Sitting of 26 July 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    LEEDS SUPERTRAM BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.

    CITIBANK INTERNATIONAL BILL [Lords]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Bill to be read the Third time on Tuesday 19 October.

    UNIBANK BILL [Lords]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Bill to be read the Third time on Tuesday 19 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Ferry Safety
    Mr. Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in the European Transport Council on the issue of ferry safety.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I told the Transport Council last month that we are committed to applying higher standards of ferry stability. Since then, we have made good progress in reaching a draft agreement with other member states, and with Norway and Sweden, to achieve these higher standards for ferries in north-west European waters.
    Mr. Ward: My right hon. Friend will be aware that some of the best ferry services in the country sail from the port of Poole. Is he satisfied that our European partners are coming up to the standards that we require? What pressure is he bringing to bear on them to ensure that safety measures are brought into operation as quickly as possible?
    Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend will know, the ideal is to achieve higher standards through the International Maritime Organisation, and we have been doing a great deal to try to do that in that forum. However, we were disappointed with the progress there, so for some considerable time I have been discussing with our European partners in the EC the possibility of introducing these higher standards in north-west European waters, failing ability to reach agreement in the IMO. I am delighted to say that large numbers of members of the Community, and Norway and Sweden, have joined us in this. I hope at a meeting tomorrow to finalise agreement, and I am grateful for their co-operation.
    Ms Walley: Any improvements in SOLAS 90 ferry stability standards are most welcome, but I must tell the Secretary of State that many families preparing to go on their summer holidays, whether they sail from Poole, Ramsgate or the Dover ports—or anywhere else—want to know that the highest safety standards have been agreed.
    As for the IMO, it is the Government's own port state control inspections that are crucial. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he will not go ahead with the deregulation of the Surveyor General's office? In effect, that would lead to lower standards while the rest of Europe attempts to achieve common standards of safety inspection.
    Mr. MacGregor: I disagree entirely with the hon. Lady's point about the Surveyor General's office. We have been playing a leading part in the European Community on port state inspections and achieving stricter standards for them. We have been making a good deal of progress and we reached agreement on the way forward at the last Transport Council.
    Ferry stability is a different question. Of course I agree that we must have the highest standards of ferry stability. We already have high standards in this country and we want to make them higher still. We are getting a lot of co-operation from our European partners. At the Anglo-French summit this morning, I discussed this very point with my French opposite number, Mr. Bosson. We reached agreement and I am grateful for his support.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are doing all in their power to ensure that Dover ferries may earn the reputation of being the safest ferries in the world? Will he also confirm that many millions of people can safely go on holiday this year using the wonderful ferries of Dover and have a marvellous time?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. With the building of new ferries, there is increasingly the opportunity for even higher standards. The SOLAS 90 argument is to get the higher standards applied to the older ferries. It is already happening and the agreement, which I hope we shall reach tomorrow, will be a further significant step in that direction.
    Mr. Skinner: As, I assume, a legitimate member of the Cabinet, will the Secretary of State assure us that, when the channel tunnel opens, he will not allow the ferry companies to cut costs and put safety back on the agenda in a more serious way? Will he tell every member of the Cabinet that, when it comes to protecting the safety of passengers, he will not let the bastards grind him down?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman was so busy contriving his question that he failed to listen to earlier answers. If he had been listening, he would have realised that with our relevant Community partners—in this case, those in the north-west European waters—we have gone a long way to reaching an agreement on higher standards and I hope that we shall achieve that agreement tomorrow.

    Gyratory System (Catford)
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when work is expected to commence on site on the A205 Catford town centre gyratory system; and

    733
    whether the directorate of environmental services of Lewisham council will be permitted to compete for the design contract.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Subject to satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures, the work is currently programmed to begin in spring 1995. Competitive tenders have been invited for the design contract. Under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, local authorities such as Lewisham are not empowered to compete in this way for work offered by the Department.
    Mr. Dowd: I thank the Minister for his answer. On the final point, will he confirm that the timetable for the consultants has been rigged to prevent local authorities from tendering, because the date has been set before the EC directive, which would outlaw such discrimination, comes into effect?
    I also thank the hon. Gentleman for the decision on another south-east London road scheme—that at Oxleas wood—and hope that it marks a change in the Department's thinking, away from schemes for roads that nobody wants and towards those which everyone wants. The south circular, the A205, falls into the latter category. Will he confirm that there have been five start dates since the scheme was inherited fully formed from the Greater London council in 1986 and that, if the entirely unnecessary trunking of the south circular had not taken place, the people of south-east London and south circular users would have benefited from the improvement many years ago?
    Mr. Norris: If I followed all that, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commendation for my right hon. Friend's announcement that we will re-examine the east London river crossing to ensure a better environmental outcome. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are undertaking that work at the moment. As for the ability of the local authority to tender for the scheme, I suggest that no ulterior motive is involved. It is clear that, under the 1970 Act, this is not the type of work for which a publicly subsidised local authority should tender. I regard that as not only a wholly unexceptionable principle but one to which it would be sensible to continue to adhere.
    Mr. Dunn: Any works undertaken in Catford are bound to have a huge impact on the flow of commuter traffic from north-west Kent and south-east London into the centre of London. Will my hon. Friend assure me that every step will be taken at all times to minimise traffic dislocation to my commuters from Dartford, especially during the works?
    Mr. Norris: I will indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Department tries, whenever possible, when major works are being undertaken, to take account of the effects on other parts of the region. I will certainly take my hon. Friend's words to heart.

    Ashford International Station
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on the building of a new Ashford international railway station with related works.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I expect the railway works for the Ashford international passenger station to commence in October. The time scale for construction of the station buildings is a matter for the private sector promoter. I hope that work will begin in the first half of next year and that the new station will open by October 1995.
    Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information, since the opening of the Ashford international station will benefit my constituents in Hastings and Rye. Does he know that there are rumours that the Hastings-Ashford line may be closed? Will he scotch that rumour once and for all and confirm that the electrification of that line will go ahead?
    Mr. Freeman: I can assure my hon. Friend that no Minister has received any indication that the line is likely to close. Therefore, I can confirm that, as far as we are concerned, the line will remain open. It is an important and valuable line.
    I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that British Rail and the Department of Transport are in discussion with the private sector about its participation in electrification—not only of that line, but of the west coast main line—that will mean that we can accomplish those important infrastructure works faster than would otherwise be possible.
    Dr. Howells: Will the Minister realise that there is a problem not only in constructing the Ashford international railway station, but in getting there if one travels from any of the regions? Many passengers in Wales, for example, would like to travel to Paris and Brussels via the international link, but can travel direct only if they leave at 2 o'clock in the morning. What will the Minister do to spare us the delights of having to travel round the Circle line in London?
    Mr. Freeman: As the hon. Gentleman will know, some of the trains on the Great Western railway route will travel directly to Waterloo international station. If he has not seen the impressive new station, I strongly recommend that he does so and that he commends its use to his constituents.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a meeting last week at which the future of the railway lines through Ashford was discussed and that Union Rail failed to provide the necessary information for the basis of that meeting until 24 hours before?
    Union Rail has a similar meeting in my constituency on Wednesday and has so far failed to provide any of the information required. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if there are to be meetings with the public to try to explain the positions of the Government and Union Rail, the necessary material on which to base judgments must be made available beforehand?
    Mr. Freeman: I can assure my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends who have an involvement with the route plan for the channel tunnel rail link that we want Union Rail to conduct a proper consultation. At Maidstone last week, I undertook to write to all the local authorities and my hon. Friends by the end of the week, re-emphasising the rules of procedure under which Union Rail will be consulting, not only at Boxley and Ashford, but at other locations along the route.

    Rail Privatisation
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet representatives of the British Railways Board to discuss the privatisation of the railways; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: I meet the chairman and other British Rail representatives regularly and will be doing so again this week.
    Mr. Barnes: Most work on the railways has never been well paid, but at least it used to be secure and, after it, people received a pension. Is there to be a guarantee of job security in future and will there be a guarantee of the solvency of pensions when the dreaded day of rail privatisation arrives?
    Mr. MacGregor: We reached agrement with British Rail and with the British Rail pension trustees last week on the final arrangements in relation to a solvency guarantee, following pretty long discussions in which we dealt with all the other issues. Arrangements have been drawn up and I answered a parliamentary question on the subject last week. In a generous way, I think that that gives the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
    Mr. Channon: Before privatisation takes place, would my right hon. Friend agree that there are still many lines in Network SouthEast that require new rolling stock? Will he therefore strongly encourage the new leasing deals? Will he also comment on the prospects of Network SouthEast being allowed to lease trains for that purpose in the near future?
    Mr. Macgregor: As my right hon. Friend knows, a £150 million leasing deal, which was agreed and announced in the autumn statement last year, is currently out to tender, and BR will make its decision on it within the next two months. One of the possibilities there is for Network South East. I hope that we shall be able to continue that kind of arrangement in the future. As to privatisation, the opportunities for leasing will be substantial.
    Mr. Trimble: Will the Secretary of State assure me that the privatisation of railways will not prejudice investment in the west coast main line, which is of major importance to us in Northern Ireland, as the Larne-Lochryan-Carlisle route is the major route used to carry the commercial traffic of Northern Ireland—[Interruption.]
    Mr. MacGregor: I thought that other Opposition Members were also interested in the west coast main line —it is not just of interest to Northern Ireland. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no reason why privatisation should in any way adversely affect the proposals for the west coast main line. I hope that some of the preliminary work on that will start shortly. We are investigating also the possibility—we are out to consultancy on it at the moment—of involving the private sector in the construction and financing of the modernisation of the west coast main line.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend please note that there will be a warm welcome in Wales this week for his right hon. Friend the Minister of State when he travels with me on the heart of Wales line from Swansea to Shrewsbury? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say that that is a demonstration of the
    736
    commitment of the Government to socially necessary lines in rural areas, just like the central Wales line, and give lie to the fear that has been built up by Opposition Members that services of that kind, which are so essential in my constituency and other rural areas, will in some way be diminished by the Government's proposals?
    Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend is doing a great deal of travelling around the country and is making clear, as we shall in Wales and as we have made clear throughout, that the subsidies will continue for socially necessary lines. I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who is looking forward to his visit very much, will do so as well.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Secretary of State accept that there is absolutely no need for the spurious and divisive contest between the west coast main line and Network SouthEast and that it is perfectly well within the gift of Government to allow both rolling stock schemes to proceed under the leasing procedures, which they have belatedly acknowledged as feasible?
    Will the Secretary of State address himself also to the question of where the money is to come from to fund the profits that operators will look for under privatisation? Will he particularly address himself to the report by Price Waterhouse to BR, which has been commented on in today's Glasgow Herald, which shows that private investors are being encouraged to believe that they should seek a 30 per cent. return on their investment?
    Will the Secretary of State tell us, after many months of discussing those issues, where that 30 per cent. is to come from in a subsidised, loss-making railway system? It can come only from increased subsidy, which is clearly not the Government's intention, or from cuts in services, increasing fares and the loss of jobs. Would not the Secretary of State be doing his Back Benchers and his candidate in Christchurch a great favour if he were now to draw one of those famous lines in the sand and forget all about railway privatisation during the summer recess?
    Mr. MacGregor: I was in Christchurch recently and have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there was not a great deal of concern about railway privatisation, because the aasurances that I was able to give were clear. As to his other two questions, the leasing arrangement was feasible only because of the prospect of privatisation. It is only that which has made it possible. But, of course, one cannot do everything at once. One has to make choices among priorities. There must be a limit to the levels of public expenditure—it would be as well if the hon. Gentleman recognised that. As to the Price Waterhouse report, I have not yet seen it, let alone read the Glasgow Herald.
    Mr. Wilson: Here is the newspaper.
    Mr. MacGregor: I would rather read the Price Waterhouse report in full, if I may, and will certainly look at it.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that there will be considerable opportunities for franchisees through efficiency gains, better marketing, increasing passenger returns and so on. I would also tell him that the Price Waterhouse report is premature, because, until the Bill is given Royal Assent, we will not be going out positively seeking franchisees and marketing the opportunities. It is not possible to make such calculations at this stage.

    Regional Airports
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to strengthen and develop the role of regional airports.
    Mr. MacGregor: The Government are keen to see regional airports meeting all the demand that they can attract. We also wish to encourage much greater involvement of the private sector, including privatisation of local authority airports.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that many local regional airports such as Teesside remain unable to take full advantage of the new opportunities in freedom of air traffic movement, in particular around Europe, because they are shackled to local authorities, which lack the imagination and expertise to compete in a sophisticated market? Therefore, willl he give serious and urgent consideration to introducing measures to entice or compel local authorities to release those airports into the private sector, where they belong?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right on several counts. There are certainly big opportunities in Europe, not least with the third aviation package, the opening of the skies in Europe and the removal of so many controls. He is also right to say that regional airports have a big opportunity and to suggest that that is best seized in the private sector, as the British Airports Authority has done.
    I have been trying to encourage local authority airports to go in that direction, partly by the fact that, given all the other priorities for public expenditure, I have cut the amount of public expenditure available, knowing very well that the private sector can find the funds. This year, through the 100 per cent. capital receipts, we have also given encouragement for local authority airports to seize the opportunity.
    Mr. Snape: Is the Secretary of State aware of the newly announced twinning of Birmingham and Chicago? What support and encouragement can he offer to establish direct air services between those two cities?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am keen to do so and, in the discussions that I am having with the Secretary for Transport in the United States, on which I have embarked and which I will be pursuing further in September, I am seeking further liberalisation of routes from the United States to regional European United Kingdom airports. Indeed, I recently made an interim offer, which he was not able to accept but which involved further opportunities for regional airports. I shall have that in mind in the negotiations in which we are now involved.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the further expansion of small regional airports, such as Blackpool in my constituency, and in particular the fact that a number of extra air services have started this year, including a direct flight three times a week to and from Stansted and a third airline using Blackpool as the airport of entry from the Irish Republic?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I welcome the development of regional airports and we believe that airport development is something for the airport operators themselves. I am pleased to hear of the progress that Blackpool is making.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister accept that, if it had been left to the private sector, for Manchester airport there would be nothing there? That is a good example of the foresight of the Manchester city fathers and other local authorities, which have developed one of the best international airports in the country. Is it not grossly unfair for the Government to be robbing them of that asset just as the airport is proving to be such as success?
    Mr. MacGregor: There is no question of robbing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there has been massive Government investment in Manchester airport. The significant point now is that regional airports can, in the same way as London airport, raise their funds from the private sector because they are regarded as successful businesses. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noted that BAA, since privatisation, has put in a great deal more capital investment than was possible when it was in the public sector.
    Mr. Steen: Will the Secretary of State consider ring-fencing the flights from Heathrow to Plymouth? As he knows, the west country depends on the link between Heathrow, Plymouth and Newquay, so he would be doing it a great service if he would do something to protect the route. British Airways has taken it over, and nobody is certain that it will not give up the slot and use it for a more lucrative route.
    Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, I fully appreciate the importance of air services to the south-west, but we have discussed the difficulties of ring fencing particular slots. In that regard, I see British Airways acquisition of Brymon Airways as a reassuring development. I am pleased to note that British Airways has stated that it recognises the importance that the people of Devon and Cornwall place on their air link with Heathrow and looks forward to improving its communications with its international network there.

    Road Building
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department is proposing to spend on new road building during the next five years.
    Mr. MacGregor: The current public expenditure plans of my Department involve the spending of £4·1 billion on the construction of new motorways and trunk roads in the years 1993–94 to 1995–96. In the current year, we plan to spend £1·4 billion on building new motorways and trunk roads as part of this year's record expenditure of VA billion on national roads.
    Mr. Mullin: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision not to concrete over Oxleas Wood. Was it a one-off or the first step in a programme to prise his Department from the grip of the road lobby? If the Government are interested in making savings in public funds, is not their insane road building programme an obvious place to start?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not accept that it is an insane road building programme and, as I go round the country, the demands and requests that I receive are for building bypasses and improving the motorway network, on which the vast majority of people want us to put emphasis. Increasing emphasis is being placed on environmental issues. Having benefited from close proximity to a wood,

    739
    and knowing the importance of lungs, I believe strongly in trees and woods and lungs for London. I took my decision on Oxleas Wood on its merits. Nowadays, the Department of Transport puts heavy emphasis on all environmental aspects of the road programme.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey North-West (Sir M. Grylls) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) are today visiting the European Environment Commissioner to express the concern of many thousands of people in Surrey and elsewhere around London about the proposal to build link roads on the M25? To what extent is my right hon. Friend of the view that link roads work in harmony with local, district, county and regional plans and, indeed, with the Department of the Environment's Green Paper, which was published only last week and suggested that we should restrain traffic growth in the interests of the environment and of health?
    Mr. MacGregor: I think that they are consistent with regional plans and with the Department of the Environment's Green Paper, with which I was closely associated and with which I agree. We propose to hold a public inquiry next year on the proposed link road between the M3 and M4, which will have to look at the fact that doing nothing is not an option. Whatever restraint—motorway tolling or other measures—is put on the growth of traffic, there is no doubt that traffic on that section of the motorway, which is one of the most congested in the country, will continue to increase. Unless something is done, the danger is that a substantial amount of traffic will be diverted back to local roads, which will recreate the congestion and environmental disadvantages that the M25 was designed to remove.
    Mr. Harvey: Will the Minister confirm whether his Department is considering a network of 12 or 14-lane wide motorways, as speculated in some Sunday broadsheets, whose vivid diagrams almost went off the edge of the page and probably evaded the tabloids altogether? Is not he concerned about projected growth figures of 35 million vehicles by 2025, and how will that square with the commitments that the Government gave at Rio? Is not he concerned by reports linking asthma with car usage? Does not a point come when one has to say enough is enough and instead seek investment opportunities in the public transport network?
    Mr. MacGregor: Let me deal with a few of those points. First, I do not confirm the reports in the Sunday newspapers. We are talking about a three-lane link road on each side of the M25 on one section, and I have announced one other. The important point is that it is not just the M25 around London—preventing traffic coming into London—but a major arterial route between several other motorways. It is an exceptional part of the motorway network and, in my view, needed the type of proposals that we are putting forward to a public inquiry.
    We are taking a large number of steps to deal with environmental pollution. I am aware of the asthma research and look forward to seeing the results in 1994. The hon. Gentleman should not neglect the fact that allowing traffic to move freely also contributes to removing pollution from the atmosphere. If traffic is
    740
    congested and stays still, it is a major contributor to atmospheric pollution; we are taking many steps to put that right.
    Mr. Luff: When my right hon. Friend considers how much money to spend on investment in roads, will he consider the advantageous effect of a significant investment in local rolling stock on the railways in my constituency? Does he acknowledge that investment in the new Cotswold turbos between Worcester and London has led to a 26 per cent. improvement in revenue in the past two months on my local rail service, and will he bear that strongly in mind when considering the relative merits of road and rail investment?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is quite right and I am aware of all of that. However, when considering the problems on the M25 that we discussed earlier, one must realise that whatever one does on the railway system will not substantially reduce the increased amount of traffic likely to flow on that road.
    My hon. Friend mentions an important point, which enables me to emphasise yet again, particularly to those who argue that the Department of Transport is mainly concerned about roads, that 56 per cent. of the Department's spending is on roads, compared with 44 per cent. on public transport. Given that nine tenths of traffic goes by road, that shows that, if anything, we in the Department of Transport are skewing—relatively speaking—public expenditure favourably towards public transport.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that his Department's estimates mean that growth in use of the private motor vehicle will need a road to accommodate demand equivalent to a 275-lane motorway from London to Glasgow? Is not his proposal to increase the M25 to 14 lanes the down payment on that crazy policy? Will he conduct a fundamental review of the road programme that will encourage people to transfer to public rather than private transport, as the only way of dealing with congestion and environmental problems? I assure him that we will vigorously oppose his plans for the M25 through the summer and beyond.
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is free to put his points to the public inquiry that I have set up, but I have thoroughly considered the arguments and believe that there will continue to be a need for a substantial road building programme such as we envisage. I notice that the Opposition Front-Bench Members have decided on a wholesale review of the road building programme and the scrapping of some major projects. They fail to appreciate that the road programme is a vital part of our overall transport strategy. I believe that to halt our present plans is to ignore the needs of industry, to ignore the right of every person to choose how to make a journey and to ignore the fact that, as living standards improve, there will inevitably be growth in road traffic. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I said earlier, 44 per cent. of our current spending is on public transport.

