations to technology and science departments

  440

  Avon Valley

  Extension of science and technology facilities and refurbishment

  457

  Refurbishment of sports hall/gymnasium

  207

  Aylesford

  New 2-storey technology/art block

  345

  Bacup and Rawtenstall

  Technology/science laboratory

  66

  Convert solid fuel boilers to gas

  68

  Baines

  New technology block and upgrade science facilities

  750

  Balcarras

  Re-roofing of part of school

  91

  Bankfield

  Re-fenestration

  604

  Upgrade 6 science laboratories

  275

  Barnehurst Infants

  2 new classrooms to replace mobiles

  122

  Barnehurst Junior

  1 new classroom to replace mobile

  66

  Bassingbourne

  Reorganisation and refurbishment to provide technology facilities

  136

  Baverstock

  Design and technology centre

  499

  Re-roofing of existing building

  225

  Beacon

  Extend canteen facilities

  34

  New cloakroom and office

  38

  Beaconsfield

  Re-cover flat roofs of main building

  190

  Replace 10 temporary classrooms

  1,375

  Beauchamps

  Boiler replacement and energy conservation

  118

  Upgrade design and technology rooms

  90

  Beaverwood

  New technology block

  348

  Beechen Cliff

  Refurbish and alter science block

  1,161

  575

  School

  Project

  Total cost £K

  Urgent drainage to prevent subsidence

  139

  Belmont Primary

  New hall, stores and changing rooms

  178

  Replace school

  2,227

  Bingley

  Phase 2 of science wing

  400

  Bishopshalt

  Replace old boiler with gas heating system

  46

  Borough Green

  2 additional infant classrooms

  156

  Borrows Wood Junior

  Health and safety improvements

  65

  Resource area

  45

  Boswells

  New technology block and link

  306

  New technology block and refurbish CDT block

  607

  Bourne Abbey

  2 additional classrooms, science/technology room and toilets

  198

  Replace 7 flat roofs

  60

  Bournemouth

  Replace technology facilities

  487

  Bournemouth School for Girls

  New technology/business centre/IT block

  1,050

  Bradbourne

  Technology provision

  62

  Main network PC system

  25

  Bridgewater Hall

  Redevelopment of technology block

  128

  Bridgewater Hall with Brindley Hall

  Replace shared boiler

  264

  Bromsford

  Major repairs to roof and walls

  499

  Brookmead

  Shower block

  53

  Bruton Primary

  Phase 2 of classroom extension

  80

  Budmouth

  Refurbish science department

  559

  Bullers Wood

  5 new laboratories

  466

  Burgate

  2 new science laboratories

  266

  Burntwood

  Replace rotten windows

  453

  Upgrade science classrooms and fire escape

  458

  Caistor

  2 new rooms for design technology and IT

  265

  Canterbury

  New block of laboratories and toilets

  383

  New block of laboratories, toilets and refurbishment of 3 laboratories

  512

  Cardinal Vaughan

  Technology unit

  408

  Carres

  Re-roof laboratory and main blocks

  67

  Castle Hills

  Extend technology block and science laboratory alteration

  404

  Kitchen and dining room extension

  105

  Chalfonts

  Extension of science laboratories

  312

  Chalvedon

  Phase 3 of middle school refurbishment

  850

  576

  School

  Project

  Total cost £K

  Charles Darwin

  Phase 3 of re-wiring of school

  120

  Chatham Girls

  New technology block

  327

  Cheam

  New technology block

  306

  Chelmsford Girls

  New science department

  1707

  Chosen Hill

  Alterations to form science laboratories

  250

  Christchurch

  New classroom

  90

  City of Portsmouth

  Refurbish 4 science laboratories

  220

  Convert 2 classrooms to science laboratories

  75

  Claremont High

  Phase 2 technology block to relieve temporary accommodation

  350

  Refurbish home economics and CDT accommodation

  200

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar

  New science block and 6 classrooms

  820

  Collingwood

  External fabric refurbishment

  294

  Refurbishment laboratory and science block

  432

  Colyton

  Replace central heating system

  145

  Coopers

  New technology block

  335

  Copland

  Refurbish 4 science laboratories

  173

  Cornwallis

  Refurbish science laboratories

  310

  Costessey High

  Extend and adapt technology suite

  350

  Extension for 2 science labs

  240

  Cotswold

  Boiler replacement

  113

  Insulation and heater replacement

  42

  Cranbrook

  Alterations for English and History departments

  46

  Crofton, Hampshire

  8 new science laboratories to replace temporary accommodation

  750

  6 new science laboratories to replace temporary accommodation

  590

  Crofton, Kent

  New science room

  96

  Cromer Hill

  Improvements to technology facilities and conversion to science laboratories

  255

  Improvements to technology facilities

  205

  Crompton Fold

  New classroom and changing room to replace temporary accommodation

  125

  Repairs to heating installation

  95

  Crossgates Primary

  New classroom base

  50

  Crossley Heath

  Total refurbishment of laboratories

  239

  Extension and alterations to technology block

  417

  Crypt

  Extension for science/technology

  475

  Dartford Boys

  New technology and science block

  350

  Roof and guttering repairs

  218

  Dartford Girls

  New technology block and adaptations

  635

  577

  School

  Project

  Total cost £K

  New technology block and classrooms and adaptations

  750

  Denefield

  New science laboratories

  86

  Dereham First

  New classroom

  63

  Desborough

  Refurbish and convert laboratories

  332

  de Stafford

  Refurbish maths and science block

  1,700

  Re-roof design and technology wing

  91

  Downham Market

  Technology wing to replace mobiles

  806

  Downs

  New laboratories and teaching wing to replace mobiles

  476

  Drayton Manor

  Repair roof

  77

  Eastwood

  Re-model and refurbish technology block

  124

  Ecclesbourne

  Phase 2 of technology block

  342

  Replace temporary accommodation with new build

  591

  Ellen Wilkinson

  Replace window units in tower block

  105

  Phase 1 refurbishment to extend science area

  103

  Elliot

  Science accommodation and new corridors

  548

  As above

  327

  Elmwood Primary

  Replace temporary accommodation

  832

  Replace temporary accommodation

  514

  Epsom and Ewell

  IT development

  219

  Ermine Junior

  New science and technology classroom

  52

  Francis Bacon

  Refurbish science laboratories

  238

  Up-grade fire resistance

  68

  Furtherwick Park

  Replace boiler system

  149

  Refurbish toilets and changing rooms

  72

  Gamlingay Village

  Replace 4 temporary classrooms

  234

  Re-model and refurbish science/technology facilities

  178

  Gartree

  Additional science laboratory and fire exit

  223

  Gleed Girls

  Phase 1 of improvement works

  423

  Glyn

  Phase 2 of new technology block

  380

  Gordons

  Gymnasium

  275

  Great Barr

  Fire prevention for 4 floor block

  370

  Great Tothyam Primary

  Demolish temporary classroom, conversion and new block

  308

  Greenford High

  Conversion and extension to teaching accommodation

  1,076

  Repair and extend technology accommodation

  510

  Gresham Village

  4 new classrooms and inside toilets

  331

  578

  School

  Project

  Total cost £K

  Handsworth

  Specialist technology rooms

  284

  General teaching space

  334

  Hardley

  2nd phase of heating system

  184

  Re-covering of flat roofs

  176

  Hartshill

  Re-wire whole school

  262

  Haydon

  New technology block/extend technology facilities/additional classroom

  380

  Extend technology facilities/additional classrooms and additional laboratories

  740

  Hayes

  Refurbish technology accommodation

  277

  Refurbish science accommodation

  146

  Hayes Manor

  Fire protection and ventilation

  132

  Refurbish technology accommodation

  440

  Hayton

  Extension and alteration to replace temporary accommodation

  224

  Heacham Middle

  New technology room

  75

  Heathside

  Refurbish 3 science laboratories

  165

  Heckmondwike

  Phase 2 of repairs to old block

  189

  Hendon

  Conversion for science/technology and maths

  463

  Herschel

  Fire doors, alarms and replace fume cupboards

  177

  Phase 2 of technology block and up-grade art

  98

  Highams Park

  Refurbish gymnasium and changing rooms

  56

  Re-route heating system

  33

  Highcliffe

  Fire doors, escapes, alarms, fume extraction

  165

  Holy Trinity Primary

  Classroom renovation

  187

  Homewood

  New technology rooms

  587

  John Fisher

  Additional storey to existing building

  853

  Additional 2 storeys to existing building

  1,175

  Katherine Lady Berkeley

  Major roof repairs

  161

  Katherines Primary

  Conversion of teaching areas

  92

  Kelsey Park

  New technology block

  338

  King Edward VI

  Replace temporary accommodation by technology/art block

  299

  King Harold

  Re-roofing and renew curtain wall sealing

  210

  King John, Northants

  Replace slate roof and repair curtain walling

  55

  King John, Essex

  Refurbish laboratories and prep rooms

  193

  Kings

  Extension to science/IT block

  475

  579

  School

  Project

  Total cost £K

  Kingsley Park

  Alteration of basement to kitchen/canteen facilities

  245

  Kingswood

  Replacement of main heating system

  347

  Kirbie Kendal

  Phase 1 for science/technology facilities

  950

  Lancaster Girls

  Replace temporary classrooms and new science/technology facilities

  925

  Roof repairs

  42

  Langley Grammar

  Extension for 2 science laboratories

  252

  Langley Park

  Re-model and refurbish craft block

  269

  La Retraite

  Final stage of kitchen refurbishment

  69

  Conversion to music room

  54

  Lincoln Christ Hospital

  Demolish temporary accommodation and extend technology/science facilities

  199

  Alter and refurbish shower block

  48

  Loddon Middle

  Conversion to create science room

  24

  Improve administration accommodation

  18

  Lodge Park

  Replacement of mobiles and refurbishment

  675

  London Nautical

  Replace boiler and central heating system

  399

  Refurbish design/technology facilities

  218

  London Oratory

  Up-grade kitchen/dining facilities

  453

  Longfield High

  Conversion to science laboratory and 2 classrooms

  166

  Phase 3 of re-roofing

  70

  Manor

  Replace oil with gas central heating system

  125

  Renew roof covering

  82

  Manor High

  Proposed technology suite

  596

  Manshead High

  Replace oil with gas central heating

  110

  Magdalen

  Heating system

  65

  Upgrade of kitchen

  29

  Mailing

  Re-model technology block

  357

  Maplesden Noakes

  Replace boilers

  200

  Conversion to science laboratory and technology room

  100

  Marling

  New science block

  781

  Marshland High

  Extension and adaptations to technology suite

  335

  New science laboratories and adaptations for art room

  260

  Mellow Lane

  Major repairs and health and safety work

  382

  New technology block

  827

  Meopham

  Gas supply and new heating system

  315

  Build caretaker's house

  75

  Minster College

  Refurbish technology facility

  364

  Mosely Park

  New science laboratories

  283

  580

  School

  Project

  Total cost £K

  Moulton

  Phase 3 replacement of mobiles

  200

  Myton

  Extend and refurbish existing workshops for design & technology

  562

  Science extension and adaptations

  1,163

  Netherthorpe

  Replace temporary accommodation by 4 room modern language block

  345

  Re-construct 1801 teaching block

  489

  Newent Community School

  Refurbish home economics

  235

  Refurbish science laboratories

  212

  Newlands Spring Primary

  Replacement of temporary classroom

  49

  Newstead Wood

  New technology block

  325

  Newton Bluecoat

  New changing rooms, medical inspection room and disabled toilet

  55

  Nonsuch

  New classroom and re-model science labs

  412

  Northampton Boys

  Improve science/technology facilities

  343

  2 new laboratories and 2 new classrooms

  596

  North Crescent Primary

  3 new classrooms

  194

  North Halifax

  Technology suite

  298

  Essential cladding repairs

  164

  North Kesteven

  Re-wiring of lower school block

  175

  Re-roofing

  301

  Northlands Junior

  Essential perimeter security fencing

  35

  Northolt High

  Partial re-roofing

  344

  Northwood

  Re-roofing and repairs to rainwater goods

  225

  Conversion of science laboratories and classrooms

  65

  Norwich Road

  Roof renewal of main block

  121

  Renewal of main boilers

  45

  Oakwood Park

  Conversion and refurbishment for technology suite

  615

  Oldfield

  2 new science laboratories and refurbishment of laboratories

  363

  Park Lane Primary

  Re-roof

  183

  Parkside 1st

  Phase 1 and 2 of front extension

  184

  Phase 1 of front extension

  141

  Parkstone Grammar

  New technology extension and re-model science facilities

  1,191

  Parmiters

  IT building and conversion to science laboratories

  1,663

  Pates

  Phase 3 of replacement building

  1,986

  Phase 4 of replacement building

  1,679

  Philip Morant

  Conversion to provide 3 laboratories

  179

  581

  School

  Project

  Total cost £K

  Plume

  Re-model upper school and technology block

  148

  Priory

  Resources unit, 4 classrooms and toilets

  341

  Queen Elizabeth, Aldford

  Replace temporary wooden accommodation

  495

  Queen Elizabeth, Atherstone

  Re-roof part of building

  118

  Refurbish laboratory

  84

  Queen Elizabeth, Barnet

  Replace windows in main block

  99

  Upgrade water system

  30

  Queen Elizabeth, Penrith

  Adaptations for new technology provision

  400

  New laboratory building

  462

  Queen Elizabeth, Horncastle

  New laboratory and re-model adjacent laboratories

  154

  Re-roof flat roof

  90

  Queen Katherine

  Roof and cladding repairs to 2 blocks

  104

  Re-model and refurbish home economics block

  50

  Queens

  Science department extension

  303

  Queensbury

  Adapt and convert to reorganise science/technology

  200

  Queensmead

  New technology block and re-model technology provision

  300

  Raines Foundation

  New science laboratory

  977

  Repairs and replace roofing

  161

  Rainham

  New science block

  344

  Rauceby

  Extension to provide classrooms, resource facilities and toilet

  191

  Reavensdale Middle

  Structural repairs to craft areas

  40

  Upgrade science laboratories and administration

  140

  Ravens Wood Boys

  Technology extension

  246

  Reading

  Conversion to biology laboratories

  240

  Rednock

  New build and conversion to provide science laboratories and classrooms

  665

  New build and conversion to provide science laboratories

  395

  Ribston Hall

  New build to replace temporary accommodation

  279

  Replace glazed aluminium cladding

  197

  Rickmansworth

  New art and design block

  510

  Remove asbestos, re-cladding and re-roof

  217

  Rickstones

  Technology suite

  450

  Riddlesdown

  Health and safety works

  405

  582

  School

  Project

  Total cost £K

  Robert Kett Middle

  Repairs to roof and chimneys

  90

  Extension and adaptation for 2 technology rooms

  67

  Robert Napier

  New technology accommodation

  358

  Robert Pattinson

  New science laboratories and re-model technology unit

  530

  As above

  290

  Robinswood Primary

  Waterproof school roof

  26

  Rewire/update electrical system

  78

  Royal Grammar Lancaster

  2 classroom block

  124

  Replace water system

  48

  St. Aidan's

  Re-model and refurbish science laboratories

  300

  Refurbish food technology rooms

  80

  St. Augustine's

  New technology block

  338

  St. Bartholomew's

  Re-model to provide IT and business studies

  282

  St. Francis Xavier's

  Phase 1 of 3 floor block for technology provision

  1,173

  Phase 1 of 2 floor block for technology provision

  802

  St. George's CE

  Modify technology block

  329

  Alternative means of escape

  40

  St. George's Sleaford

  Major repairs to 16 mobiles

  110

  Replacement of 2 mobiles

  236

  St. Helen's Primary

  Replace mobile with 2 classrooms and toilets

  132

  New toilet block

  53

  St. James's

  Re-roof flat roof of main block

  135

  St. Mary's Primary

  Refurbish outdated toilets

  31

  St. Thomas More

  New science block

  695

  New technology block

  702

  Saffron Walden

  Replace asphalt roofs and parapets

  447

  Improve technology facilities

  155

  Salterlee

  New toilets and storage

  66

  Re-roofing in slate

  44

  Scotby Primary

  Technology extension

  40

  Senacre

  New technology block

  325

  Send First

  3 classrooms and toilets

  210

  Enclosure to provide IT room

  55

  Sexeys

  Science department development

  285

  Business studies and IT block

  280

  Sheringham High

  Refurbish existing technology facilities

  295

  Simon Langton Grammar

  Re-model art, design and technology centre and workshop

  475

  Sir Roger Marwood

  Extension and improvements to laboratories

  595

  583

  School

  Project

  Total cost £K

  New technology suite and improvements to existing laboratories

  500

  Skegness

  Replace temporary classrooms and technology provision

  605

  Increase in boarding accommodation

  300

  Skinner's

  Technology building

  203

  Small Heath

  Replace heating boiler and controls

  55

  Snodland Primary

  New classroom block to replace mobiles

  332

  Southfield

  Repairs to concrete frame, flat roofs and toilets

  162

  Southlands, Kent

  Extension to replace maths accommodation

  658

  Southlands, Berkshire

  Refurbish science laboratories

  90

  Replace roofs

  15

  Stoneleigh

  Replace classroom windows

  46

  Stratford

  Re-roof upper school

  231

  Streetly

  New technology block and staircase

  396

  Repairs to flat roofs

  87

  Stroud

  New technology block and adaptions

  510

  Sutton Grammar

  New science laboratory block

  419

  Tewkesbury

  Replacement boilers

  258

  Design/technology facilities

  388

  Thamesview

  Asbestos removal and boilder replacement

  95

  Re-model technology and business studies

  172

  Thurstable

  Re-model and extend technology department

  460

  Torells

  New technology suite

  289

  Trinity

  New science block

  345

  Re-model technology suite and classrooms

  198

  Uxbridge

  Phase 1 of structural and roof repairs

  490

  Watford Boys

  New science/technology facilities

  813

  Renewal of lead lined cornice and guttering

  88

  Watford Girls

  Repairs to gym, swimming pool and 6th form

  113

  Westcliff Boys

  Science room

  170

  Music accommodation

  88

  West Flegg Middle

  Adaptions to 6 classrooms

  78

  Build 2 new classrooms to replace mobiles

  130

  William Farr

  Refurbishment of computer room, science laboratories and classrooms

  295

  As above

  560

  Wilmington Boys

  Science block refurbishment

  380

  584

  School

  Project

  Total cost £K

  Wilmington Girls

  New science laboratory and CDT room

  376

  New CDT room

  203

  Wilsons

  Food technology, design and art area

  222

  Wold Newton

  Additional new classroom

  59

  Wolverhampton

  Additional storey to existing blocks

  386

  Woodroffe

  Science and technology expansion

  1,150

  Partial expansion of science and technology

  325

  Wrotham

  New technology building

  484

  Refurbish Horsa huts

  52

  Wymondham College

  Technology centre to replace temporary accommodation

  488

  Technology schools initiative 1993–94 bids from grant-maintained schools

  School

  Amount bid for £K

  Amount allocated £K

  Ash Green School

  200

  —

  Baines School

  205

  205

  Beacon School

  185

  185

  Budmouth School

  224

  —

  Charles Darwin School

  238

  —

  Cornwallis School

  208

  207

  Eastwood High School

  213

  —

  Fulston Manor School

  41

  —

  Furtherwick Park School

  266

  —

  Gleed Girls School

  100

  —

  Graveney School

  300

  300

  Heathside School

  316

  —

  Heckmondwyke School

  266

  —

  Hendon School

  190

  —

  Homewood School

  176

  176

  King Harold School

  197

  —

  Manshead School

  252

  252

  Northolt High School

  200

  200

  Oldfield School

  755

  —

  Queensmead School

  300

  —

  Ravenswood School for Boys

  244

  244

  St. James CE School

  200

  —

  Senacre School

  193

  —

  Small Heath School

  211

  211

  Southlands School

  223

  223

  Stratford School

  300

  300

  West Hatch High

  192

  —

  Wymondham College

  200

  200

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools in England have held a ballot which resulted in a vote in favour of seeking grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Patten
  To date 640 schools have voted in favour of applying for grant-maintained status, on the basis of figures supplied by the Electoral Reform Society.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to ensure an appropriate number of suitably qualified teachers for pupils with severe learning difficulties and sensory impairment.
  585
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to increase the supply of specially trained teachers for children with severe multiple and profound handicap and with acute learning disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Identification of the numbers and the training needs of teachers of children with special educational needs is best done by local education authorities, which can determine which categories of special educational needs training are required in their areas.

  It is for the Department to provide funds to local education authorities under the grants for education support and training programme to support them with the costs of training. In 1993–94 grant support expenditure will be increased by almost 40 per cent. to £10 million and the previous restrictions on what the grant could cover will be relaxed.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will now earmark a special element in the overall sum of grants for education support for training to be allocated to the training of teachers for children with severe learning disabilities.

  Mr. Forth
  The responsibility for training teachers of all children with special educational needs rests with the local education authorities. They are in the best position to determine their own teaching needs. The Government have provided for an increase of 40 per cent. from £7.2 million to £10 million in expenditure which may be supported in training teachers of children with special educational needs.

  Schools (Capital Allocations)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the capital allocations to(a) county schools and (b) voluntary-aided schools for 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 16 December 1992 to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans),Official Report, columns 267–77. This sets out for each local education authority in England its annual capital guideline for education expenditure in 1993–94, along with the limit of capital expenditure by the governors of voluntary-aided and special agreement schools in each authority's area on which the Secretary of State will be prepared to pay grant in 1993–94.

  The annual capital guideline figures provided then did not include supplementary credit approvals to be issued to local education authorities during the course of the financial year. Nor did they include SCAs and grant allocations made under the technology schools initiative. Annex A sets out the SCAs to be given to local education authorities under the technology schools initiative for county and controlled schools and local education authority liability arising from successful voluntary-aided projects. Annex B sets out allocations for voluntary-aided schools.
  586

  Annex A

  SCAs arising from awards under the technology schools initiative 1993–94

  LEA

  £000s

  Barking

  185

  Barnet

  270

  Bedfordshire

  190

  Berkshire

  395

  Bexley

  149

  Birmingham

  407

  Bradford

  330

  Brent

  385

  Buckinghamshire

  193

  Calderdale

  170

  Cambridgeshire

  466

  Cheshire

  198

  Cleveland

  407

  Cornwall

  210

  Coventry

  260

  Cumbria

  285

  Derbyshire

  207

  Devon

  888

  Doncaster

  438

  Durham

  221

  East Sussex

  205

  Essex

  682

  Gloucestershire

  185

  Hampshire

  141

  Haringey

  200

  Harrow

  210

  Hereford and Worcester

  186

  Hertfordshire

  200

  Hounslow

  147

  Humberside

  395

  Kent

  389

  Kingston upon Thames

  200

  Kirklees

  155

  Knowsley

  114

  Lancashire

  692

  Leeds

  580

  Leicestershire

  431

  Lcwisham

  180

  Manchester

  200

  Newcastle

  225

  Newham

  273

  Norfolk

  419

  Northamptonshire

  589

  Northumberland

  711

  North Tyneside

  170

  North Yorkshire

  370

  Oldham

  180

  Oxfordshire

  145

  Rochdale

  200

  Rotherham

  180

  Salford

  150

  Sandwell

  185

  Sefton

  285

  Sheffield

  410

  Shropshire

  338

  Somerset

  284

  St. Helens

  336

  Staffordshire

  150

  Stockport

  235

  Suffolk

  415

  Sunderland

  185

  Surrey

  260

  Tameside

  205

  Trafford

  220

  Wakefield

  188

  Waltham Forest

  375

  Warwickshire

  200

  Wigan

  170

  Wiltshire

  103

  Wolverhampton

  244

  Total

  20,146

  Notes:

  1. The figures include awards to be issued by means of supplementary

  587
  credit approvals to LEAs for successful county and voluntary controlled schools and awards for LEA liability in respect of voluntary aided schools.

  Annex B Awards for voluntary-aided schools under the technology schools initiative

  School name

  LEA

  Award £000s

  Bishop Reindorp School

  Surrey

  70

  William Temple CE School

  Lancashire

  120

  St. Peter's Collegiate

  Wolverhampton

  140

  St. Benedicts' RC School

  Cumbria

  75

  St. Robert Newminster

  Sunderland

  20

  TOTALS

  425

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the bids for capital allocations from(a) county schools and (b) voluntary-aided schools for 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  Copies of lists of capital bids for county and voluntary controlled schools, voluntary aided and special agreement schools and for awards under the technology schools initiative have been placed in the Library.

  School Transport
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to exercise his powers under section 55(1) of the Education Act 1944 to make directions with regard to the withdrawal of free school transport by Norfolk county council for many Norfolk children in respect of the failure of the council's information booklet for the year 1992–93 to carry a warning that changes to the arrangements may occur at a later stage.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will take steps to require all local authority and grant-maintained schools to publish details of home-to-school transport facilities before each school term.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to expand the system of collective home-to-school transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  GCSE Results
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment his Department has made of the correlation between surplus places in schools, expenditure per pupil, and GCSE results.