    Biddulph, Staffordshire (Bypass)
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to include the Biddulph bypass in the highways capital programme for Staffordshire.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): It is up to Staffordshire county council to decide whether to include the Biddulph bypass scheme in its next bid for highway capital.
    Sir David Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Department considers the Biddulph bypass a very useful scheme? Is he aware that there is an urgent necessity for the bypass to reduce congestion, improve traffic safety and facilitate industrial development? As it will be on the list submitted next year, will he approve it?
    Mr. Key: I look forward to seeing the details of the scheme. It is important and I would only add to what my hon. Friend has said that I am sure that it would also be of enormous benefit to the people in Biddulph, on that very busy road between Stoke and Congleton, and that the environmental benefits will be substantial. Of course, it has featured in earlier Staffordshire transport policies and programme bids, but it has not so far been sufficiently advanced to be considered for transport supplementary grant. I will consider it very carefully and bear in mind the strong representations that my hon. Friend has made.
    Dr. Wright: Is the Minister aware that a route has been proposed for the Birmingham northern relief road—a privately funded toll road which, interestingly, has a form of tolling that the Government rejected in their Green Paper?
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are dealing with Staffordshire at the moment. [Interruption.]
    Dr. Wright: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Birmingham northern relief road passes through southern Staffordshire. Is he further aware—
    Madam Speaker: Order. You have a Speaker who knows the region very well. It is nowhere near that area: I know that.

    Bus Deregulation
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in the sale of bus companies outside London.
    Mr. Freeman: Seventeen of the original 53 local authority-owned bus companies outside London have been sold. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that interest in the sale of the remaining municipally-owned bus companies remains high.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sale of bus companies is good for employees—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is good for employees because it gives them the possibility to share in the ownership of their company, which is good Conservative policy. Despite all the nonsense spoken by the Opposition, Oxford is a good example of how things can go right when the principles are correctly put in place.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is not inclined to suggest taking those bus companies back into public ownership because lie knows very well that privatisation has been a success among management and employees.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what plans he has to monitor the performance of (a) the Comptroller and Auditor General and (b) the National Audit Office.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Public Accounts Commission considers the National Audit Office corporate plan in July each year. This year, it contained a chapter on NAO efficiency and performance overall, showed key performance measures—both targets and actual—and the impacts of NAO work, and recorded outcome against plan for the preceding financial year. The performance of the Comptroller and Auditor General in delivering more results with relatively fewer resources speaks for itself.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Chairman ensure that there is a full response to the most serious allegations about the Comptroller and Auditor General in the July edition of "Business Age" magazine? Saudi-related arms deals and the under-priced sale of Royal Ordnance are two of the scandals, and while he was at the Ministry of Defence the Comptroller is alleged to have audited himself. Is not the system wrong? Should not there be better performance monitoring of the auditor and his staff? As he can be removed only by the Queen and the two Houses of Parliament, is not the state auditor in thrall to the Head of the Government instead of being independent in law, as is the state auditor in other countries?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his supplementary question. The Comptroller and Auditor General has been to see me at his own request about these matters. I heard and accepted his explanation on each of the points made in that article. It is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, not the Government, who nominates the Comptroller and Auditor General. Secondly, the points made in that article can be and, I believe, in some cases have been investigated by the Public Accounts Committee, and could be again. Both the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and I have every confidence in the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is a devoted servant of the House.
    Mr. Wicks: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what plans the Commission has to increase National Audit Office expenditure on cost-benefit analysis.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what proportion of National Audit Office studies are cost efficiency reviews; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Peter Hordern: In 1992–93, the National Audit Office delivered 51 major value-for-money studies, which comprised about half the work of the NAO, and plans to continue deliveries at the same level in the future. The selection of topics for investigation is based on a systematic review of expenditure and value for money. The NAO's investigations employ cost-benefit analysis techniques where appropriate.
    Mr. Wicks: Does the Chairman of the Commission agree that while we know much about the cost of public

    743
    programmmes, we still know too little about their impact and benefits? Does he further agree that we need to know more about the impact of public investment on areas such as family policy and crime prevention?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Gentleman has a good point. The National Audit Office is doing far more value-for-money studies than it has done in the past, using the techniques that I have mentioned. I accept that there is always room for improvement. If the hon. Gentleman has specific points in mind, I hope that he will get in touch with me and I will see that they are directed to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, past work has been very helpful in identifying cost benefits in each of the reports produced. Has there yet been a benefit analysis of the delivery of public services across Greater London, comparing the time when there was a strategic authority with today, when that authority has been replaced by 33 local authorities? If no such analysis has been carried out, can the information be included in one of the forthcoming reports?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I will consider it. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me, I will take the matter up. If he is referring to the London residuary body, which is a matter of interest to him, the PAC has the right to call for papers and persons. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to follow that up, it could be a matter for the PAC to recommend that the C and AG investigate.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Health and Safety Training
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations he has received about health and safety training for staff of the House.
    Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): None.
    Mr. Spellar: That seems a fairly unsatisfactory reply. Would it not be more satisfactory if the health and safety matters of the House were brought under the auspices of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974? That would mean that such matters were properly covered and controlled by statute.
    Mr. Beith: Neither I nor the other Commissioners are responsible for the fact that representations are not made to us. The hon. Gentleman's question went wider than his original one. He raises a fair point about how effect can best be given to the general desire for health and safety requirements to be applied in the House. It is the Commission's policy that they should be applied. Discussions are taking place about the means to be used to give legislative effect to that policy.

    POLIS
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what measures are being taken to facilitate the provision of POLIS within Members' offices
    744
    via the parliamentary data and video network; and when the network will be extended to the Norman Shaw buildings.
    Mr. Beith: The parliamentary data and video network is at present available to Members on the lower floors of Millbank, and a small number of Members outside via a telephone link. The network has been authorised only as a pilot phase and is currently being reviewed by the Information Committee, which hopes to report later this year. Any plans to extend the network, including POLIS, to the Norman Shaw buildings, or elsewhere, will need to await approval of the service by the House following the report from the Information Committee and the provision of the necessary funds in the estimates.
    Mr. Fabricant: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his long and helpful answer. Does not he accept that the provision of POLIS to all Members of the House will help reduce the burden on our excellent Library and librarians? It will also help all Members of the House assist still further their constituents, including my own in Lichfield, Rugeley and Stone.
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes his case clearly. It was the kind of interest that he has shown which led to the approval by the Commission of the pilot project. It is on the basis of that pilot project that the House will be able to decide whether to extend the scheme and continue it.
    Mr. Olner: These new developments will obviously be welcomed in the Norman Shaw buildings, but there is a great deal to be done in this particular building. Many of the offices here only have an annunciator. It would be better to ensure that the facilities were more widely available to people in the House and to bring everyone up to a level standard.
    Mr. Beith: That is the approach which the Commission has taken. It was convenient to carry out the current pilot study in Millbank because new work was being done there. Any extension of it would have to be considered by the House as a whole, but I imagine the desire to see that the facility—if extended—is available to Members generally would weigh heavily with the Commission and the House.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an unlimited expansion of the use of POLIS would lead to a substantial increase in the demand on telephone services, bearing in mind that the databank is held remote from the House? Is not the financial implication of the expansion of POLIS part of the Information Committee's remit in assessing its acceptability to the House?
    Mr. Beith: Yes, it is. It will also be one of the Commission's concerns when any proposal is considered by the House. The final decision, however, will rest with the House.

    Health and Safety
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what breaches in the Palace of Westminster of the provisions of the health and safety Acts have been reported to the Commission.
    Mr. Beith: The Commission has received no such reports.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Is a specific Officer of the House responsible for health and safety? How can hon. Members who employ staff ensure that they are complying with the health and safety Acts when they have no control over the environment overall? Surely now is the time to end Crown immunity, so that the House is open to inspection by local environmental health officers.
    Mr. Beith: Each Department has its safety representatives, who carry out the necessary work in that Department. The removal of Crown immunity from these buildings was mentioned in an earlier question, and I expressed my willingness for that to happen, but it is a complicated legal process. Discussions are taking place; in the meantime, the Commission considers it important for the House to retain its policy of seeking to comply with the requirements placed on it by the legislation.

    Office Accommodation
    Mr. Wicks: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans the Commission has to increase office accommodation for hon. Members.
    Mr. Beith: Planning for the construction of the phase 2 building is progressing. The building will accommodate some 500 people, and will include sets of offices for 210 Members of Parliament and their staff. As an interim measure, the House has acquired the lease of a building at 7 Millbank. Once conversion work has been completed, that building will provide offices for some 115 Members and their staff. The upper floors of the building are expected to become available in stages between October 1993 and February 1994.
    Mr. Wicks: Does the Chairman of the Commission think that, in future, one body rather than two should allocate offices to both Members and their assistants or secretaries? My constituents are surprised when I tell them that my office is in Norman Shaw North, and that my assistant works in the Millbank building about 12 minutes away. Sometimes they say that, if we cannot run the House of Commons, it is not surprising that no one seems to be running the country.
    Mr. Beith: I am not the Chairman of the Commission, Madam Speaker; you are.
    The arrangements whereby parties use the accommodation allocated to them are normally settled within the parties. If those arrangements were put on a new footing, the parties would no doubt have to make representations to the Commission.

    Refreshment Department Account
    Mr. Steen: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the surplus on the Refreshment Department account in the last financial year; and what amount was carried forward from previous years.
    Mr. Beith: The Refreshment Department's income and expenditure account for the year ending 1 April 1993 showed an operating surplus of some £320,000, and a total
    746
    surplus—including interest—of £445,000. The accumulated surplus brought forward from previous years is £2·7 million. By decision of the Commission, that is being set aside as a reserve to provide funds for the capital improvement programme required by the Department.
    Mr. Steen: I understand that the House is to authorise the spending of about £19 million on updating the kitchens. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that money need not be spent on updating kitchens for good food to be provided? Would it not be a good idea to spend some of that surplus of nearly £3 million on improving the food in both the Members' Tea Room and the cafeterias? Could we not have some good west country dishes and some nice English wine? There are some wonderful west country recipes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has some splendid ideas for the kind of food that could be sold here.
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Catering Committee, and he doubtless provides such advice regularly. The Committee and the catering manager have never been short of advice from Members about delicacies from various parts of the country that could be included in our menus.
    Expenditure is necessary, however, both to comply with environmental health requirements and to ensure proper working conditions for staff. It is amazing that such good food has been provided from some outlets in the House where kitchen conditions are frankly not good enough.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that some of the money will be spent on improving conditions for staff? At present, the conditions are only slightly better than those operating in Victorian times. Surely, if we are to make laws about employment, the House of Commons is the first place where we should improve facilities for staff.
    Mr. Beith: Most certainly. That has been the policy of the Commission, and the Commission and the Catering Committee both want to see that policy continue.
    Mr. Cormack: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how much tripe has been served during the past year?
    Mr. Beith: Not without notice.

    Sub Judice Rule
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to bring forward proposals to amend the sub judice rule as it applies to discussions in the House.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have no such plans. That is primarily a matter for you, Madam Speaker. Any hon. Members who believe that the application of the sub judice rule in the House should be changed should refer their concerns to the Procedure Committee.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: My right hon. Friend's response may have been overtaken by the sad events of last week. Will the Lord President, in the new spirit of comradely friendship, offer his best wishes for good health and fortitude to Lord Rees-Mogg in the important battle for British freedom which he has now embarked upon?
    Mr. Newton: I hope that I have always approached my hon. Friend—a fellow Essex Member of Parliament—in a spirit of comradeship and friendship, despite our occasional disagreements. I fear, however, that he may be stretching the current spirit of goodwill just a little with the latter part of his question. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noted your ruling on Thursday, Madam Speaker, that you would not be applying the sub judice rule on that occasion.
    Mr. Cryer: The case that has been submitted by Lord Rees-Mogg is concerned with the application by Ministers of the proceeedings, and is not a criticism or attack on the House which would have been a quite different matter. Is not it important that Ministers are subject to a judicial review of their actions if they ignore legislation that has been passed by the House and try to corrupt that legislation to support the Maastricht treaty?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, in a way that is perhaps not unfamiliar, appears to be enticing me into something that may be in breach of the sub judice rules that are subject to your guidance, Madam Speaker. I have no intention of commenting further on the case, beyond saying that it appears to involve potentially complicated ingredients.

    Northern Ireland Select Committee
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he is now in a position to announce the formation of a Northern Ireland Select Committee; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: As the Government have made clear on a number of occasions, both in response to the Procedure Committee's 1990 report on the workings of the Select Committee system and on subsequent occasions, that is a matter which we continue to keep under review.
    Mr. Barnes: I do not know whether that answer will satisfy the Ulster Unionists who, are understood to have entered into a squalid deal with the Government in connection with the advance of their position within the House. There is a serious case for the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee, in that matters relating to Northern Ireland should be put under scrutiny through the House, and the present procedures do not provide for that.
    Should not the deal that was entered into have sought to persuade the Ulster Unionists to join the British-Irish parliamentary body, where they could have become involved in that body's scrutiny avenues and help in the establishment of a Northern Ireland Committee which the SDLP could be asked to join as well?
    Mr. Newton: The Government have always recognised that there is a case for the established of such a Committee. That is precisely why the Procedure Committee made observations on the matter, while acknowledging a number of difficulties, in its report of 1990. That is also why the Government have responded on a number of occasions in the way which I have repeated today.
    748
    The hon. Gentleman makes further allegations of what he chooses to describe as a squalid deal. I can do no better than repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in response to a question from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on 23 July. He said:
    "Nothing was asked for, nothing was offered and nothing was given."—[Official Report, 23 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 631.]
    Those sentiments have been repeated by Ulster Unionist Members.
    Mr. Bellingham: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-east (Mr. Barnes) may be aware that the Ulster Unionists have places on the British-Irish governing body, but they choose not to use those seats for the moment.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that a Select Committee for Northern Ireland is long overdue? Does he also agree that the arguments that that would somehow encourage integration are rotten arguments which should be ignored?
    Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend says. Rather than hearing talk of what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) described as a "squalid deal", the House might wish to be reminded of the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about how he saw the future government of Ireland. One need look little further for reasons why the Ulster Unionists might wish to support the Government.

    Recesses
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to vary the timing and length of parliamentary recesses.
    Mr. Newton: I have no such proposals, although I use my best endeavours to give as much notice as possible of recess dates. Those endeavours have not been so successful this year as I should have liked.
    Mr. Banks: Does the Lord President accept that, apart from the occasional Member of Parliament who has a Caribbean island, for most of us the summer recess will not be a holiday so much as a time to catch up on work that we had to put to one side during Maastricht? While I accept that the Government want to creep away and lick their post-Maastricht wounds, clearly we want to carry on the job of bringing them down, which we almost achieved last week. Does the Lord President accept that it would be better to even out our sittings over the year? While he is answering, will he tell us when we shall deal with the Jopling report?
    Mr. Newton: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question anticipates a question which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has tabled. The second part of his question was political rhetoric rather than a question. I disagree with what he said. In the spirit of comradeship and friendship in which we started these exchanges, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the first part of his question, which was about whether Members of Parliament would generally spend a large part of the recess doing work of other kinds.

Assisted Areas
3.30 pm
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's review of the assisted areas map. I had hoped to make the statement to the House last Friday, following approval from the European Commission on Thursday. But this was not possible because of other business. However, I signed the order giving effect to the new map on Friday and gave a written answer on the map. The order will come into effect on 1 August.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I wrote to all the right hon. and hon. Members to inform them of the effects of the new map on their constituencies. We also made available in the Vote Office a short document setting out how we carried out the review and the outcome.
The present assisted areas map dates from 1984. It is out of date. In June last year we issued a consultation document announcing a review, setting out the procedures and inviting representations during a period of public consultation. A list of submissions received was placed in the Library on Friday.
The map defines those parts of Great Britain which are eligible for schemes for regional assistance. Those schemes are designed to promote new investment and jobs—inward investment from both United Kingdom and foreign firms, as well as investment from existing firms in the area.
The new map represents the Government's assessment of those areas which now face structural unemployment problems. There are some major differences from the previous map. This is not surprising. Unemployment patterns have changed significantly. For example, unemployment in south-east England increased from 8·4 per cent. of the work force in 1984 to 10·1 per cent. for the year to June 1993. Several areas have seen their relative employment position improve markedly. Closures or manpower reductions at defence establishments or major defence suppliers have hit localities particularly hard. In other areas, known major job losses in prospect will have serious effects on the local economy.
We have addressed those issues in a comprehensive review. Measures of unemployment have been the major factor in our consideration. We have examined current rates, the record of unemployment in an area over the past five years and the pattern of long-term unemployment, as well as trying to gauge future need for new jobs in each travel-to-work area. We have also weighed carefully the arguments put to us in the consultation process.
Clearly all those factors could not be accommodated in an automatic statistical process. We have had to make judgments about the extent of the structural problems of an area, the strength of local economies and the present status of an area and its neighbouring areas. The methodology used in the review is set out in the background document. Copies of this are available to the public on request.
The new map covers 33·8 per cent. of the working population of Great Britain. That is a little less than the 35 per cent. covered by the previous map, but the coverage of development areas at 16 per cent. is slightly higher. The
750
map sets out those areas that we consider are in most need of assistance in Great Britain today and it includes many areas previously assisted.
The new map takes account of the level of unemployment in London. The inclusion of parts of Lea Valley, Park Royal and the London end of the east Thames corridor is a demonstration that the Government are fully aware of the serious unemployment problems in some London boroughs. In designating those parts of the capital, we sought to assist new investment in areas where there are substantial available sites and where infrastructure connections are good. Assisted area status will increase employment opportunities throughout the capital, but particularly in boroughs with the highest current unemployment rates.
Parts of the eastern and wider south-east regions are designated in the map. We have, for example, recognised the extremely high unemployment rates and structural problems currently faced by east Kent.
We recognised also the problems of some coastal towns —Great Yarmouth, Skegness and Hastings appear in the new map. Some areas previously heavily dependent on defence work face serious difficulties of adjustment. For that reason, Barrow and Weymouth, for example, come into the map while Fishguard and Haverfordwest are upgraded.
Substantial coverage in the east midlands and in Yorkshire will help coal closure areas with the task of regeneration. High unemployment in the west midlands is recognised by upgrading Wolverhampton and part of Birmingham.
The shape and overall coverage of the map for Scotland remains broadly unaltered. However, some adjustments to the status of individual travel-to-work-areas have been made to reflect changes in their relative circumstances.
While coverage in Wales has been reduced to reflect the relative improvement in unemployment levels in many parts of Wales, we took particular account of other policies and programmes of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—including the programme for the valleys and the west of Wales task force—as well as the position of north-east Wales in relation to other travel-to-work areas.
I recognise that there will be disappointment in areas failing to gain designation or losing assisted area status. We had difficult choices to make, but it is right to ensure that assistance is concentrated on those areas with the most serious problems.
As I said, the new map will come into operation on 1 August, so businesses that have been engaged in pre-application discussions with Departments under the various regional schemes will have an opportunity to complete formal application procedures before the changes take effect. Offers that have already been made will of course be honoured.
I emphasise that there is no direct connection between the assisted areas map and the structural funds maps. Those regions that are designated as assisted areas in the United Kingdom have no automatic right to objective 2 or 5(b) status under structural funds. Now that the structural funds regulations have been adopted, the Government will set in hand the procedures for determining which areas they should propose to the Commission for designation under objectives 2 and 5(b). As the House knows, objective I status has already been obtained by the Government for Merseyside and the highlands and islands.

751
In conclusion, many complex issues have been considered in this review. Our decisions were arrived at in a rational and structured way. The new map responds to the current position in the country and gives help where it is needed to enable areas to take full advantage of the recovery from recession. Assisted area status will give all designated areas the opportunity to attract new investment and to provide new jobs.
Mr. Robin Cook: I understand why the Minister did not find it attractive to make a statement on Friday about changes due to be introduced on 1 August. After all, it was not at all clear last Friday that the Government would last until 1 August. Now that it looks as though the Government may hold together until Sunday, I am glad that the Minister shared our view that the House should have an opportunity to discuss a statement which has an immediate and direct effect on local economies and which—as was demonstrated a moment ago—is of immediate concern to many constituencies.
Does the Minister accept that I understand why Ministers have had to extend regional aid to towns in the south, where their policies have turned past prosperity into mass unemployment? Will he confirm that Clacton, Dorchester, Dover, Harwich, Hastings and Torbay have all seen their unemployment rate double in the three years since the present Prime Minister took office in No, 10? Does he admit that the new map which he has just unveiled is a confession of how fast the economies of these towns have declined over three years during 'which they have been ruled by a Conservative Government in Whitehall and represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament in Westminster?
May I ask the Minister, however, to square the pride that he has just expressed at extending the areas eligible for regional aid with his Department's spending plans, which show a cut in the budget to pay for it? Will he confirm that spending on regional aid this year is now at a mere fifth of the same budget in 1979, although unemployment has almost trebled? Can he confirm that over the past four years, even in a time of recession, this Government have halved the budget for regional aid? Can he explain to the House why he is spending less on regional aid when he has just admitted that there are more towns which need that help? Will the Minister also confirm that his statement does not contain a single extra penny to redress those cuts?
Is it that cut in the budget which explains why the Minister is paying for the extensions to his map by taking away help from towns that still need support? May I challenge him to name a single area that he has downgraded where unemployment has gone down since the present Prime Minister took office? If he cannot name such an area, will he admit that unemployment has gone up in every single one of the 20 areas that he has relegated? Can he explain why his review has left those communities with less help for more unemployment?
The Minister cannot have failed to notice the criticism that, of all the areas downgraded, only Corby is to the south-east of the midlands. Can he confirm that 17 of the 20 areas to lose out are in England, north of the midlands, or in Scotland, or in Wales? These are the parts of Britain furthest away from the big markets of Europe. They need extra support if they are to succeed against the extra costs of getting their goods to the centre of Europe. How can the Minister justify asking the parts of Britain with the highest
752
costs of getting to Europe to shoulder the biggest cuts in regional aid? Given that Britain already has one of the most centralised economies in Europe, is it not an odd version of regional policy that gives less help to the regions furthest from the centre?
Britain already spends less on regional aid and less on support for manufacturing than the other member states of the European Community. Wealthier countries, such as Germany and Belgium, spend three times as much per head as we do on state aids to industry. Even poorer countries, such as Greece and Ireland, spend more than we do. What Britain needs is not just a Government who reshuffle the map to show which towns have slipped down the league table. What we need is a Government who will lift Britain from the bottom of the league and stop pretending that we can solve a growing problem on a shrinking budget.
Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman referred to the size of the budget. I remind him that we are concerned here with a budget that is targeted at where help is really needed. As he will recall, in 1979 we had regional development grants, which was a very indiscriminate way of helping the regions. The change to regional selective assistance has produced benefits. As the recent scrutiny showed, we have a budget that produces really good value for the money spent.
In view of the enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman's party for supporting measures from Brussels that would seriously damage the competitiveness of our industry, I am somewhat surprised by his reference to taking away help. As he knows, the size of the map is determined by, or is subject to, the approval of the Commission. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, because the Commission has to approve the size of the maps for all member states, which helps to keep down state aid and which creates a level playing field for our industry. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that and recognise that adding an area which is more in need of help necessarily means that an area that is less in need of help comes off the list.
We all know that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is a well-acknowledged expert at seeing the gloomy side of every silver lining; clouds are always in his sight. In those circumstances, I would have been surprised if he had drawn attention to the fact that, since the last map was drawn, unemployment has dropped—and in some cases has dropped very significantly—in the north, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside and the east and west midlands. Does not the hon. Gentleman find that a matter for welcome and an explanation of why there have been changes? Or is it perhaps that the Labour party does not really want to represent the whole country, but wants to be selective? It is the hon. Gentleman's credentials on political impartiality that need to be examined.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. It must be pretty obvious to the House that I cannot call all the hon. Members who are standing—[Interruption.] Because I must safeguard the interests of private Members and the other business on the Order Paper. Therefore, I ask that questions be brisk and that answers be equally brisk.
Mr. Michael Alison: May I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend on behalf of my constituents and

753
myself in that some parts of Selby district lying within the Castleford and Pontefract travel-to-work area, notably the town of Sherburn, have been included for the first time for intermediate area status? We are deeply obliged to my right hon. Friend for that. He may not appreciate that Sherburn does not have as severe an unemployment problem as that in parts of the town of Selby which lie in an adjoining travel-to-work area. Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to agree to receive a small deputation as soon as possible to argue the case for objective 2 status for parts of the town of Selby?
Mr. Sainsbury: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his kind remarks. Representations made by him, and by hon. Members from all parts of the House, were very helpful in assisting us to arrive at the right conclusion in respect of the map.
With regard to objectives 2 and 5(b) status under the structural funds, the regulations have only just been agreed. Indeed, they were agreed at 5.30 am last Tuesday in Brussels. We will send out a document very shortly about the consultation process that we will enter into. I will, of course, be very willing to receive representations.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As I represent the constituency with the lowest unemployment in the United Kingdom, I have no axe to grind in this particular context and I recognise the Government's case for the review. My only request is that the travel-to-work areas should be reviewed soon and sensibly so that we do not have the nonsense of areas like the summit of Ben Macdui being within the Aberdeen travel-to-work area.
There will, of course, be disappointment where there has been loss and appreciation among my hon. Friends where areas have retained or enhanced their status. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) would like to be associated with that. Nevertheless, will the Minister accept that as long as we have these periodic reviews, they are, in effect, a testament to failure? We need to ensure that we have a programme to eliminate unemployment in this country and to ensure that we can all benefit from prosperity and low unemployment.
Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman displayed the usual Liberal Democrat party skill in respect of sitting on the fence about sitting on the fence. He was not quite clear whether, on behalf of some of his Friends, he wanted to welcome the announcement or to criticise it.
With regard to the travel-to-work areas, we do not yet have, and will not have for 18 months or so, the sensitive data that will enable us to calculate new travel-to-work areas. I have said that the map will last for at least three years. Obviously, when we have that sensitive data and we can see the shape of the new travel-to-work areas, we will take account of the implications of that, including the implications in respect of the summit of any mountain, whether in England or anywhere else.
Dame Peggy Fenner: Although I recognise why my right hon. Friend has included east Kent, its inclusion will make it particularly difficult for the Medway towns which fit the criteria of relying heavily on defence work. My constituency has lost the naval base and its
754
largest employer, an aircraft and avionics company. Will my right hon. Friend co-ordinate activities with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and reconsider a small extension of enterprise zones so that we may compete with east Kent for a rightful share of industry?
Mr. Sainsbury: I can understand my hon. Friend's reaction. Considerable sums of Government money have gone into the Medway towns, particularly in respect of the much applauded Chatham dockyard redeployment. On the defence point, there might be representations from my hon. Friend's area in respect of the Konver funds which are available.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Is it not already obvious that the statement is mainly a product of pork barrel politics? Does the Minister accept that the relative increase in unemployment in south-east England is far more cyclical than structural and that there is a case for new assistance? As that case exists, such new assistance should come from additional funds and not from the reallocation of funds. As south-east England is obviously nearest to the European mainland and the channel tunnel link, and as it benefits most from the reduction in interest rates, is it not obvious that the circumstances do not warrant the reduction in status for assistance as in other parts of the United Kingdom? Is it not obvious on any assessment that the statement comes about not as a product of the examination of economic realities but as a result of political expediency?
Mr. Sainsbury: The right hon. Gentleman does not do himself justice. He seems to support his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in suggesting that there should be unlimited state aids available not only in this country but elsewhere. I should have hoped that, on this matter at least, he would support the Brussels Commission's efforts to restrain the availability of state aids and therefore help our industry.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to pork barrel politics. With respect, that term should be used with care in respect of Wales. After all, the unemployment rate in Wales is the same as that for the whole of Great Britain, yet more than 70 per cent. of the working population in Wales are covered by assisted areas. There are good reasons for that. They recognise the points that I made in the statement, but I scarcely think that they are grounds for complaint.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is great disappointment in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) at the fact that we have not acquired assisted area status. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will be happy to meet a delegation from Blackpool, led by my hon. Friend and myself, to discuss objectives 2 and 5(b) status? Does he accept that we have very severe structural unemployment, including three in 10 male unemployment in the centre of Blackpool? When my right hon. Friend reconsiders the way in which travel-to-work areas are calculated, will he bear in mind that Blackpool's case for assisted area status has once again been damaged by the fact that it is surrounded by Fylde and Wyre, which have very low unemployment, and that Blackpool has problems of its own?

755
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position regarding the United Kingdom would be made very much better if the former Opposition Member who became a European Commissioner, Mr. Millan, did not continue to block tourist-related areas from objective 2 status? That does enormous harm, as would the Opposition's desire to impose the social chapter.
Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate the concern and disappointment in my hon. Friend's constituency and, I am afraid, in other areas throughout the country. My hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) and for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) made expert representations on behalf of their constituencies. Of course I shall be happy to meet a delegation; and I note my hon. Friend's other remarks about the important subject of tourism.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Does not the Minister's statement reek of political corruption? Why did Enfield get assisted area status ahead of Leyton, for example? On any criterion of need such as unemployment, my constituency is far ahead. Could it be that the right hon. Gentleman's boss at the Department of Trade and Industry is an Enfield Member, as is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? Is this not a contemptibly corrupt statement?
Mr. Sainsbury: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the President of the Board of Trade is the Member of Parliament for Henley, not Enfield?
Mr. Cohen: The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), then.
Mr. Sainsbury: The important point that the hon. Gentleman should recognise is that if he were as familiar with the Lea valley as I am, he would know that it has major sites of existing industry and sites available for new industry. I suspect that many people in his constituency work in that area and others who, sadly, have not got jobs at present could easily travel to that area if new jobs were created there. That is why it makes sense to us to target help where it will produce the greatest benefit.
Mr. William Powell: As the Member for a constituency that is apparently a victim of pork barrel politics, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and welcome it on behalf of the former assisted area of Corby? My right hon. Friend should be aware that assisted area status was one, but only one, of the factors that enabled such a remarkable transformation in the industrial and commercial scene of Corby to take place. We are grateful for what the Government have done in the past decade, and we recognise that the time had come for other areas to receive some of the benefits given to Corby.
I should like to question my right hon. Friend on one matter. Assisted area status also prised open the opportunity to receive derelict land grant, which was vital to the reconstruction of Corby. Now that assisted area status has been removed from Corby, will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that derelict land grant can continue to flow to Corby, because the job of restoring that land is not yet finished?
Mr. Sainsbury: I much appreciate what my hon. Friend has said in respect of his constituency, on behalf of which he has made energetic representations. He has struck exactly the right note. Corby's economy has been
756
transformed in part as a result of the assistance it received through the assisted area map, but largely because of the efforts made by those in all parts of the Chamber, the private sector, and local government and because of central Government help. To build on that success is surely the way forward for areas such as Corby, because they have reduced unemployment, achieved success and, as a consequence, are no longer eligible for assisted area status.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: When the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, he said that the arrangements announced today were made to assist those areas with the most serious problems. Can he then explain why it is that the Sutton Coldfield constituency, which ranks 552nd in terms of the unemployment rate, with 6·4 per cent. unemployed, has been upgraded, while my constituency, 37th in the unemployment table, with 18·2 per cent. unemployment and 25·4 per cent. male unemployment, has got no help at all? Sutton Coldfield is, of course, the constituency of the chairman of the Conservative party.
Given that the Government have taken away housing programme funding, section 11 funding and urban programme funding from my constituency and reduced the benefits to the poor and deprived who live in my constituency, is it surprising that my constituents use the word about the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister uses about members of the Cabinet?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman does not serve his interests or those of his constituents with that type of remark. May I remind him that, in 1984, unemployment in Manchester was 13·2 per cent., which put Manchester exactly within the worst third in terms of those in the working population? Unemployment in Manchester is now 10·5 per cent., which means that it is not even within the worst half in terms of those not in the working population.
Mr. Andrew Bowden: My right hon. Friend has a deservedly high reputation in this House for integrity. He will share my disappointment at the fact that Brighton and Hove have not been included. Can he see any possibility of helping the Brighton and Hove travel-to-work area, given that we cannot now fairly compete in persuading firms to come to the two towns because others will be able to bribe them to go elsewhere? Will he consult his colleagues on other ways of helping these areas?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening remark. I know that Brighton and Hove have no more energetic supporter than my hon. Friend. I also know of the disappointment in the area at not being designated. As I have said, inevitably some areas that were close to inclusion had to be left out because of the limit. I hope that Brighton and Hove will gain additional strength in attracting investment and more jobs from the considerable improvements made to the A23 and the bypass—improvements funded by Government money. They will help to further the attractiveness of the area.
Mr. Alan Milburn: Does the Minister realise that stripping Darlington of assisted area status is a devastating blow not just to the town but to a region that has had the highest unemployment rate in every month since the Government came to power? Is he not aware that his policy of cutting regional aid spending at a time of

757
recession is economically illiterate and has forced hundreds of areas to compete for slices of an ever-diminishing regional aid cake? Why should Darlington be sacrificed so that the right hon. Gentleman can gerrymander the new assisted areas map in a vain attempt to prop up crumbling Tory support both across the country and particularly in southern England? Does he not realise that his announcement is a slap in the face for the business community in Darlington, and that the Government will not be forgiven for having written off the town?
Mr. Sainsbury: I think that the hon. Gentleman is another one who would not recognise success if it fell on him. In 1984, Darlington's unemployment rate was 13.3 per cent.; for the year to June 1993, it has been 9.3 per cent., which means that it is two thirds—65·2 per cent. —down the list of the worst areas for unemployment. Yet the hon. Gentleman still claims that special help is needed. Instead, he should recognise the success achieved by the private sector in his constituency.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there is a good deal of dismay in areas that have not sustained their assisted area status? May I draw his attention in particular to the dismay felt in the Cinderford and Ross-on-Wye travel-to-work area, part of which lies in my patch? A number of those who have been teaming together to create employment opportunities feel that their work is not yet done, and it would be helpful if my right hon. Friend were kind enough to state the predominant reasons for the withdrawal of assisted area status from the area.
When would it be appropriate to take a delegation to see my right hon. Friend to discuss the question of objective 5(b) status, given the stress caused in rural areas, especially in the marches, by changes in the common agricultural policy?
Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate the disappointment in my hon. Friend's constituency at the loss of intermediate area status. My hon. Friend asked me about the most important factors involved in that. As we made clear in the consultation and background documents, measures of unemployment are the principal factors, but they are not the only ones that we took into account. On that basis, current unemployment in the Cinderford and Ross-on-Wye travel-to-work area is fractionally above the national average, and on the five-year average the area only just gets into the worst 60 per cent., not the worst 33 per cent.
I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend and a delegation about objective 5(b) or objective 2 status in the near future.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the Minister explain why an area like Salford, with all its problems of high unemployment, crime and so on, has been excluded from the map?
Mr. Sainsbury: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are retaining support for Trafford Park where, I suspect, many of his constituents already work. If additional employment were created there, it would provide opportunities for his constituents and others in the Manchester and Salford area. As Manchester is one large travel-to-work area, the comments about overall
758
unemployment which I made to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) also apply in this case.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Will my right hon. Friend accept the warmest possible congratulations and thanks from those of us in Cumbria who recently did our best to persuade him to grant assisted area status to parts of Cumbria? The inclusion of Barrow, and an area around it which is in my constituency, among those areas granted intermediate status will be especially welcome, but will he please talk to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport because one of Barrow's main problems is the road links with the M6? Portions of that road in my constituency require urgent improvement, and that would be one of the quickest ways to help Barrow.
Mr. Sainsbury: I thank my right hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I was very impressed by the representations that he and others made when I visited the area and back in London. I shall, of course, pass his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It is fair to say that, if I followed the Opposition's suggestions, new areas of Cumbria and Barrow-in-Furness would not have been included in the map because it would not have been possible.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: The elevation of the Fishguard area to full development status is welcome, but the relegation of Cardigan, which is covered by the west Wales task force, from full development area status to intermediate status makes very little sense. The relegation of Lampeter and Aberaeron from full development status to no status makes even less sense. Bearing in mind the fact that those areas have deep structural problems, including that of depopulation and migration of the young, is it not clear that the Minister was determined that Wales should suffer from the process a net reduction in assistance?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at the start of his question, but I must point out that in the Lampeter and Aberavon travel-to-work area—
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Aberaeron.
Mr. Sainsbury: Aberaeron. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff somewhere for his help.
The point in which I think that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) is interested is that the unemployment rate dropped from 12 per cent. to 7·6 per cent. As I said earlier in relation to the unemployment rate in Wales as a whole, it would surely be unrealistic not to reflect in the map some of the considerable success that has been achieved in stimulating employment in Wales and especially in attracting inward investment, which would, of course, be drastically discouraged if we were to saddle ourselves with the social chapter.
Mr. Roger Gale: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and my constituents, may I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has represented the United Kingdom's interests in the negotiations with the European Commissioners? Will he contrast the mealy-mouthed reception from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr.