  Mr. Forth
  As my right hon. Friend told the House on 15 December 1992,Official Report, columns 284–85, the
  588
  Department is investigating these figures and their relationships. I will write to my hon. Friend when that analysis is available.

  National Union of Students
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what responses he has had to the consultation exercise with higher education on changing the contribution arrangements of the National Union of Students; and if he will make these available to hon. Members;

  (2) what further action he is proposing to take to change the basis on which contributions are made to the National Union of Students.

  Mr. Boswell
  In the course of the consultations initiated by the Government on student unions, my right hon. Friend has received a number of responses on campus unions and the National Union of Students. In the light of the consultations, the Government are now considering proposals for action. Affiliation arrangements to the National Union of Students are being considered within this framework.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list by local education authority the latest figures for the proportion of three and four-year-olds in nursery education.

  Mr. Forth
  The percentages of three and four-year-olds attending maintained nursery schools or nursery classes in maintained primary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1991, the latest date for which information is readily available, is given in Statistical Bulletin 5/92, copies of which are in the Library.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish figures showing expenditure by each local education authority on the youth service for each year from 1988.

  Mr. Boswell
  The latest year for which information on actual expenditure is available is 1990–91. The table shows expenditure on the youth service by each local authority in each of the three years from 1988–89 to 1990–91.

  Net recurrent expenditure on the youth service

  (£000)

  LEA

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  ILEA

  35,377

  40,408

  —

  City

  —

  —

  28

  Camden

  —

  —

  2,041

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  1,909

  Hackney

  —

  —

  3,418

  Hammersmith

  —

  —

  1,563

  Islington

  —

  —

  4,664

  Kensington

  —

  —

  1,744

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  2,701

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  977

  Southwark

  —

  —

  2,087

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  5,238

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  2,444

  Westminster

  —

  —

  3,117

  Barking

  697

  842

  652

  Barnet

  966

  919

  1,039

  Bexley

  758

  884

  874

  589

  LEA

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Brent

  2,377

  2,023

  2,147

  Bromley

  894

  1,037

  1,051

  Croydon

  1,054

  1,207

  1,594

  Ealing

  1,804

  1,953

  1,017

  Enfield

  796

  960

  999

  Haringey

  n/a

  n/a

  1,580

  Harrow

  648

  791

  611

  Havering

  845

  1,025

  1,060

  Hillingdon

  1,018

  1,175

  1,475

  Hounslow

  737

  n/a

  1,980

  Kingston upon Thames

  580

  682

  734

  Merton

  459

  589

  646

  Newham

  1,104

  1,152

  1,136

  Redbridge

  1,078

  1,132

  1,157

  Richmond upon Thames

  514

  612

  684

  Sutton

  517

  576

  768

  Waltham Forest

  1,336

  1,579

  1,544

  Birmingham

  4,396

  5,252

  3,056

  Coventry

  1,095

  1,382

  3,327

  Dudley

  983

  1,137

  1,342

  Sandwell

  736

  826

  1,004

  Solihull

  430

  432

  541

  Walsall

  2,305

  2,917

  4,204

  Wolverhampton

  2,070

  2,477

  1,982

  Knowsley

  666

  980

  2,100

  Liverpool

  2,392

  2,846

  3,138

  St. Helens

  328

  287

  260

  Sefton

  843

  1,019

  1,315

  Wirral

  1,512

  1,813

  1,793

  Bolton

  1,057

  1,291

  1,326

  Bury

  916

  1,009

  865

  Manchester

  n/a

  n/a

  2,557

  Oldham

  683

  911

  936

  Rochdale

  1,453

  2,028

  1,415

  Salford

  538

  561

  751

  Stockport

  598

  747

  645

  Tameside

  1,149

  1,339

  1,674

  Trafford

  677

  834

  991

  Wigan

  876

  1,678

  1,188

  Barnsley

  551

  458

  435

  Doncaster

  1,305

  1,604

  1,599

  Rotherham

  1,029

  1,172

  1,336

  Sheffield

  3,038

  3,802

  4,047

  Bradford

  3,127

  3,225

  3,751

  Calderdale

  1,103

  1,274

  1,363

  Kirklees

  1,426

  1,600

  1,769

  Leeds

  6,860

  6,672

  7,336

  Wakefield

  N/A

  N/A

  1,091

  Gateshead

  722

  1,055

  1,125

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  659

  746

  860

  North Tyneside

  585

  N/A

  664

  South Tyneside

  1,855

  1,951

  500

  Sunderland

  1,010

  1,272

  1,521

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  2

  2

  Avon

  5,269

  6,129

  4,697

  Bedfordshire

  1,131

  1,320

  1,771

  Berkshire

  2,185

  2,436

  3,882

  Buckinghamshire

  2,370

  3,166

  4,016

  Cambridgeshire

  1,780

  2,011

  2,371

  Cheshire

  2,005

  2,081

  3,479

  Cleveland

  2,629

  4,012

  4,351

  Cornwall

  787

  1,113

  1,226

  Cumbria

  1,333

  1,320

  1,597

  Derbyshire

  5,066

  8,739

  10,928

  Devon

  2,913

  3,548

  3,469

  Dorset

  1,722

  2,358

  2,627

  Durham

  1,263

  1,381

  1,569

  East Sussex

  1,089

  1,207

  1,627

  Essex

  4,026

  4,932

  7,010

  Gloucestershire

  2,147

  2,771

  2,581

  Hampshire

  3,230

  3,651

  3,169

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  1,201

  1,630

  1,706

  Hertfordshire

  2,782

  3,395

  4,064

  Humberside

  3,839

  4,584

  5,211

  Isle of Wight

  467

  499

  559

  Kent

  2,708

  2,925

  3,072

  Lancashire

  5,179

  6,222

  6,954

  Leicestershire

  2,946

  3,267

  3,692

  590

  LEA

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Lincolnshire

  1,096

  1,155

  1,565

  Norfolk

  1,870

  2,296

  2,462

  North Yorkshire

  1,587

  1,743

  2,316

  Northamptonshire

  1,706

  1,864

  2,192

  Northumberland

  681

  913

  2,533

  Nottinghamshire

  5,233

  5,643

  6,113

  Oxfordshire

  1,325

  1,583

  1,979

  Shropshire

  1,788

  2,264

  2,538

  Somerset

  2,478

  1,913

  1,201

  Staffordshire

  2,599

  3,188

  3,961

  Suffolk

  2,124

  2,404

  1,034

  Surrey

  2,420

  2,852

  3,526

  Warwickshire

  1,434

  1,584

  1,774

  West Sussex

  1,599

  1,872

  2,164

  Wiltshire

  1,480

  2,934

  2,243

  Note:

  1. N/A indicates not received from local authority.

  2. Net recurrent expenditure includes gross expenditure other than on capital, less income other than from specific grants. Figures are taken from local authorities' returns of their actual spending to the Department of the Environment.

  Statutory Provision
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the total spending on statutory education provision per inner London borough for each year since 1988; what it is projected to be in 1993; and what the equivalent figure would have been if uprated by inflation from the 1989–90 figure.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest year for which information on actual expenditure on education is available is 1990–91. The table gives information for each of the three years from 1988–89 to 1990–91. It is for each inner London borough to determine its spending plans for 1993–94.

  Net recurrent expenditure1 on education

  1988–89 (£million)

  1989–90 (£million)

  1990–91 (£ million)

  ILEA

  1,086

  1,085

  —

  City

  —

  —

  5

  Camden

  —

  —

  66

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  103

  Hackney

  —

  —

  107

  Hammersmith

  —

  —

  57

  Islington

  —

  —

  83

  Kensington

  —

  —

  41

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  122

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  109

  Southwark

  —

  —

  104

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  106

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  103

  Westminster

  —

  —

  80

  1 Net recurrent expenditure covers all spending other than on capital, less income other than from specific grants. Figures are taken from local authorities' returns of their actual spending to the Department of the Environment.

  Medical Education
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans he has to enhance the levels and quality of medical education in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what arrangements are in place to monitor (a) the relative cost-effectiveness and (b) the relative quality levels of medical education courses in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for universities as autonomous institutions to take steps to maintain and enhance the
  591
  quality of medical and other higher education. The General Medical Council has a statutory role to promote high standards of medical education through recommendations on the curriculum and monitoring of courses. The GMC has recently produced a consultation document on a revised medical curriculum. It will be for institutions to develop their courses within this framework.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England has a statutory duty to secure quality assessment of the higher education which it supports, including medical education. The council is taking forward work on the introduction of assessment across higher education and on the development of a range of performance indicators for all subjects, including indicators of relative costs.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what estimates his Department has made of the relative costs of medical education courses provided in London and at other centres of medical education in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what study Sir Bernard Tomlinson's committee made in the course of the preparation of its recent report of the relative costs of medical education courses in London and the United Kingdom regions.

  Mr. Boswell
  Details of the costs of medical and other courses for each university in the United Kingdom are shown in the latest volume of "University Management Statistics and Performance Indicators in the United Kingdom", published jointly by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Universities Funding Council in October 1992. Copies are available in the Library. Sir Bernard Tomlinson's report draws on the CVCP/UFC data on university costs in London and elsewhere.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list(a) the total number of residential properties owned by his Department, (b) the number of such properties which are empty and (c), (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department owns no residential properties.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the schools which he and his ministerial colleagues have visited since April 1992.

  Mr. Patten
  I, my noble Friend the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), have visited 71 schools so far during our periods in office, made up of

  1 Nursery school;

  19 Primary schools, including 1 middle school;

  43 Secondary schools, including 8 grant-maintained schools and 9 independent schools;

  3 Special Schools;

  5 CTCs.

  The list of schools is as follows:
  Secretary of State's Visits

  Appleton CE Primary School, Abingdon, Oxford

  Dunmore Infants School, Abingdon, Oxford

  Greenvale Primary School, Croydon

  Lyne & Longcross First School, Surrey

  592

  St. Edmund's RC Primary, Abingdon, Oxford

  Thomas Reade Primary School, Abingdon, Oxford

  Frideswide Middle School, Oxford

  Archbishop Tenison's Secondary School, Croydon

  Bishop David Brown Secondary School, Surrey

  Cardinal Newman School, Hove, East Sussex

  Cockshut Hill Secondary School, Birmingham

  Compton Secondary School, Finchley

  Culham European School

  St. Peter's C of E School, Wootton, Oxford

  Wimbledon College, Merton

  Small Heath GM School, Birmingham

  Marymount International Secondary School, Kingston

  Mayville High School, Portsmouth

  Nottingham High School, Nottingham

  Radley College, Oxford

  School of St. Helen & St. Katherine, Abingdon, Oxford

  Netherlands Avenue Special School, Bradford

  Bradford CTC, Bradford

  Djanogly CTC, Nottingham

  Minister of State's Visits

  Caverstede Nursery School, Peterborough

  Appleton Primary School, Humberside

  Davenant Foundation School, Essex

  Dean Grange Prep School, Cambridgeshire

  Even Swindon Infant and Junior Schools, Wiltshire

  Kingston Park Primary School, Newcastle

  Wittering County Primary School, Peterborough

  Aylward School, Enfield

  Calderstones Community School, Liverpool

  Chantry High School, Suffolk

  Eastholm School, Peterborough

  Gosforth High School, Newcastle

  Hinchingbrooke School, Cambridgeshire

  Keldholme School, Cleveland

  Kesgrave High School, Suffolk

  King David High School, Liverpool

  Latymer School, Enfield

  Verulam School, Hertfordshire

  Beechen Cliff GM School, Bath

  Christ Church GM School, Hertfordshire

  Jack Hunt GM School, Peterborough

  London Oratory GM School, Fulham

  Sawtry Village GM College, Cambridgeshire

  Southfield Girls GM School, Kettering

  Bedford School, Bedfordshire

  Reed's School, Surrey

  Teesside High School for Girls, Stockton

  Frederick Holmes Special School, Humberside

  John Cabot CTC, Bristol

  Macmillan CTC, Cleveland

  Eric Forth's Visits

  Balby Street County Primary School, Doncaster

  Nabbotts County Infant and Junior Schools, Essex

  Pott Shrigley CE Primary School, Cheshire

  Puss Bank County Infant and Junior Schools, Cheshire

  St. Stephen's CE First School, Hereford and Worcester

  Winton County Infant and Junior Schools, Dorset

  Abbey County High School, Hereford and Worcester

  Droitwich High School, Hereford and Worcester

  Ducie Central Boys' High School, Manchester

  Glenmoor County Secondary School for Girls, Dorset

  Hungerhill County Secondary School, Doncaster

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Boys, Birmingham

  Light Hall County Secondary School, Solihull

  Chalvedon GM School, Essex

  Maple Hayes Hall Independent Special School, Staffordshire

  Wycliffe Independent College, Gloucestershire

  Kingshurst CTC, Solihull.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy on the European Commission's proposals on data protection in
  593
  relation to (a) manual files, (b) data subject consent, (c) first communication of personal data and (d) transfers to third countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government are opposed to provisions in the revised draft directive which go beyond the 1981 Council of Europe convention on data processing (Miscellaneous No. 19 (1981) Cmnd 8341) which it considers to represent a principled and practical balance between the interests of data users, data subjects and others. It is opposed to the inclusion of manual data within the scope of the draft directive and to the requirement that in certain specified circumstances data subject consent be obtained before data are processed or first communicated to others. It is broadly content with the provisions on transfers to third countries, but considers that they require further drafting amendments.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many copies of the revised proposal for a data protection directive from the Commission he has sent out; how many were sent to organisations representing data users and organisations representing data subjects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Nearly 400 copies of the draft Directive have been sent to organisations outside the public sector. The consultation list is based on the Data Protection Registrar's standard list, together with those bodies which have approached the Home Office. It is not possible to say, in every case, whether the body primarily represents the interests of data users or data subjects, or both.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what elements in the Commission's proposals for a data protection directive are additional to the Council of Europe convention on data protection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The revised draft directive goes beyond the Council of Europe convention by placing extra restrictions on data users most importantly in the following respects: the application of the data protection provisions to manual files; restrictions on the processing of sensitive data; and the requirement for the data subject's informed consent in various circumstances before data are obtained, processed or communicated to third parties. The Government are opposed to these additional provisions, which they consider would place unnecessary and unjustifiable burdens on data users, with little compensating benefit and in some cases added inconvenience for data subjects.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 June,Official Report, column 700, if he has signed a certificate under section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984 since his answer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has signed no such certificate.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek permission from the respondents to place in the Library their contributions to his consultation exercise on the revised proposal for a data protection directive from the Commission.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The presumption is that responses to the consultation exercise are confidential between the 594
  contributor and Government, but I shall place a list of respondents in the Library when the consultation is complete, and the hon. Member may wish to approach them direct to ask for a copy of their submission.

  Betting Shops
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will receive a delegation of betting shop employees before making any decision on the relaxation in licensing hours for betting shops.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no present plans to do so. The views submitted by betting office staff following the consultation document published in October 1991 will be taken into account, along with those of all other interested parties.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the evening opening of betting shops on attendances at evening greyhound meetings.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The likely impact is uncertain and would depend on many variable factors. This is one of the issues to which we have been giving careful consideration in the light of the views submitted by greyhoud racing and others during the consultation process.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings Ministers or officials have had with members of the Betting Office Licensees Association since April.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There have been no meetings with Ministers since April 1992, but one has been arranged for 13 January 1993. There have been two meetings with officials.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has had from employees of betting shops about the proposals to extend opening hours into the evening.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since the consultation document was issued in October 1991, we have received 213 representations from betting office staff. In addition, we have received the results of a survey by A. R. Dennis bookmakers in which 4,167 betting office staff took part.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many copies of the consultative document on the evening opening of licenced betting offices were sent out in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992; how many respondents there have been to the document; how many were in favour and how many were against.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Fifty-eight copies of the consultation document were issued in October 1991. No record has since been kept of the number of copies issued on request. Since October 1991, we have received 824 representations, of which 775 were against evening opening and 49 were in favour. We have also received three petitions with more than 2,000 signatures from greyhound racing supporters opposed to evening opening.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given to the petition from Gordon Dennis and the survey carried out by A. R. Dennis among betting office staff concerning evening opening; and if he will make a statement.
  595
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The material submitted by A. R. Dennis is being considered alongside the representations from all other interested parties. We will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from members of the public since April over extending the licensing hours of betting shops; how many have been in favour; and how many against.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since April, we have received 199 representations from members of the public, mainly bookmakers, their staff, or those with an interest in greyhound racing. Of these, five were in favour and 194 were opposed. We have also received the results of a survey by A. R. Dennis bookmakers. Of 475 bookmakers who took part, 439 were opposed. Of 4,167 betting office staff who took part, 4,046 were opposed to evening opening.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that agreement should be reached amongst all affected parties before any relaxation in the licensing hours of betting shops takes place.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I do not consider that such a policy would be either practicable or reasonable.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the six additional European Parliament seats will be allocated between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government are developing proposals on how the additional seats allocated to the United Kingdom could best be allocated.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what boundaries the 1994 European elections will be fought following the allocation of six additional seats to the United Kingdom at the Edinburgh summit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Consideration is currently being given to how the European parliamentary constituency boundaries may be re-drawn to accommodate the six additional seats allocated to the United Kingdom in time for the 1994 European parliamentary elections.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) adult and (b) juvenile remand prisoners are currently in prison establishments in County Durham.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The following table shows how many adults, young adults and juveniles held in Prison Service establishments in County Durham on 22 December, which is the latest date for which information is available in County Durham.
  596

  Male establishments

  Adults

  Establishment

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Deerbolt

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  279

  44

  80

  96

  Frankland

  299

  0

  0

  0

  Low Newton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  TOTAL

  578

  44

  80

  96

  Key:

  A Convicted sentenced inmates.

  B Convicted unsentenced inmates.

  C Unconvicted remand inmates.

  D Unconvicted trial inmates.

  Young persons

  Establishment

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Deerbolt

  302

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Frankland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Low Newton

  26

  24

  31

  23

  TOTAL

  329

  24

  31

  23

  Key:

  A Convicted sentenced inmates.

  B Convicted unsentenced inmates.

  C Unconvicted remand inmates.

  D Unconvicted trial inmates.

  Juveniles

  Establishment

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Deerbolt

  32

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Frankland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Low Newton

  4

  7

  7

  3

  TOTAL

  36

  7

  7

  3

  Key:

  A Convicted sentenced inmates.

  B Convicted unsentenced inmates.

  C Unconvicted remand inmates.

  D Unconvicted trial inmates.

  Female establishments

  Adults

  Establishment

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Durham

  16

  0

  0

  0

  Low Newton

  10

  5

  5

  1

  TOTAL

  26

  5

  5

  1

  Key:

  A Convicted sentenced inmates.

  B Convicted unsentenced inmates.

  C Unconvicted remand inmates.

  D Unconvicted trial inmates.

  Young persons

  Establishment

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Low Newton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  TOTAL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Key:

  A Convicted sentenced inmates.

  B Convicted unsentenced inmates.

  C Unconvicted remand inmates.

  D Unconvicted trial inmates.
  597

  Juveniles

  Establishment

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Low Newton

  0

  0

  1

  0

  TOTAL

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Key:

  A Convicted sentenced inmates.

  B Convicted unsentenced inmates.

  C Unconvicted remand inmates.

  D Unconvicted trial inmates.

  Prostitution
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the laws on prostitution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We consider that the criminal law is well placed to deal with the nuisance caused by prostitution and have no present plans to review the law in this area.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many potential contractors have bid to provide prison education services in 1993–94; how many bids are from local education authorities; and how many are from colleges of further education.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 155 bids have been received to provide future education services in one or a number of prison establishments. Of these, 121 are from colleges and institutions of further education, 30 from private sector organisations and four from local education authorities.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the consultancy study undertaken into the prison education service by staff from Coombe Lodge and others, earlier in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 23 November 1992,Official Report, column 476.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by individual prison establishment which contractor has been successful in winning the bid to provide education services in 1993–94.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The contracts for the provision of educational services in prisons and young offender institutions from 1 April 1993 have not yet been let.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the budgets on a constant price basis for the prison education service for the financial years 1991–92, 1992–93 and the proposed budget for 1993–94.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Expenditure on prison education services in England and Wales is shown in the table, at 1991–92 prices.
  598

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  29·5 Outturn

  30·4 Budget

  30·9 Provisional budget

  United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the management and funding of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The position remains as set out in my reply to a question from the hon. Member on 19 October 1992,Official Report, column 54.

  Yugoslav Nationals
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the 150 and 1,000 former Yugoslav nationals released from detention, and their dependants, announced by the Home Secretary last year, have, to date, been received in the United Kingdom; what arrangements his Department has made to accommodate these families; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government have undertaken, in response to a request from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to accept a total of 1,000 former Yugoslav nationals who have been released from detention camps and their dependants. An initial group of 79 former detainees together with 49 of their dependants arrived on 17 December. We are awaiting confirmation from the UNHCR of the size and timing of arrival of further groups.

  We have invited the Refugee Council and the British Red Cross to provide initial reception accommodation for those who wish to take advantage of it. This is being funded by the Government. Following this initial reception period the Refugee Council will arrange more permanent accommodation in the community for the former detainees and their dependants. Some have joined friends or relatives who are already in the United Kingdom, either on arrival or after a short period in reception accommodation.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many former Yugoslav nationals visiting the United Kingdom have applied to extend their visit in the last six months, including applying to extend their visa; how many such applications(a) have been granted, (b) have been refused and (c) a decision is still pending; how many such visitors he now regards as overstaying; and how many such visitors have been removed from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Available information is given in the table. Comprehensive reliable information on the number of applications for extension of stay in this period, and on overstaying, is not available.

  Variation of leave decisions1 on, and removals under enforcement powers of, nationals of the former Yugoslavia, 1 April—30 September 1992

  Number

  Extensions of stay as visitor2

  Granted

  76

  Refused

  19

  599

  Number

  Extensions of stay on other basis23

  Granted4

  1,117

  Refused

  93

  Removed as illegal entrants5

  3

  Removed under deportation process because of a breach of conditions of leave to enter or remain5

  2

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 Figures may understate a little because of recording problems.

  3 Mainly as students, au pairs or on the basis of marriage.

  4 Excluding grants of settlement.

  5 Figures relate to all persons and not just those who have sought an extension of stay.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many former Yugoslav nationals have applied for political asylum on arrival in the last six months in the United Kingdom; how many such applications have been(a) granted, (b) refused and (c) are being considered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the six months June to November 1992 a total of 2,040 nationals of the former Yugoslavia (excluding dependants), applied for asylum in the United Kingdom at ports of entry. Aside from 40 applications refused on the grounds that they arrived from safe third countries, the remainder of the applications are still under consideration.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many former Yugoslav nationals have been removed or deported from the United Kingdom since August 1992; if he will list in each case the country to which the person was removed or deported; in how many cases the country had indicated prior to removal or deportation it was prepared to accept the person concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the period August to October 1992, 29 former Yugoslav nationals were refused leave to enter and removed at United Kingdom ports. The majority of these persons were seeking entry as visitors. The information requested on the receiving countries is not available centrally, except in respect of the asylum seekers removed. No asylum seekers have been returned to Yugoslavia since August; seven were removed to safe third countries—three to Germany and four to Sweden—in the period August to December 1992. It is not the usual practice to seek the receiving country's agreement to accept a person refused entry. No former Yugoslav nationals were removed as illegal entrants or under the deportation process in August or September 1992. Data for subsequent months are not yet available.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many former Yugoslav nationals, permitted to enter the United Kingdom as visitors since August 1992, have applied for political asylum; how many such applications have been(a) granted and (b) refused; how many are being considered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is that in the period August to November 1992 a total of 1,490 nationals of the former Yugoslavia (excluding dependants) applied for asylum after entry to the United Kingdom.600
  Comprehensive information on their immigration status on application, or date of arrival in the United Kingdom, is not available.

  The large majority of these applications are still under consideration.

  Probationers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his plans for tackling unemployment levels amongst offenders under supervision by the probation service in the current financial year, 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Jack
  The three-year plan for the probation service issued by my Department in December sets an objective for 1993–94 of ensuring effective provision for offenders in relation to employment, partnership with the independent and voluntary sector and others in the local community. Guidance issued in 1990 had already emphasised the importance of working with training and enterprise councils, the Employment Service and others, and in monitoring locally the employment status of offenders at the start and end of probation supervision.

  It is for each of the 55 area probation services in England and Wales to draw up detailed plans to achieve this objective which best fits local circumstances within the resources available.

  The Association of Chief Officers of Probation operates regional employment forums to discuss best practice in work with offenders to secure employment and training. The Home Office regularly discusses in a national forum with probation service representatives, the Employment Department and the voluntary sector ways of mobilising effective practical assistance for offenders. Discussions with the association and other interested bodies are also in progress about ways in which performance indicators for the work of the probation service should reflect success in ensuring assistance towards employment and training while under probation supervision.