759
Cook) with the generous reception given by the Local authority in Corby which, having seen the success of assisted area status there, has offered its expertise to Local authorities in east Kent? Is it not a fact that east Kent will now be able to compete with northern France on equal terms for jobs not only for east Kent but for the whole of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Sainsbury: I can do no more than say that my hon. Friend's response is surely the right one on behalf of his constituents and the people of the whole of east Kent. They will be able to take the opportunities provided by the availability of regional selective assessment to build their economy and ensure that they are soon in the same position as Corby. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about seeking to represent the whole of Great Britain, and not just a part of it.
Mr. Peter Shore: Although I welcome the long overdue inclusion of some depressed parts of London in the list of assisted areas.. will the Minister explain why and on what grounds he has excluded the notoriously hard-pressed boroughs of east London, especially my own borough of Tower Hamlets, where unemployment has been running at more than 20 per cent. for many years?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am conscious of the unacceptably high levels of unemployment in the right hon. Gentleman's borough. He will be aware of the many urban programmes, including the London Docklands development corporation, that benefit the area. He will also be aware that the areas that we have designated in London have available industrial premises and space for the creation of additional investment and employment. If that happpens, and we hope that it will as a result of the measures that we have taken, those employment opportunies will be available to people in that whole travel-to-work area, which is reasonably near his constituency.
Mr. Paul Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is believed that Southend was on the original list for assisted area help and that my constituents and I are astonished that it was withdrawn from his proposals at the last minute? Will he say whether that is the case and, if so, why?
Will my right hon. Friend also be prepared to meet Southend council, our hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and myself to discuss ways of getting help under objective 2 status?
Mr. Sainsbury: There were areas around the margin of eligibility for inclusion in the map, which would have been included had the map covered a larger area of the working population of Great Britain. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is right that the Commission should exercise constraint on the overall coverage, as it does in other countries. For instance, the German map has now been reduced by 2 per cent.—much more than ours. In those circumstances, there were unfortunately areas that had to be omitted and I recognise that Southend was one.
I should be happy to receive a delegation of my right hon. Friend, his hon. Friend and councillors to discuss the matters that he has raised.
Mr. Ken Purchase: It is welcome that Wolverhampton enjoys its new status, along with Birmingham, and the Minister will be encouraged that, in the past, Wolverhampton has put together a team of excellent workers who have managed to lever European funds from other areas. Against that and the disadvantage to other areas from which Wolverhampton will receive its new support, it must be recognised that in 1979 Wolverhampton was part of the second wealthiest region in the United Kingdom. Now it shares the distinction with Northern Ireland of being one of the poorest. Fourteen years of Conservative rule have brought such a map into being.
I share the opinion of my local chamber of commerce, and more so with the Wolverhampton Express and Star—a Tory paper if ever there was one—that it is a tragedy that Wolverhampton, Birmingham and the west midlands have to receive special treatment to overcome the difficulties brought about by the economic policies of the Government. The Minister ought to ask himself what the Government should be doing to put the economy of the country right rather than messing about with maps.
Mr. Sainsbury: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can persuade some of the doubting Thomases on the Opposition Benches that the map is targeted at the areas that need help and that it responds to changes in economic circumstances. That is the realistic answer to some of the questions that have been asked by his hon. and right hon. Friends.
I hope that we shall see Wolverhampton re-establishing its levels of employment and industrial expertise to those of the days when I remember that Wolverhampton Wanderers played better football than Manchester United.
Dr. Ian Twinn: In contrast to the carping and negative attitude of Opposition Members, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his Department's recognition of the desperate structural needs of industry in the south, especially in the Lea valley? As one of the Enfield Members of Parliament, may I say that our constituents in Enfield, North and Edmonton will notice that the attitude of Opposition Members and the Labour party is of not wanting to create new jobs in those areas, especially in north London.
Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for his appreciation of what has been done. He has put his finger on the essential point that, if we had followed the approach of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and his friends, there would have been no changes to the map and no relatively worse off areas would have been able to receive help.
Mr. John McFall: The heart-breaking aspect for my constituents is that the information on which the list was compiled is out of date. Unemployment in 12 of the winners has fallen by 10 to 46 per cent. in the past six months, yet my constituency, which has had a 7 per cent. fall, is a loser. My constituency still qualifies on the three criteria that the Minister stated—present unemployment, long-term unemployment and growth potential. Will the Minister meet a delegation from the local enterprise company and the council to ensure that

761
Dumbarton retains its full development status? Dumbarton's figures are more up to date than those of the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sorrow at Dumbarton being downgraded from a development area to an intermediate area, but I know that my hon. Friend with responsibilities for industry in Scotland will be happy to see him this week. Unemployment in the Dumbarton travel-to-work area is well above the worst third in the country, which the hon. Gentleman should take into account.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is not only disappointment but concern in Portsmouth that the criteria that he used in drawing up his map failed to identify areas of social and economic deprivation in the city, which are the equivalent of that anywhere else in the country but which the city is unable easily to rectify because of the long-term rundown of the defence commitment, which is part of the Government's policy? In those circumstances, does he feel that he has a responsibility to offer help to Portsmouth?
Mr. Sainsbury: I can understand my hon. Friend's reaction. We carefully considered the implications of the defence review, all the changes in the Navy and their impact on his constituents. I hope that he will recognise that there are swings and roundabouts: some naval activities in the area will increase, whereas others will be run down. I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) made energetic representations on behalf of the Portsmouth travel-to-work area, but I had to take into account not only the overall effect of defence changes but the fact that Portsmouth is not in the worst third for current unemployment and is well below the British average for five-year unemployment. Unemployment measures were the main measures that we took into account.
Mr. Elliot Morley: Is the Minister aware of the disappointment in areas such as Scunthorpe that have lost full development status and have gone to nothing? The way in which unemployment is calculated leads areas such as Scunthorpe to have little confidence because it has been changed and messed around so much over the years. Is he aware that millions of pounds of public money have been spent on site reclamation, the benefit of which is only now being felt? It will be difficult to attract industry to Scunthorpe when it is surrounded by areas that have status.
Will the Minister meet a delegation from the councils concerned when he reviews the travel-to-word areas in the second half of 1994 to consider the impact of the changes on an area that is suffering from long-term structural change and does not need a quick fix in terms of political need?
Mr. Sainsbury: It is a little early to start talking about delegations when we have—[Interruption.] Wait for it—the information on new travel-to-work areas. Consideration of objective 2 and/or objective 5(b) status is in the immediate future. The new travel-to-work areas will not be considered before 1995 at the earliest.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment in his travel-to-work area is only 9·7 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS:
762
"Only?".]—which, although still too high, is below the national average? Does he believe that Scunthorpe has achieved a great success in restoring employment opportunities after the losses that occurred at the end of the 1970s and early 1980s? Will he welcome the forthcoming opening by Kimberly-Clark as a major new employment opportunity in his area as a result of Government help that the area received?
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he very much had regard to the considerable changes that will take place in Dover and Deal as a result of the channel tunnel, the single European market and the problems of competition from the Nord-Pas de Calais region when he listened to the representations that I made at the seven meetings that I had with him and the President of the Board of Trade on this important issue?
Will my right hon. Friend further confirm that it has been disappointing that the Labour party has not actively supported the south-east of England getting assisted area status, especially Dover and Deal, whose people are very grateful to the Government for recognising the considerable change that is about to take place and for the support that they are now giving the area?
Mr. Sainsbury: I agree with my hon. Friend about the attitude of the Opposition to assisted area status in parts of east Kent and the south-east. If a league table were based on the energy and effectiveness of the representations made on behalf of any area, I think that my hon. Friend would be near the top of it. I am sure that he will recognise that Dover and Deal would not have been included purely on the employment factors, but, taking account of the looming problems to which he referred, we clearly had a situation that deserved support.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is not it true that the statement and delaying of the order have been held back so that the rejigging and gerrymandering of assisted area status can be used to bribe anti-Maastricht Tory Members of Parliament? There is no reason why the order could not have been laid several weeks ago and come before the House for debate in the usual way.
The people of Bradford will feel outraged that the Minister is removing assisted area status from Bradford when they have been denied section I I grant and, as with many other areas, have been removed from urban aid grant, and when there are 552 vacancies with 25,000 people on the dole as a result of the Government's policies.
Does the Minister not realise that Bradford depends on manufacturing more than the national average, particularly on textiles and engineering, and both those industries are facing severe difficulty? It is a disgrace, and the Minister should know it.
Mr. Sainsbury: It is not possible for us to declare the result of our review before Friday at the earliest, because the Commission—the European Commission; the hon. Gentleman will have heard of it—has not approved our map. The map is subject to its approval because the aid given under regional selective assistance is state aid, so that his first allegation is nonsense.
It is perhaps not surprising that we should hear nonsense from the hon. Gentleman. He gave a splendid impersonation to Bradford of outrage. May I say to "Outraged of Bradford" that, in 1984, unemployment in Bradford was at 13·5 per cent., which put it in the worst

763
third of unemployment areas of the country. It is now 10·6 per cent. and Bradford is only just inside the worst half. That is one of the factors that we took into account in deciding where the aid should best be targeted.
Mr. David Evennett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. In particular, I warmly welcome the inclusion in his list of the London end of the east Thames corridor. My constituents in the wards of Belvedere, Erith, North End and Thamesmead East will be delighted, because they have had structural unemployment in those areas for so long.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the east Thames corridor has tremendous potential, and his announcement this afternoon will help to realise it?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, and entirely agree about the potential of the east Thames corridor. I hope that, with the help of the measures that I have mentioned in the statement. that potential will be realised in the near future to the benefit of his constituents.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the context of the structural funds, will the Minister accept that there was a warm welcome given to the recognition of the long, hard-fought local campaign to include the whole of the enterprise area in Highlands and Islands for objective 1 status?
Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to announce the exact figure that will be allocated, given the unhelpful speculation following on from the attitude of the Irish representatives at the Commission? Can he give us an exact timetable for the procedures that are to be observed in negotiations for 5(b) status, which is important, particularly to the fishing communities of the north-east of Scotland?
Mr. Sainsbury: First, I express my thanks for the hon. Lady's remarks about what she described as a long and hard-fought campaign. From my personal experience, I can say that it was indeed very long. It was about the hardest-fought campaign that I have experienced, among many, in respect of the European Community.
With regard to the sums of money involved, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making an announcement in the near future.
Sir Roger Moate: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the courageous way in which he tackled what is self-evidently a difficult task and thank him for his courtesy and consideration in doing it, particularly in recognising that parts of the south-east have persistent and structural unemployment problems. Unemployment in my constituency is 14·2 per cent.—something that is unknown to the Labour party, or perhaps it does not even care.
Will my right hon. Friend say what the likely duration of the map will be? The previous map survived for nine years. In his statement, he says that it is expected to last at least three years, but three years is too short a planning period for many industrial investments. Can he reassure us that that is seen as the minimum and is likely to be much longer?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, and I was glad to have the opportunity to see for
764
myself at first hand the situation in his constituency and to receive representations both from him and the public and private sectors in his constituency.
With regard to the duration of the map, we have said at least three years because it will not be much before the end of three years that we have information relating to the new travel-to-work areas. We should not prejudge the duration of the map beyond that because we may find that the new travel-to-work areas show that there should be changes. When we make the next review, I assure my hon. Friend that, as was the case with this review, we shall take into account the statistics and not the political gerrymandering that seems to be preferred by the Labour party.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When the people of Workington, where unemployment is 15·1 per cent. on the narrow base rate, learnt of their downgrading from development area status, they were astonished, astounded and angry. Despite what the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said, let me make it clear to him that Yorkshire farmers know nothing about west Cumberland. Workington has a new factory of 500,000 sq ft that is empty, which the Leyland bus plant formerly occupied. Can the Minister find us a tenant or a buyer in the conditions of the new intermediate area status, because if we can fill that site, many of Workington's problems will be resolved?
Mr. Sainsbury: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the problems in his constituency, and I know that the unemployment level there is far higher than either of us would like to see. However, I hope that he will recognise, with regard to the downgrading from development to intermediate area status, that the constituency's unemployment rate does not put it in the worst 15 per cent. on either current or five-year average unemployment. Those are factors to which we have to have regard. I hope that, as a result of the combined efforts of the private sector, local authorities and central Government, we shall be able to find a tenant and provide more employment opportunities for his constituents.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although there must be some disappointment in Teignbridge that it was not possible to extend to a greater extent the intermediate status, nevertheless the settlement for the west country is truly excellent? As the prosperity of Teinbridge depends on the prosperity of the west country, the decision that he has announced today will be greatly welcomed.
Mr. Sainsbury: I am particularly grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the west country, and I also appreciate what he said about his constituency; I understand his disappointment that only a small part of it receives assisted area status. I am more than a little surprised that neither from the Labour nor from the Liberal Benches have we had a word of thanks on behalf of the south-west.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Coalfield communities face real challenges and real difficulties. In the Nottinghamshire coalfield, 40,000 people worked in the industry in 1980 and, in a few weeks' time, that number will shrink to 4,000. In the space of 13 unlucky years, nine out of every 10 mining jobs will have gone. Given that, will the Minister consider including in the Nottingham travel-to-work area places such as Hucknall, which has

765
lost its pits, and Calverton, which may lose its colliery, so that they may have a chance of new investment, new jobs and a new future?
Mr. Sainsbury: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about employment opportunities for those who formerly worked in the coal industry. I hope that he will recognise that in what we have done—for example, in respect of Mansfield, which moved straight from non-assisted area status to development area status, or Chesterfield, which moved from non-assisted area to intermediate area status—we are responding, in as an effective and well targeted way as we can, to the needs of the areas to which he referred.
Mr. Rupert Allason: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, and I also thank him on behalf of my constituents and the delegation that I brought to see him. He will be aware that the decision to restore assisted area status to Torbay will be greatly welcomed. Will he assure the House that his Department will do everything possible to help local authorities in those areas that have been granted intermediate status so that they may exploit European and other funds to the maximum?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said and assure him that, as always, my Department will do all that it can to help local authorities to attract inward investment and in any negotiations with the European Community.
Mr. John Morris: In an attempt to assist the Minister to distinguish between Aberaeron and Aberavon, may I point out to him that there will be intense disappointment that Port Talbot and Neath have been reduced to an intermediate area? An announcement was made last Thursday that Freeman's factory would close next March. How will new factors, which have arisen since the map was cobbled together, assist the situation in the future? When can the map be reopened?
Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the right hon. and learned Member will recognise the considerable progress made in reducing unemployment in his constituency, or the travel-to-work area in which it is sited, from 16·8 to 10 per cent.—from well above to below the national average. I hope that we shall continue to build on that success.
As I have made clear, the present map should last for at least three years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) said, we need a period of stability for people to benefit from the opportunity to carry out investment projects or to make inward investments which will provide work for a reasonable period.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that, far from being omitted, Southend-on-Sea was removed from the list that the Government presented to the Commission on 15 June? Will he bear in mind that, as a result of the Commissioner instructing the Government to reduce the figure from 35 to 34 per cent., there is widespread disappointment and concern in Southend-on-Sea, particularly as my constituency has 14·5 per cent. unemployment? If any area in the south-east deserves help, it is Southend-on-Sea.
Mr. Sainsbury: I understand the concern of my hon. Friend's constituents. Clearly it is a great disappointment when they were near to being included and have had to be left out because of the constraints imposed by the amount of cover that we can give. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do all that we can to assist with regard to any structural fund help that might be available.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Minister aware that Tameside is one of the two metropolitan boroughs that were not created from a county borough? That causes enormous problems because of the diversity of centres within the borough, and there are associated costs. Will the Minister let me have an analytical breakdown of why Tameside was not given intermediate area status? He said that judgment was used. Is he aware that a distinction needs to be made between judgment and pork barrel politics, which was not clear in this instance?
Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that a clear distinction was made. He is an expert on analysing statistics. I cannot promise to give him an answer off the cuff, but I will write to him in response to his request.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on conducting a difficult piece of work. Will he agree that more parts of London should qualify for this sort of assistance? Will he undertake to keep a close eye on changing patterns of work in London so that fresh areas can be assisted in the near future?
Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall pay close regard to the situation in London before the review of the map in three years' time or so. Meanwhile, London benefits from the measures to which I referred today, and from a large number of urban programmes. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will keep those programmes under close review to ensure that they target help to London as effectively as possible.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: In justifying the downgrading of certain areas, the Minister said that those areas now have lower unemployment than they had in 1984. Will he confirm that Barnstaple, Ilfracombe, Bideford, Clacton, Dover and Deal, Folkestone, Great Yarmouth, Torbay and Thanet all have lower unemployment than in 1984? On that criterion, why have those places been included while places represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends have been excluded? In reply to my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Minister said that Bradford had only 10·6 per cent. unemployment and that Scunthorpe had only 9·7 per cent. Is it not a clear indication of the Government's limited ambitions and moral bankruptcy that they see such figures as low unemployment?
The simple fact is that the Minister has had to announce a map that reflects the Government's economic failure. All of Britain should now be an assisted area because the Government have failed so abysmally.
Mr. Sainsbury: I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would recognise from his Front-Bench position that we are inevitably looking at the scale of change in unemployment and the relative position of different areas. I remind him, as he is another of the

767
half-empty rather than the half-full glass school, of the relative position of the regions. The northern region, the north-west, the Yorkshire and Humberside region and the east and west midlands have all had significant improvements in unemployment since the last map was drawn, whereas in London and the south-east and south-west unemployment has got worse. That is the reality and the reason for the map that I have produced. It is targeted on areas that most need help.

Points of Order
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that these are not points of frustration. I think that they are, but it must have been obvious that by no means could I call all hon. Members, even those who are directly affected. I am prepared to listen to points of order that relate to our Standing Orders and procedures.
Mr. George Stevenson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the obvious disquiet that remains among many hon. Members about the Government's statement with which we have been occupied for the past hour, would you consider a request for an emergency debate on this serious issue?
Madam Speaker: No, I cannot do that. As hon. Members know, if they catch my eye they can raise this matter on the motion for the Adjournment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be nothing further to that point of order.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had an approach from the Secretary of State for Employment with a view to his coming to the House to make a statement about the collapse of Astra Training Services. which, before it was privatised, provided training for 100,000 people a year but which may now be going out of existence? From this very day, trainees from Astra will no longer get their expenses and there is increasing evidence of financial sharp practice by the company. Most hon. Members, or at least Opposition Members, would have expected the Secretary of State to have been here because he has much explaining to do.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that any Minister seeks to make a statement today.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Your reply suggests that you have not had an approach from Ministers to come to the House to demonstrate the Government's contempt and disgust at the news that one of the girls who was pardoned by the King of Thailand has been offered £67,000 to make a film. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will make sure that she makes absolutely no money from this disgraceful deal.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right: I have had no request from any Minister to make a statement today.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When you took over your duties as Speaker, you explained that you would follow the practice of previous Speakers and not allow points of order during Question Time but would hear them at this time or at 3.30 pm. We understand the good reasons for that. They are that points of order, many of them not entirely genuine, were often allowed and they disrupted Question Time. However, that practice creates a difficulty, such as occurred today when, inadvertently, questions to the Lord President of the Council were started a full minute early at 3.24. That meant that it was not possible to call questions

769
Nos. 40 and 41 for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and certain matters could not be raised. The difficulty that that presents to those of us who always behave immaculately in the House is that there was no mechanism for raising a genuine point of order at that time and allowing the questions to be asked in a proper way. Hon. Members were denied the possibility of raising the serious matter of the vermin that have been sighted in the dining areas of the House.
Madam Speaker: I take points of order during Question Time only exceptionally and if they are immediately relevant. There are far too many abuses if I allow a lot of discretion in these matters.
Mr. David Sumberg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, we rise tomorrow for the summer recess. The order in connection with which we have just heard a statement comes into force on I August this year. Can you tell me how I can make it absolutely clear that I am delighted that two thirds of my constituency has received assisted area status—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is demob-happy. I cannot allow such a point of order.
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can a Minister from the Department for Education come to the House before the recess to deal with a point raised in a national newspaper on Saturday? It was said that an opted-out school in my borough is refusing to take blind and partially sighted children because it does not suit its criteria. That is a serious matter and we should have the opportunity to debate it with an Education Minister.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should try catching my eye on the motion for the Adjournment.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You recently gave guidance on the sort of words that hon. Members are not allowed to use in the House. When we come back from the summer recess, Opposition Members will wish to criticise Ministers—and will continue to do so, day in and day out. Will we be able to use the expression that the Prime Minister used about three of his Cabinet colleagues, or do you believe that such language would lower the tone of the House?
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolsover need not rise; I can see his hackles rising. Is this further to that point of order?
Mr. Skinner: Yes, Madam Speaker. As you know, many years ago, a Member of Parliament referred to "Members of Parliament for hire". It was suggested that such an expression was, prima facie, a breach of privilege and the matter went before the appropriate Committee because those Members of Parliament were not identified. Now we have an example of the Prime Minister specifying that three members of his Cabinet were, to use his word, "bastards". We do not know who they are. Some of today's newspapers have speculated that they are the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Wales—and one other.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Skinner: Of course it is.
Madam Speaker: Not at all. I am not concerned with the language that is used outside the House. I am, however, very much concerned with the language that is used inside the House and therefore I ask all hon. Members to use moderate language. That is the proper, courteous method of debate in the House.
Mr. Winnick: But it was the Prime Minister.
Madam Speaker: I am not concerned about which Minister or Member was involved; I ask that moderate language be used at all times in the House.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that everyone is aware of the importance of the debates and decisions that featured on Thursday and Friday. I wish to raise three points of order relating to them which could have constitutional significance. I have given notice of them.
The first point relates to the text of the social charter. I was informed by the Government in a written reply—it can be found in column 295 of Hansard for 22 July—that they have never published or publicised the text of the social charter. The social charter was debated during the passage of the Bill through the House and last week. If and when there is any further legislation relating to this central matter, as there may well be, can we be assured that the text will be available to those affected beforehand, on the Table of the House and in the Vote Office?
The second point is of more profound significance. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that for several hundred years it has not been the practice of the House to reverse, within a short time at least, a decision which has been taken. Page 362 of the 21st edition of "Erskine May"—the Boulton edition—says:
"Proposing a negatived question 'a second time for the decision of the House, would be, as stated earlier, contrary to the established practice of Parliament. Sufficient variation would have to be made, not only from the form but also from the substance of the rejected question, to make the second question a new question."
A very similar question was proposed on Friday to the one that had been negatived the day before. However, in the second there was a distinction, to some extent, because there was no preamble reference to section 7. The second motion asked us to have confidence in the policy of the Government in the social area rather than simply noting it. While the wording may have varied to some extent, the purpose and the effect of accepting both would have been the same. The only change was in method, in that the word "confidence" was introduced in the second motion. Presumably that was on your ruling—otherwise it would have been out of order—and that was at least one area in which the substance was changed.
The use of the word "confidence" introduced a whole range of circumstances that attach to that word and are habitually used in motions of no confidence. But this time it was the opposite; it was proposed by the Government and used in a new way. In using it, the Government might be said to have introduced a hybrid element. The motion had three purposes: to approve the social policy, to show confidence in the Government and to trigger section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act.

771
It is well known that a vote of no confidence would have resulted in at least a request to the Crown for the dissolution of Parliament. I put it in those terms because whether the request would be granted might be a matter of constitutional debate. But that is beside the point. What should have been taken into consideration is the consequence of a successful request and its effects on hon. Members' livelihoods and those of their families.
The use of the royal prerogative, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in his speech on Friday, resides with the Crown outside the control of the House, albeit on the advice of a Minister or a collection of Ministers, as we are told happened in this case. That is a novel use of this particular power and revives the prerogative powers of the Crown, albeit on the advice of a Minister, against the rights and privileges of hon. Members to speak and vote without constraint on their livelihoods and persons.
The question of documentation on a matter of great constitutional importance; the use, perhaps the precedent, of a hybrid form of confidence motion; and the way in which these matters impinge on the prerogatives and the rights of this House, established in the late 17th century and part of our constitution, are of very great importance.
I do not expect a ruling or comment from you on these matters today, Madam Speaker, in view of the short notice and the short lapse of time since those events. I would ask you to consider them, to note what is said elsewhere, and, if you see fit, to say something about them after the recess.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not give me notice of all the matters that he has raised. I can deal with them because they are precise, although he took some time to explain himself.
First, I do not want to be tedious and repetitious
772
because I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's first point when the matter was raised with me last week by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave then. The hon. Gentleman seems to allege that Friday's debate was out of order because it amounted to a rescinding of a resolution that was reached on Thursday. The debate was not related to the rescinding of a resolution as the House did not come to a resolution on Thursday. There are no rules that are specifically directed against second attempts to obtain a resolution when the first attempt has failed. I quote "Erskine May", which says that the House must
"instinctively realise that parliamentary government requires the majority to abide by a decision regularly come to, however unexpected".
At the outset of proceedings on Friday, I stated that, in my opinion, the Prime Minister's statement of the previous evening had created a new situation and that both the Government motion and the Opposition amendment were perfectly in order. The result of the Division at the conclusion of the debate confirmed my view that that was the case.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you noticed that in connection with the summer Adjournment motion I have tabled an amendment stating that it might be convenient to allow an extension of debates, for example on Wednesday and Thursday, relating to assisted area status?
Madam Speaker: It was remiss of me not to announce that there are two amendments on the Order Paper, neither of which has been selected.

Adjournment (Summer)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 27th July, do adjourn until Monday 18th October.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
4.50 pm
Mr. John Biffen: A little earlier this afternoon, Madam Speaker, you advised us all to use moderate language. I am happy to begin the debate on the summer recess in a spirit of moderation and good will that I hope will secure a most accommodating response from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that I wish to refer to local authority finance. Although I wish to refer to the subject as it relates specifically to Shropshire, I will also touch upon more general areas. Taking a cue from events earlier, I realise that few subjects can generate such commitment as the distribution of national aid to either regions or local authorities. I hope that I will earn my right hon. Friend's good will by addressing my remarks in a spirit of calmness, rather than seeking unjustifiable demands.
There is continuing anxiety in Shropshire about the sparsity factor in the education funds that have been made available by the Government. The matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 13 July. I endorse his remarks and appeal again for proper and equitable regard to be paid to the sparsity factor in considering what may be made available to the county authorities in Shropshire.
I do not wish to make my main remarks about that subject, but to concentrate on the area cost adjustment. As my right hon. Friend will know from his experience before he became Leader of the House, that is a matter of concern as it relates to the distribution of the standard spending assessment. While my remarks will be brief, they carry with them the good will of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). He has now been seduced by the Trappist joys of the Whips' Office and cannot be here to add his voice of moderation.
My right hon. Friend will know that the area cost adjustment concerns the methodology of labour costs, and as a consequence has a premium for London and the south-east. The tenor of questions on the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry was to try to offset a perceived disadvantage for the south from the north in terms of regional aid. I should like to point out to my right hon. Friend that local authority finances are not a seamless robe. There can be certain situations in one respect, and quite contrary situations in another. My remarks this afternoon contrast to some extent with what has been said this afternoon.
My interest is not related merely to the county of Shropshire. That county has been asked by 27 shire counties to carry out an investigation into the impact of the area cost adjustment. They have produced a study that has revealed that employment costs are higher in London, but are not obviously otherwise higher in the south-east. The report says:
"Research shows there are no regional pay variations outside London for most local government employees. This includes teachers, fire fighters and uniform policemen."
The fact that the area cost allowance factor has been rising considerably faster than the standard spending assessment further emphasises the work that has been undertaken by
774
Shropshire on behalf of its sister shire counties. Considerable sums of money are now committed for an item which has been inequitably distributed.
I have three questions that I want to put to my right hon. Friend. I do not expect an answer at the conclusion of the debate, but I should be immensely grateful if he would write to me and gave a considered reply, which I might then make publicly available in Shropshire.
First, has the study undertaken by Shropshire on behalf of the shire counties been received by the Department of the Environment? Secondly, what is the initial reaction of the Department to that study? Thirdly, is it expected that any changes that might be consequential will be implemented in the 1994–95 standard spending assessment?
I shall leave those questions with my right hon. Friend. I believe that my tolerable brevity may encourage him to give a generous and merited reply, and I now leave the field to others.
4.58 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: I do not think that the House should rise before there has been an adequate explanation from the Minister who currently heads the Department of Trade and Industry of why my constituency should have been denuded of the prize of assisted area status.
I protest because 3,200 people are out of work in my constituency, of which more than 800 are officially designated as long-term unemployed. Moreover, Shotton steelworks in my constituency put into effect in 1980 the largest redundancy programme ever in western Europe. In a period between Christmas and Easter, more than 8,000 people lost their jobs. The job of reconstructing our local economy has a long way to go yet. My constituents and I have always thought that assisted area status was of prime importance in that reconstruction.
I have studied the decision that the Department of Trade and Industry has made about the boundaries of the areas to retain the status. I cannot see why the larger part of my constituency should have been denuded of the prize. I do know, when I look at the new map, that the people of Wales have had a raw deal. It appears that the status that some parts of Wales previously had has now been taken away and given to southern England. I should have liked the status previously given to Wales to be retained. I would then have said that the Government should give more aid and allow other areas of Britain to benefit from development area status.
On the other side of the River Dee, opposite my constituency, is the area called the Wirral. That area is represented here in the mother of Parliaments by the Secretary of State for Employment, whom we previously knew as Secretary of State for Wales. We note that, across the river, the prized development area status remains. I am not convinced that north-east Wales should lose while, across the river, development area status has been retained, or that the whole of Wales should be denuded of development area status while in southern England there has been an accretion in the areas covered. That cannot be right or just, and I wish to protest.
I want to see my country—Britain—made great again as an industrial power. That can happen only if the Government adopt a strategy which makes it possible for manufacturing industry to prosper. I want manufacturing

775
industry in Britain to be retained, strengthened and enhanced, but what has happened in the past 10 or 14 years has been virtually the opposite of that objective.
During the time that Her Majesty's Government have worn the colours of the Conservatives, more than 2·5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. That cannot be good for the future. It has been a devastating blow for many communities, individuals, families and homes, not least in my country of Wales.
If we do not have manufacturing industries that prosper, we shall not have the wealth that underpins the welfare state. If we do not have a Government and a Cabinet who are prepared to make manufacturing the top priority, there can be no hope and no future in the next century, which is approaching us with gathering speed. Today, the Government have missed yet another opportunity to show that they care about the foundation of our industrial society—manufacturing.
An example is the steel industry. British Steel, which is lean, fit and productive and has previously been profitable, now faces hard times. It appears that the Government and the Cabinet are not prepared to help the foundation industry in Britain which the steel industry still represents. The one thing that eastern Europe does well is making bulk steel. The problem is that steel is virtually being dumped in western Europe and our markets.
The President of the United States and his Government are prepared to put savage high tariffs on British Steel's exports. I forecast major trouble for our steel industry if they are allowed to continue. Let us examine the details of how our steel industry is coping with the challenge from western Europe and inside the Community.
The British steel industry has made its sacrifices over and over again. Tens of thousands of jobs have been sacrificed in the past decade and earlier. Yet the Spanish and Italian nations are not playing fair. What did the Prime Minister say about that problem when he went to Tokyo recently? I should like to know before the House rises what the Prime Minister did on behalf of the British steel industry.
I have said that I want to see a strong and resurgent manufacturing sector. I cannot see how Britain can become a great industrial nation again unless that happens. Steel is the basis of Britain's manufacturing industry, and it is not receiving fair treatment. It has done all that has been asked of it. In 1980, 8,000 of my constituents were made jobless virtually overnight. They made their sacrifice. The British steel industry has made its sacrifice. We are entitled to ask the Government what They are prepared to do to assist British Steel.
Another good example is the aerospace industry. Redundancies have rained down on Alyn and Deeside. We have a magnificient factory at Broughton in my constituency, which makes the wing of the airbus and the whole of the executive jet. There have been 1,300 job losses in those two activities within one year. I want evidence that the Government are prepared to assist aerospace.
One good thing that has happened recently is the publication of a distinguished and detailed report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry only last week. It said that the United Kingdom aerospace industry, which could still survive, develop and prosper, made a massive contribution to our balance of payments, employed and trained a highly skilled work force, was engaged in wealth creation through the high added value of its products, provided technological spin-offs for other sectors, created
776
work for other sectors such as machine tooling and computer software, and had the probability of growth in world markets.
That distinguished Committee said that, if the industry was to prosper, money must be made available for more research and technology. I support that fundamental proposal. I believe that a figure of £80 million was mentioned and that the Committee said that it should be delivered urgently.
I cannot see an industrial future for Great Britain unless our Government, our Cabinet and our nation invest in steel and aerospace. I urge the Leader of the House to take up the points that I have raised when he replies to the debate.
5.7 pm
Mr. Roberts Hicks: I wish to raise with Ministers two essentially west country issues before we rise for the summer recess—the future of our west country regional air link between Plymouth and Newquay and London Heathrow, and water and sewerage charges in Devon and Cornwall. The second subject has already been considered by the House several times.
Central to the current level of water charges is the enormous investment programme which South West Water is obliged to undertake to meet EC water quality and sewage treatment standards. The total figure involved is more than £1 billion, of which water quality represents £450 million, inland sewerage schemes represent £350 million and coastal sewerage represents more than £400 million of investment. Those staggering financial requirements reflect a neglect of investment in the past, and the fact that Devon and Cornwall have a long geographical coastline.
It is equally valid when considering the charges paid by the consumer to take it into account that almost 80 per cent. of the revenue obtained by South West Water from customers is used for investment purposes. Furthermore, the area is relatively sparsely populated. Apart from Plymouth and Exeter, there are no large cities and towns. Average earnings are significantly lower than the national average. In my constituency, average earnings are 14 per cent. below the national average. Demographically, the south-west has a large retired population—most of whom are dependent on fixed incomes of one kind or another. That is the geographical and demographic background to our problem.
In 1991–92, water charges in the south-west were the third highest in England and Wales, and as a consequence of increases over the past couple of years and the projected figure for next year, it will probably have the highest water charges in the country in 1994–95. Our K factor is 11·5 per cent., plus inflation. That is a genuinely worrying prospect for consumers, particularly when one considers the large number of retired people in the area and the average level of earnings.
I received only a couple of weeks ago Ofwat's report for July 1993, "Paying for Quality: The Political Perspective." It states that, if water authorities met all their obligations, £54 could be added to bills throughout England and Wales in the five years from 1995, and a further £23 in the following five years. That would amount to about 5 per cent. above inflation each year from 1995 till the year 2000.