  Entry Clearance Officers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will issue instructions to United Kingdom entry clearance officers regarding his proposed allowance of up to two consecutive applications per person; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The necessary instructions to give effect to the measures, which I announced on 8 December, to protect the interests of visitors when rights of appeal are removed will be issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before the relevant provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill are brought into force.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the total number of residential properties owned by his Department, (b) the number of such properties which are empty and (c), (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of Home Office residential properties as at 1 January 1993 are as follows:

  (a) 2,594 properties are owned by the Department.

  (b) 290 (11.18 per cent.) properties are vacant for various

  601
  reasons. Of this number 209 (8.06 per cent.) are retained for redevelopment or security reasons, retained for essential reallocation or to be demolished and are not, therefore, available for disposal. The remaining 81 (3.12 per cent.) vacant properties are on the open market for sale.

  The above figures do not include properties owned by the Metropolitan police or other police authorities.

  Ex-offenders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what correspondence he has had with the South Glamorgan Probation Service Ex-offenders Employment Forum; what report he has received of the Minister of State's visit to the forum on 11 November; if he will place a copy of such correspondence and report in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  After receiving a letter from the chief probation officer of South Glamorgan I was happy to visit his offices and Her Majesty's prison Cardiff in order to meet members of the offender employment forum and launch the future skills project.

  I was most impressed by the successful initiative and co-operation by those involved locally and have thanked the chief probation officer on behalf of all those involved.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider increasing periods of driving disqualification and sentences available to the courts for those found guilty of driving motor vehicles with an alcohol content in their blood that exceeds the statutory limit.

  Mr. Jack
  There is no upper limit on the length of disqualification that a court can impose for offences relating to driving while under the influence of alcohol. We have no present plans to change the existing penalties which permit courts to impose prison sentences of up to six months and fines of up to £5,000 thus giving the courts the powers to impose appropriate sentences on those convicted of driving with excess alcohol in the blood. For the offence of causing death by drink driving we have announced our intention to raise the maximum penalty from five to 10 years imprisonment as soon a suitable legislative opportunity is available.

  Crime Prevention
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's crime prevention policy.

  Mr. Jack
  During the past decade, the Home Office crime prevention unit set up by this Government has generated many initiatives leading to successful crime prevention activity. This has been undertaken by individual people and individual businesses; by community groups like crime prevention panels and neighbourhood watches; by the police, local authorities and other statutory agencies; by multi-agency partnerships; and within specific Government schemes. These include not only the Home Office's safer cities programme, but also the urban programme and city challenge. All this activity is linked by the common thread of the partnership, or 602
  multi-agency, approach in which a diversity of interests work together in a local community or for a common cause.

  The Government intend to build on this good foundation to develop a clear strategy for crime prevention involving all sections of the community.

  The four key areas of activity will be as follows:
  the number of safer cities projects will be doubled, with a broader management base to bring in a wider range of interests;
  a new National Board for Crime Prevention will be set up, after wide consultation with business and voluntary sectors, industry, commerce and the retail world. This should generate new ideas for preventing crime and enable a wide range of expertise to be mobilised, while providing a focal point for smaller groups addressing specific problems. Car crime prevention year has shown how much can be achieved by this kind of approach; the Ministerial group on crime prevention, reconvened with new membership, will be tasked with overseeing the Government's crime prevention strategy and helping to ensure that Government Departments pursue crime prevention objectives in the implementation of their own policies.
  there will be support for crime prevention initiatives which do not fall within the scope of safer cities and other Government programmes. The Government will continue to fund Crime Concern to provide a consultancy service for those who wish to set up crime prevention projects, to promote neighbourhood watch, to develop youth crime prevention and other similar activities; we will produce a good practice guide for local crime prevention practitioners; we will fund a number of innovative local projects intended to reduce the likelihood of people turning to crime; and we will encourage all sections of the community to work with the police to prevent crime.

  I have placed in the Library of the House a statement providing further details of these new policies.

  NHS Premises (Fire Safety)
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plan he has to remove Crown immunity from national health service buildings with respect to fire safety legislation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what research his Department has carried out into the cost of bringing national health service premises up to the standards required by fire safety legislation; and what cost was estimated.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 December, c. 437]: The Home Office has conducted no research into the cost of bringing national health service premises up to the standards required by the safety legislation. Individual health authorities and trusts are responsible for estimating and meeting the cost of remedial work.

HEALTH

  Mental Illness
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance was given to district health authorities in each financial year since 1981–82 regarding the provision of community facilities for the severely mentally ill.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department has issued the following guidance to district health authorities on the development of services for mentally ill people. Copies are available in the Library.
  603

  Date

  HC(84)2

  Health Services Development January 1984 Resource Distribution for 1984–85 Service Priorities, Manpower and Planning

  January 1984

  HC(85)5

  Health Services Development Resource Assumptions and Planning Guidelines

  January 1985

  HC(86)2

  Health Services Development Resource Assumptions and Planning Guidelines

  January 1986

  HC(88)43

  Health Services Development Resource Assumptions and Planning Guidelines

  July 1988

  HC(89)5

  Discharge of Patients from Hospital

  February 1989

  HC(90)23

  Health and Social Services Development 'Caring for People' The Care Programme Approach for People with a Mental Illness referred to the Specialist Psychiatric Services

  September 1990

  HC(90)24

  Specific Grant for the Development of Social Care Services for People with a Mental Illness

  September 1990

  HC(90)32

  Supplementary Credit Approval for the Development of Social Care Services for People with a Mental Illness

  December 1990

  HSG(91)23

  People with a Mental Illness: Local Authority Specific Grant for 1992–93

  November 1991

  HSG(91)25

  People with a Mental Illness: Supplementary Credit Approval for Capital Funding in 1992–93

  December 1991

  EL(92)13

  Implementing 'Caring for People'

  March 1992

  EL(92)65

  Implementing 'Caring for People' Guidelines

  September 1992

  HSG(92)51

  People with a Mental Illness Local Authority Specific Grant for 1993–94

  December 1992

  HSG(92)52

  People with a Mental Illness Supplementary Credit Approval for Capital Funding in 1993–94

  December 1992

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the different forms of support for the severely mentally ill which packages of community care can comprise.

  Mr. Yeo
  These are listed in paragraph 5 of "Development of Services for People with Learning Disabilities (Mental Handicap) or Mental Illness in England", the fourth report prepared pursuant to section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 (House of Commons paper 342).

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were living in hospitals for the mentally ill in England in each district in each financial year since 1981–82.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information is not readily available centrally in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community psychiatric nurses there were in England in each financial year since 1981–82; and how many of these were employed wholly or mainly in caring for the severely mentally ill in the community.
  604
  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of community psychiatric nurses as at 30 September each year is given in the table.

  Whole-time equivalents

  Community psychiatric nurses

  1981

  1,080

  1982

  1,240

  1983

  1,430

  1984

  1,880

  1985

  2,310

  1986

  2,530

  1987

  2,770

  1988

  3,080

  1989

  3,380

  1990

  3,600

  1991

  3,760

  Note: Figures have been independently rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  Data are not collected centrally on the number employed wholly or mainly in caring for the severely mentally ill.

  Child Care
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to improve the effect of the day care registration system introduced in the Children Act 1989; and if she will issue more guidance to local authorities on this subject.

  Mr. Yeo
  A circular LAC(93)1 has been issued today to local authorities in England urging them to use the discretion that the legislation allows them to be less rigid in their approach to the regulation of private and voluntary day care services and childminders and to work to encourage increases in the supply of these services. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The circular sets a new climate for providers and registration authorities, emphasising that, in the interests of children and families, authorities must strike the right balance between ensuring standards and encouraging development of provision. In particular, authorities are reminded, first, that underlying the legislation is a presumption that registration should be granted unless the authority has good reason not to register; and, secondly, that the standards set in the Department of Health's earlier guidance are not legally prescriptive. They are points of reference to be taken into account by the registering authority in deciding whether an applicant and his/her premises are fit for the care of young children and, if they are to be registered, what conditions should be imposed.

  The circular also announces that the Government propose to amend the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991 to exempt childminders registered under the Children Act 1989 from the requirement also to register their premises with Environmental Health Departments.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has carried out into computer systems for the allocation of intensive care beds; which systems have been identified as the most satisfactory; what guidance is given to health authorities and trusts; and if she will make a statement.
  605
  Mr. Sackville
  The allocation of intensive care beds, where carried out by computer, is usually a function of the hospital patient administration system. The investigation of this area forms part of the on-going work of the Department.

  Psychiatric Patients
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the Boyd inquiry on the homicides and suicides of discharged psychiatric patients.

  Mr. Yeo
  An up-to-date account of the confidential inquiry into homicides and suicides by mentally ill people is contained in paragraph 23 of the fourth report prepared pursuant to section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 entitled "Development of Services for People with Learning Disabilities (Mental Handicap) or Mental Illness in England" which was laid before the House on 16 December 1992. Copies are available in the Library.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate how many women have received prescriptions for oral contraceptives in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the(a) lowest, (b) highest and (c) average cost per month of oral contraceptives prescribed by the national health service;

  (2) what is the cost to the health service of all the oral contraceptives prescribed which cost more than the average;

  (3) what is the total cost to the health service of oral contraceptive prescriptions per month.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Figures are based on the net ingredient cost of oral contraceptives dispensed by; community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescribing doctors in England in 1991. The lowest net ingredient cost per prescription was £0·62, the highest £9·12 and the average £5·01. The annual net ingredient cost of oral contraceptives with a cost per prescription greater than £5·01 was £23·79 million.

  The total cost of oral contraceptives to the health service per month was£3·14 million.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to the health service for oral contraceptives for the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the annual net ingredient cost for oral contraceptives from 1987 to 1991. Figures for 1987 to 1990 are estimates based on a sample of about one in two hundred prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors. Figures for 1991 are actual costs and include all prescriptions dispensed by; community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescribing doctors.
  606

  Estimated Net Ingredient Cost for Oral Contraceptives For England from 1987 to 1991

  Year

  £ Million

  1987

  20·01

  1988

  23·97

  1989

  27·27

  1990

  32·09

  1991

  37·65

  Immunisation
  Sir Malcolm Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide the figures for the volume of medicines required by the NHS, the costs in administrative terms and the actual costs of the medicines in order to meet the immunisation targets for children for each year since the introduction of the general practitioners' contract; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Under central purchasing arrangements introduced on 1 April 1992, expenditure on vaccines for childhood immunisation is estimated at £40 million in the year 1992–93. This expenditure covers immunisation carried out in general practitioners' surgeries as well as in local clinics. Details of expenditure on childhood vaccines in the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 are not held centrally because prior to 1 April 1992 individual health authorities made their own purchasing arrangements.

  Approximately 650,000 children enter the immunisation programme annually. From birth to five years, each child requires four doses of diphtheria, tetanus and polio vaccine, three doses of whooping cough and Hib vaccine and one dose of measles/mumps/rubella vaccine. Contracts are placed with vaccine manufacturers to ensure the required total volumes of vaccine are available to immunise each child.

  Progress with the childhood immunisation programme since the GPs' new contract was introduced is set out in the table. These figures cover immunisation carried out in GPs' surgeries and in local clinics. Separate figures in this format are not available.

  Number of children immunized (England)

  Immunisation against:

  1990–91

  1991–92 (provisional)

  Diphtheria, Tetanus and Polio

  587,000 (92)

  594,000 (93)

  Measles, Mumps and Rubella

  552,000 (86)

  578,000 (90)

  Whooping Cough

  539,000 (84)

  562,000 (88)

  Note: The figure in brackets is the percentage of all children aged two who have been immunised.

  Expenditure in England on payments to general practitioners for reaching immunisation targets amounted to £41·138 million in 1990–91 and £49·804 million in 1991–92. Administrative costs associated with the immunisation programme cannot be disaggregated from other NHS administrative costs.

  The childhood immunisation programme has been one of the country's major successes in disease prevention. The most recent estimates from the Public Health Laboratory Service's survey show that 95 per cent. of all children by the age of 18 months have been immunised against diptheria, tetanus and polio, 91 per cent. at the same age against whooping cough, and 93 per cent. by the age of 24 months against measles, mumps and rubella. East Anglian

  607
  region has achieved the "Health of the Nation" target of 95 per cent. cover by 1995 for all diseases, and Oxford, South Western and Wessex have done so for all except whooping cough. There has been no reported death from acute measles since 1989, and reports of all the diseases for which immunisation is available are at record low levels.

  Complementary Medicines
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been or is being done under EC programmes on how complementary medicines can be integrated within existing systems of health care delivery; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The scope of the current EC programme on biomedical and health research does not provide for such research and there are no plans to widen the remit of future EC health and medical research programmes to enable the consideration of such proposals. The United Kingdom Government have agreed to sign the memorandum of understanding for the implementation of a European research project on unconventional medicine sponsored by the co-operation on science and technology programme which involves EC and other European states. This project—which is designed to last for five years—will examine procedures for establishing the efficacy of complementary medicines.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the single European market will affect complementary medicines.

  Mr. Sackville
  The United Kingdom's medicines licensing controls, including those for complementary medicines, are not immediately affected by the launch of the single market on 1 January 1993.

  The European Council of Ministers adopted directives 92/73/EEC and 92/74/EEC in September 1992 and these provide for the partial harmonisation of the rules relating to the regulation of homoeopathic medicinal products for use by humans and in animals, respectively. These directives, which are due to be implemented in member states by 31 December 1993, will ensure the continuing availability of homoeopathic medicines within the United Kingdom while making it easier for manufacturers to market their products in other member states. The arrangements for implementing the directives within the United Kingdom will shortly be the subject of wide consultation by the Government with interested parties.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information she has concerning the imposition by coronary care units of age limits on admission;

  (2) what guidelines her Department issues on the operation of age limits on admissions to hospital services.

  Mr. Sackville
  Decisions concerning the assessment and treatment of national health service patients are matters for the professional judgment of the clinicians involved in the individual case. A number of factors will influence such decisions, including the patient's ability to benefit from medical intervention; but we have always made it clear that treatment should not be withheld on the basis of age alone.

  Free Prescriptions
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines exist for deciding which patients are entitled to free prescriptions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Entitlement to free prescriptions is governed by the provisions of paragraph 1 of schedule 12 to the National Health Service Act 1977, the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations 1989 [SI 1989 No. 419], as amended,. and the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Regulations 1988 [SI 1988 No. 551], as amended, copies of which are in the Library.

  Smokers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the total number of habitual smokers in each regional health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The estimated number in each regional health authority of people aged 16 and over who said in 1990, the latest year for which figures are available, that they "smoke cigarettes nowadays" is given in the table.

  Estimated number of people aged 16 or over smoking cigarettes England 1990

  Regional Health Authority

  Thousands

  England

  11,280

  Northern

  790

  Yorkshire

  850

  Trent

  1,060

  East Anglian

  430

  North West Thames

  730

  North East Thames

  880

  South East Thames

  990

  South West Thames

  700

  Wessex

  670

  Oxford

  550

  South Western

  720

  West Midlands

  1,220

  Mersey

  610

  North Western

  1,090

  Notes: Estimates rounded to nearest 10,000.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her policy on the provision of long-term hospital and hostel places for schizophrenia sufferers; and on what basis the number of hospital beds and hostel places has been calculated.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government recognise that there will continue to be a number of patients suffering from schizophrenia who will require sanctuary or long-term asylum. The national health service's responsibilities for providing continuing care have been clearly set out in the White Paper "Caring for People" and strongly re-iterated last year in letters to regional health authorities and social services departments from the deputy chief executive of the national health service management executive and the chief inspector of social services.

  The form this continuing care should take and the number of places provided is a matter for local decision. Under the terms of the White Paper it is the responsibility of each health authority to agree with the relevant local

  609
  authorities the level of continuing care it proposes to provide or arrange for its own population so that health and local authority plans are compatible and comprehensive. Authorities should then publish their proposals as part of the local authority community care plans.

  Human Growth Hormone
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Wallasey of 15 December,Official Report, column 184, by what method pituitary-derived human growth hormone was extracted from the glands; how and when the method of extraction of human growth hormone changed between
  1959 and 1985; and for what reasons, and on whose recommendations, each change took place.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am advised that all the processes followed the same basic principle involving the homogenisation of the pituitary glands in order to release the growth hormone which is found in the pituitary cells. Initially at Cambridge the Raben method was used whereby the pituitary glands were acetone dried, extracted in an acid solution and precipitated differentially with ammonium sulphate. Then, later in the 1960s with the adoption of the Wilhelmi-Hartree method, the pituitaries were extracted in a strong alkaline solution (pH 10). The Lowry method, developed at St. Bartholomew's, used frozen glands with extraction at pH 8.5, a Sephadex G-100 column stage, ion-exchange chromatography and iso-electric precipitation. The Centre for Applied Microbiological Research at Porton Down modified the Cambridge process by the introduction of a G-100 column stage. Kabi also received frozen glands and initially used a process based upon the Roos method which involved extraction at pH 6.5 and a G-100 column stage. From 1982, they moved closer to the Lowry method with a higher pH for initial extraction and an additional chromatography stage.

  The changes were authorised by the Medical Research Council and, from 1977, the Department of Health and Social Security after consultation with the joint DHSS/MRC advisory committee for the national pituitary collection and the health services human growth hormone committee. They were intended to increase the yield, potency and safety of the growth hormone product.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) of 15 December,Official Report, column 184, where the manufacture of the human growth hormone extracted from the pituitary glands obtained in mortuaries took place; between which dates the manufacture of human growth hormone from human glands took place in each location; and what steps were taken by the Medical Research Council and by the health services pituitary collection committee to prevent infected or diseased organs being used in the manufacturing processes in each location.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Pituitary glands were processed to produce human growth hormone treatment at the following locations:

  1959 to 1980
  The laboratory of the Department of Biochemistry of Cambridge University

  1977 to 1980
  The biochemistry laboratory at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London
  610
  1980 to 1985
  The Centre for Applied Microbiological Reaserch at Porton Down.

  1980 to 1985
  By Kabi A. B. (Sweden) at their laboratory in Stockholm.

  Action intended to prevent the use of infected glands in the manufacture of the growth hormone treatment was required of hospital pathology departments. The Medical Research Council first issued guidance to pathology departments on the glands to be excluded from collection in 1958 and then laid down more stringent criteria in 1977. The joint DHSS/MRC advisory committee for the national pituitary collection issued its criteria in 1981.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many private advice organisations specialising in investigating child abuse and training such investigators are operating;

  (2) what is the current system of regulation or accountability to public authority for private agencies specialising in advising on child abuse; and what plans she has for changes;

  (3) what guidance she issues on the minimum qualifications necessary to practise as an advice agency to children who are being abused or adults who were abused in childhood;

  (4) whether she will make it her policy to establish a national register of private agencies that carry out investigations of child abuse, training for investigators, or advice to persons who have been abused;

  (5) if she will bring forward proposals to set up a general social services council with the responsibility of setting standards for private agencies offering advice or training in areas such as child abuse, and with powers similar to other professional bodies to suspend or expel members who fail to maintain acceptable professional standards.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is for the local authority, which has a duty to investigate under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, or for the National Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Children when authorised to act on behalf of the local authority under that provision, to satisfy itself that any person it employs to investigate allegations of child abuse, train investigators, or give advice to persons who have been abused, is appropriately qualified and trained.

  There is no additional need for a separate system of regulation or national registration for private agencies involved in such activities. Information is not available centrally on the number of these agencies.

  "The Health of the Nation"
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what budgetary provision has been made for 1992–93 and 1993–94 for the publication of the "Health of the Nation" targets.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The cost of producing "The Health of the Nation" White Paper, together with nine other supporting and subsequent publications, and making these widely available will be around £2.4 million in 1992–93. This includes the cost of implementation activity such as the forthcoming publication of guidance on each of the key areas and 14 regional conferences taking place from January to March this year.
  611
  Allocations for publications, communications and publicity in 1993–94 have yet to be decided.

  Bart's Hospital
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to respond to the request made by letter by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch to meet a delegation of Conservative, Liberal and Labour councillors from Hackney to discuss the future of Bart's hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My office has written to the hon. Member to make arrangements for a meeting.

  Medical Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the regulations which apply specifically to the work of chiropodists, dieticians, medical laboratory scientific officers, occupational therapists, orthoptists, physiotherapists and radiographers; and what plans she has to review them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  State registered practitioners are subject to the provisions of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. State registration is a requirement for direct employment in these capacities in the national health service and local authority social services departments, by virtue of directions given under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. We have at present no plans to review these arrangements.

  Laparoscopic Surgery
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many surgeons practising laparoscopic surgery are certificated in the competence of such techniques;

  (2) what representations from and discussions with the Royal College of Surgeons she has had concerning certification of competence for the practice of laparoscopic surgery;

  (3) if she will consider the need for regulations to govern the practice of laparoscopic surgery; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is no central certification scheme for surgeons using laparoscopic or other minimally invasive techniques. There have been no discussions with the Royal College of Surgeons concerning any such certification and we have no plans to introduce regulations to govern the practice of this surgery.

  Pharmaceutical Prices
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations she has received from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry during the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme negotiations;

  (2) what proposals she has made in her negotiations with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme; and when she expects the negotiations to reach a conclusion.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Negotiations are now taking place between the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and my Department on a successor agreement to 612
  the 1986 pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. Both sides have put forward various proposals and these are under discussion. Our aim is to reach an agreement which will provide a fair deal for the industry and for the taxpayer and it is not possible at present to predict how long the negotiations will take. In the meantime, the 1986 agreement continues to operate.

  Tropical Diseases
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to provide specialist facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of tropical diseases in London and the south-east of England when St. Pancras hospital for tropical diseases is closed;

  (2) what change is proposed in the number of beds and availability of specialist staffing for the diagnosis and treatment of tropical diseases in London;

  (3) what estimate was made, in considering the future of St. Pancras hospital for tropical diseases, of the implications for the incidence of tropical diseases of the amount of travel by British citizens to tropical countries and the availability of making early diagnoses.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The report of the inquiry into London's health service by Sir Bernard Tomlinson and his team recommended that the London hospital for tropical disease at St. Pancras be merged with University college hospital. I understand that his recommendation has been welcomed by the LHTD and its parent institute, the London school of hygiene and tropical medicine as offering significant medical and research advantages.

  This, and the other recommendations of the Tomlinson report, is advice to Government. We will announce our response to the report shortly. All proposals on hospital closures or mergers arising from Sir Bernard's report will be subject to established national health service consultation procedures.

  Mental Illness
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific provision has been made in the draft local authority care plans so far received for the care of those in the 16 to 25 years age group suffering from mental illness.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities are not required to send copies of their draft plans to the Department.

  Care Homes
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sources of financial support the Government have provided for care home proprietors so that they can train their staff to the NVQ standards required from April 1993; and how much money is available from each of those sources.

  Mr. Yeo
  There is no requirement for staff of care homes in the independent sector, or the statutory sector, to have achieved national vocational qualifications by April 1993.

  It is for employers to determine what training and qualifications are necessary for staff to carry out their duties to acceptable standards.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to reply to the letters dated 27 October 1991, 18 December 1991, 19 February 1992, 17 July 1992 and 7 October 1992 from Dr. S. G. Bennett of The Surgery, 51 Hawthorn Drive, Wembury, Plymouth, Devon, about single-handed locum allowances for rural practitioners; why has he received no acknowledgement to any of these letters; for what reasons the letters have not yet been replied to; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Officials from the Department have replied to Dr. Bennett and I have written to my hon. Friend.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will state the average net ingredient cost of prescription items charged at the standard rate of £3.75, exclusive of prescriptions which are subject to charge exemption, charge remission or the use of prescription pre-payment certificates.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The average net ingredient cost of chargeable prescriptions, excluding those covered by pre-payment certificates, in the family health services in England amounted to £8·37 in the six-month period ending 30 September 1992.

  Auditors' Report
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all reports issued by auditors under section 20(3) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 in the last six months; and if she will make a statement on the action she has taken in each instance.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received one auditor's report under section 20(3) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. This relates to loans made by West Midlands regional health authority to a charitable company, Health Management Trust, to assist a subsidiary company, FIP Ltd. The report raises issues concerning the legal status of the loans, on which we are taking advice.

  Hospital Beds
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds were closed in London teaching hospitals in 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Aids Unit
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organisations requested funding under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 from her Department's aids unit, for the current and previous financial years; what was the total amount of money requested; which organisations received section 64 funding; how much money the unit distributed in total; and what was the total money available for all projects from section 64 funding.

  Mr. Sackville
  Forty-one organisations requested section 64 funding from the Department of Health Aids 614
  unit in 1992–93, and 32 in the previous year. The total amount requested was £4·172 million in 1992–93 and £4·161 million in the previous year.

  The following organisations received section 64 funding in 1991–92 and 1992–93: AIDS Ahead, AIDS and Housing Project, ACET, Aled Richards Trust (91–92 only), Barnardos, BHAN, Blackliners, Body Positive, CARA, Frontliners (91–92 only), Globe Centre, ISDD, Landmark, London East AIDS Network, London Lighthouse, LVSC, Mainliners, Mildmay Mission, National AIDS Trust, National AIDS Manual (92–93 only), NAZ project (92–93 only), Positively Women, SCODA, Streetwise Youth, Strutton Ground Housing Association, Terrence Higgins Trust, Turning Point.

  The unit distributed £1.987 million in 1992–93 and £1.892 million in 1991–92.

  The total amount of money available for all projects from section 64 was £17.8 million in 1992–93 and £15.855 million the previous year.

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the evidence linking abnormally high levels of motor neurone disease to a high concentration of nitrates in tap water.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is not aware of any evidence of such a link.

  Myodil
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps have been taken to ensure that general practitioners are aware of the possible side effects of the use of Myodil and its links with the disease arachnoiditis;

  (2) what plans she has to withdraw the product licence for Myodil.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Myodil was withdrawn from the market by the manufacturers in 1987 for commercial reasons and the product licence is no longer in force. Myodil would only have been administered by specialists. The product information for Myodil warned of the occurrence of post-myelography arachnoiditis. In view of this, and the fact that arachnoiditis is rare, it has not been considered necessary to issue additional warnings to general practioners about the side effects of Myodil and the possible association with arachnoiditis.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support is being given to research efforts to determine the percentage of cases of arachnoiditis which arise from the use of the dye Myodil in myelography treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are not currently funding research in this particular area.

  Bloomfield Report
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she has yet received the Bloomfield report;

  (2) on what date she will make the Bloomfield report available to hon. Members.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has now received the report and will inform the House of its contents shortly.

  Abortion
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on how many and which district health authorities in England have run a centralised abortion referral service through community family planning clinic services; and what was the average waiting time between general practitioner referral and hospital appointment, where such centralised services existed, for the last available year.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  EC Doctors and Dentists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to encourage doctors and dentists from European countries to seek employment in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Employment and recruitment of doctors and dentists are matters for the individual employing authorities. A 1991 survey of doctors from other EC countries showed that around 30 per cent. were actively recruited by English health authorities or trusts.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list(a) the total number of residential properties owned by her Department, (b) the number of such properties which are empty and (c), (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not held centrally on the properties in the ownership of the national health service. A survey in 1990 indicated that the NHS had some 93,000 units of accommodation, of which 14,000, 15 per cent., were vacant. 90 per cent. of the vacant units were rooms in hospital hostels or shared flats. A further survey is now being undertaken and the results will be made available to the Government's task force on empty residential property.

  Raynaud's Disease and Scleroderma
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to improve facilities for research in to and treatment of Raynaud's disease and scleroderma: what representations she has received from the Raynaud's Disease and Scleroderma Society in relation to the future of the Brompton hospital unit; what consultations she has had concerning the impact of the Tomlinson report on non-London originating patients suffering from Raynaud's disease and scleroderma; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has no current plans for research into Raynaud's disease and scleroderma. The main Government agency for the promotion of medical and related research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant-in-aid through the Office of Science and Technology. We have recently received two representations regarding the Raynaud's Disease and Scleroderma Society in relation to future of the Royal Brompton hospital to which I will be replying. The views of the society will be taken into account, along with others relating to the specialist hospitals such as the Brompton,616
  when decisions are made on the recommendations of the Tomlinson report. Those decisions will also take into account the implications for non-London originating patients for these and other diseases.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Quantock Staghounds
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the terms and conditions of the permit issued to the Quantock staghounds to hunt on Forestry Commission land.

  Mr. Curry
  The terms and conditions set out in the permission given to the Quantock staghounds hunt by the Forestry Commission are as follows:

  1. The permission is limited to scheduled hunting days only.

  2. Vehicles may only be taken into the Great Wood on specified routes, and subject to a speed limit of 15 mph.

  3. Priority of passage is given at all times to forestry and other traffic, and to pedestrians.

  4. The Quantock staghounds hunt to indemnify the Forestry Commission in the sum of £500,000 in respect of claims for damage, loss, or injury to Forestry Commission employees and property, similarly third party claims arising from exercise of the permission.

  5. The Forestry Commission cannot accept any responsibility for loss, damage or injury suffered by the hunt or their followers during their exercise of the permission—which is given on the basis that it is at the user's own risk.

  6. The permission does not give or imply any exclusive or permanent user rights by the hunt and their followers.

  7. Hunt followers to carry windscreen stickers or other means of identification.

  8. Smoking to be prohibited.

  9. No carcase to be gralloched within 30 ft of running water.

  10. One landrover or similar vehicle will be allowed to travel on the general road network to collect carcasses as an exception to the general rule but for no other purpose.

  11. The staghounds to be responsible for the observance of the commission's byelaws by members of the hunt and their followers.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many vehicle permits have been issued to hunt followers in the Quantocks area to enable them to follow the hunt on Forestry Commission land.

  Mr. Curry
  Somerset county council, in liaison with the Forestry Commission, has issued 126 vehicle permits to hunt staff and followers for the 1992–93 season. No separate record is kept of permits issued to hunt followers.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions are made for the ownership of the carcase or for payment when a deer is killed by the Quantock staghounds on Forestry Commission land.

  Mr. Curry
  The ownership of the carcase passes to the Quantock staghounds hunt without any payment.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring arrangements and procedures are in place to ensure that the conditions of the permit held by the Quantock staghounds are adhered to.

  Mr. Curry
  Senior members of the Quantock staghounds hunt attend at least one formal meeting each year with Forestry Commission staff. Contacts are also maintained, as necessary, between the commission and the hunt's vehicle steward. In addition, Forestry Commission staff carry out random checks on hunt days to ensure that the conditions of the permit are being followed.

  Dairy Farmers
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the level of indebtedness among dairy farmers in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following table shows the average level of total liabilities on dairy farms in England, together with the proportion that these represent of total assets, for each year from 1978–79. Comparable information for earlier years is not available. Data for 1991–92 will be published in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom".

  Dairy Farms in England: Indebtedness1

  Accounting year ending on average mid-Feb

  Total External Liabilities (£ per farm)

  External Liabilities as a percentage of Total Assets

  1978–79

  15·4

  8

  1979–80

  20·7

  11

  1980–81

  24·6

  12

  1981–82

  29·6

  13

  1982–83

  32·6

  13

  1983–84

  42·2

  16

  1984–85

  43·3

  16

  1985–86

  51·8

  18

  1986–87

  54·2

  19

  1987–88

  49·5

  16

  1988–89

  50·1

  15

  1989–90

  57·0

  14

  1990–91

  63·1

  14

  1 All data based on closing valuations.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's assessment of the impact of sterling devaluation on farm incomes in 1992 in each sector of agriculture.

  Mr. Curry
  It is not possible yet to estimate the impact of the recent depreciation in the value of sterling on farm incomes in 1992. However, it is estimated that the fall in the value of sterling and the associated devaluation of the green pound should increase agricultural net product by around £700 million or 14 per cent. in a full year.

  Veterinary Inspection Fees
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what consultation his Department had with abattoirs in the north west region prior to announcing the recent increase in veterinary inspection fees;

  (2) what recent representations he has received from farmers in the north west region about increases in veterinary inspection fees and their impact upon competition in the meat trade.

  Mr. Soames
  Consultation took place earlier this year with interested parties, including organisations representing the interests of abattoirs and farmers, on the proposed Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992, in accordance with section 48 of the Food Safety Act 1990.

  In the last five months the Department has received seven letters from Members of Parliament within its northern region about veterinary inspection costs. One of these concerned representations from two farmers. We have received no direct representations from farmers in
  618
  northern region about increases in veterinary inspection fees and their impact on competition in the meat trade, but a number of representations have been made by other interests including abattoir owners and livestock auctioneers.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much in both cash and percentage terms veterinary inspection fees for abattoirs have recently been increased; what was the reason for that increase; upon what basis the fees for individual abattoirs are calculated: what estimate he has made of the net effect in overall annual average payments of such fees in both cash and percentage terms for an average-sized abattoir; what form the notification of the recent increase in veterinary inspection fees took to individual abattoirs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Veterinary inspection fees are charged to abattoirs under the Fresh Meat and Poultry Meat (Hygiene, Inspection and Examinations for Residues) (Charges) Regulations 1990, which provide for the recovery of costs incurred by local authorities in providing for inspection and supervision of abattoirs. Detailed information on charges for individual abattoirs is not available, but work carried out by independent consultants earlier this year on behalf of this Department estimated the cost of implementing the supervision requirements in the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992 as £33 million per annum, compared with £25 million previously. Both figures are based on 1991 costs and slaughterhouse numbers. The additional cost of veterinary supervision in medium-sized slaughterhouses was estimated to represent £5.4 million of this increase. However, we estimate that the guidance on veterinary supervision levels issued by the Department on 30 November would reduce this to £3.4 million. A copy of this guidance was placed in the Library of the House.

  Local authorities are required to consult abattoir operators about the proposed charges at individual premises and to consider any representations made by the operator before determining the amount of the charge.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what implications the decisions taken at the Edinburgh summit in connection with the principle of subsidiarity have for the arrangements and fees for veterinary inspection of abattoirs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The basic principles and guidelines on subsidiarity which were agreed by the Edinburgh Council will apply to future Community action on the arrangements and fees for veterinary inspection of abattoirs, and in particular to Community discussions on proposals for amending EC directive 85/73 on the harmonisation of inspection costs.

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek a derogation from the single market to permit the maintenance of the existing United Kingdom minimum standards on animal transportation from 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Soames
  As explained in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kempton (Mr. Bowden)
  619
  on 10 December 1992, the United Kingdom will be maintaining national rules on protection of animals in transport, in the areas where further Community rules remain to be adopted.

  Food Prices
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's estimate of the effect upon the food group retail prices index of the recent devaluation of the green pound.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is estimated that the devaluations of the green pound which took place between mid-September 1992 and 1 January 1993 may increase the food component of the retail prices index by about 2 per cent., once the effects of the increases in CAP support prices have worked through.

  Broiler Hens
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proportion of broiler hens stunned in United Kingdom slaughterhouses have both their carotid arteries severed;

  (2) what proportion of broiler hens stunned in United Kingdom slaughterhouses are currently stunned using an average current of at least 150 milliamperes.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not available.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from hill farming interests following his announcement to cut hill livestock compensatory allowances for sheep on 12 December.

  Mr. Curry
  A number of representations have been received on this matter from farming interests following

  Name

  Position

  Date of appointment

  Length of appointment

  Qualifications and organizations represented

  Payment from public funds

  Andrew Stewart

  Chairman

  1 October 1992

  2½ years

  Farmer with extensive political and industrial experience.

  £7,580/year if works an average of 1 day per week and travel and subsistence allowances.

  Michael Curtis

  Deputy Chairman

  1 April 1992

  3 years

  Extensive industrial experience.

  £6,950/year if works an average of 1 day per week and travel and subsistence allowances.

  Rosemary Berry

  Employment Act Appointee

  1 April 1992

  3 years

  Practical farming background and Women?s Farming Union Member.

  Travelling and subsistence

  Janet Buchanan-Smith

  Employment Act Appointee

  1 April 1992

  3 years

  Practical farming background and familiar with Scottish issues.

  Travelling and subsistence

  John Harries

  Welsh Education Representative

  1 April 1992

  3 years

  Senior Lecturer at Welsh Agricultural College

  Travelling and subsistence

  Victor Hughes

  Employment Act Appointee

  1 April 1992

  3 years

  Former Principal at the Royal Agricultural College.

  Travelling and subsistence.

  Tom Jones

  Employment Act Appointee

  1 April 1992

  3 years

  Practical hill farming back-ground in Wales.

  Travelling and subsistence

  620
  my announcement on 10 December of the conditions for the 1993 HLCA scheme. The reductions in HLCAs were taken in the light of increased incomes in the hill sheep sector and will in any case be more than offset by increases in ewe premium payments next April resulting from green pound devaluations and decisions taken at the December Agriculture Council.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact in the reduction of HLCA payments on sheep farmers in(a) Northumberland and (b) Tynedale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The conditions of the HLCA scheme are determined on the basis of national statistical data and it is not possible to measure the impact on different localities. I have no reason to believe conditions for sheep farmers in Northumberland and in Tynedale are materially different from those obtaining elsewhere in the less-favoured areas in England. The HLCA reductions were taken in the light of increased incomes in the hill sheep sector and will in any case be more than offset by incrtases in ewe premium payments next April resulting from green pound devaluations and decisions taken at the December Agriculture Council.

  Agricultural Training Board
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the present members of the Agricultural Training Board, their dates of appointment and length of appointment, relevant qualifications, any organisations they represent and the payments they receive from public funds in respect of these duties.

  Mr. Curry
  The national board of the Agricultural Training Board comprises a chairman, deputy chairman and nine members, one each representing employers and employees, three educational members and four members appointed under the Employment Act 1988. The details are as follows:
  621

  Name

  Position

  Date of appointment

  Length of appointment

  Qualifications and organizations represented

  Payment from public funds

  Nicholas Mallett

  Employer Member

  1 April 1992

  3 years

  Farmer. NFU representa-tive on several education and training committees. NFU nominee.

  Travelling and subsistence.

  Ivan Monkton

  Employee Member

  1 April 1992

  3 years

  Represents Agriculture Agriculture Trade Group on TGWU General Executive Council. TGWU nominee.

  Travelling and subsistence.

  Michael Pollard

  English Education Representative

  1 April 1992

  3 years

  Principal of Askham Bryan College of Agriculture and Horticulture.

  Travelling and subsistence.

  Philip Thomas

  Scottish Education Representative

  1 April 1992

  3 years

  Principal and Chief Executive of the Scottish Agricultural Colleges.

  Travelling and subsistence.

  Pig Disease Eradication Fund Ltd.
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of whether the terms of his recent announcement concerning the use of remaining funds collected by levy by the Pig Disease Eradication Fund Ltd. to compensate producers of pigs slaughtered to eradicate Aujeszky's disease requires amendment to paragraph 2(a)and(b)and paragraph 8 of the agreement between his predecessor and the Pig Disease Eradication Fund Ltd. on 11 March 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The agreement of 11 March 1983 concerns the detailed operation of the financial arrangements for fulfilling the primary purpose of the Pig Industry Levy Act 1983, which was to meet the costs of eradication of Aujeszky's disease. It does not deal with the situation envisaged in subsection 2(b), (3) and (7) of the Act, where sums collected under the levy are surplus to the primary requirements of the scheme.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he expects animal welfare regulations to fall within the scope of the subsidiarity agreement reached at the Edinburgh summit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) on 17 December,Official Report, column 353.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to seek advice on the suitability of any transgenic animals produced for commercial keeping and rearing in terms of their health and welfare.

  Mr. Soames
  The Department is responsible for the health and welfare of all livestock on agricultural land. In our election manifesto we indicated that we would establish an ethical committee to look at the effects of advanced techniques in animal breeding, and we shall make an announcement about this as soon as possible.

  Fish Inspectors
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fish inspectors are employed in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on the numbers employed in Holland, France, Germany and Spain.

  Mr. Curry
  The current total number of land-based sea fisheries inspectors employed by United Kingdom Agricultural Departments is 159. A further 65 officers carry out fisheries protection duties through aerial and surface surveillance operations.

  Comparison with other member states is not straightforward. In some cases responsibility is devolved to regional authorities; in other cases, fisheries inspection duties are carried out by staff with other functions, such as police and customs officers. The following information on numbers of fish inspectors employed in the Netherlands, France, Germany and Spain is contained in a Commission report on monitoring implementation of the common fisheries policy, published in March 1992. The information relates to land-based staff; no figures are available for those carrying out duties at sea.

  Port-based

  HQ

  United Kingdom

  132

  27

  Netherlands

  180

  2—

  France

  2—

  2—

  Germany

  47

  2—

  Spain

  2—

  132

  1Includes recruitment of 15 inspectors which was taking place at the time the data was collected.

  1Not available.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that imported pesticides are identical in all respects to United Kingdom products that have approval under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986.

  Mr. Soames
  A consultation paper was issued on 16 November 1992 seeking views on the proposed control arrangements for indentical imports of pesticides. All views received will be considered carefully and an announcement made in due course.

  Fishing Communities (Assistance)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the decision reached at the Edinburgh summit on the package of measures to assist fishing communities known as objective 6.

  Mr. Curry
  The Edinburgh Council decided not to introduce a new objective 6, but agreed that "Appropriate attention should be given to the needs of areas dependent on fishing, within the relevant objectives"—that is, the existing objectives of the European structural funds.

  The European Commission's proposals for revised structural funds regulations are expected in the near future and should include proposals to bring the European Council's decision into effect. The regulations are clue to enter into force on 1 January 1994.

  During negotiation of the regulations, the Government will seek to ensure that proper account can be taken under the objectives of the needs of United Kingdom areas which are dependent on fishing.

  British Embassy, Madrid
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff of the British embassy in Madrid have been seconded from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food currently has one member of staff on loan to Her Majesty's diplomatic service and based in the British embassy in Madrid.

  Spanish Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make representations to the European Commission to make supervision of welfare standards in Spanish slaughterhouses more effective.

  Mr. Soames
  The Commission's attention is drawn to any evidence of contraventions of Community animal welfare legislation in other member states.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that British live animal exports to Spanish slaughterhouses meet all current standards on transport and slaughter regulations in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  All member states are required to implement directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals in transport and directive 74/577/EEC on the humane slaughter of animals. As announced in the reply given to my hon Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 16 December, specific safeguards have been agreed with the Spanish authorities for ensuring that animals exported for slaughter in Spain are slaughtered in accordance with Community welfare legislation.

  Dietary Supplements Directive
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what implications the agreement at the Edinburgh summit about the dropping by the Commission of proposals for a number of measures have for the proposed directive on dietary supplements; and if he will make a statement;
  624
  (2) what steps he took at the recent Agriculture Council to seek the support of Ministers in other member Governments for his position on the forthcoming European directive on dietary supplements.

  Mr. Soames
  At the Edinburgh European Council the Commission presented the first fruits of its review of a range of Community legislation. The Commission's list will be subject to further discussion. Dietary supplements were not considered at the December Agriculture Council. Discussion, if and when it takes place, would be, as for other food matters, in the Internal Market Council.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the implications of the preliminary ruling of the European Court given on 28 October, published in the Official Journal on 21 November, on the meaning of medicinal product for the proposed directive on dietary supplements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Commission has put forward no proposal on dietary supplements. The ruling of the European Court in case C219/91 has the effect of applying the law relating to medicinal products to products which are described as having prophylactic or therapeutic properties, even if they are generally regarded as foodstuffs and have no known effect in the light of the current state of scientific knowledge. The ruling may narrow the scope of a proposal on dietary supplements should the Commission choose to make one.

  Agricultural Products
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list exports of(a) grain and (b) all agricultural products from each EC country and the USA for each year since 1973.

  Mr. Curry
  Comparable statistics on the trade of EC member states and the USA are given in the Food and Agriculture Organisation trade yearbooks, which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Fishing Quotas
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with representatives of the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation and the Anglo North-Irish Fish Producers Association concerning quota allocations and the application of the Hague preference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Although I am aware of their concerns, these organisations have not contacted me directly, but Lord Arran, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for fisheries in Northern Ireland, has been in close touch with me concerning these matters.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the total number of residential properties owned by his Department, (b) the number of such properties which are empty and (c), (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. Curry
  At 1 January 1993 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food owned 143 houses of which nine, 6 per cent., were vacant.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the Forestry Commission.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer of 17 December 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Forestry Commission was reorganised in April 1992 with the aim of achieving a clearer distinction between its regulatory and advisory roles as a Government department and the management of its forests. The Government have no plans at present to make any further changes.

EMPLOYMENT

  Energy Employment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information she has on the number of people employed in(a) deep mining and (b) the offshore oil and gas industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The available information is as follows:

  Employees in employment: Great Britain October 1992

  Number

  Deep coal mines

  53,000

  Extraction of mineral oil and natural gas

  48,000

  Unemployment
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give the number and percentage of those unemployed and the numbers and percentage of those unemployed for 12 months and more in the west midlands and the Walsall travel-to-work area and the corresponding or nearest available information for May 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library. Data relating to the numbers of claimant unemployed by duration, is available from October 1983 and only on a quarterly basis.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment is she will set minimum conditions for the training and enterprise councils in England in relation to representation of manufacturing industry on the boards of the TECs; what proposals she has to encourage competition in the formation of the boards of TECs; what studies she has made of the representation of different sections of business on the boards of all the TECs; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We expect the private sector directors of training and enterprise council (TEC) boards broadly to reflect the pattern of employment in their area and this includes the manufacturing industry. It is for individual TECs to appoint directors in accordance with the broad criteria which my right hon. Friend has set out in the 626
  contract with the TECs. Regional directors cooperate with TECs to ensure that the needs of each local community are adequately represented.

  Women's Earnings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of women who have earnings below(a) the tax threshold and (b) the national insurance threshold, broken down into married women, lone parents and single women at the latest date.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Broad estimates, based on the new earnings survey and estimates of the number of employees in employment, are as follows: in April 1992 there were 2·75 million women employees earning less than the PAYE threshold; of whom 2·25 million earned less than the national insurance lower earnings limit. Using the results of the family expenditure survey it is estimated that approximately 75 per cent. of each of these categories were married women, 5 per cent. lone parents and 20 per cent. single women.

  Social Affairs
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the social affairs achievements of the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The overall theme for the United Kingdom's Presidency in employment and social affairs was "A Community at Work".

  Our key Presidency priority was to focus the attention of the Social Affairs Council more on the problem of rising unemployment throughout the European Community. As a result, a formal resolution on employment growth, proposed by the Presidency, was adopted unanimously by Employment Ministers at the Social Affairs Council in December, which is intended to pave the way for future discussions in the Council. The key elements of the resolution were:

  a commitment to economic growth, competitiveness and efficiency;

  a commitment not to impose unnecessary regulation which would hold back the creation and development of jobs;

  Community-wide practical help for unemployed people and the removal of obstacles to labour mobility;

  various ways in which the EC institutions and Member States can identify effective practice in tackling unemployment.

  During the Presidency, we were also able to secure final agreement on the Directive on the Protection of Pregnant Workers, which will bring increased benefits to working women throughout the EC.

  In addition, the following proposals were agreed or adopted by the Social Affairs Council: a Resolution on the acceptance of Member States' vocational qualifications throughout the Community; two Directives on minimum health and safety requirements in the extractive industries; a proposal for the introduction of a new, improved information system for the Community covering job vacancies, applications for work and living and working conditions in the EC; the introduction of a Community-wide labour force survey; and a Recommendation on promoting employees' financial participation in organisations for which they work.
  627
  The Social Affairs Council also agreed conclusions on the proper implementation and enforcement of Community legislation, which was another important theme of the United Kingdom Presidency.

  Useful progress was also made on proposals on the free movement of workers, posted workers, the HELIOS II community action programme for people with disabilities, health and safety in work with biological agents, and work on board fishing vessels.

  In addition, the United Kingdom Presidency hosted a productive Informal meeting of EC Employment and Social Affairs Ministers in Wales in October, at which employment and unemployment, implementation and enforcement, subsidiarity and the Pregnant Workers Directive were discussed; and also hosted a wide range of successful conferences and special events in many different parts of the United Kingdom, reflecting the United Kingdom's Presidency themes.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list(a) the total number of residential properties owned by her Department, (b) the number of such properties which are empty and (c), (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Employment Department at present has 21 residential properties. Thirteen of these properties are currently empty, representing 62 per cent. of the total.

  Training
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations she has had with the chairmen and women of the training and enterprise councils concerning the 16 and 17-year-olds not on training schemes, or in full-time education; what statistics she has in relation to the numbers of such young people; how many were(a) on a waiting list for youth training places, (b) have already started and left a youth training place and (c) other; and what proposals she has to widen the coverage of youth training placement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Departmental officials are carrying out reviews on a weekly basis with TECs which are responsible for the delivery of YT. We receive regular reports on TEC performance in the delivery of the YT guarantee. My right hon. Friend announced the estimated numbers of young people seeking training at national level in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 1 December 1992,Official Report, columns 127–28. More recent figures will be published when they are available.