777
The Director General of Water Services stated that, in some parts of the country, average bills could rise by more than £100 during that same period, and added:
"I do not believe that customers would want to see their water bills rising at this rate. Big increases in bills for low income households and for many pensioners would present real problems in affordability."
The projected figures for Devon and Cornwall show that the increases there are likely to be higher than the average quoted by the director general.
What can and should be done? I immediately dismiss the options of delaying implementation, which would be wrong, and any suggestion of deliberately reducing standards—although I would not object to cutting out frills, niceties and extravagance. The most acceptable and sensible course for the south-west would be for the Government to acknowledge that our coastline is a national asset and to accept that the cost of improvements should in part be met by the Exchequer.
At the time of privatisation, South West Water received a green dowry of £266 million, which was most welcome, and that principle can and should be extended. The population of Devon and Cornwall are certainly looking for some assistance.
As to the future of our regional air link with London Heathrow, there is no doubt that its continuation is essential to regional policy and as a central element in our regional transport infrastructure. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade acknowledged that in a letter to me in March, when he confirmed the importance of good air links to businesses in the south-west:
"To this end, I wrote to John MacGregor on 25 February to pass on to him the strength of feeling held by people in Devon and Cornwall on the continued ability of Brymon Airways to operate its present services between Heathrow and Plymouth and Newquay. In my capacity as the Minister responsible for regional policy, I asked him to consider the detrimental effects that a reduction in these services could have on inward investment intentions to the Region and on the already high level of unemployment."
It is not without significance that 70 per cent. of passengers using that service are interlining. The service is crucial to attracting inward investment. Devon and Cornwall have a creditable record in that respect, but the chief executive of the Devon and Cornwall Development Bureau has several times stated publicly that, unless that service is continued, the chances of building on that excellent record will be slim.
Devon and Cornwall are competing for inward investment from the United States, Japan and the far east, not only with other United Kingdom regions but with regions across Europe. Throughout the 1980s, we had an excellent regional air link operated by Brymon and felt reasonably secure. Brymon then amalgamated with Birmingham European Airways. Unfortunately, the atmosphere changed, and we grew apprehensive.
In May 1993, British Airways—which previously had a 40 per cent. shareholding in Brymon European—took over Brymon Aviation. I have no doubt that British Airways' assurance that it will continue the west country air link is genuine and sincere, but we all know that commercial circumstances can and do change—hence my continuing anxiety.
Brymon holds 56 valuable slots at London Heathrow, and the value of that asset is estimated at £56 million—£1
778
million per slot. It is only natural that any commercial undertaking such as British Airways should want to maximise valuable assets.
Parallel to those changes was the publication of a Civil Aviation Authority discussion document, initiated in January, to review access by regional services to congested airports. When the CAA published its conclusions in April, the south-west was disappointed, but not surprised, that the authority stuck resolutely to its refusal to comment on the merits of protecting slots as an aspect of regional economic policy—which it said was a matter for the Government.
At the same time, on 18 January there came into effect a European regulation entitled "Common Rules for the Allocation of Slots at Community airports", article 9 of which refers specifically to regional services. I believe that the west country air link is the only regional air link that satisfies that article's four criteria for the circumstances in which a national Government could reserve certain slots at a fully co-ordinated airport for domestic scheduled services.
Since the publication of the regulations, my west country colleagues and I have held a number of meetings with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport. We have reminded them that the west country air link is the only United Kingdom regional air link that satisfies those criteria. If Ministers were to agree, they would not, I believe, be establishing a dangerous precedent but would be making a positive contribution towards safeguarding our regional air link and helping to develop the regional economy of the west country.
5.19 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I want to raise two items of constituency interest and two national items that affect every constituency in the country.
Reference has already been made to Patricia Cahill and Karyn Smith having been pardoned and released from a Thai gaol and to the fact that they are now negotiating unsavoury commercial transactions to try to secure gain from an offence which they have admitted. I hope that the Prime Minister, having secured their pardon, will make his views known, perhaps privately, to them, for a specific reason. The parents of Sandra Gregory, who has just been put on trial in Thailand, live in my constituency and are naturally concerned that anything that may arise out of their actions may prejudice her trial, or any plea for mercy or pardon that may follow from that trial.
I hope that the advisers of the two girls in question, Patricia Cahill and Karyn Smith, will put it to them that they are fortunate to be free and that therefore they have a responsibility to respect the threat and the difficulties facing others in a similar situation. I should like to think that other hon. Members regard that as a message that could usefully go out from this place.
Mr. William Powell: I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The mother of Robert Lock is one of my constituents. There is absolutely no doubt that what the hon. Gentleman has said is right.
Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
The other item of constituency interest arises out of the statement to which we have just listened. I made it clear when I asked a question that unemployment in the area

779
which I represent is low. We do not have assisted area status and do not directly seek it. However, the Minister for Industry referred to the procedures for objective 2 and objective 5(b) status. The Leader of the House may be aware of the fact—if he is not, I am about to make him aware—that the western part of my constituency is a candidate for 5(b) status. The important point to bear in mind is the one that I made earlier: much of that area is part of the Aberdeen travel-to-work area. That travel-to-work area may be administratively convenient, but in practical terms it is a nonsense.
The city of Aberdeen is an extremely prosperous and lively commercial centre. It is the centre of oil-related activities and many other services. The hinterland stretches as far as 70 miles away—right into the foothills of the Cairngorms. It suffers from the problems of rural depopulation and rural deprivation. That area is completely different from the rest of the Aberdeen travel-to-work area.
I have already made the point to Scottish Office Ministers—and I certainly hope to make it to Department of Trade and Industry Ministers—that the area faces serious difficulties. To the west, we have the highlands and islands, which have category I status. To the east, we have the booming economy of the city of Aberdeen. If this area does not obtain 5(b) status, it will be in danger of becoming a black hole. It will be denuded by the two compelling magnets on either side of it. These are important arguments and should be considered. Can the Leader of the House therefore give us any indication of the Government's timetable for the determination of 5(b) status and, obviously, of the European Commission's timetable?
As for the national issues that affect every constituency in the country, I refer first to the astonishing reaction to the Sheehy report on the future of policing. A point of clarification that would help me as a Scottish Member is exactly what status the report has north of the border. The police force there is in no doubt whatsoever that the Sheehy report has far-reaching implications and will be drawn on for any reforms of the police service there.
If the reforms are adopted and the Home Secretary appoints the chairmen of police authorities and their members, can the Leader of the House say whether appointments in Scotland will be by the Home Secretary or by the Secretary of State for Scotland? There does not seem to be a clear view of where the responsibility will lie. The demonstration at Wembley last week has, almost overnight and somewhat surprisingly, turned my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) into something of a folk hero among the police. I witnessed that today when I attended a meeting with my hon. Friend, at which senior police officers went out of their way to comment on the quality of his speech and to say how much they appreciated my hon. Friend's support.
Without going into the details of the report, which will continue to be debated, there is real concern that its underlying philosophy is alien to the concept of a public service police force. I draw the attention of the House to Sir Patrick Sheehy's article in the Financial Times today. I thought that it was a rather offensive article. Nevertheless, I draw attention to a sentence that appears at the end of the first paragraph. Conservative Members may not agree with me, but I find it somewhat chilling. It reads:
780
"The federation's response to our report has been so long on emotion and so short on factual content that the shareholders (the public at large) must be confused."
That kind of language, when we are talking about a police force, is, I believe, totally and utterly inappropriate. It reflects a philosophical approach to the reform of the police service that strikes no chord at all with those who are carrying out the job.
Part of the discussion has centred on the issue of performance-related pay and short-term contracts. Police officers ask how performance-related pay will encourage crime prevention, as opposed to crime detection: is there not a danger that it may encourage prosecutions or charges being brought simply to get the statistics up? Does it not also fail to take on board many aspects of a police officer's job that cannot easily be measured in simple terms, where measurement of performance will vary from force to force and from individual to individual? The Government will have to do a lot more explaining if they are to satisfy the police.
The same applies to short-term contracts. When one joins the police, it is not a question of going into a job for life. For most police officers, it is a mission that they expect to pursue during a full-term career. To be theatened with the possibility of the discontinuance of their contract every five years, on the basis of some criteria that the police do not yet know about and in which they do not have full confidence, will not raise the morale of the police force. I urge the Government, for their own sake as well as for the sake of the country, to take these points on board before they make a decision.
My final point on this issue relates to local accountability. There is deep-seated resistance to any suggestion that there should be a nationally co-ordinated police force. The tradition of the independence of police forces and their accountability to local communities is extremely strong. There is something sinister about the idea of co-ordinating police activities through a network of Home Secretary appointees, with an agenda of their own which might be differently driven from that of local communities.
I have highlighted the points of greatest concern about that issue. I do not necessarily expect the Leader of the House to respond to them today, other than to say that he is aware of them and that the Government will consider them.
The final issue that I wish to raise is the very contentious issue of VAT on fuel. It is very serious, and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is pertinent. The House is proposing to rise for the recess without a statement from the Government about how they will compensate those pensioners and others on benefit who are very worried about the impact of the extra charge of VAT on their fuel bills.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been hinting, or hints have been released on his behalf, that the Government may be about to think again or that there is some difficulty in finding a mechanism. However, in a sense, the Chancellor has simply set other hares running by suggesting that he might be more favourably disposed to VAT on food or children's clothes in respect of which he is known to have voted in favour in the past. That will not help the Government's cause and it is not healthy for many

781
people in the community to be worried about one tax which has been promised and then to be told that others may be on the way.
Will the Leader of the House make it categorically clear whether there is to be a rethink about VAT on fuel, its timetable of imposition and whether the full 17·5 per cent. will be adhered to? What measures are the Government likely to produce to provide compensation if they go ahead? If the Leader of the House cannot answer that, when are the Government likely to come forward with an idea of what will be done and who will benefit?
Before coming to the House today, I took the trouble of contacting one or two relevant groups to discover what measures they are looking for. In particular, I contacted Age Concern and Neighbourhood Energy Action. They told me that 8 million people on benefit are looking to the Government for an idea of what might be done.
The proportion of income that the poorest people spend on fuel is, by definition, disproportionately high. According to Age Concern, 15·3 per cent. of the income of single pensioners with an income of under £60 a week is spent on fuel. Even those retired households with incomes of £120 a week spend 9·7 per cent. of their income on fuel. That comprises a significant part of their income and they face a 2 to 3 per cent. increase in the burden on their income through the imposition of VAT on fuel.
The Government have said, "Don't worry. We are going to bring in mechanisms that will compensate you all." However, the two groups to which I have referred can see no way in which the Government can deliver that. The problem is logical to me. I am a Scottish Member and I represent a constituency in the north of Scotland. By definition, fuel bills for my constituents are higher on average than they are for people who live in the south-west of England. In winter, days are shorter and temperatures are lower. Therefore, my constituents' bills are disproportionately higher.
In addition, and this point applies throughout the country—although the colder the area, the more severe the problem—people who are more housebound and less mobile consume more heat. It is difficult to see how any measure can discriminate or identify those people in a flexible way.
The argument that putting VAT on fuel is a matter of encouraging energy efficiency is acceptable only if the Government come up with a comprehensive package to help people achieve more energy efficient housing. It is suggested that the Government might reassess the introduction of the hard-to-heat housing grants which used to operate. It would be helpful if the Government were prepared to provide greater home insulation grants and access to energy audits to enable people to identify the seriousness of their situation. The Government should recognise that they are unlikely to allay the cost of that to all the 8 million people on the lowest incomes.
I should be grateful if the Leader of the House could give us some idea about how that problem will be approached. There is a great deal of concern and worry and we can make any amount of political capital out of this issue. Indeed, the Leader of the House will be aware that we are making a great deal of political capital out of the issue in a particular community. However, there is a serious point, because it affects every constituency to a
782
greater or lesser degree. The people who are directly affected are genuinely and desperately anxious to know how they are going to make ends meet. They know that they will have to face bigger bills, but they do not know yet what measures are likely to be introduced to alleviate those bills or how they will be applied.
The agencies that know about these things do not believe that the Government can fulfil their own objectives of protecting everyone against the impact of the tax on fuel. If the Government are beginning to recognise that and are now prepared to modify their position, the sooner they say so, the better. If that means that they will have to bring in another tax in another area which is just as unpopular, I suppose that the Government will have to say that at the same time.
5.34 pm
Mr. John Ward: Before the House adjourns for the summer, I believe that we should take a little time to consider the state of nuclear power stations in central and eastern Europe. While I hope to show that a certain amount of work has already been carried out to make the more dangerous plants safe, there is insufficient awareness of the continuing danger from those nuclear power plants.
I should like to begin by complimenting Mr. Bassinet, a former Member of the French Parliament, who produced a report for the Council of Europe which was printed earlier this year. His report has provided much of the information for my speech today. At least Mr. Bassinet's report has increased the awareness of the dangers and problems of the nuclear power plants to which I have referred among the 40 nations that are members of the Council of Europe or special guests at its meetings.
The Soviet-designed nuclear power plants can be divided into two categories: RBMK graphite-moderated reactors of the Chernobyl type and VVER pressurised water reactors. At present, there are 57 reactors, including 15 of the graphite-moderated type, scattered in different countries and 15 reactors of the pressurised water type are still under construction.
The RBMK reactors do not have' a containment structure. Their design is old fashioned and has no equivalent in the west. Since the Chernobyl disaster, those reactors have been giving increasing cause for concern and it is recommended by many that they should be shut down within a reasonable time.
The VVER reactors can be broken down into three groups. The oldest, first-generation reactors have the most serious design faults with no containment structure, very little core cooling capacity, and, in the event of failure, they are very badly instrumented.
The second group of VVER reactors is rather better than the earlier models, but it still has many shortcomings. The third group of reactors, which are of recent design, come closest to matching western standards and do have containment structures. However, they suffer from inadequate supervision and remain a source of concern.
With all their inadequacies, many of those nuclear power plants were under strict surveillance and protection by, of all people, the KGB and there was little risk of insecurity as a result of terrorist attack. However, that appears no longer to be the case and some are inadequately protected from any form of forced entry.

783
Plants in the former Soviet socialist republics have a shortage of specialist personnel, partly through ill feeling against the Russian technicians and partly because some of them have been persuaded to move elsewhere by offers of much higher salaries and better working conditions.
As they have so many other problems, both economic and social, people living near the plants to which I have referred seem almost indifferent to the dangers on their doorstep, even though some of the plants are located close to cities such as St. Petersburg and Kiev. It is reported that plants in Hungary and Bulgaria are better supervised, but the inherent lack of safety in their design still gives cause for concern.
On 26 April, the Evening Standard published an excellent article that gave full details of sources of danger from power stations and other nuclear installations. If colleagues wish to seek further information on this subject, I recommend that they read that article.
Most people's immediate reaction is that we should shut down a large number of the reactors operating in eastern Europe. That is hardly a realistic option, given that 50 per cent. of power generation in some of those countries comes from nuclear power.
Given that those plants might have to be operated for some years, I can envisage several problems: first, the lack of containment against radiation leaks or accidents; secondly, inadequate instrumentation and control and brittleness in the reactor vessels; thirdly, the quality of some of the personnel now operating many of the plants; fourthly, pressure on operators to produce the maximum possible amount of electricity, which, in the case of Chernobyl, could lead to short cuts resulting in an accident; and, fifthly and by far the most important, the danger to life not just within the area of the power stations concerned but in Europe generally and possibly beyond, depending on weather conditions, if there were a repeat of the Chernobyl incident.
What is being done and what more can be done? The G7, the European Council and the international atomic energy conference on nuclear safety in 1991 accepted that each country must be responsible for regulating the safety of its own nuclear installations. Those are fine words, but, given the record of Chernobyl and economic conditions in the Soviet bloc, is that enough? At the G7 summit in March last year, steps were taken to set up an international programme to improve nuclear safety and agree new regulations to ensure the safe operation of as many plants as possible.
The United Kingdom Government are playing a significant part in addressing those issues. Apart from their financial contribution, they have made technical help and advice available through the nuclear installations inspectorate and our nuclear industry. Many international organisations are also allocating resources to the problem, but continued progress depends on the will and the finance being available in the countries concerned. I question whether either is available in sufficient quantities at present.
It has been said that it would be prohibitively expensive to bring the 60 or so reactors up to western safety standards and that neither national nor international funds would be available for such a step. We have to set against that the cost to all of us if there were another Chernobyl or an even worse accident. Time is not on the side of the operators of the nuclear plants to which I have referred. Pressure must be maintained to ensure that the
784
problem is solved as speedily as possible, even if international finance has to be diverted from other worthwhile causes.
I accept that we cannot rush into other countries and start organising their work or, indeed, carrying it out for them, but many international authorities have accepted that the oldest reactors represent a very high risk to the international community and that their continued operation would certainly not be accepted in any western country. As Lord Marshall of Goring pointed out in an interview in September, the Russians know their own systems best, and we should support them by supplying them with what they want, particularly the technology which they cannot afford because they have no hard currency. That must be done in close co-operation with the operators, because, if we supplied technology or equipment that they did not want, they would simply not use it. It is desperately important that the international community should focus on that dangerous matter.
I have concentrated on the problems associated with nuclear power plants, and that is where most of our efforts need to be concentrated, but we cannot ignore the many experimental and small reactors in the former Soviet Union which, although small, are equally dangerous. For instance, the former chief nuclear safety inspector for Russia has said that there are 50 such nuclear reactors in Moscow alone, together with a waste dump which is in a highly dangerous condition. I have no time to go into the detail, but that illustrates once again the need for urgent co-ordinated international action and serious consideration of how funds can be provided to raise the safety threshold of all nuclear installations in the former Soviet bloc.
It goes without saying that any funds that are made available from the west must be spent in such a way that they can be supervised by the west to ensure that they are used for the purpose for which they are intended, which is to improve safety for the whole of the former Soviet Union and the surrounding countries.
As I see it, there are two main ways of dealing with the problems that I have illustrated—first, the efficient co-ordination of international efforts, with access to the top levels in the countries concerned, and, secondly, finance which will be needed from outside the former Soviet bloc. One estimate is that the current flow of funds would need to be increased tenfold if we are to bring all nuclear plants in eastern and central Europe up to international standards. It will take a skilful combination of the technical options and what is politically possible to achieve the safety levels that we must insist on, even if, in some cases, it leads to the shutting down of the most dangerous reactors and their replacement by other forms of power generation.
An encouraging move in that direction has been made by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, by setting up within the bank a multilateral nuclear safety fund which would be available to achieve the objectives that I have set out today. But that fund will need resources that are specifically earmarked for nuclear safety and sufficient supervision to ensure that the funds are used for their intended purpose. We need to make it clear that large sums of money are involved.
At the G7 meeting in Munich, to which I have already referred, it was suggested that $20 billion would be needed to cover the power stations in Russia and Ukraine, and approximately the same amount for eastern and central

785
Europe and the other former Soviet republics. That is a long-term commitment, but, again, it has been estimated that $200 million needs to be spent on all first generation reactors and somewhat smaller sums spent on second and third generation reactors. We are talking vast sums, particularly when compared with the other needs of those countries. However, I believe that when hon. Members consider the figures that I have put to the House today and the potential danger to the whole of mankind, they will agree that the priority must be to establish safety in the nuclear power industry.
In summary, we need a careful analysis of all the problems, speedy discussions with the Governments of the relevant countries about the problems and proposed solutions, a respected international co-ordinating body —possibly the International Atomic Energy Agency—to oversee standards, and an international effort to provide the necessary funds and ensure that they are spent to achieve the standard of safety which we are entitled to expect.
I believe that there is much international acceptance of the problems, and there have been many calls at national and international level for progress. What we need now is action. Colleagues have only to read the national press to learn of one incident after another in which rules on nuclear safety have been broken either for experimental purposes or in an attempt to boost electricity production. I remind the House that, seven years after the Chernobyl incident, areas of the United Kingdom are still contaminated by radioactive fallout. We cannot let complacency or concentration on other matters of national and international importance lead us to ignore that huge danger to mankind. We are sitting on a powder keg of outdated nuclear installations.
The problems that I have described are just some of the challenges which the west has to face following the disintegration of the communist bloc, but those problems are potentially the most important and certainly the most dangerous that we have to deal with.
5.47 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: I wish to speak about the present situation in Cyprus. Nineteen years ago, the island of Cyprus was brutually invaded by the Turkish army. That army is still in Cyprus and the island is still divided. The United Kingdom is one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus, and Cyprus is a member of the British Commonwealth.
Over the years, hon. Members have campaigned for an honourable settlement in Cyprus. We have always called for the rights of Greek and Turkish Cypriots to be fully honoured and respected in any settlement. We have always supported United Nations resolutions on Cyprus and we have supported the talks between the leaders of both communities. However, it is now 1993 and there has been no progress whatsoever in those talks over the years.
When one asks why there has been no progress, the answer is not hard to find. It is due, without doubt, to the attitude of Mr. Rauf Denktas, the self-styled leader of the Republic of Northern Cyprus. He is the man who, year after year, has presented every obstacle to progress in the talks that have taken place. Indeed, he is the man whom the Secretary-General of the United Nations indicted as
786
the person whose action, once again, caused the recent breakdown of the UN-sponsored talks in New York on Cyprus.
It is interesting to read the speech of Mr. Denktas, given in Ankara on 10 June, when he criticised the talks that were held under the auspices of the United Nations. Yet it was agreed by the three guarantor powers—the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey—for the island of Cyprus and the representatives of the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus that those talks should be held under the auspices of the United Nations. It was hoped that progress would be made towards a settlement. What is the attitude of the British Government to yet another collapse of those talks, given that the Government are directly involved in them? In particular, what is Britain's attitude to Mr. Denktas? How much longer must we put up with his tantrums? There have been many since the invasion in 1974.
It would be interesting to discover exactly when the British Government propose to take an active role in the tragedy of Cyprus. It is my belief, and that of many hon. Members, including many Conservatives, that the Government have never taken an active role.
Many hon. Members have questioned the trade between northern Cyprus and this country and the kind of products involved. I firmly believe that many of the goods that now find their way into the United Kingdom are produced on land stolen from Greek Cypriots. Hon. Members have tried repeatedly to obtain information about that, but without success. Recent events concerning an individual who has fled to Cyprus to avoid British justice may cause the Government to consider more closely exactly where goods from northern Cyprus are produced and on whose land. Many would welcome that.
Turkish nationals who come to this country now may have dual nationality because they have, at one time, lived in northern Cyprus. Many travel from mainland Turkey to the occupied area of northern Cyprus. They are then given documents by the northern Cypriot Administration which allow them to travel to this country. They gain entry to the United Kingdom when they have no right to do so. They are not citizens of northern Cyprus, but citizens of Turkey. The Government must address that problem because there is ample evidence of abuse taking place.
For many years, Cyprus has sought to be involved in the European Community and it is now actively seeking membership of it. The per capita income of Cyprus is already greater than that of some of the Community member states and its economic growth has been much faster than that enjoyed by other member states. It would be interesting to discover whether the British Government support the entry of Cyprus into the Community, because that could offer hope to the people of Cyprus, be they Greek or Turkish.
Another issue which has involved a great deal of recent discussion and which many hon. Members do not want to see drift relates to the future of Famagusta and Varosha, because a decision on them would benefit both the communities on the island. There has been talk of the possibility that Famagusta could be open once again. It is important to remember that it was one of the most popular areas on the island; it could be again.
I accept that the Leader of the House is not in a position to reply specifically to the points I have raised, but, after previous debates, I am aware that, to his credit, he has always ensured that the points that I or other hon.

787
Members have raised have been conveyed to the appropriate Ministers. It would, therefore, be interesting to discover the Government's view on the possible reopening of Famagusta, because that would benefit the people of Cyprus.
In October, the Heads of State of the Commonwealth countries will meet in Cyprus. The United Kingdom will be represented by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I have written to inquire whether it is their intention to ensure that the subject of Cyprus is discussed at that conference, especially given that that conference will be held in Cyprus. I shall be interested to know the answer.
It is 19 years since Cyprus was invaded. Greek Cypriots, whether they live in Cyprus or in the United Kingdom, have had enough. They have witnessed the division of their country, which is now partly occupied by a foreign army. They believe that the talks that have gone on for the past 19 years have achieved nothing. They look to the British Government, as one of the guarantor powers, to set in motion discussions that will lead to a meaningful settlement.
Young Greek Cypriots, whether they live in Cyprus or in the United Kingdom, as many do, are fed up with the lack of any meaningful progress in the past 19 years. I hope that that point, in particular, is conveyed to the Foreign Secretary. The time for excuses has now come to an end. The aim of those young people is shared by many hon. Members, irrespective of party, who have campaigned for the rights of Greek and Turkish Cypriots to be upheld in any settlement.
The time has come for meaningful action by the British Government. Any such action will be carefully scrutinised in the coming months. I hope that the Government appreciate that. I also hope that they will respond to the concerns I have expressed, which could have equally been expressed by Conservative Members, in a debate such as this.
5.59 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am glad that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is still here. I was rather amused to hear him say that his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) had been hailed as a folk hero by the police. Some of us have long memories: the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland was a junior Minister in the pre-1979 Labour Government, when police numbers were dropping drastically because they were dissatisfied with their pay and conditions. It took the Conservative Government, elected in May 1979, to implement the Edmund-Davies report and to do something about police pay and conditions.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gordon was not present at business questions on Thursday, when he would have heard several of my hon. Friends ask the Leader of the House, about the Sheehy report. We know perfectly well that nothing will be done to implement it until it has been fully discussed in the House so that we can make the points that have been made to us by police officers. It is better to wait until we have had a full debate to see what the Government intend before indulging in any more conjecture.
I always regard these debates as useful. I apologise in advance for being repetitious. My right hon. Friend knows
788
well that, over the years, I have tried desperately hard to get a new community hospital in south Trafford. I shall continue to raise the matter in these debates until we have one. A community hospital in south Trafford is long overdue. If my right hon. Friend checks, he will find that since 1980 Trafford health authority has been the only district in the north-west not to have been given a large capital project.
When I last raised the matter in a debate on 18 May, I mentioned the disciples of gloom who make up the membership of the Broadheath Labour party in my constituency and who were pessimistic about our ever achieving a new community hospital. Because I chided them, they have had a go at me—perfectly fairly. A veteran party member and inveterate newspaper columnist attacked me. That, too, was perfectly fair, except that he misquoted me—although that is not unusual.
In my speech on 18 May I quoted a large chunk from a report by Trafford health authority, but my friend in the Broadheath Labour party attributed the words to me. He was not trying to be fair; he was trying to score cheap political points. That does not come well from a man who has twice stood in the ward and been soundly rejected by the electors of Broadheath.
It is sad that we cannot put up a united front on this issue, putting politics to one side and working as one to try to acheive something that would be a great asset to our area. The new community hospital would consist of 24 beds and 24 day places for the elderly mentally infirm. It would have 48 beds and 30 day places for the elderly and two 25-place mental illness day units. It would also have four out-patient clinic suites, two radiodiagnostic rooms, 10 investigation beds and one small pathology laboratory.
The community hospital, when we get it, will fill a desperate need in the constituency. We are all, regardless of party, well aware of the problems of an aging population. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to warn our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that I am still on the warpath and will continue to be so until the hospital becomes a reality.
I have also raised my second issue before—I do not apologise for that. It concerns the worries expressed by housing associations because they are now the main providers of new rented housing. More help in this sector would be most welcome.
I should like to quote from a pamphlet just issued by the National Federation of Housing Associations, called "The case for housing: build homes and create jobs". It states:
"The problems new tenants have paying their rents can be seen from the increased dependency on housing benefit: more than 70 per cent. are eligible for full or partial benefit. The NFHA fears that Government proposals to reduce housing association grant to 55 per cent. would increase this figure to 89 per cent. and cause great hardship to many tenants who would be pushed deeper into the poverty trap. Ministers should take heed of the House of Commons Environment Committee which recommended that 'the Government consider very carefully the consequences of allowing rates of HAG to fall below 67 per cent"'.
The construction industry has clearly suffered badly during the recession. It is estimated that about 500,000 construction workers have lost their jobs in the past three years. If it is true—the figure has been bandied about a great deal—that each unemployed worker costs the Government £9,000 a year in increased benefit payments

789
and lost income tax and national insurance contributions, any cut in the building programme would only make matters worse.
We desperately need more affordable homes; by building more, we reduce the number of unemployed and we rehouse people in urgent need, such as the homeless, young single people, people leaving institutions for care in the community, and the growing number of elderly people who need specialist housing.
To return to a problem that I have raised before, the system is a disincentive to thrift. Time and again I come across cases of people who have made no attempt to save. Then there are others who have scrimped and saved all their lives, only to find that their thrift is being penalised. Under our rules people with capital of between £3,000 and £16,000 find that interest is assumed at the rate of £1 a week for every £250 of capital. I only wish that someone would give me that rate of interest on my savings. It is, frankly, a ridiculous disincentive to save and it should be urgently re-examined.
My last issue is a local one. Earlier this year, Metrolink opened in our area. It is a great asset, giving us a marvellous system of transport from Bury in the north to Altrincham in the south. The system is widely used and it offers a convenient way of getting into Manchester. It also takes cars off the road, which is enormously helpful.
There are, however, plans to expand the system to the south Manchester and airport lines. The expansion is proposed by the Greater Manchester light rapid transport system. The new line, to be called the Olympic link, will connect Chorlton-cum-Hardy to Wythenshawe and, ultimately, Manchester airport. I question the suggested route that the line will take across the Mersey river valley. It is recognised that the plan seeks to use road corridors that have already been proposed in the urban development plans of Greater Manchester, Manchester and Trafford —that appears at first sight a logical step for the tram route.
What concerns me is the fact that in Trafford metropolitan borough council's urban development programme the Mersey valley is identified as an area of natural beauty and a recreational resource; a potential financial resource in the form of mining deposits; and the location for an eventual extension of Hardy lane as part of an orbital route into the city of Manchester. Permission for the proposed tram route will damage all three components of the UDP.
The current proposed route will also cut through a corner of Pimmcroft housing estate, an estate of homes built about five years ago. The plans would mean the demolition of eight houses that people have bought only recently. Originally the land was safeguarded for the western parkway road scheme, but it was abandoned some years ago. Its reservation is still largely intact and now forms the path of the proposed Metrolink line.
The developers of the estate will have bought the land for development with no idea of what the future held and will then have developed and sold the land in good faith. There are also problems to do with environmental damage. A couple of weeks ago, I met a group of local residents and I am due to meet the director-general of Greater Manchester passenger transport executive on Friday.
790
Local residents worry that their homes could be blighted. The housing market is difficult enough as it is without making it worse. Someone who suddenly finds that he has to move to another part of the country for work reasons and then discovers that his home is blighted is in a serious position. The local residents are asking for a public inquiry on the Metrolink extension and its viability. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could check the procedure and let me know.
Before the House rises for the summer recess, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give me good news on the local community hospital, good news for housing associations and helpful information for residents of the Pimmcroft housing estate in my constituency.
6.9 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), because this is one of the rare occasions on which I substantially agree with him. I am sure that he will agree that there are great possibilities for Greater Manchester in an extended Metrolink network but that, when the route leaves the old railway lines, it will cause problems.
I hope that Greater Manchester can negotiate with individual landowners to find a route that causes no disturbance. If not, as I understand it, any proposal for an extension of the line will have to go to a public inquiry. The Transport and Works Act 1992 removed the need for individual schemes to be promoted by private Bills, and gave local bodies the power to make representations to the Secretary of State, and gave the Secretary of State power then to arrange a public inquiry.
I also agree with the hon. Member's concern about grant levels for housing associations. I was a member of the Select Committee on the Environment which produced a good report, from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. I hope that the Government will soon issue a favourable response. The report emphasised that we are not building the 80,000 houses a year we need to build. By the turn of the century, 500,000 families who should be housed will not be housed because of the shortfall. As the hon. Gentleman said, about 500,000 building workers are out of work, so it is criminal that we are not building for the future.
I was not quite so happy with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Sheehy report. He suggested that we could wait for a debate, but I believe that the Government should make it clear that they will shred or bin the report, and do so quickly, because it is already doing great damage to police morale. Until the Government state their views clearly, the issue will continue to fester within the police force.
What would be the attitude of the Leader of the House if he were a young constable, wondering whether to begin studying for his sergeant's exams? A constable takes perhaps 12 months to pass the tests, after which he has the opportunity to act as a sergeant for another 12 months. Now, he will be offered a new contract; instead of the security that he has now, he would have to ask himself whether he should risk accepting a short-term contract as proposed by Sheehy.
As long as such uncertainty rests in the back of a police officer's mind, he will wonder whether he should change jobs. That is not the way to ensure that crime is tackled.

791
The Government should be making it clear to the police force that they do not intend to put it through a continuous series of changes but want the force to be able to get on with the job.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) spoke of compensation to the poor when value added tax is levied on domestic fuel. We need a speedy solution to the problem; it could be a reason for the House to sit this week or to return early from the summer recess.
Clearly, part of the compensation can be granted through the benefits system, but it will be necessary for the Government to provide extra compensation to take into account the fact that some people live in properties that are hard to heat, or in cold parts of the country. The most logical solution is to provide insulation schemes for their dwellings, but such schemes will have to be implemented quickly in time for the first heating bills under the new system.
I stayed for this debate to express the disgust of people in the Manchester travel-to-work area about the removal of its intermediate area status. My right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) expressed considerable concern.
The Minister for Industry said glibly that unemployment in Manchester was not too bad. I remind him that one in 10 are still unemployed, but the much more serious figure for Manchester is that of the long-term unemployed. It is especially worrying for the people of Manchester that the Government seem to have washed their hands of the area and are no longer prepared to give any assistance to help it tackle the problem.
What effect will the loss of status have on Manchester's Olympic bid? As I understood it, some of the help for the bid was to come from grants which would be available as a result of the area's present status. If it loses that status, as the Government have decided it will, it will be that much harder for the area to get grants, and especially the passport to European Community money.
The Minister argued that there was not necessarily a link between EC grant status and intermediate status. It will be extremely difficult, however, to go cap in hand to the EC and ask whether an area can qualify for EC money when it does not qualify for assistance from our own Government. I should also be grateful for the Leader of the House's comments on the vast areas of east Manchester and the substantial part of Tameside which comprise derelict land. I should have thought that it was important to continue to assist in clearing those areas.
Apparently, the Government's thinking is that they will continue to give assistance to the Trafford Park area but not the rest of the Manchester travel-to-work area. I accept that, 30 years ago, 30,000 people worked at places such as Metro's in the centre of Trafford Park, which was the natural focus for people in the Manchester travel-to-work area. There were various works buses and a better rail network, and many people established car sharing systems to get to work.
With the destruction of Metrovicks and Trafford Park, the network for travelling into the area disappeared. Unless the Government can come up with new assistance for the area to make it easy for people to travel to Trafford Park—perhaps an extension of the metro system—it would be more logical to provide jobs near where people live than perpetuate a system under which people travel to Trafford Park.
792
I am very disappointed by the decision to remove the area's status, and I am sure that many people in the travel-to-work area will feel the same. We believe that the decision is simply political gerrymandering and that there is no logic in the Government's decision to remove intermediate status from the Manchester travel-to-work area.
Another issue that directly affects my constituents is the proposed closure of the Lancashire Hill post office. Many hon. Members have had a considerable number of letters from constituents who are worried about the long-term future of post offices after the Government's decision to encourage people to have benefits paid other than through post offices. It is ironic that the Government are encouraging people to have benefits paid through the banks, because banks have closed in Brinnington and in Haughton Green in my constituency, making it difficult for anyone foolish enough to ask for their money to be paid in that way rather than through the post office.
In advance of the general decline of post offices, which the Government are encouraging, it is proposed to close the Lancashire Hill post office in my constituency. It is in the centre of a council estate which was built in the 1960s. The estate consists of deck access flats and, although some flats are very attractive inside, some of the communal areas are appalling. The local authority, with much pressing from councillors and myself, suggested a regeneration scheme to the Government. The Government have given permission for the £12 million or so to be borrowed.
The authority is now halfway through the development scheme, but, because of the age of the postmaster, it has been proposed to close the post office. It would be crazy to close it, and I plead with the Government to use what influence they have with the Post Office. Although takings in the shop may be down because one half or one third of the estate is empty at present, within three years £12 million will have been spent on it, and the post office deserves to be kept open.
Mr. Newton: I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be able to get sufficient information to give him a detailed reply. I take it that he is referring to a sub-post office, not a Crown post office?
Mr. Bennett: I am referring to a sub-post office.
The usual argument by the Post Office is that there are other post offices relatively nearby. There is a Crown post office down the hill and another sub-post office some distance up the hill, but the Crown office, especially, does not offer the same service to pensioners as the one in the middle of the estate. I realise that it may be difficult, but I make a plea to the Government to assist me in persuading the Post Office to keep the existing post office open.
I wish to make two quick points before I end. First, I was in my constituency campaigning with Greenpeace recently to persuade people to boycott Norwegian goods. I hope that the Government will deliver a strong message to the Norwegian Government that we do not want them to begin whaling once more and that, if Norway wants to get into the EC, it must stop the practice. If only a small number of my constituents boycotted Norwegian products, the economic effect would outweigh the benefit that that country receives from whaling.
Secondly, the Norwegians could say that our environmeal record is not especially good, so will the