  All restart course attenders January 1991 to 1992

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  1.People referred to restart courses

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2.Starters

  17,672

  20,420

  13,681

  31,671

  9,612

  10,029

  22,302

  36,248

  27,006

  188,641

  3.Total completes

  16,617

  18,783

  12,103

  28,134

  8,344

  8,906

  19,073

  33,018

  24,207

  169,185

  Completers who agreed to follow up:

  Jobs

  3,707

  4,638

  3,531

  5,617

  1,552

  2,209

  4,645

  6,800

  12,647

  45,346

  ET

  1,605

  2,170

  1,584

  5,718

  1,404

  1,627

  4,818

  5,024

  2,881

  26,831

  Jobclub

  1,312

  1,541

  1,410

  5,274

  1,184

  1,484

  2,225

  3,820

  1,688

  19,938

  Other employment, training and related opportunities

  9,765

  10,327

  7,209

  16,360

  4,374

  4,530

  8,630

  16,379

  9,865

  87,439

  Restart
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole how many unemployed people have been referred to Restart courses by Employment Service counsellors since January 1991; how many of them were unemployed for over two years; how many attended and completed the course; what were the outcomes of the participants; how many had benefit penalties imposed for not attending or failing to complete their attendance at the Restart course; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [pursuant to his answer, 29 October 1992, c. 835–36]: The Chief Executive of the Employment Service has written further to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. Fogden to Ms. Clare Short, dated 11 January 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about Restart Courses. These are matters which fall within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Unfortunately, due to an administrative error, our reply of 29 October did not include the figures about Restart Courses. This reply now contains the tables; please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this has caused.
  As you will know from previous correspondence Restart Courses are short courses aimed at helping people who are having the most difficulty returning to work. They are not an alternative to regular job search or other employment or training programmes. Essentially they provide people with the opportunity to explore all the options open to them and give them confidence to take the next step back to work.
  Since December 1990 people who have been unemployed for two years or more who at their Restart interview refuse or fail to take up a place on an Employment Department employment or training programme are required to attend a Restart Course.
  As your question has raised a number of specific points, I am setting out the information you have asked for in the two tables attached—one deals with all Restart Course attenders, the other just those covered by the requirement to attend. As explained in my previous answer, we collect at a Regional level the number of people who are referred to the course who are also unemployed for years or more. We have however not felt it necessary to keep similar figures for all those referred. The Benefits Agency make the decision on whether an individual's benefit should be reduced for failure to attend or complete the course. Their figures are compiled by their Districts which have different boundaries from those of our Regions. To avoid confusion, I have given the national figure only.
  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.
  629

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  4. Total number of people with an outcome to follow up

  14,396

  15,317

  10,714

  24,925

  6,930

  7,533

  17,026

  28,341

  21,516

  146,698

  1Not available.

  Restart course attenders unemployed for two years or more January 1991 to June 1992

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  1.People referred lo restart courses

  24,293

  30,047

  16,388

  35,941

  9,626

  12,341

  23,737

  60,852

  44,948

  258,173

  2.Starters

  15,800

  17,974

  9,321

  20,207

  5,741

  6,885

  14,170

  31,823

  24,136

  146,057

  3.Total computers

  14,930

  16,619

  8,252

  17,900

  5,042

  6,176

  12,290

  29,071

  21,764

  132,044

  Complctcrs who had agreed to follow up:

  Jobs

  3,291

  3,970

  2,433

  3,394

  784

  1,473

  2,911

  5,845

  11,402

  35,503

  ET

  1,348

  1,834

  944

  3,266

  634

  913

  2,637

  4,249

  2,432

  18,257

  Jobclub

  1,142

  1,268

  780

  2,930

  417

  864

  1,146

  3,289

  1,371

  13,207

  Other employment, training and related opportunities

  8,819

  9,379

  4,927

  10,284

  2,226

  3,185

  5,531

  14,430

  8,771

  67,552

  4.People for whom a reduction in income support was made by benefits agency

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  5.Total number of people with an outcome to follow up

  12,876

  13,397

  7,138

  15,593

  3,978

  5,004

  10,628

  24,341

  19,080

  112,035

  1 Not available by ES region.

DEFENCE

  Somalia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom forces personnel are being made available to assist the United States humanitarian intervention in Somalia: and what is the total cost and time scale of the United Kingdom's military contribution.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The British contribution has taken the form of two RAF Hercules transport aircraft, accompanied by about 90 supporting personnel. Our aircraft are based at Mombasa in Kenya, and have been operating with US aircraft since 12 December in transporting humanitarian aid from Kenya to Somalia.

  This deployment is based on an initial three-month period. It is too early to provide an accurate estimate as to the total cost of our military contribution.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the extent of United Kingdom armed forces commitment to the United Nations sponsored multinational relief operation in Somalia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom contribution is in the form of two RAF Hercules transport aircraft, accompanied by about 90 supporting RAF personnel.

  Our aircraft are based at Mombasa, Kenya and are engaged in the transport of humanitarian aid to affected areas inside Somalia.

  Overseas Exercises
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the overseas Army exercises in each of the past three years, and for 1992–93 to date, for which chartered airlift was used, showing the costs, the budget on which they were borne, and the reasons for the use of commercial aircraft.
  630
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table. All costs, except for one exercise, were borne in the centrally managed air charter budget. The exception was Exercise Medman, in May 1992, which was funded by the Army. Ordinarily airlift is provided by the RAF air transport force (ATF) although demand does exceed supply. Exercises which do not secure ATF support are, in most cases, not considered sufficiently important to warrant civil airlift.

  Exercise name

  £million

  Reasons

  1990

  Ex Western Tamu

  0·090

  A

  Ex Union Pacific

  0·642

  A

  Ex Medman

  0·840

  B

  Ex Holdfast/Lutzon Hunt

  0·310

  A

  Ex Trumpet Dance

  0·820

  B

  Total

  2·702

  1991

  Ex Hutan Labi

  0·0170

  A

  Ex Crossed Belt

  0·470

  A

  Ex Holdfast

  0·100

  A

  Ex Grand Prix

  1·336

  B

  Ex Blue Flyer

  0·105

  A

  Ex Eastern Tamu

  0·170

  A

  ExSeatrout

  0·190

  B

  Ex Waterleap

  0·070

  B

  Ex Warpaint

  0·150

  B

  Ex Trumpet Dance 2

  0·450

  B

  Ex Bass Rock

  0·089

  C

  Ex Medman

  1·075

  B

  Ex Grand Prix

  0·26

  B

  Total

  4·635

  1992

  Ex Kauri Pine

  0·215

  A

  Ex Western Tamu

  0·130

  A

  Ex Crossed Belt

  0·120

  A

  Ex Union Pacific

  0·201

  A

  Ex Kauri Pine

  0·130

  A

  Ex Long Summer

  0·130

  D

  Ex Medman

  0·87

  E

  Total

  1·013

  631
  Note:

  A= Far East—out of theatre training

  It is less expensive to use local airlines for exercises in the Far East than to position ATF aircraft from the United Kingdom.

  B = Operation Granby

  The ATF was fully committed throughout the Gulf conflict and the subsequent withdrawal, necessitating use of commercial charter flights to meet exercise commitments.

  C = Substitution

  An unplanned VIP task for the then Secretary of State for Defence was met by the ATF, and a substitute aircraft was obtained from commercial sources for the exercise.

  D= Outsize load

  Civil Charter was procured to move an outsize load. The task was beyond the capability of ATF aircraft.

  E = Priority of exercise

  HQ British Army of the Rhine considered that the priority of the exercise, which had failed to secure ATF airlift, warranted air charter and met the costs from their own resources.

  Regimental Bands
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning the future of regimental bands; if he will make it his policy to encourage regiments to retain their regimental bands; and what is his policy on the future of the regimental system for the Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have received a small number of representations on the future of regimental bands. Consideration is being given to the future organisation of Army hands, but no decisions have yet been taken. We are fully committed to the preservation of the regimental system, which is so important to the fighting efficiency and morale of the units within it.

  Bosnia
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision has been made to equip the British forces in Bosnia with clothing and protection to enable them to operate and survive in sub-zero temperatures.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  British forces deployed with the UN in the former Yugoslavia have been provided with clothing and equipment appropriate to the conditions in country. Tented accommodation used on initial deployment is currently being replaced with portacabin-type facilities that can withstand the winter conditions. Action has also been taken to ensure that, if the weather conditions in Yugoslavia become harsher than expected, we can quickly provide troops with additional clothing and equipment.

  Army Pensions
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many attributable pensions have been paid to former Army personnel by his Department in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is understood that this question was raised in connection with multiple sclerosis.

  The number of soldiers medically discharged due to multiple sclerosis in each of the last three years is:

  Number

  1990

  4

  1991

  nil

  1992

  4

  632
  The number of soldiers awarded attributable pensions following medical discharge due to multiple sclerosis in each of the last three years is:

  Number

  1990

  4

  1991

  nil

  1992

  12

  1 Final awards in 2 cases remain under consideration.

  Trident Submarines
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consult the nuclear installations inspectorate before taking a decision on the siting of the facilities for the refitting of Trident submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Consultation with the nuclear installations inspectorate on the reprovision of facilities for refitting nuclear submarines will take place once a decision has been taken on where the facilities should be sited and when a licencing application has been formally submitted.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the proposals from Devonport Management Ltd. for the upgrading of existing facilities at Devonport dockyard for the refitting of Trident submarines have been approved by the nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Neither the proposal made by Devonport Management Limited or that by Babcock Thorn Limited for provision of Trident facilities at Devonport or Rosyth have yet been formally submitted for approval by the nuclear installations inspectorate, nor would we expect them to be submitted until such time as a final decision is made on the future venue for refitting of nuclear submarines.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the cost to Her Majesty's Government of raising henceforth the service retired pay of those servicemen who retired between 1950 and 1959, inclusive, to the level of the 1960 pension code.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the cost to Her Majesty's Government of raising henceforth the forces family pensions and attributable forces family pensions of widows of servicemen who retired or died between 1950 and 1959, inclusive, to the level of widows of servicemen who retired under the 1960 pension code.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The 1960 pension code is applicable only to officers and their dependants. It is estimated that the cost of increasing the service retired pay of officers would be in the region of £6 million to £7 million per annum and that the cost of increasing the pension payable to widows would be in the region of £2 million to £2.5 million per annum.

  Otterburn Camp
  Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs are directly and indirectly dependent on the Otterburn camp.
  633
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Some 143 civilian (including 15 seasonal casual) posts and six military posts are directly dependent on the Otterburn training area. A further eight civilians are employed by contractors, and there are 76 adult civilians on tenanted farms.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to upgrade existing roads in the Otterburn camp to cope with increased activity.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  While there are no plans to upgrade roads within Otterburn camp itself my Department is considering a number of options for the roads in the training area as a whole. It is too early to say what our eventual requirements will be, but we will be consulting the Northumberland national park authority on these.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the total number of residential properties owned by his Department, (b) the number of such properties which are empty and (c) (b) as a percentage of (a), showing separate figures for service and civilian properties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 30 September 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, the stock and vacancy position of residential properties in MOD ownership was as follows:

  Stock

  Vacancies

  Percentage vacant

  Service married quarters

  72,202

  9,167

  12·7

  Civilian houses

  744

  154

  20·7

  Total

  72,946

  9,321

  12·8

  Many of these properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, some were already allocated to Service families who were due to move in shortly and others were being considered for disposal. Of the vacant civilian houses 88 were leased properties at Faslane awaiting return to Dumbarton district council. In addition some 1,800 married quarters and some 780 civilian houses, mostly occupied, were in the process of being sold.

  Submarine Notification Scheme
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions his Department has had with fishermen and the coastguard service regarding the extension of the Subfacts notification scheme to all fishing areas; when he expects the extensions to take place; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) why the extension of the Subfacts submarine notification scheme to the Minches and Hebrides has been delayed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The notification scheme has been operating successfully in the inner Clyde since December 1990 and has subsequently been extended to cover submarine exercise areas in the outer Clyde and at Rona and Raasay. Following discussions with representatives of the fishing industry in the fishing industry safety group, we 634
  are planning a further extension of the scheme to cover other regularly used submarine exercise areas off the west coast of Scotland and in the English channel. We are considering, in consultation with HM Coastguard and others, the detailed operating arrangements for the extended scheme, and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Defence Research Agency
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the rationalisation of the Defence Research Agency.

  Mr. Aitken
  [pursuant to his answer, 17 December 1992, c. 361]: As I informed the House on 27 October, Official Report, column 851, the Defence Research Agency has proposed a major rationalisation programme with a view to saving £90 million per annum in its running costs and releasing substantial areas of land for other uses. The DRA's support costs are disproportionately high and must be reduced to preserve the research capabilities we need to support smaller, better equipped armed forces. Following consultations with trade unions, a programme for rationalisation of the DRA's sites and services has been agreed. This includes:

  a. Substantial DRA investment at:

  Farnborough

  Pyestock

  Fort Halstead

  Malvern

  Bincleavcs

  Chertscy

  Haslar

  Portsdown West

  West Drayton

  Aquila

  Rosyth (South Arm)

  Winfrith

  b. DRA withdrawal from:

  Alverstoke

  Bedford Airfield (enclave retained)

  Christchurch (enclave retained)

  obham

  Dunfermline (St. Leonards)

  Empress State Building

  Funtingdton (South)

  Holton Heath

  Horsea Island

  Portland (North and Southwell)

  Portsdown (Main)

  Royal Arsenal Woolwich (East and West)

  Slough

  Swynnerton

  Teddington

  The planned dates for site closures and DRA withdrawal remain as set out in the DRA consultative document.

  The Government are committed to developing the DRA as a centre of scientific excellence offering value for money. Rationalisation will involve a major upheaval but is essential to secure the DRA's future. Implementation of the programme will start immediately.

SCOTLAND

  Peebles High School
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision has been made for the updating of hutted accommodation at Peebles high school.
  635
  Mr. Lang
  Decisions on the updating of accommodation at Peebles high school are for Borders regional council as the education authority.

  Business Rate
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to implement a Scottish business rate comparable to that of England and Wales.

  Mr. Lang
  Our policy is to phase in aScottish business rate comparable to that in England and Wales in parallel with the phasing in of the effects of the 1990 revaluation and the national non-domestic rate in England and Wales. This is expected to he completed by 1995 or shortly thereafter. The value of the reduction made in Scottish rate poundages since 1990–91 is equivalent to a reduction of £280 million in this year's rates bill for non-domestic subjects and a further £68 million reduction will be made in 1993–94.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made of the current and future financial implications for Scottish Nuclear Ltd. and for his Department in the future, of the establishment of a temporary store for waste nuclear fuel at Torness power station.

  Mr. Stewart
  I understand from Scottish Nuclear Ltd. that it expects that establishment of spent fuel storage facilities at Torness and Hunterston power stations would reduce charges to the profit and loss account by around £45 million next year. My right hon. Friend will not take a decision on SNL's proposals until he has considered the reporter's recommendations following the public inquiry now being held. The setting of SNL's external financial limit, which is a charge on the Scottish Office programme, takes account of the company's operating and other costs.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homeless households are currently living in temporary accommodation in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest complete information on numbers of homeless households living in temporary accommodation in Scotland is published in table 11 of the statistical bulletin HSG/1992/6, "Operation of the Homeless Persons Legislation in Scotland 1980/81 to 1991/92". The bulletin is available in the House Library.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those bodies and individuals who have made representations to him in support of(a) the design of and (b) the high-toll principle on the proposed Skye bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  From extensive consultations conducted by means of presentations and public exhibitions attended by environmental bodies, elected bodies and the public there was clear evidence of support for the design of the Skye bridge. Highland regional council, Skye and Lochalsh district council, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland all favoured the box-girder design, as did the public with a majority of two to one preferring the present design.
  636
  Before tendering for a privately funded toll bridge, with the level of tolls set no higher than existing ferry fares for a duration of up to 20 years, support was given by HRC, Skye and Lochalsh district council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise—formerly Highlands and Islands Development Board—and the majority of community councils of Skye and Lochalsh. Before accepting the winning tender in September 1991 the project was again presented to Highland regional council, which voted by a substantial majority to proceed with the toll bridge in preference to continuing with the ferries.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what circumstances it will be possible for the concessionaire of the proposed Skye bridge to increase tolls by more than the annual rate of inflation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: The concessionaire cannot increase the tolls above the rate of inflation except in the unlikely event that the average annual revenues, measured over a full three-year period, were to fall below the 1990 level. In such circumstances the concessionaire is permitted to increase the tolls above inflation by the same percentage as the revenue falls below the 1990 figure. Under no circumstances can the tolls be raised above the rate of inflation by more than 30 per cent. If traffic levels then return to 1990 levels or above, the increase over inflation requires to be removed. No increases above inflation can be introduced prior to November 1997. The full details of the arrangement are described in the made toll order for the scheme a copy of which my right hon. Friend has arranged to be placed in the Library.

  Toll Bridges
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the current level of tolls in Scotland, on bridges for which he has a responssibility.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current level of tolls in Scotland, on bridges for which my right hon. Friend has a responsibility is as follows:

  Bridges

  Tolls

  Erskine Bridge1

  60p

  Forth Road Bridge1

  Cars

  40p

  Buses

  70p

  Heavy Vehicles

  £1·00

  Tay Road Bridge2

  Cars, light vehicles and scheduled buses

  80p

  Heavy Vehicles

  £2·00

  Motor cycles cross all 3 bridges free of toll.

  1 Concessions available for regular users.

  2 One-way toll (southbound)—northbound is free.

  The Forth Road Bridge Joint Board and Tay Road Bridge Joint Board have statutory responsibility for their respective bridges. Erskine bridge is the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secreiary of State for Scotland if he will state the toll levels on bridges in Scotland for which he is responsible at the time of their opening(a) in cash terms and (b) at current value, taking account of inflation.
  637
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Actual toll levels in cash terms on bridge opening

  (b) Estimated toll levels at opening at current value (November 1992)

  Erskine Bridge—Opened 2 July 1971

  Cars, light passengers and goods vehicles

  15p

  £1·05

  Scheduled buses

  25p

  £1·75

  Heavy vehicles

  50p

  £3·50

  Forth Road Bridge—Opened 4 September 1964

  All vehicles (flat rate)

  2s 6d(12½p)

  £1·28

  Toy Road Bridge—Opened 18 August 1966

  Motor cycles and cars

  2s 6d(12½p)

  £1·18

  Buses and heavy vehicles

  10s 0d(50p)

  £4·71

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will define the ownership of, and rights of access to, the ferry terminals at Kyle and Kyleakin.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The roads leading up to, and including, the slipways at Kyle of Lochalsh and Kyleakin are owned by my right hon. Friend and Highland regional council respectively. Traffic management, including the application of restrictions on the use of the slipways, is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, as trunk roads authority, at Kyle of Lochalsh and of Highland regional council, as local roads authority, at Kyleakin. Additionally, Highland regional council, as harbour authority, may regulate the use of the slipways under the powers of the Highland Regional Council (Harbours) Order Confirmation Act 1991.

  Criminal Inquiries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines the Lord Advocate lays down for those conducting criminal inquiries, in substance, on his behalf, on the practice of giving interviews to the press.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The then Lord Advocate issued guidelines to chief constables on dealings with the press in relation to criminal inquiries in July 1983. These guidelines were also issued to procurators fiscal. They are kept under review in the light of changes and developments in the law. They cover what may be said at various stages of inquiries.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the Lord Advocate intends to take as a result of the premature disclosure of the conclusions of the inquiry conducted by Mr. Nimmo Smith.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The conclusions of Mr. Nimmo Smith and Mr. Friel following their inquiry have not been disclosed. It is intended that their report will be published before the end of January, as my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has already made known.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it was with the authority of the Lord Advocate 638
  that Mr. Nimmo Smith QC gave interviews to journalists about the inquiry that he is currently conducting for the Lord Advocate.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The remit of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to Mr. Nimmo Smith and Mr. Friel was that they should exercise the fullest possible independence of judgment in conducting their investigation. Authority to speak to journalists was not therefore sought by them.

  Children (Special Needs)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list setting out the percentage of children recorded as having special needs in primary schools in each local education authority area in 1990,1991 and 1992.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: Information on the percentage of education authority primary school pupils for whom a record of needs is maintained is shown in the table. Information for 1992 is not yet available.

  Percentage of recorded pupils in education authority primary schools as at September

  1990 per cent.

  1991 per cent.

  Scotland

  0·3

  0·4

  Borders

  0·3

  0·5

  Central

  0·4

  0·4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1·1

  1·0

  Fife

  0·1

  0·1

  Grampian

  0·2

  0·4

  Highland

  0·7

  0·8

  Lothian

  0·2

  0·1

  Strathclyde

  0·3

  0·4

  Tayside

  0·2

  0·3

  Orkney

  0·2

  0·2

  Shetland

  0·4

  0·3

  Western Isles

  0·4

  0·3

  Strathclyde divisions

  Argyll and Bute

  0·9

  0·8

  Ayr

  0·5

  0·8

  Dunbarton

  0·1

  0·1

  Glasgow

  0·2

  0·3

  Lanark

  0·2

  0·3

  Renfrew

  0·4

  0·5

  Prison Service
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total expenditure by the Scottish Office in the training and recruitment of professional staff for the Scottish prison service in each of the past three financial years; what innovations have been implemented in training and recruitment; and if he will make a statement on future plans and expenditure.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: Major changes have been made in training policy with substantially increased investment in prison staff training and innovative training programmes. Future expenditure plans for the Scottish prison service will be announced next February in the Scottish Office departmental report. No diminution is planned in the Scottish prison service's investment in training.

  Total expenditure on training and recruitment of prison staff in each of the last three financial years:
  639

  1990–91

  1991–92

  £000 1992–93 (budget

  Training costs (trainer staff cosls and GAE)

  2,747

  2,297

  3,609

  Staff time devoted to training person weeks (approx)

  2,750

  3,900

  14,250

  Recruitment (staff and GAE)

  451

  72

  158

  (Numbers recruited)

  (149)

  (374)

  2(362)

  1 (estimated)

  2 (projected)

  Total prison staff numbers have increased from 3,966 on 1 April 1990 to 4,405 (projected) on 1 April 1993 (excluding HQ staff).

  Care and Repair Schemes
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evaluation has been made by the Scottish Office of care and repair projects in Scotland; and what budget has been allocated by the Scottish Office for the continuation of such projects in the current and next financial year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 December 1992]: I am pleased to say that on 7 December the Scottish Homes board agreed to take over central responsibility for care and repair from 1 April 1993, including the funding of local projects. This transfer was recommended in the consultants' evaluation report on the initiative, published in February 1992, and by the independent National Advisory Committee on Care and Repair. Scottish Homes' allocation for 1993–94 includes an estimated £70,000 for transitional costs relating to care and repair including £10,000 for a good practice guide.

  Councillors
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many elected councillors in Scottish local author: ties there are at present; and how many he plans there should be after the proposed changes to unitary councils.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 16 December 1992]: There are presently 1,682 councillors in local authorities in Scotland—445 regional councillors, 79 islands councillors and 1,158 district councillors. No decision has been taken on how many councillors will he required following the restructuring of local government. That will depend in part upon the size and number of single-tier authorities which are created. Before he reaches a decision on the appropriate number of councillors for the new structure my right hon. Friend will he considering carefully all the views which are expressed in response to the consultation paper "The Structure of Local Government in Scotland: Shaping the New Councils".

  European Council, Edinburgh
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish(a) his estimate of expenditure on security and police expenditure in connection with the European summit to be held in Edinburgh on 10 to 12 December and (b) the eventual total expenditure; if he will reconsider his decision not to provide additional funding for Lothian and Borders police board to cover this additional expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 December 1992]: Lothian and Borders police estimate
  640
  that the cost of providing security and policing for the European summit will be £2.5 million. Total expenditure will not be known until around February 1993.

  The Government will contribute to the costs of policing the summit through police specific grant. This is the usual arrangement and my right hon. Friend has no plans to review the financing of the policing of such major events. The rate of specific grant is 51 per cent., except in London where it is 52 per cent.

  Ex-psychiatric Patients (Offences)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year since 1980 the number of people charged with criminal offences who were formerly in-patients of psychiatric hospitals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 December 1992]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  EC Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the EC Acquired Rights directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 December 1992]: I have received a small number of representations on the EC acquired rights directive 77/187 and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations which implement this directive in the United Kingdom. The directive and regulations can apply to the contracting out of public sector services where it can be shown that there has been a transfer of undertaking. This has to be considered against the facts of each particular case.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current number of sites of special scientific interest in Scotland: and how many proposed designations for sites of special scientific interest are currently pending.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 December 1992]: A total of 1,353 sites of special scientific interest have been notified in Scotland. A further 11 cases are currently proposed for notification.

  Betting Offices
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the evening opening of betting offices in Scotland(a) in general and (b) from Scotland's senior police officers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 December 1992]:Eight Scottish organisations submitted responses to the Home Office consultation document, "Evening Opening of Licensed Betting Offices", published in October 1991. Three further Scottish organisations made representations via Members of Parliament. The 11 organisations are listed in the table:

  The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland)

  Association of Scottish Police Superintendents

  Scottish Police Federation

  Scottish SP Bookmakers' Association

  Scottish Consumer Council

  City of Glasgow Licensing Board

  641

  Wishaw Greyhound Stadium

  Edgar Ramsay Bookmakers

  East of Scotland Bookmakers Association

  Shawfield Greyhound Racing and Leisure Company.

  Hospital Closures
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list hospitals which have(a) partially and (b) wholly closed, during 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 December 1992]: The information requested on hospitals wholly closed is as detailed in the table. During the same period 31 health service buildings were opened at a total capital cost of £178 million. The information requested on partial closures is not available centrally.

  1989

  Braeholm Hospital

  Bruntsfield Hospital

  Beechmount Hospital

  Cambusavie Hospital

  Kilmarnock Maternity Hospital

  Culduthel Hospital

  1990

  Drumshorcland Hospital

  Fonthill Maternity Hospital

  1991

  Dunlophouse Hospital

  Ayr County Hospital

  Seafield Sick Children's Hospital

  Thornyflat Maternity Hospital, Ayr

  Heathfield Hospital

  Drumlanrig Hospital, Hawick

  Craigtoun Hospital

  Summerfield Maternity Hospital

  Duntocher Hospital, Clydebank

  Wishaw Hospital

  Longmore Hospital

  642
  1992

  Stoneyctts Hospital, Chryston

  David Elder Hospital, Glasgow

  Darnley Hospital

  Bangour General Hospital

  Kelso Cottage Hospital

  Lewis Hospital

  County Hospital, Stornoway

  Philipshill Hospital, Glasgow

  Empty Office Buildings
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated number of empty office buildings in(a) Glasgow and (b) Edinburgh on 30 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 December]: No record is kept of the number of empty office buildings in city or town centres, but my right hon. Friend is kept abreast of general market trends drawing on sources such as external published research by property agents, developers and others. This indicates that available office floorspace is currently approximately as follows:

  Glasgow City Centre—1·2m square feet

  Edinburgh City Centre—1·87m square feet

  Asbestos
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing(a) asbestos-related deaths and (b) asbestos-related disorders for each regional and island area since 1979.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 December 1992]: Since the tabulated information will be lengthy, I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Health Service Contracts
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each contract made with NHS trusts by(a) the Scottish Office and (b) the health boards for the most recent available year.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 December 1992]: The contracts made between NHS trusts and the Scottish Office in the financial year 1992–93 are:

  Cardiac Surgery

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals Trust

  The Reference Laboratory Services

  Type of contract

  Year

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  Hotel services2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Domestic

  —

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Catering

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Portering

  2

  1

  —

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Painterwork

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  4

  6

  Grounds maintenance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  Totals

  2

  11

  —

  8

  3

  2

  6

  15

  1A—Argyll and Clyde Health Board.

  B—Greater Giasgow Health Board.

  2Hotel services is used in this contexst to describe a combined contract covering domestic, catering and portering services.

  Since the introduction of the competitive tendering initiative in the NHS, Argyll and Clyde health board has awarded 40 contracts of which 11, 28 per cent., have been won by private contracts. Greater Glasgow health board has let 78 contracts of which 39, 50 per cent., were to outside firms. Throughout Scotland 86 out of a total of 351 contracts, 25 per cent., have been awarded privately.

  The Government's White Paper "Competing for Quality" (Command Paper 1730), sets out a programme for extending market testing to a wider range of activities. As a result of market testing in the NHS in Scotland, over £90 million has been saved. This money has been retained by health boards for re-investment in patient care.

  Ambulance Service
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table of ambulance services' response rates in relation to the patients charter; by what other criteria these services are assessed for effectiveness and efficiency; and if he will make a statement.

  Target

  Achievement

  Target

  Achievement

  High population density

  50 per cent of calls within 7 minutes

  44 per cent.

  95 per cent of calls within 14 minutes

  87 per cent.

  Medium population density

  50 per cent. of calls within 8 minutes

  53 per cent.

  95 per cent. of calls within 18 minutes

  94 per cent.

  Sparse population density

  50 per cent. of calls within 8 minutes

  47 per cent.

  95 per cent. of calls within 21 minutes

  89 per cent.

  Response rates are currently the main measure of performance but level and nature of complaints is also an important indicator of the quality of service. The general manager of the Scottish Ambulance Service has been asked to consider devising further performance indicators which will measure effectiveness, efficiency and economy. In addition, the new consultant medical director will be conducting a medical audit of the outcome of pre-hospital care provided by ambulance staff.
  644

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals Trust

  Details of contracts between health boards and NHS trusts are not held centrally.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the contracts awarded by(a) the Argyll and Clyde health board and (b) the Greater Glasgow health board to outside parties in relation to the process of compulsory competitive tendering, in each of the past four yeaers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 December 1992]: The contracts awarded were as follows:

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 December 1992]: The Scottish Ambulance Service measures its performance against national targets, often referred to as the ORCON standards. The targets in response to emergency and 999 calls have been set having regard to population density and are as follows:

  Population density

  50 per cent. of calls responded to within (minutes)

  95 per cent. of calls responded to within (minutes)

  High

  7

  14

  Medium

  8

  18

  Sparse

  8

  21

  For the period 1 April to 30 September 1992 the Scottish Ambulance Service achieved the following response rates:

  During the last year the Scottish Ambulance Service has made significant improvements to the quality arid speed of its accident and emergency response by the introduction of paramedic rapid response units mounted in either LandRover Discoverys or on motor cycles. Furthermore, recognising the special problems the service has in responding to calls in Greater Glasgow, the accident and emergency service has recently been enhanced by an additional 14 full-time qualified ambulance personnel.
  645
  From 1 April 1993, the service will be improving its overall level and speed of response across Scotland, particularly in rural areas, by introducing the United Kingdom's first integrated air ambulance service, which will employ three air ambulance helicopters and three fixed-wing aircraft.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice his officials give to those ambulance services which are deemed to be inefficient in relation to(a) the patients charter and (b) ORCON in relation to response rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 December 1992]: The general manager of the Scottish Ambulance Service is accountable to the Common Services Agency for the performance of the Scottish Ambulance Service. However, my officials in the Scottish Office Home and Health Department hold regular meetings with senior staff of the Common Services Agency and encourage measures aimed to improve response rates having regard to the resources made available.

  Drugs
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums of money were expended by the Scottish Office in relation to the European Drugs Prevention Week,(a) additional to those in existing annual programmes and (b) in total; and for what specific purposes in each case.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 December 1992]: Final payments have not yet been made in respect of some activities, but total Scottish Office expenditure on European Drug Prevention Week is expected to be about £225,000. This includes expenditure on local activities and

  Deaths with any mention of hypothermia on the death certificate 1987–91

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Parliamentary constituency of

  Male

  1

  4

  1

  1

  1

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  Female

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Strathclyde

  Male

  39

  36

  35

  35

  21

  Female

  41

  36

  33

  32

  23

  Scotland

  Male

  77

  62

  66

  63

  49

  Female

  76

  76

  86

  74

  52

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much grant assistance was given to each water authority in Scotland in each financial year since 1989–90.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 16 December 1992]: Details of grant assistance to water authorities in the period from 1989–90 to 1991–92 under the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts 1944 to 1970 and the Industrial Development Act 1982, and payment to water authorities under the European regional development fund are given in the tables. The table for ERDF includes payments to the Central Scotland Water Development Board.

  (a) Grant payments to water authorities under Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts 1944–70

  1989–90 £ thousand

  1990–91 £ thousand

  1991–92 £ thousand

  Borders

  251

  246

  262

  Central

  107

  90

  102

  Dumfries and Galloway

  431

  476

  475

  646
  events organised by health boards and others (£75,000); the production by Strathclyde Education Department of an updated video package for use in Scottish schools entitled "Drugwise Too" (£50,000); television advertising before and during the week (£41,000); the production and provision of publicity and information materials for use during the week (£27,750); three Scottish conferences held during the week (£22,500); and the production and distribution of an information booklet entitled "Drugs —A Guide for Young People in Scotland" (£10,500). The costs were met from provision for publicity about the risks of drug misuse and printing of associated materials; no additional funds were provided.

  Local Authority Contracts
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the contracts awarded to outside parties in relation to compulsory competitive tendering by(a) Inverclyde district council and (b) Strathclyde regional council in each of the past four years.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 15 December 1992]: This information is not held centrally.

  Hypothermia
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) men and (b) women have died of hypothermia in (i) the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 December 1992]: The figure requested are given in the table.

  1989–90 £ thousand

  1990–91 £ thousand

  1991–92 £ thousand

  Fife

  35

  31

  28

  Grampian

  999

  1,000

  1,196

  Highland

  757

  913

  1,039

  Lothian

  462

  452

  467

  Strathclyde

  321

  356

  297

  Tayside

  269

  262

  266

  Orkney

  167

  165

  165

  Shetland

  157

  239

  191

  Western Isles

  212

  199

  191

  Total

  4,168

  4,429

  4,679

  (b) Grants to water authorities under Industrial Development Act 1982

  1989–90 £ thousand

  1990–91 £ thousand

  1991–92 £ thousand

  Highland

  0

  0

  10

  647

  (c) Payments to water authorities and the central Scotland water development board in respect of European regional development fund

  1989–90 £ thousand

  1990–91 £ thousand

  1991–92 £ thousand

  Borders

  0

  0

  2

  Central

  393

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4

  0

  684

  Fife

  47

  397

  0

  Grampian

  2

  71

  41

  Highland

  933

  1,187

  838

  Lothian

  453

  910

  274

  Strathclyde

  589

  7,478

  1,716

  Tayside

  0

  786

  0

  Orkney

  456

  332

  41

  Shetland

  41

  382

  33

  Western Isles

  4

  22

  15

  Central Scotland Water Development Board

  558

  1,352

  1,140

  Total

  3,480

  12,917

  4,784

  A96
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce the route and commencement date for the Fochabers bypass on the A96.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 December 1992]: The Government have a very large rolling programme of improvements on the A96. An important element within this is the construction of major bypasses. Bucksburn is currently under construction and Kintore and Keith have also been announced as planned starts. The Government wish to target the maximum resources possible at construction, so preparation for further bypasses is, and will be, pursued in line with expectations for construction funding. The entry of Fochabers to the trunk road preparation programme will continue to be kept under review.

  1987–88 (£)

  1988–89 (£)

  1989–90 (£)

  1990–911 (£)

  1991–921 (£)

  Grant allocation for 1992–932

  Skye and Lochalsh

  4,000

  9,500

  14,000

  —

  —

  15,500

  East Lothian

  5,000

  7,000

  13,000

  —

  —

  18,500

  Aberdeen

  3,500

  8,500

  11,500

  —

  —

  14,500

  Renfrew

  4,500

  8,000

  9,000

  —

  —

  13,500

  Falkirk

  3,500

  8,500

  10,000

  —

  —

  13,000

  Orkney

  2,000

  9,500

  10,500

  —

  —

  15,500

  Glasgow

  Nil

  8,000

  8,500

  —

  —

  12,500

  Clydesdale

  Nil

  4,000

  8,500

  —

  —

  12,500

  National Co-ordinators Office

  15,000

  27,500

  24,000

  52,000

  63,000

  58,500

  Total

  37,500

  90,500

  109,500

  115,500

  125,000

  174,000

  1 Breakdown of expenditure between projects not available centrally for these years.

  2 Grant not allocated between projects in earlier years.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the current EC directives relating to water quality and the compliance rates of each member state.
  648
  That said, Grampian regional council is currently undertaking a study to determine traffic management arrangements best suited to minimise delays to through traffic in Fochabers and Mosstodloch and also to consider the complementary need for traffic calming measures to establish an environment which supports pedestrian activity.

  Private Finance
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what areas of his Department's responsibilities he has introduced, or may introduce, private finance; and if he will describe in each case the procedures by which private finance is sought.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 December 1992]: The combined use of public and private funds is of long standing in certain areas within my responsibility, for example, some of the functions of Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Homes. My Departments are now considering how, most effectively and most fully, to apply the private finance initiatives to other services on the basis of the guidance which has recently been published by the Treasury.

  Care and Repair Schemes
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total Scottish Office funding allocation to date to care and repair schemes organised by Shelter in Scotland, listed on an annual basis per project.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 December 1992]: The Scottish Office pays 100 per cent. of the costs of the national co-ordinating office for the care and repair initiative run by Shelter and 50 per cent. of the administrative costs of the local projects. The figures requested are as follows to the nearest £1,000:

  Mr. Maclean
  Current EC directives are listed in the Directory of Community Legislation in Force and Other Acts of the Community Institutions, which is available in the Library of the House. This includes those on water quality. Information on member states' progress in transposing environmental (including water quality) directives into national law was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (No. C 250)on 28 September 1992.

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the findings of the recent Treasury review of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The review of the committee's staff support unit was commissioned by English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales, and Scottish National Heritage. The report's findings are available to all the staff concerned, but it is an internal management document and the councils have no plans to publish it more widely.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those conservations projects, programmes or contracts which were due to be carried out by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in 1992–93 or 1993–94 which will no longer be carried out by the committee.

  Mr. Maclean
  These are matters for the committee and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member in respect of the 1992–93 work programme. The committee will decide its programme for 1993–94 when its budget for that year has been determined.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to visit the homeless in(a) London and (b) Folkestone during the Christmas period.

  Mr. Howard
  I have visited and met homeless people in the past, and did so again during the Christmas period. But in general I do not consider it appropriate to publicise such visits.

  Both Ministers and officials from this Department make regular visits to projects throughout England which give practical help to homeless people, with financial support from the Government.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost to local authorities in England and Wales of providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation for those families officially registered as homeless in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Baldry
  The final estimate of the net cost to local authorities of providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation to homeless households in England in 1990–91 was £66.6 million. Information for 1991–92 is not yet available.

  For information about Wales, I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the total number of homeless households recorded as living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in each of the following years: 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates for calendar years of the average number of households who were being dealt with under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 and were temporarily placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are as follows:
  650

  Average for year ending December

  Households in bed and breakfast

  1989

  11,500

  1990

  11,810

  1991

  12,470

  For the year ending September 1992 the average number of households in bed and breakfast accommodation had fallen to 11,880.

  Local Authority Accommodation
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the average cost to a local authority per household in(a) bed-and-breakfast accommodation, (b) local authority hostels, (c) local authority short-life accommodation and (d) temporary accommodation.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the average cost per unit of accommodation in(a) bed-and-breakfast accommodation, (b) local authority hostels, (c) local authority short-life accommodation and (d) temporary accommodation, to a local authority (i) in the Greater London area and (ii) elsewhere in England.

  Mr. Baldry
  Annual costs for bed-and-breakfast accommodation used and hostel places provided by local authorities, together with the related numbers of accommodation units, can be derived from the information published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) in "Homelessness Statistics 1990–91 Actuals", a copy of which is in the Library.

  The CIPFA publication contains insufficient information on short-life and other temporary accommodation to derive average costs per household.

  Expenditure information on homeless households in other forms of temporary accommodation is not available centrally and my Department has no estimates.

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the tonnage of fly ash emitted daily to the environment from a typical 2000 MW coal-fired power station.

  Mr. Maclean
  Approximately 23 tonnes.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by district authorities the number and value of council house sales in Nottinghamshire in each year since 1983 and for the first two quarters of 1992–93.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on sales of council houses reported by local authorities in Nottinghamshire in the period April 1983 to September 1992 is given in the table.
  651

  Number of sales and undiscounted value in Nottinghamshire (£000)

  Ashfield

  Bassetlaw

  Broxtowe

  Gedling

  Mansfield

  Newark and sherwood

  Nottingham

  Rushcliffe

  1983–84

  Number of sales

  381

  467

  231

  247

  306

  341

  1,267

  179

  Undiscounted value of sales

  5,214

  5,985

  3,852

  3,822

  3,524

  5,107

  18,202

  3,010

  1984–85

  Number of sales

  184

  139

  239

  214

  162

  225

  767

  183

  Undiscounted value of sales

  n.a.

  1,953

  4,173

  4,521

  2,062

  3,783

  12,002

  3,243

  1985–86

  Number of sales

  245

  202

  191

  200

  157

  160

  827

  123

  Undiscounted value of sales

  2,753

  2,892

  3,489

  3,685

  2,065

  2,794

  13,636

  2,408

  1986–87

  Number of sales

  198

  209

  235

  220

  137

  153

  893

  118

  Undiscounted value of sales

  3,134

  3,219

  4,684

  4,080

  1,881

  2,928

  14,570

  2,420

  1987–88

  Number of sales

  242

  203

  224

  238

  246

  162

  1,075

  177

  Undiscounted value of sales

  4,350

  3,356

  4,662

  4,887

  3,871

  3,366

  n.a.

  3,710

  1988–89

  Number of sales

  347

  348

  351

  342

  349

  314

  1,641

  194

  Undiscounted value of sales

  6,829

  6,719

  5,144

  8,095

  5,545

  8,448

  n.a.

  5,410

  1989–90

  Number of sales

  438

  332

  322

  238

  406

  261

  1,754

  102

  Undiscounted value of sales

  9,580

  8,660

  10,009

  n.a.

  9,395

  9,365

  48,316

  4,014

  1990–91

  Number of sales

  160

  77

  76

  110

  160

  78

  n.a.

  51

  Undiscounted value of sales

  5,364

  2,536

  2,748

  3,640

  3,968

  2,439

  n.a.

  2,199

  1991–92 (Provisional)

  Number of sales

  90

  78

  67

  93

  n.a.

  56

  344

  37

  Undiscounted value of sales

  3,038

  2,584

  2,528

  3,251

  n.a.

  2,183

  12,838

  1,611

  April to September 1992 (Provisional)

  Number of sales

  34

  32

  30

  56

  34

  27

  n.a.

  18

  Undiscounted value of sales

  1,126

  1,095

  1,210

  1,458

  842

  1,037

  n.a.

  799

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the basis for calculating capital receipts of council house and other asset sales for the next 12 months.

  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates of local authorities' capital receipts are based on information which authorities themselves supply to my Department. This information is provided in relation to financial years and no estimate has been made of receipts likely to arise over the next 12 months.

  Housing
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account is taken in determining the housing investment programme allocation of the west midlands region, of the number of unsatisfactory houses in multiple occupation and unfit owner-occupied properties.

  Mr. Baldry
  Specified capital grant (SCG) resources for private sector renewal in local authority housing investment programmes (HIPs) are allocated to the west midlands and other regions using a formula based on the numbers of private dwellings classified as unfit or lacking basic amenities. These dwellings include both houses in multiple occupation and owner-occupied properties. Forty per cent. of SCG resources at regional level are then 652
  distributed to individual local authorities within the region using the same measures, with the remaining 60 per cent. of resources allocated at Ministers' discretion.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the number and (b) the proportion of (i) houses in multiple occupation and (ii) single household homes in England lacking adequate fire precautions or means of escape in case of fire.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total of capital and revenue expenditure by local authorities in England in respect of dealing with unsatisfactory houses in multiple occupation in 1991–92.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1991–92 a total of £6.7 million was approved by local housing authorities in England for capital expenditure on mandatory grants for houses in multiple occupation (HMO), and £0.3 million on discretionary HMO grants. Figures for revenue expenditure incurred by local authorities in dealing with HMOs are not available.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect the existence of mandatory housing in multiple occupation grants has had on
  653
  improving conditions within multi-occupied houses and on the activities of local authorities in respect of the implementation of part XI of the Housing Act 1985.

  Mr. Baldry
  Grants for houses in multiple occupation (HMO) are mandatory where a statutory notice has been served. Since the new grant system was introduced in July 1990, mandatory grants for repairs and improvements to more than 1,750 HMOs at a total cost of £13.6 million have been approved by local authorities.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the number of houses in multiple occupation in the west midland region; and how many of these are below the standards set out in the Department of the Environment circular 12/92;

  (2) how many people are currently living in houses in multiple occupation in England;

  (3) how many houses in multiple occupation there were in England (a) in 1984–85 and (b) at the last date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Baldry
  The results of the 1991 Census, which provides information on the total number of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), are not yet fully available. However, based on the 1981 Census results, the number of HMOs in the West Midlands is estimated at 5,250. This covers the counties of Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Hereford and Worcester and the Birmingham conurbation. Information is not held centrally on the numbers which are below the standards set out in circular 12/92.

  There are no reliable figures for the total number of HMOs or for the total number of people living in HMOs. Research carried out for the Department showed that in 1983–84, local authorities in England and Wales estimated that there were approximately 300,000 HMOs. Figures from the 1991 census show that there were 59,000 "shared dwellings" in England and Wales.

  As for the number of HMO residents, research carried out for the Department in the mid-1980s produced estimates of between 1.25 and 2.6 million in England and Wales.

  More up-to-date figures on the number of HMOs and the number of HMO residents will be available from the 1991 English House Condition Survey, to be published later in 1993. Figures from the 1991 census on the number of HMO residents will be available in due course.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many notices were served by local authorities in England in the 12 months to June 1992 under sections 352, 358 and 372 of the Housing Act 1985; how many directions under section 354 were made in that period; how many of these notices were complied with; in how many cases local authorities carried out work in default of compliance with the notices; and how many prosecutions were taken as the result of failure to comply with notices.

  Mr. Baldry
  The following figures arc taken from the Institution of Environmental Health Officers Annual Report 1990–91 survey of local authorities in England and Wales. 2,309 notices were served under section 352.719 notices were served under section 372, 403 of which were complied with (including those complied with by means of the local authority carrying out the works). 90 convictions were obtained for failure to comply with section 369, and 654
  12 for failure to comply with a notice requiring works under section 372. Of the directions in force under section 354 at 21 March 1991, 4,202 were complied with and 618 were not complied with. 640 directions were revoked by the local authority or by a county court, and 653 directions were made during the year. No figures are available centrally on the number of notices served under section 358.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the Estate Action, priority estatesproject and housing action trust budgets for each year from 1989 to 1993.

  Mr. Baldry
  Provision for the estate action and housing action trust programmes for the years in question is as follows:

  £ million

  Estate action

  HATs

  1989–90

  190

  —

  1990–91

  190

  —

  1991–92

  268

  10·3

  1992–93

  364

  40·1

  1993–94

  356

  86·8

  PEP is a company limited by guarantee. The value of work funded by my Department is as follows:

  £ million

  1989–90

  1·1

  1990–91

  1·2

  1991–92

  0·9

  1992–93

  0·9

  Discussions with PEP are currently taking place with regard to applications for grant in 1993–94.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many comments he has received on the draft guidance manual for local authorities on how to develop and manage strategies for dealing with unsatisfactory houses in multiple occupation and when the final version will be published.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has received 48 written responses to the draft Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Management Guide. The guide is currently being revised and the final version will be published as soon as possible.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he is monitoring compliance with the duty under section 605 of the Housing Act 1985, periodic inspection of district by local housing authority, in particular as it applies to part XI of the Act: and whether he proposes to make any directions as to how local authorities should comply with that duty.

  Mr. Baldry
  Section 605 of the Housing Act 1985, as amended by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, requires local authorities to consider the housing conditions in their districts at least once a year. It is for each authority to determine how it meets this duty and this is not monitored by the Department. We have no plans to issue directions in relation to the duty.

  Radon
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research Her Majesty's Government have carried our or commissioned into the risk of high radon levels in areas of Derbyshire where the geological profile includes carboniferous age shales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following a survey of Derbyshire commissioned by my Department, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has designated parts of Derbyshire as radon-affected areas. The areas most affected are associated with carboniferous limestones. A copy of the relevant NRPB publication, "Documents of the NRPB", vol. 3, No. 4, was placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate, by regional health authority area, the total number of houses which may exceed(a) a radon level of 200 bq/sq m and (b) 20 bq/sq m; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The survey of radon in homes in England does not provide data in the form requested. A summary of the survey results by county, district and postcode sector is given in the NRPB report "Radon in Dwellings in England", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The NRPB estimates that there are about 100,000 homes in England above 200 bq/sq m and about 5·5 million above the average level of 20 bq/sq m.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environnment how many representations he has had concerning his decision to reduce future funding for the urban programme.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Up to and including 4 January 1993, my Department received 97 letters about the new arrangements for the urban programme (UP). In 1993–94 there will be a substantial UP amounting to £176 million to enable us to honour existing commitments on approved UP projects and to provide £20 million for the urban partnership fund which will work alongside local authorities' newly released capital receipts to promote urban regeneration.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update the table published in his answer of II February,Official Report, columns 434–35.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 17 December 1992]: The table incorporates the new urban programme plan figures following the autumn statement:

  Year

  Urban programme provision—outturn £million

  Urban programme as percentage of urban block

  1995–96

  plan 80

  10

  1994–95

  plan 91

  11

  1993–94

  plan 176

  18

  1992–93

  plan 245

  24

  1991–92

  outturn 237

  24

  656
  The provision for 1992–93 includes £11 million for the urban crime fund.

  My Department's urban group of programmes are continuing to evolve to reflect current priorities.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much funding each urban programme authority received at 1992 prices for each of the last three years; how many projects have been supported; and how many people have been employed by them in jobs and in training schemes.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 17 December 1992]: The funding figures are as follows:

  Urban programme (UP) Funding

  Local authority

  1990–91 £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  Newcastle/Gateshead

  18·4

  16·9

  15·6

  Hartlepool

  2·0

  2·0

  1·9

  Langbaurgh

  2·2

  2·0

  1·9

  Middlesbrough

  5·8

  5·4

  5·0

  North Tyneside

  4·0

  3·5

  3·3

  South Tyneside

  5·6

  5·0

  4·8

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1·7

  1·7

  1·6

  Sunderland

  5·9

  5·5

  4·9

  Manchester/Salford

  21·9

  19·5

  19·7

  Blackburn

  4·5

  4·2

  3·8

  Bolton

  4·6

  4·2

  3·8

  Burnley

  2·2

  2·2

  2·0

  Oldham

  4·2

  4·0

  3·7

  Preston

  2·8

  2·6

  2·3

  Rochdale

  4·3

  3·6

  3·7

  Wigan

  2·9

  2·8

  2·5

  Liverpool

  19·2

  18·7

  17·1

  Halton

  1·8

  1·6

  1·5

  Knowsley

  4·5

  4·4

  3·9

  St· Helens

  2·2

  2·0

  1·8

  Sefton

  1·9

  1·5

  1·6

  Wirral

  4·0

  3·7

  3·4

  Merseyside Special Allocation

  1·3

  2·0

  1·0

  Birmingham

  24·2

  22·3

  20·4

  Coventry

  5·2

  4·8

  4·6

  Dudley

  1·9

  1·7

  1·6

  Sandwell

  5·2

  4·9

  4·4

  Walsall

  2·1

  1·9

  1·6

  Wolverhampton

  6·3

  5·8

  4·9

  The Wrekin

  1·1

  1·0

  1·0

  Derby

  4·2

  1·3

  1·3

  Leicester

  5·4

  5·3

  4·7

  Nottingham

  5·8

  5·0

  4·7

  Barnsley

  2·1

  2·2

  2·1

  Bradford

  4·5

  5·0

  4·5

  Doncaster

  2·2

  2·4

  2·2

  Hull

  5·4

  5·1

  4·8

  Kirklees

  1·2

  1·2

  1·1

  Leeds

  5·9

  5·7

  5·1

  Rotherham

  2·2

  2·3

  2·2

  Sheffield

  7·4

  11·4

  5·9

  Hackney

  4·2

  4·8

  4·6

  Islington

  8·8

  9·2

  8·1

  Lambeth

  8·1

  7·8

  7·9

  Brent

  2·6

  2·7

  2·5

  Greenwich

  1·4

  1·3

  1·4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2·7

  2·5

  2·3

  Haringey

  3·2

  3·4

  2·9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·8

  1·8

  1·6

  Lewisham

  2·2

  2·1

  2·4

  Newham

  3·2

  3·1

  3·0

  Southwark

  2·3

  2·9

  2·6

  Tower Hamlets

  5·0

  3·3

  4·1

  Wandsworth

  2·3

  3·7

  2·9

  657

  Local authority

  1990–91 £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  Bristol

  1·6

  1·7

  1·6

  Plymouth

  1·4

  1·4

  1·3

  Total

  271·0

  260·0

  237·1

  Notes:

  1. Up funding figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are actuals, adjusted by GDP deflator indices. UP funding figures for 1992–93 are initial allocations, excluding District Health Authority projects.

  2. The totals for these years have altered slightly from the figures given in the answer of 30 November 1992, Official Report,column 14, due to a recent revision of the GDP deflator indices.

  The total number of projects supported in 1990–91 was 9,855. The local authorities' forecasts for 1991–92 and 1992–93 are 6,911 and 8,782 respectively.

  We do not have information on the numbers employed by urban programme authorities themselves on managing the urban programme or running training schemes. A total of 29,660 jobs were created or preserved through the urban programme in 1990–91, and 86,528 training places were supported. Local authorities forecast the following outputs in 1991–92 and 1992–93:

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Number of jobs created/preserved

  34,242

  33,973

  Number of training places supported

  68,551

  74,097

  Note: Figures for 1990–91 are obtained from UP annual reports from local authorities; those for 1991–92 and 1992–93 are derived from annual UP submissions from local authorities.

  Councils (Capital Receipts)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines have been given to local authorities as to how expenditure on capital receipts should be distributed as between debt reduction and housing investment.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities are normally allowed to spend 25 per cent. of their receipts from council house sales and 50 per cent. of most other receipts, the balance being set aside as provision for credit liabilities, including debt redemption. Under a temporary relaxation in these rules, announced in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement, local authorities may spend virtually all of the capital receipts they receive between 13 November 1992 and 31 December 1993. Local authorities are free to spend such receipts on any kind of capital project, or to use them to make provision for credit liabilities.

  Sewage (Phosphates)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what quantity of phosphate was recovered annually from United Kingdom sewage, each year since 1982; and what action he will take to encourage the recovery of phosphate from United Kingdom sewage.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information about the amount of phosphate recovered annually from United Kingdom sewage is not held centrally. Implementation of the recently adopted EC Directive concerning Urban Waste Water Treatment will require, in certain circumstances, the reduction of phosphorus in sewage discharges.

  Local Government Pensions
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will delay implementation of the Local Government Superannuation (Membership) Regulations 1992 until the results of the Goode report on pension security are made known.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  If changes to the local government superannuation scheme are required following the publication of the pension law review committee report, statutory consultations will take place with the interested parties. Meanwhile, necessary amendments to the scheme will proceed.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in deciding when to commence implementation of the Local Government Superannuation (Membership) Regulations 1992, he will assess(a) the time required to set up mirror image funds, (b) the loss of rights experienced by employees resulting from any changeover, (c) the extent to which preserved benefits have been adequately indexed to reflect increases in earnings and (d) the extent to which transfer values represent the total worth of members' investments.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These matters, together with the other representations received following the recent statutory consultation exercise, will be given careful consideration before decisions are taken on the final form and content of our amending regulations.

  Newland System Homes
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount of investment made by each local authority in repairs to Newland system homes since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of Newland system properties currently owned by local authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  From local authority returns it is estimated that as at April 1992 there were 1,200 Newland properties in the ownership of local authorities in England.

  Caravan Sites Act
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce legislation to reform the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 9 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown),Official Report, column 833.

  Poll Tax Registers
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many adults appear on the poll tax register in each of the London boroughs.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The latest information available to the Department on the number of adults, including students, shown on community charges registers is given in the table.
  659

  London borough

  Number of adults subject to a personal community charge on 1 June 1991

  Barking and Dagenham

  109,220

  Barnet

  213,447

  Bexley

  165,383

  Brent

  184,478

  Bromley

  225,220

  Camden

  139,904

  City of London

  3,474

  Croydon

  238,094

  Ealing

  210,382

  Enfield

  197,341

  Greenwich

  157,987

  Hackney

  128,784

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  121,182

  Haringey

  163,062

  Harrow

  149,521

  Havering

  174,137

  Hillingdon

  178,527

  Hounslow

  151,694

  Islington

  127,379

  Kensington and Chelsea

  105,926

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  103,036

  Lambeth

  191,707

  Lewisham

  172,212

  Merton

  130,898

  Newham

  156,645

  Redbridge

  172,561

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  123,850

  Southwark

  172,538

  Sutton

  127,798

  Tower Hamlets

  118,765

  Waltham Forest

  161,679

  Wandsworth

  192,574

  Westminster

  140,013

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Hew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the implications for the disclosure of public information at public planning inquiries of section 4(5) of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  The procedure rules for planning inquiries are already designed to ensure maximum disclosure of information. The Environmental Information Regulations 1992 do not change these arrangements.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the impact of the operation of the NFFO-non-fossil fuel obligation on the privatisation of local authority waste disposal functions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Tenders for the provision of privatised waste disposal contracts under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are a matter for the tenderers and the waste disposal authority concerned. I refer my hon. Friend to the detailed advice given in my Department's circular 8/91 "Competition for Local Authority Waste Disposal Contracts and New Arrangements for Disposal Operations". Renewable energy policy and the future of the non-fossil fuel obligation are matters for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the occasions on which each urban development corporation in England has used its planning designation powers, giving details of the dates on which such powers were used and the nature of the development to which they were applied in each case.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Urban development corporations are each planning authorities and consider all planning applications in their designated areas.

  CITES
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions between officials of EC Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and the Indonesian Government relating to the CITES appendix II ban affecting Indonesia.

  Mr. Maclean
  The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) is still discussing with the Indonesian authorities the management and sustainable use of the country's wildlife. The European Commission has not yet received sufficient information to enable an assessment to be made of the conservation status of the species covered by the current import ban.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what budget has been allocated to the Local Government Commission; how much has been spent; and how many officers are in post.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  For 1992–93, some £2.63 million is available for payment of grant-in-aid to the Local Government Commission. Of this amount some £724,600 has been paid to the commission to date. The commission currently has 28 staff in post.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names, remuneration, political affiliation and former or current occupation of each of the members of the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The names of the members of the Local Government Commission and their annual rates of remuneration are as follows:

  £

  Chairman

  Sir John Banham

  32,240

  Members

  David Ansbro

  4,510

  Michael Chisholm

  19,550

  Ken Ennals CB

  19,550

  Malcolm Grant

  4,510

  Howell Harris Hughes

  4,510

  Brian Hill CBE DL

  19,550

  Mary Leigh

  19,550

  Ann Levick

  19,550

  Robert Scruton

  4,510

  David Thomas

  19,550

  Clive Wilkinson

  19,550

  Lady Wilcox

  4,510

  661
  Details of the occupational background and political affiliation (where known) of the commission's members are available from my Department's press notice of 3 July 1992, a copy of which I have placed in the Library.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the cost of establishing and running the Local Government Commission to date, the cost of consultations undertaken by the commission, the total budget for the commission in the current year and the expected cost of the commission for the review as a whole.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Some £2.63 million is available for payment of grant-in-aid to the commission in 1992–93, of which some £724,600 has been paid to date. We have announced provision of £3.259 million, £3.300 million and £3.439 million for the years 1993–94 to 1995–96. The cost of consultations undertaken by the commission is a matter for the commission itself.

  Cooking Facilities
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the numbers of units with self-contained cooking facilities in(a) local authority hostels, (b) private sector leasing accommodation, (c) temporary accommodation and (d) local authority short-life housing.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate how many units in bed-and-breakfast accommodation used for accommodating homeless families have self-contained cooking facilities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is not held centrally and my Department does not make estimates.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the ministerial visits made to each city challenge winner.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  City challenge partnerships receive regular visits from their sponsor Minister—the Minister of State for Inner Cities—and me.

  Revenue Support
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 December,Official Report, column 99, what assessment he has made of the revenue forgone by each local authority as a result of council tax exemption for student-only dwellings; how the revenue support grant system provides specific compensation for revenue forgone by local authorities as a result of student-only dwellings from the council tax; and what amounts have been provided from the revenue support grant for 1993–94 in this respect for each county, district and metropolitan borough council.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The revenue foregone by each local authority as a result of council tax exemption for student-only dwellings cannot be calculated until authorities have set their council taxes.
  662
  The revenue support grant system does not provide specific compensation for loss of revenue resulting from the exemption of student-only dwellings. The calculation of revenue support grant for individual authorities involves an assessment of the amount that each authority can raise through council taxes, based upon its local taxbase. The taxbase, and the local government finance settlement generally, takes into account, among other things, exemptions of student-only dwellings. There is no merit in speculating about the amounts of revenue support grant that would have been provided if a different system, without exemption of student-only dwellings, had applied.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out his estimates of costs or savings arising from the present review of local government in England; and how far these savings differ from estimates previously made by his Department.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It will be for the Local Government Commission to assess area by area the costs and benefits of possible changes to the structure of local government in England. It is not possible at this stage to give precise estimates, but the Government's guidance to the commission makes it clear that any changes to the structure of local government should be worthwhile and cost-effective over time.

  Rate Relief
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total rateable value of non-domestic properties given rate relief for unoccupation in each year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not available.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total current Curie content of long-lived radioactive waste stored in high-activity storage tanks at Sellafield; and what notification of the status of the radioactive waste storage facilities Her Majesty's Government are required to give Euratom on a routine basis.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The long-lived radioactive waste stored in high activity storage tanks at Sellafield contains 920 million Curies of radioactivity. Highly active waste contains small quantities of uranium and plutonium. In line with the requirements of the Euratom safeguards authorities, such arisings from reprocessing are reported by British Nuclear Fuels plc in its inventory change reports to Euratom which are made via my Department's safeguards office.

  Private Finance
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what areas of his Department's responsibilities he has introduced, or may introduce, private finance; and if he will describe in each case the procedures by which private finance is sought.
  663
  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 17 December 1992]: I welcome any suggestions for private finance that the private sector puts forward, provided they are consistent with the Treasury guidance published on 9 December.

  Much inner cities spending is targeted on levering in private finance through grant applications and competition between developers. The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities expects to issue shortly a list of further opportunities. The Rural Development Commission and other countryside bodies draw in private finance in their areas through both loan and grant applications. All these applications both have to meet testing criteria, and to compete for limited available public funds. In Property Holdings civil estate business, private finance is used through property leasing. In social housing, the housing association movement uses leading city firms to draw in loan finance from financial institutions.

  Birds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many bird species currently subject to United Kingdom conservation licensing controls under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 will not be subject to import licensing under current European Community/Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species regulations after I January 1993; if he will list them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 December 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 1 December 1992, Official Report, cols 153–54. About 8,000 species of bird will no longer be subject to import licensing after 1 January 1993. A list of these could only, he produced at disproportionate cost. To ensure their continued protection, 83 of these species will be made subject to sales licensing. Only a minority of the remaining species are traded, and licensing of imports of them has been primarily for monitoring. We are pressing for more extensive monitoring to be introduced throughout the European Community in future.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the cash and real terms increases for total standard spending in England in 1993–94, after adjusting for changes in local authority functions, compared with(a) total standard spending for 1992–93 and (b) local authorities' budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 22 December 1992.

  Further Education
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the representations he has received from local education authorities about the amount of finance allocated and methodology used to calculate each authority's national spending on further education and sixth form colleges for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Up to 8 January, my right hon. and learned Friend had received 40 written representations from local education authorities on the finance allocated 664
  to further education and the methodology employed in his provisional calculations. The issue has also been raised by a further four authorities in meetings with Ministers in this Department. Many such representations have been on the calculation of relevant notional amounts reflecting that from 1993–94 local education authorities have no responsibility for sixth form colleges and their responsibility for post-16 education is limited to schools with sixth form intakes and to some adult education. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to announce to this House his decisions on the revenue support grant settlement in the light of consultation before the end of the month.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to set a target time in which valuation tribunals will complete a council tax appeal.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 16 December 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  Council tax appeals in Scotland will be heard by valuation appeal committees. How many appeals will arise is obviously unknown at this stage. It would not be practicable at present to set a time within which committees will aim to complete their consideration of such appeals. The Government will, however, keep under review the progress of committees in disposing of appeals.

WALES

  Heritage Coastline
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which areas in Wales have been designated heritage coasts; how many kilometres have been so designated; and what proportion this represents of the total Welsh coastline.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The areas listed have been defined as heritage coasts in Wales.

  kilometers

  North Anglesey

  28·66

  Holyhead Mountain

  12·88

  Aberffraw Bay

  7·73

  Great Orme

  7·08

  Lleyn

  88·39

  Ceredigion

  33·80

  St. Dogmaels and Moylegrove

  22·54

  Dinas Head

  17·71

  St. David's Peninsula

  82·11

  St. Brides Bay

  8·05

  Marloes and Dale

  43·47

  South Pembrokeshire

  66·01

  Gower

  55·06

  Glamorgan

  21·74

  495·23

  495·23 kilometres represents 42 per cent. of Welsh coastline.

  Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhymni
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the closure of the Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhymni lower school.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This is a matter for Mid Glamorgan county council.

  Parent-Governor Meetings
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales hold annual parent-governor meetings which are attended by fewer than 10 per cent. of the parents entitled to attend.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available centrally.

  £million

  Allocation1 excluding national garden festival

  Allocation/expenditure national garden festival

  Actual outturn

  1988–89

  14·442

  0·458

  11·9

  1989–90

  15·200

  2·600

  16·0

  1990–91

  15·657

  5·043

  19·4

  1991–92

  15·985

  9·915

  23·6

  1992–93

  19·646

  1·354

  —

  1 Includes supplementary allocations approved during the year.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will show expenditure on the urban programme since 1985 to 1989 in Wales as(a) budgeted and (b) actual outturn, expressed in (i) cash terms for 1988–89 and (ii) cash terms for 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Expenditure on urban programme between 1985–86 and 1989–90 in cash terms is:

  £ million

  Allocation

  Actual outturn

  1985–86

  19·2

  18·0

  1986–87

  23·7

  21·6

  1987–88

  23·1

  20·4

  1988–89

  24·6

  20·5

  1989–90

  27·6

  25·0

  Smokers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the total number of habitual smokers in Wales by health authority area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest information on the percentage of the population in Wales in the age group 18 to 65 who reported that they smoked to any extent is given in the following table:

  Percentage of population who were smokers

  Clwyd

  33·8

  East Dyfed

  28·8

  Pembrokeshire

  29·1

  Gwent

  31·3

  Gwynedd

  32·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  35·4

  Powys

  27·4

  South Glamorgan

  30·2

  West Glamorgan

  29·2

  Source: Heartbeat Wales Technical Report No. 25 published in 1992 by the Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will show expenditure on the urban programme since 1988–89 in the valleys programme area as(a) budgeted and (b) actual outturn expressed in (i) cash terms for 1988–89 and (ii) cash terms for 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Urban programme expenditure in the valleys programme area since 1988–89 in cash terms is:

  Special Needs Housing
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the implications of the Tai Cymru's consultation paper for special needs housing in Wales; how he intends to respond to the needs of women and children escaping domestic violence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The board of housing for Wales are giving careful consideration to all the responses received following the issue of its consultation paper entitled "Improving the Effectiveness of Housing Association Development and Management". Decisions will be made known shortly.

  TECs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to review the(a) membership and (b) membership qualifications of the boards of Welsh training and enterprise councils; if he will set minimum criteria for the representation of manufacturing industry on each of these TECs; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The appointment of directors to training and enterprise council boards is a matter for individual TECs in accordance with the broad criteria set out in the TEC operating agreement. We expect the private sector directors of individual TEC boards to reflect broadly the pattern of employment in their area. We have no plans to alter this arrangement.

  The manufacturing sector is represented on all TEC boards in Wales; five of the seven Welsh chairmen of TEC boards are from manufacturing industry.

  Right-to-buy Schemes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Tai Cymru concerning the issuing of new right-to-buy guidelines for the tenants of housing association schemes.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Radon
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate how many houses in each Welsh health authority area exceed(a) the radon action level of 200 Bq/m3 and (b) 20 Bq/m3; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is not possible to provide the estimates requested until the full results of the National Radiological Protection Board survey in Wales are known.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will he publishing the Welsh local government financial statistics for 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is anticipated that the next edition of Welsh local government financial statistics, which will include details of 1993–94 budgets, will be published in December 1993.

  Trawsfynydd Power Station
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what monitoring he undertakes of the surrounding area of Trawsfynydd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The food science division and the fisheries radiological inspectorate of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food undertake monitoring in the Trawsfynydd area on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The FSD monitoring covers food and agricultural products whilst that undertaken by FRI involves aquatic environmental monitoring of Lake Trawsfynydd. The results are regularly published in the terrestrial radioactivity monitoring programme and aquatic environment monitoring reports, copies of which are held in the Library of the House. In addition, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has a programme of environmental monitoring linked to its regulatory responsibility for the nuclear power station.

  This monitoring shows that levels of radioactivity found in the environment as a result of discharges from the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station are within international and national guidelines.

  Part of the area near Trawsfynydd falls within the designated area which is subject to controls on the movement and slaughter of sheep following the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. The Welsh Office monitors radioactivity levels in sheep from the area as part of those controls.

  Agricultural Training Board
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future funding and structure of the Agricultural Training Board for Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My ministerial colleagues and I are considering the funding and structure of the Agricultural Training Board in the light of the responses to our consultation paper.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the total number of residential properties owned by his Department, (b) the number of such properties which are empty, and (c), (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  (a) Properties/units1 owned by the Welsh Office

  4,904

  (b) Number of properties/units vacant

  389

  per cent.

  (c) (b) as a percentage of (a)

  7·93

  1 The figures included for the national health service are based on units and a property may contain more than one unit.

  Health Service
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the methods his Department used to allocate places to district health authorities at the treatment centres in the financial year 1991–92.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1991–92 the Department allocated an initial tranche of places to the district health authorities in which the treatment centres are located. The other authorities negotiated their places direct with the centres which agreed the final allocations with the Department.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what correspondence he has had with the World Health Organisation in relation to(a) NHS Wales's relative position in the European health care systems management efficiency league table and (b) the relative international position of Wales in 1980 and 1990 in respect of infant mortality rate, incidence of heart disease and cancer; if he will place a copy of such correspondence in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am not aware of a European league table of the efficiency of health care management.

  Correspondence with the regional office of the World Health Organisation on Wales' relative position in terms of key health status indicators, for inclusion in "Caring for the Future", was limited to short technical exchanges between statistical advisers.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will fund the treatment centres in Wales on the same basis in 1993–94 as in the current financial year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Health authorities will be notified of the funding arrangements for 1993–94 in due course.

  Butte Mining
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's actions in respect of investigations into share dealings in Butte Mining.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department is not involved in ally such investigations.

  Development Boards
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to debar members of the board of the Welsh Development Agency from sitting on the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will delete the section on Page iv of the Oral Health Protocol issued in November 1992 referring to co-ordinated action by family health service authorities and district health authorities in Wales to encourage fluoridation of water sources covering 60 per cent. of the Welsh population by 1997.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No.

  Baby Milk
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to change the guidelines on the distribution of welfare food baby milk; what consultations he has had with the chairmen and women of the family health service authorities and health authorities in Wales in relation to such guidelines, present and proposed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government are currently looking at methods of welfare food distribution to identify scope for improvement in service and value for money. We will consult relevant authorities and agencies before any changes are made to present arrangements.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps were taken to inform all recipients of mobility allowance under the age of 66 years of the new disability living allowance; and what instructions he has issued to adjudication officers in respect of late claims.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 November 1992, Official Report, c. 77]: I regret that some of the information given was incorrect.

  Since January 1992, tailored letters have been issued to some 1.5 million beneficiaries of attendance allowance and mobility allowance, giving advice about disability living allowance. These letters were in a series of 16, eight of which were designed for mobility allowance recipients and people who had been refused mobility allowance. The letters enclosed an explanatory leaflet which set out how the changes would affect individuals and, where appropriate, recipients were invited to claim extra benefit available through disability living allowance. Regulations allow awards of this extra benefit to be backdated to 6 April, if the person was entitled to attendance allowance or mobility allowance at that date.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to making mobility living allowance available to children under five years of age.
  670
  Mr. Scott
  We have considered this issue carefully. We have no plans to change the age limit for the mobility component of disability living allowance which is set at age five. The care component is, where appropriate, payable to under five-year-olds.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement indicating what advance notification was given to Mrs. S. Guest of 4 Clay road, Bury St. Edmunds of(a) when her son's attendance allowance had to be reviewed and (b) when it was to cease; and what advice she was given about how to reclaim the allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of Attendance Allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Richard Spring, dated 17 December 1992:
  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 asking what advance notification was given to Mrs.S. Guest of 4 Clay Road, Bury St. Edmunds of (a) when her son's Attendance Allowance (AA) had to be reviewed, (b) when it was to cease; and what advice she was given about how to reclaim the allowance.
  I should explain that, from 6 April 1992, Disability Living Allowance replaced and extended both Mobility Allowance and AA. Mrs. Guest claimed AA on behalf of her son and was notified of the duration of each award when the decision was made. About five months before the expiry of the last award Mrs. Guest was invited to make a renewal claim. This invitation included a set of notes explaining why the claim pack had been sent and how to complete the forms.
  Normally, Mrs. Guest would have been notified in writing of the outcome of the renewal claim before the expiry of the existing award. I regret, in this instance, Mrs. Guest was not notified until after the award expired. The notification letter advised Mrs. Guest she had the right to apply for a review of the decision if she was dissatisfied and how to exercise that right.
  Clearly, in view of the late notification of the outcome of the renewal claim, Mrs. Guest has not received the standard of service which she has every right to expect from the Agency and I offer my sincere apologies to her for the inconvenience this must have caused. You will be aware from my letter of 19 October to all MPs of the problems we have encountered since the successful launch of the new benefit and the positive steps taken to improve the situation.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report. A copy is also being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what criteria are used in the selection of doctors chosen to assess claimants of attendance allowance; what specific training they receive; and what remuneration they receive.

  Mr. Scott
  The selection, training and payment of doctors who assess claimants of attendance allowance are matters 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.
  671
  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. David Blunkett, dated 17 December 1992:
  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 asking what criteria are used in the selection of doctors chosen to assess claimants of Attendance Allowance; what specific training they receive; and what remuneration they receive.
  Examining Medical Practitioners (EMPs) chosen to assess people claiming Attendance Allowance or Disability Living Allowance are selected by the Senior Medical Officer of the Disability Benefits Centre which processes the claims. Applicants for this work are normally doctors in active clinical practice or recently retired. They are chosen on the basis of a letter of application from the doctor and a subsequent interview with the Senior Medical Officer. Due regard is also given to the need for the services of an EMP in the doctors particular area.
  Applicants are trained in the basic principles of the allowances and in the completion of EMP report forms by one of our Medical Officers. This training is usually carried out on a one to one basis. The standard of their reports is monitored by the medical staff, who arrange further training if necessary.
  Remuneration is based on a national scale agreed between the Treasury and the British Medical Association, and depends on the time required to complete the report as shown overleaf:

  £

  Up to and including 1·5 hours

  37·90

  More than 1·5 but less than 2 hours

  56·90

  More than 2·5 hours

  88·40

  Since all these examinations are carried out at the home of the customers the doctors are also paid a mileage allowance to cover their travelling expenses.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy is also being placed in the Library.

  Boarder Premium
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a breakdown of the estimate of the cost of a boarder premium of £10 for each member of a homeless family living in temporary accommodation without the use of self-contained cooking facilities.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available. There is no accepted definition of "self-contained cooking facilities" and no valid estimate of the total number of families in temporary accommodation that would allow the analysis sought. The published estimate was for £10 extra per week for each boarder claim unit. The cost of that is currently estimated to be around £45 million per annum; the cost of a £10 premium to each member of a boarder family would be considerably higher.

  Furnishings (Fire Safety)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer 6 November,Official Report, column 459, if he will publish the guidance issued to social fund officers in respect of the broad range of prices that would be considered reasonable for essential items of furniture compliant with foam furniture regulations.

  Mr. Scott
  The Secretary of State's directions, and his guidance to social fund officers are published in the Social Fund Guide, a copy of which is available in the Library.672
  This guidance encourages social fund officers to look at a broad range of prices offered by various suppliers, when considering the amount of an award.

  There is no guidance to social fund officers, either in the guide or elsewhere, which suggests specific amounts for items of furniture.

  Child Support
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will seek to amend the Child Support Act 1991 to make provision for single caring parents who do not wish to disclose the name of their child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Act already contains safeguards to ensure that if there would be a risk of harm or undue distress to the parent with care of any child living with her, she will not have to seek maintenance from the absent parent.

  The Government believe it right that a parent who has no such good grounds should be expected to co-operate so that the absent parent can be approached about meeting his responsibility to support his child. It is a widely accepted principle that parents should support their children when they can afford to do so, rather than transfer that responsibility to other taxpayers who may have families of their own to support.

  We have no plans to change our policy on this matter.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households are currently in receipt of(a) the disabled, (b) the child, (c) the carer's and (d) the enhanced pensioner premium.

  Mr. Scott
  Information as to the numbers of recipients of the disability, disabled child, carer and enhanced pensioner premiums is shown in the table below. The disabled child and carer premiums can be awarded in addition to other premiums. There is some overlap between housing benefit and community charge benefit recipients.

  Recipients (thousands)

  Premium

  Income Support1

  Housing Benefit2

  Community Charge Benefit2

  Disability Premium

  375

  163

  217

  Disabled Child Premium

  22

  2

  4

  Carer Premium

  28

  6

  10

  Enhanced Pensioner Premium

  243

  226

  402

  1Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry May 1991.

  2Source: Housing Benefit and Community Charge Management Information System annual 1 per cent. sample for May 1991.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total number of people claiming and dependent on income-related benefits in 1979 and 1991, broken down into the relevant benefits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information is in the tables. The figures cannot be added together as a claimant could be receiving more than one benefit. Comparisons between 1979 and 1991 are difficult; the basis of assessment changed substantially during the period.
  673

  (a) Number of claimants, partners and dependents receiving income-related benefits

  Thousands

  1979

  1991

  Income support

  14,371

  7,747

  Family credit

  2301

  1,267

  (b) Housing benefit/Community charge benefit (1991–92 only)

  Benefit

  Average number of cases3

  Housing benefit

  4,120

  Community charge benefit

  6,340

  1 Supplementary benefit.

  2 Family income supplement.

  3 1991–92 only.

  Notes:

  1. All figures in thousands, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Figures quoted in table (b) (Housing benefit and Community charge benefit) are for recipients only, information is not available for totals dependent on these benefits.

  3. No information is available for Housing benefit/Community charge benefit in 1979 as the current Housing benefit scheme did not commence until 1988 and Community charge benefit was not introduced until 1990 (1989 in Scotland).

  Sources:

  Table (a) Supplementary benefit/Income support; Annual Statistical Enquiries, 1979 and 1991; Social Security Statistics, 1980 and 1991.

  Table (b) Averages of four quarters caseload information for 1991–92, including estimates for non-responding local authorities.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the proportion of people claiming and dependent on supplementary benefit or income support in 1979 and 1991 in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table. Comparison between income support and supplementary benefit are difficult since the conditions of entitlement and the basis of the assessments.

  (A) Percentage of population in Scotland receiving supplementary benefit/income support

  (B) Percentage of population in Great Britain receiving supplementary benefit/income support

  1979

  8·67

  7·99

  1991

  15·78

  13·82

  Notes:

  Source: Supplementary Benefit/Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries 1979 and 1991; Office of Population Censuses and Surveys 1979 and 1991.

  2. The figures in column (b) of the table relate to Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for statistics relating to the province.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the numbers and proportion of children in families on supplementary benefit in 1979 and income support in 1991 broken down into England, Scotland and Wales.
  674
  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table:

  Country

  Number of Children

  Proportion of Population (per cent.)

  1979

  England

  757

  6·62

  (Supplementary Benefit)

  Scotland

  109

  8·09

  Wales

  57

  8·21

  1991

  England

  1,998

  19·42

  (Income Support)

  Scotland

  239

  21·97

  Wales

  131

  20·89

  Notes

  1. Figures are thousands rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Sources:

  Supplementary Benefit statistics annual enquiry May 1979.

  Income Support statistics annual enquiry May 1991.

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys 1979 and 1991.

  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of claimants on(a) income support and (b) housing benefit as a proportion of the population in each local authority in England, Wales and Scotland.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 11 December 1992]: Income support information is not available in the form requested. The available information relating to housing benefit is in the tables:

  Proportion of households in receipt Housing Benefit (HB) by Local Authority in Great Britain1

  per cent.

  Adur

  11

  Allerdale

  17

  Alnwick

  17

  Amber Valley

  12

  Arun

  10

  Ashfield

  16

  Ashford

  13

  Aylesbury Vale

  9

  Babergh

  12

  Barking

  25

  Barnet

  11

  Barnsley

  25

  Barrow in Furness

  15

  Basildon

  18

  Basingstoke

  9

  Bassetlaw

  16

  Bath

  18

  Benvick-upon-Tweed

  17

  Beverley

  7

  Bexley

  10

  Birmingham

  25

  Blaby

  5

  Blackburn

  19

  Blackpool

  18

  Blyth Valley

  23

  Bolsover

  20

  Bolton

  19

  Boothferry

  13

  Boston

  17

  Bournemouth

  21

  Bracknell

  11

  Bradford

  18

  Braintree

  13

  Breckland

  12

  Brent

  18

  Brentwood

  9

  Bridgnorth

  11

  Brighton

  24

  Bristol

  20

  Broadland

  7

  Bromley

  10

  675

  per cent.

  Bromsgrove

  8

  Broxbourne

  10

  Broxtowe

  12

  Burnley

  17

  Bury

  13

  Calderdale

  16

  Cambridge

  17

  Camden

  29

  Cannock Chase

  17

  Canterbury

  13

  Caradon

  11

  Carlisle

  17

  Carrick

  13

  Castle Morpeth

  13

  Castle Point

  6

  Charnwood

  11

  Chelmsford

  11

  Cheltenham

  16

  Cherwell

  10

  Chester

  16

  Chester le Street

  20

  Chesterfield

  21

  Chichester

  14

  Chiltern

  7

  Chorley

  11

  Christchurch

  10

  City of London

  26

  Cleethorpes

  12

  Colchester

  11

  Congleton

  8

  Copeland

  17

  Corby

  22

  Cotswold

  10

  Coventry

  19

  Craven

  9

  Crawley

  15

  Crewc and Nantwich

  13

  Croydon

  13

  Dacorum

  12

  Darlington

  17

  Dartford

  13

  Daventry

  10

  Derby

  18

  Derbyshire Dales

  9

  Derwentside

  27

  Doncaster

  20

  Dover

  14

  Dudley

  18

  Durham

  20

  Ealing

  16

  Easington

  32

  East Cambridgeshire

  12

  East Devon

  10

  East Dorset

  7

  East Hampshire

  8

  East Hertfordshire

  9

  East Lindsey

  12

  East Northampton

  11

  East Staffordshire

  11

  East Yorkshire

  13

  Eastbourne

  16

  Eastleigh

  10

  Eden

  8

  Ellesmere Port

  15

  Elmbridge

  9

  Enfield

  14

  Epping Forest

  13

  Epsom and Ewell

  7

  Erewash

  14

  Exeter

  16

  Fareham

  6

  Fenland

  14

  Forest Heath

  10

  Forest of Dean

  10

  Fylde

  9

  Gateshead

  31

  Gedling

  10

  Gillingham

  10

  676

  per cent.

  Glanford

  9

  Gloucester

  16

  Gosport

  14

  Gravesham

  15

  Great Yarmouth

  18

  Greenwich

  22

  Grimsby

  23

  Guildford

  10

  Hackney

  33

  Halton

  23

  Hambleton

  10

  Hammersmith

  25

  Harborough

  7

  Haringey

  39

  Harlow

  23

  Harrogate

  9

  Harrow

  9

  Hart

  6

  Hartlepool

  29

  Hastings

  18

  Havant

  6

  Havering

  11

  Hereford

  18

  Hertsmere

  12

  High Peak

  13

  Hillingdon

  11

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  8

  Holderness

  10

  Horsham

  9

  Hounslow

  11

  Hove

  16

  Huntingdon

  9

  Hyndburn

  13

  Ipswich

  18

  Isles of Scilly

  9

  Islington

  31

  Kennet

  12

  Kensington and Chelsea

  19

  Kerrier

  13

  Kettering

  13

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  34

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  10

  Kingswood

  8

  Kirklees

  16

  Knowsley

  36

  Lambeth

  30

  Lancaster

  15

  Langbaurgh

  22

  Leeds

  22

  Leicester

  23

  Leominster

  10

  Lewes

  9

  Lewisham

  34

  Lichfield

  9

  Lincoln

  26

  Liverpool

  39

  Luton

  14

  Macclesfield

  9

  Maidstone

  10

  Maldon

  9

  Malvern Hills

  10

  Manchester

  46

  Mansfield

  20

  Medina

  19

  Melton

  9

  Mendip

  12

  Merton

  14

  Mid Bedfordshire

  9

  Mid Devon

  12

  Mid Suffolk

  10

  Mid Sussex

  9

  Middlesbrough

  32

  Milton Keynes

  13

  Mole Valley

  9

  New Forest

  9

  Newark

  13

  Newbury

  8

  Newcastle under Lyme

  14

  677

  per cent.

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  34

  Newham

  35

  North Bedfordshire

  11

  North Cornwall

  12

  North Devon

  16

  North Dorset

  10

  North East Derby

  16

  North Hertfordshire

  14

  North Kesteven

  9

  North Norfolk

  11

  North Shropshire

  11

  North Tyneside

  27

  North Warwickshire

  13

  North West Leicester

  12

  North Wiltshire

  10

  Northampton

  15

  Northavon

  8

  Norwich

  31

  Nottingham

  32

  Nuneaton

  14

  Oadby and Wigston

  6

  Oldham

  21

  Oswestry

  14

  Oxford

  25

  Pendle

  13

  Penwith

  15

  Peterborough

  19

  Plymouth

  21

  Poole

  10

  Portsmouth

  24

  Preston

  20

  Purbeck

  9

  Reading

  15

  Redbridge

  11

  Redditch

  16

  Reigate and Banstead

  9

  Restormel

  13

  Ribble Valley

  6

  Richmondshire

  10

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  11

  Rochdale

  19

  Rochester on Medway

  13

  Rochford

  8

  Rossendale

  17

  Rother

  9

  Rotherham

  22

  Rugby

  11

  Runnymede

  10

  Rushcliffe

  9

  Rushmoor

  12

  Rutland

  8

  Ryedale

  7

  Salford

  32

  Salisbury

  13

  Sandwell

  28

  Scarborough

  15

  Scunthorpe

  21

  Sedgefield

  27

  Sedgemoor

  13

  Sefton

  17

  Selby

  9

  Sevenoaks

  10

  Sheffield

  29

  Shepway

  14

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  12

  Slough

  16

  Solihull

  13

  South Bedfordshire

  11

  South Buckinghamshire

  9

  South Cambridgeshire

  9

  South Derbyshire

  10

  South Hams

  10

  South Herefordshire

  9

  South Holland

  11

  South Kesteven

  14

  South Lakeland

  9

  South Norfolk

  10

  South Northants

  9

  678

  per cent.

  South Oxfordshire

  9

  South Ribble

  9

  South Shropshire

  12

  South Somerset

  16

  South Staffordshire

  10

  South Tyneside

  33

  South Wight

  11

  Southampton

  19

  Southend on Sea

  14

  Southwark

  28

  Spelthorne

  8

  St. Albans

  9

  St. Edmundsbury

  12

  St. Helens

  21

  Stafford

  11

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  7

  Stevenage

  19

  Stockport

  13

  Stockton on Tees

  21

  Stoke on Trent

  19

  Stratford-on-Avon

  10

  Stroud

  10

  Suffolk Coastal

  9

  Sunderland

  30

  Surrey Heath

  6

  Sutton

  12

  Swale

  12

  Tameside

  19

  Tamworth

  18

  Tandridge

  8

  Taunton Deane

  14

  Teesdale

  12

  Teignbridge

  11

  Tendring

  9

  Test Valley

  10

  Tewkesbury

  9

  Thamesdown

  13

  Thanet

  14

  The Wrekin

  20

  Three Rivers

  11

  Thurrock

  17

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  11

  Torbay

  14

  Torridge

  11

  Tower Hamlets

  40

  Trafford

  11

  Tunbridge Wells

  10

  Tynedale

  12

  Uttlesford

  8

  Vale of White Horse

  8

  Vale Royal

  12

  Wakefield

  23

  Walsall

  25

  Waltham Forest

  18

  Wandsworth

  24

  Wansbeck

  27

  Wansdyke

  10

  Warrington

  16

  Warwick

  13

  Watford

  13

  Waveney

  17

  Waverley

  10

  Wealden

  6

  Wear Valley

  25

  Wellingborough

  16

  Welwyn Hatfield

  16

  West Devon

  11

  West Dorset

  11

  West Lancashire

  20

  West Lindsey

  13

  West Norfolk

  13

  West Oxfordshire

  9

  West Somerset

  14

  West Wiltshire

  11

  Westminster

  21

  Weymouth and Portland

  15

  Wigan

  19

  Winchester

  12

  679

  per cent.

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  11

  Wirral

  19

  Woking

  9

  Wokingham

  5

  Wolverhampton

  28

  Woodspring

  10

  Worcester

  15

  Worthing

  10

  Wychavon

  10

  Wycombe

  9

  Wyre

  8

  Wyre Forest

  13

  York

  19

  Aberconwy

  14

  Alyn and Deeside

  13

  Arfon

  23

  Blaenau Gwent

  27

  Brecknock

  12

  Cardiff

  22

  Carmarthen

  13

  Ceredigion

  13

  Colwyn

  16

  Cynon Valley

  21

  Delyn

  16

  Dinefwr

  14

  Dwyfor

  15

  Glyndwr

  14

  Islwyn

  18

  Llanelli

  20

  Lliw Valley

  17

  Meirionnydd

  14

  Merthyr Tydfil

  29

  Monmouth

  11

  Montgomery

  11

  Neath

  20

  Newport

  24

  Ogwr

  17

  Port Talbot

  23

  Preseli

  17

  Radnor

  12

  Rhondda

  19

  Rhuddlan

  17

  Rhymney Valley

  24

  South Pembrokeshire

  17

  Swansea

  23

  Taff-Ely

  17

  Torfaen

  24

  Vale of Glamorgan

  15

  Wrexham Maelor

  21

  Ynys Mon

  18

  Aberdeen

  19

  Angus

  17

  Annandale and Eskdale

  16

  Argyll-Bute

  19

  Badenoch

  16

  Banff and Buchan

  16

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  6

  Berwickshire

  16

  Caithness

  18

  Clackmannan

  37

  Clydebank

  36

  Clydesdale

  20

  Cumbernauld

  26

  Cumnock and Doon

  30

  Cunninghame

  26

  Dumbarton

  23

  Dundee

  32

  Dunfermline

  21

  East Kilbride

  19

  East Lothian

  21

  Eastwood

  5

  Edinburgh

  22

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  14

  Falkirk

  25

  Glasgow

  42

  Gordon

  9

  Hamilton

  28

  Inverclyde

  31

  680

  per cent.

  Inverness

  24

  Kilmarnock

  28

  Kincardine and Deeside

  7

  Kirkcaldy

  26

  Kyle and Carrick

  21

  Lochaber

  19

  Midlothian

  16

  Monklands

  38

  Moray

  16

  Motherwell

  33

  Nairn

  16

  Nithsdale

  17

  North East Fife

  25

  Orkney

  11

  Perth and Kinross

  15

  Renfrew

  25

  Ross and Cromarty

  19

  Roxburgh

  18

  Shetland

  12

  Skye and Lochalsh

  15

  Stewartry

  14

  Stirling

  21

  Strathkelvin

  14

  Sutherland

  17

  Tweeddale

  14

  West Lothian

  23

  Western Isles

  11

  Wigtown

  25

  1 Percentages for England and Wales refer to 1990;

  Scottish figures refer to 1991.

  Sources:

  Caseload figures from Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit Management Information System caseload counts for 1990 and 1991, including estimates for non responding authorities.

  Number of Households from the Building Research Establishment and the Scottish Office.

  Homelessness
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that housing benefits and income support is available to homeless people using half-way houses.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Homeless people are entitled to income support, and to housing benefit when they find accommodation and incur a liability to pay rent. Housing benefit is also available on the same basis to people who secure temporary or permanent housing.

  Eating Out Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of re-introducing the eating out allowance, at the level payable in 1989, for the financial year 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is not possible to produce a reliable estimate from the data available.

  War Pension Scheme
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations his Department has received about the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's announcement of 12 November about the introduction of a threshold for noise-induced hearing impairment into the war pension scheme; what replies have been sent; what action is being taken; what
  681
  consultation there was prior to the press announcement with the Royal British Legion and other ex-service organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Consultation over the package of proposals, involving a threshold for noise induced hearing loss and an increase in war disablement pensions, commenced after the announcement of 12 November 1992. Since then, several letters have been received from representatives of the ex-service organisations. Full and careful account has been taken of the comments made in those letters, and of the comments made on 3 December during discussions of the proposals at the meeting of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions. As announced in my reply of 17 December 1992,Official Report, column 369–70, after full consideration, we have concluded that they are in the best interests of war pensioners and are proceeding with them. My noble Friend Lord Henley has written to members of the central advisory committee and others representing the interests of war pensioners, advising them of our decision.

  Compensation Payments
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much compensation has been paid to social security claimants in the current year for late payment of benefit, for benefit interruptions, or in ex-gratia payments.

  Mr. Burt
  During the six-month period ending 30 September 1992, a total of £1,499,236 was disbursed as ex-gratia payments, of which £1,113,367 represented compensation payments. The records kept do not distinguish between payments made for delay in payment of benefit and payments made for interruption of benefit.

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

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is estimated1 that 61 per cent. of single pensioners2 had an income of less than £5,000 per year in 1988 (the latest available date).

  1 Family Expenditure Survey 1988.

  2 Based on pensioner units—i.e., single people over state pension age and couples where the husband is aged 65 or over, regardless of whether they are drawing state pension.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the numbers and proportion of people who fell below 50 per cent. of average income before and after housing costs in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in 1979 and in 1988–89.

  Mr. Burt
  Reliable information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information for the United Kingdom as a whole is available in Households Below Average Income: a Statistical Analysis 1979–1988–89 (HMSO 1992), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Share Fishermen
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will allow share fishermen to sign on for unemployment benefit by postal slips; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Postal signing is offered to all claimants who would find it difficult to attend their local benefit office regularly.

  The Employment Service, which administers the scheme on behalf of the Secretary of State for Social Security, has issued guidelines to local offices describing the circumstances in which this facility should be offered. People who live more than six miles from their local benefit office, people with disabilities who would suffer hardship through regular attendance, and people who live in areas where local transport is inadequate, can all be excused from regular attendance. We have no plans to offer postal signing to any specific occupational group.

  Carers
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he proposes to review the present qualifying roles for the carer premium.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend payment of invalid care allowance for a period beyond the time that a person's caring responsibilities come to an end.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers he expects to benefit from changes to invalid care allowance and carer premium from next April; and at what cost.

  Mr. Scott
  All carers currently in receipt of invalid care allowance and the carer premium will benefit from the uprating of benefits which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 12 November 1992.

  We expect a further 3,000 carers to benefit from the increase in the invalid care allowance earnings limit at a cost of £3 million.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current annual cost of benefits for carers.

  Mr. Scott
  We estimate that the cost of invalid care allowance for the year 1992–93 will be £301 million. Separate figures are not held on the cost of the carer premium.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend eligibility for invalid care allowance to carers providing care and support for someone in receipt of the lower care component of disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  The purpose of invalid care allowance is to provide a measure of financial assistance to those who forego the opportunity of full-time work to provide regular and substantial care to a severely disabled person. It is doubtful whether a person receiving the lower rate care component of disability living allowance would require such substantial care.
  683
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for increasing the level of take-up of the carer premium on means tested benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  The carer premium is already well-publicised in a number of ways and we continually monitor the provision of information about benefits. Information about the whole range of premiums is given in a number of leaflets about income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit. In addition specific information about the carer premium is contained in leaflet FB31 (Caring for someone?), which has been well received by carers and their organisations, in the ICA claim pack and award notices and in the income support claim pack.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has further to improve financial support for carers.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend, the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 12 November 1992 at columns 906–24 and, in particular cols 910–11.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to increase the basic rate of invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 12 November 1992 at columns 906–24. Apart from this, we have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in implementing the specific improvements in financial support for carers proposed by the fifth report from the House of Commons Social Services Committee of 1989–90, "Community Care: Carers" (HC 410).

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government's reply to the report was contained in "The Government's Plans for the Future of Community Care" (Cm 1343) a copy of which is in the Library.

  Income Support
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account he takes of fluctuations in interest rates paid to savers on the notional income received by income support claimants with savings.

  Mr. Burt
  Treatment of notional income support claimants is designed to give most help to people with the least savings. The formula is not linked to, nor is it meant to imply, any particular rate of return which would be secured from investment.

  Consequently, while the formula is kept under review, it would not be appropriate to amend it to reflect directly fluctuations in interest rates paid to savers.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he replied to a letter from the European Commissioner responsible for Social Affairs and Employment in connection with the United Kingdom's obligations under European Council directive (EEC) 80/987; and if he will make a statement.
  684
  Miss Widdecombe
  The United Kingdom Government responded on 11 September 1992 to a letter from the Director General of the European Commission's Directorate-General for Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs about European Council Directive 80/987. We believe the Government have done all that is required to comply with this directive.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the total number of residential properties owned by his Department, (b) the number of such properties which are empty, and (c), (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are 18 properties on the Department's estate which could be described as residential properties. Three of these properties are empty: 16.7 per cent. of the total.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will amend company pension fund law so as to oblige companies suspending employer contributions to suspend employee contributions for a parallel period;

  (2) if he will make it an offence under company pension fund law to suspend company employer contributions without full consultations with all employees;

  (3) what proposals he has to amend company pension fund law to assist the transfer of small company pension funds, in the event of receivership, to larger ongoing pension funds;

  (4) if he will make it a criminal offence under company pension fund law to deduct employee pension contributions and fail to transfer them into the pension fund;

  (5) what proposals he has for changes in company pension fund law to protect the pension rights of employees, where their contributions were deducted from wages, but not transferred with the pension fund in the event of receivership; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 8 June 1992 that a pension law review committee was being set up to carry out a wide ranging review of the framework of law and regulation within which occupational pension schemes operate. Questions relating to securing pension rights are fundamental to that review, and we have no proposals for amendments to legislation that might preempt the committee's report. Protections exist in employment protection legislation for unpaid contributions to occupational pension schemes, up to certain limits, where the employer is insolvent.

  Arachnoiditis
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to which benefits sufferers of arachnoiditis may be entitled; and what steps are being taken to publicise such eligibility.

  Mr. Scott
  A wide range of benefits is available to sick and disabled people, including sufferers of arachnoiditis, provided they meet the conditions of entitlement. Information about eligibility to benefits is made widely
  685
  available by the Benefits Agency in a variety of forms including leaflets and various confidential free telephone advice lines.

  National Welsh Bus Company
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set up an inquiry into the administration of the company pension fund of the National Welsh Bus Company.
  686
  Miss Widdecombe
  An independent trustee has been appointed to the National Welsh Omnibus scheme, as required by the Social Security Act 1990, and is taking the steps necessary to safeguard the pension position of members.