793
Leader of the House explain why it is not possible for a Defence Minister to come to the House and make a statement about Britain's intentions for nuclear testing?
I understand that it is a little embarrassing for the Government that the Americans have said that they do not want any more tests and that we have been saying, until recently, that they are essential for the security of the country, but the House deserves clear statements from the Government. Do they accept that nuclear tests are no longer necessary? If we are not to have any tests, do the Government have any intention of developing the tactical air-to-surface missiles or a new free-fall nuclear bomb system?
Instead of trying to slip such information out during the recess, it would have been far better if the Government had had the courage to say that nuclear proliferation is one of the most appalling problems in the world. Britain ought to be prepared to give a lead and hope that everyone else will give up testing. We ought to say that we are not prepared to develop any new systems, and thereby give some impetus to the non-nuclear proliferation treaty, so that we can make the world a safer place.
It is a long recess, and the topics that I have briefly mentioned are ones for which the Government could find more time. I understand that we return in October, and that there are another couple of weeks' holiday before the Queen's Speech. There is surely time to settle the question of Sheehy and tell people what will happen about proposed compensation for VAT, and there is certainly time for the Government to find an opportunity to announce that they are reversing their decision to take intermediate status from Greater Manchester.
6.23 pm
Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the summer recess, there are three points that I wish to raise. The first will be of concern and interest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, because it is to do with Essex county council.
He will know that, in May, the Conservatives lost control of that county council. The election resulted in 32 Conservative councillors, 33 Labour councillors and 32 Liberal councillors. For some while, a great deal of posturing went on about who was to control the council. Hey presto, the decision was made that Labour would jump into bed with the Liberals. I do not know whether there are arrangements to impeach county councillors, but, if there are not, perhaps the House would wish to consider that issue at another stage, because in the past three months the two socialist parties have reneged on their policies in an absolutely disgraceful fashion.
Before the county council elections, those parties made all sorts of promises, on which I am reliably informed they have gone back in a disgraceful way. We should continue to remind them of how they have let down the good people of Essex. They said that they were going to spend more money on education and deliver nursery education. At the county council meeting in the past week, it was discovered that there has been underspend of £4 million. A Conservative county councillor proposed that the money be spent on primary education, and that suggestion was voted down by the two socialist parties.
794
Also during the county council election campaign, it was said that something was to be done about Pitsea tip in my constituency, where there had been continual protest about the movements of dumping. The socialists said that it was a disgrace, and held a public meeting during the run-up to the May election. When it came up in committee, nothing was done.
Finally, during the county council elections, the socialists castigated the Conservative-controlled county council about the meals on wheels and social service policy generally. When it came up at a committee meeting two weeks ago, the Conservatives wanted to do more, but the two socialist parties voted them down and wanted to do less. We shall never let them forget their treachery and the way that they have let down the people of Essex.
Moving on to my second point, on 23 February I asked leave to introduce a Bill to stop sex selection. That grubby practice goes on in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). It is basically a racket by which people come along, pay money and get roughly a 55 per cent. chance of correctly selecting the sex of their child.
I should have thought that the House would consider that such a grubby practice should be outlawed. Instead, my Bill was opposed, and it was opposed by feminists. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, heard of anything so crazy as feminists opposing a Bill to outlaw sex selection, a practice which anyone with common sense realises works against women?
I was told during the debate that I should not have the arrogance to introduce such a Bill, that I should wait until the report of the committee overseeing those matters. Since then, that committee has reported, and it has recommended that sex selection should not be allowed in the country. Also, members of the British Medical Association are in favour of stopping sex selection.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I and many other hon. Members are concerned about the cheapness of life, and that we cannot think of anything more degrading than choosing the sex of one's child. We want action from the Government, and we will not be fobbed off.
My final point concerns Pitsea post office—a serious matter that affects many of my constituents. I am outraged by the lack of courtesy of Post Office Counters Ltd. Up until now, it has not even had the good grace to telephone or write to me asking for my opinion about the threatened transfer of Pitsea post office.
Rumours started in my constituency on 19 June that Pitsea post office would be closing, that Post Office Counters Ltd. had done a deal with the Tesco superstore, and that the post office would be moved there. For 70 per cent. of the people who use the Pitsea Crown post office, that move would be wonderful, because the store would be open longer hours and that would be much more convenient. But I am concerned not about the people with cars, the young and middle-aged, but about the senior citizens who will have great difficulty in getting to the Tesco superstore in Pitsea.
I am concerned about the rumour of a fait accompli. Tesco has gone out to public consultation until 6 August, but I am told that it is a cosmetic exercise. Work has been done on building the new post office in the Tesco superstore. Counters are being installed and staff are being told that they will have jobs. It is a disgrace. More than

795
2,000 of my constituents have signed a petition to oppose the transfer, and many of them—elderly and disabled people—are outraged.
Mr. John Marshall: May I give some hope to the people of Pitsea? Post Office Counters Ltd. used a similar ploy in Cricklewood, by means of which it managed to unite the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and myself. It decided that the union was so strange it should withdraw the proposal, and it may do so in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Mr. Amess: I am heartened by my hon. Friend's encouragement. Only this morning, as I opened Basildon playlink, one of the leaders of the protest group told me that training arrangements are appalling. Apparently, the training course used to last five weeks and the service was absolutely excellent, but now the proposal is for two seven-minute tests and only three week's training.
Hon. Members take their duties very seriously. I deprecate the lack of courtesy that seems to have crept in since the 1992 general election, because some hon. Members now visit other hon. Members' constituencies without dropping a note to inform them. That certainly is not the case with one Opposition Member, but I do not need the help of a Back-Bench Opposition Member who, I read from press cuttings, is holding a public meeting in my constituency. I am perfectly able to represent Basildon, as the chairman of Post Office Counters Ltd. and Tesco will find out next week.
6.32 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: May I deal, first, with the Minister's shocking excuse that the changes in assisted area status were presented so late in the parliamentary year because the Government had to consult an EC Commissioner about them? Are we so subservient to EC Commissioners that we cannot ask them to see our proposed changes at a date that suits the Government and that, if a highly paid bureaucrat on £130,000 a year plus expenses deems that he has not time to see a representative of the British Government, an order cannot be laid?
Parliament is entitled to 40 days in which to pray against the Assisted Areas Order 1993 during which the House could debate for an hour and a half the unfairness of removing Bradford's assisted area status, but if the House of Lords sits, even as the final court of appeal, our praying days are lost. If the House of Lords considers the Rees-Mogg case during the recess, we might lose as many as half of our praying days.
I hope that the Government will allocate sufficient time for debate. The number of hon. Members rising to put a question during this afternoon's statement showed widespread concern and deep suspicion of gerrymandering, on the basis not of need but of political convenience for the Government.
Bradford's removal from the list of assisted areas cannot be justified. There are 552 vacancies for 25,000 unemployed people in Bradford. Unemployment is almost 11 per cent. I mention that because of Bradford's heavy emphasis on manufacturing, particularly textiles and engineering, and because as a result of difficulties associated with the multi-fibre arrangement jobs are constantly being eroded.
796
Bradford has lost urban aid. The loss of section 11 grant from the Home Office particularly affects Bradford, which has a comparatively large ethnic minority population. Section 11 money was an important component of our assistance. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that, if a prayer is tabled—rest assured that it will be—serious consideration will be given to providing more than one and a half hours to debate the issue after the recess.
I tabled an amendment to the Adjournment motion to allow an extra two days to debate changes in assisted area status. A debate would have been very valuable, and I hope that, if I decide to divide the House, hon. Members will join me in the Lobby.
We need time to debate the "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", paragraph 107 of which says:
"Ministers must resign any directorships they hold when they give up office. This applies whether the directorship is in a public or a private company and whether it carries remuneration or is honorary. The only exception to this rule is that directorships in private companies established in connection with private family estates may be retained subject to the condition that, if at any time the Minister feels that conflict is likely to arise between this private interest and public duty, the Minister should even in those cases resign the directorship."
That is guidance from the Prime Minister. I believe that there should not be double standards between guidance from the Prime Minister to Ministers and legislation which the Government propose for the ordinary man or woman in the street. Tight rules apply to, for example, income support, social fund grants and loans. We should devote some time to debating those issues before the House rises. People who leave their employment without just cause can have their unemployment benefit cut by almost 20 per cent. for up to 26 weeks. The Bradford employment office —or unemployment office—invariably automatically chooses 26 weeks rather than one, two or three weeks, because the period for which it can deduct is up to 26 weeks and not a mandatory 26 weeks. Tight rules apply to ordinary people who are struggling to make ends meet week in, week out.
When I asked about four Ministers who were in breach of paragraph 107 of the "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", the Leader of the House told me that I was muck-raking—that I could not ask about Ministers, but Ministers could make rules to cut unemployment benefit for people who, for example, left their employment because of a dispute with their employer.
I take the view, and it should be on the record, that those rules should be kept. When the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), as director of a company—he receives no remuneration—supplies the services of two members of his family as actresses, that is not part of the family estate. It is better if a Minister resigns the directorship. The Select Committee on Members' Interests says to all hon. Members that, if an hon. Member is in any doubt, he should declare a financial interest. On balance, it is better if Ministers resign.
I accept that that example could be regarded as a marginal case, but, on the other hand, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who is also a Minister, is a director, not of one company but of several. I think that he is in breach of the rules. For example, he is a director of the Locana Corporation (London) Ltd., D'Arcy Stand Ltd., Tadworth Court Trust Ltd., Locana Nominees Ltd, General Securities Register Ltd. and Anacol Holdings Ltd.

797
Anacol Holdings Ltd. is a company that deals in securities. It may well be that the hon. Member has not received any remuneration, but he received a loan during 1992 of £75,000 by the Locana Corporation (London) Ltd., a subsidiary to TSK Yeo. The loan was repaid, but it has a value. The rules for Ministers—in paragraph 107 —are laid down to avoid any conflict when Ministers make decisions. It seems quite qrong that Ministers can avoid or bend the rules, but if ordinary people try to bend the rules that the Government produce, a different set of standards is imposed.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: My hon. Friend referred to double standards for Ministers. Did he notice that when the right hon. Members for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and for Watford (Mr. Garel Jones) and others declined to stay in the Government they were entitled to generous severance payments despite the fact that they departed from the Government voluntarily, so we are told? When other people in the work force decide to give up their jobs, or are made redundant, they are not always entitled to the generous severance payments that are exclusively available to members of the Government.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point as it reinforces the question of double standards.
I shall now deal with Viscount Cranborne, who is also a member of the Government. He is a director of an organisation—a company limited by guarantee—called Stalbury Trustees. Its aims have nothing to do with private family estates. Its principal activity is the promotion of Conservative principles for the benefit of the Conservative cause or party.
Viscount Cranborne may regard the Conservative party as his private property, but not many others in the party do. It is not his family estate. It really should not be a matter for a Conservative Minister to be involved in a company that has investments valued in 1991 at just under £1 million, the interest of which goes towards the Conservative party. It seems to me that such a company could bring a Minister into conflict with some activities that he would undertake as a Minister.
The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) was a director of a company that provided secretarial and research services. He received remuneration. In 1992, when the turnover was £29,390, the profit on ordinary activities before taxation was £2,190. As the only two directors are the right hon. Member for Conwy and his wife, I assume that the surplus over activities, the profit before taxation, was distributed to the directors. It certainly was in 1991 because the dividend payable is listed as £4,500, and there was a distribution. In the provision of the services there, it is quite possible that, as a Minister, such company activity could come into conflict with his duty as a Minister.
I shall now deal with the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). It is arguable that his extensive property interests could be counted as part of the family estates. The family estates include: Ince castle, Saltash; the ground floor flats, stable block; flats 1 to 8 Friary court, Saltash; flats 68a and 68b Fore street; flats 3 to 9 Regal court; flats in Culver road, Fore street and Tamar court, Saltash. The estate also includes shops at 67
798
and 67a, 67b and 68 Fore street, Saltash; shops 1 and 2 and a restaurant at Regal court; and shops at Fore street and Culver road, Saltash; and garages 1 to 8 at the rear; and a farm and estate properties at Ince estate, Saltash; Ince estate, woodlands; Ince farm; and Greeps, Saltash. With such an extensive estate, it is a straightforward property company involved in an ordinary commercial enterprise. It is not simply looking after the farm house with honeysuckle growing round the door.
When the Prime Minister—whom I know to be in some odium at the moment because of his off-the-cuff remarks —picks such people and gets them into the room at No. 10 and says, "Look, I want you to take up this job", they do not say, "I can't do it because of rule 107." They accept the document, as I did in 1976–78. Ministers have done much the same over the years. They accept the document "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".
In order to clarify the position, all those Ministers should be asked either to resign their directorships and get rid of their shareholdings or resign their posts and keep the company activity, if that is what they choose, although I do not take that view: Members of Parliament are paid well enough to enable them to rely entirely on a salary. Members should not have outside interests.
Ministers are in special position, and I hope that the Minister does not regard as muck-raking my defence of ordinary people facing difficult and stiff rules, which are imposed inflexibly on them, when I say that the standards for ordinary people should apply to Ministers.
6.45 pm
Mr. William Powell: There are some who think that these debates on the Adjournment are something of an acquired taste. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be of the view that not only has the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) acquired the taste, but I have as well.
I should like to reflect for a moment on the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who referred to some clearly appalling circumstances currently arising at Essex county council. He asked whether it would be possible to impeach a councillor. One disadvantage of the impeachment process is that it involves a trial by the House of Lords. In this day and age, that would be rather time consuming and possibly extremely expensive.
A better way to handle the difficulty that my hon. Friend identified would be to introduce a Bill of attainder, which, if it is enacted into law, instead of involving a trial, simply declares people to be guilty and imposes the penalty of Parliament as a consequence. An Act of attainder is a declaratory process and, if my hon. Friend would like to introduce a Bill that could have its First Reading, I shall be perfectly happy to join him as a sponsor of such legislation. It is several hundred years since it was last used, and the Bill may not make much progres on this occasion. However, it is a solution that I offer my hon. Friend.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman was saying that a Bill could be introduced that automatically declared people guilty. Does the hon. Gentleman believe in civil liberties?
Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman knows me better than to ask such absurd questions.

799
As always, a fascinating collection of subjects has been raised. Those who listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), who raised one of the most important questions facing the world today and covered it in an immensely interesting and comprehensive way, will know that his speech deserves to be read widely.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not be surprised to hear me say that I wish to return to the question of the prosecution of persons who may be guilty of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. I have raised that matter again and again, as I see that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) recognises. Since I last discussed the matter, there has been at least one item of good news. Under resolution 827, passed in June this year, the Security Council of the United Nations has voted to establish an ad hoc tribunal capable of trying those who can be brought before it for alleged war crimes.
Unfortunately, that is as far as the good news goes. No further progress has been made. When I raised that point not long ago with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—I asked him about the appointment of a special prosecutor, who is most urgently required, a point on which I shall base the substance of my remarks—he drew my attention to the undoubted fact that, until the special prosecutor was appointed, the special commissioners appointed last year under resolution 780 will continue with their work.
My right hon. Friend was absolutely right about that, but I am not sure that he understood how little work is being done by those special commissioners. There are five of them, from five different countries—Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Senegal and the United States. They meet every month or two, perhaps for two or three days at a time. Over the past nine months, they have met for only 15 days, and the chairman of the commission, who comes from Holland, has managed to persuade the authorities of the United Nations that he can act entirely on a part-time basis.
As a result of all that, very little work is being done and there are virtually no resources. At the United Nations in Geneva, there are three offices, with two secretaries and three professional staffers, at least up until this month. All of the work that is worth while is being done in the DePaul university in Chicago, because the rapporteur from the United States, Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni, has made available the resources of his law department.
It is outrageous that matters as important as this are not being properly funded and financed by the United Nations. Even though the Security Council and all the members of it have willed the process, they have failed to provide the means.
Some $1·2 million has been set aside but nearly all of it is for administrative measures. No more than $26,900 has been made available so that the special commissioners can travel to Yugoslavia and uncover what are undoubtedly, in Europe, the greatest atrocities of the past decade. The commission has made attempts to get expert teams in Vukovar to exhume bodies from the terrible atrocity of Ovcara. It has not succeeded, but an advance team went in December. It hired a non-governmental organisation in Boston to do a survey of mass graves in Croatia. The group went to Croatia for three days and inspected the Ovcara mass grave. That grave was being protected by UNPROFOR troops from Russia and help was generally forthcoming from the United Nations.
800
Some 200 bodies were estimated to be in the Ovcara grave and some eight other mass graves have been reported in Croatia. Perhaps 12 are known about in Bosnia, so that is 21 mass graves already believed to exist in former Yugoslavia, either in Croatia or Bosnia. No work whatsoever has so far been done on exhuming the bodies, or on identifying who might be involved, because no resources have been made available.
In February, the Secretary-General of the United Nations opened a voluntary trust fund for Governments to subscribe to so that prosecution work could be prepared. Canada, bless its heart, gave $250,000 in February, the United States committed $500,000 three months later, the Netherlands gave $200,000, Norway $50,000, New Zealand $26,000 and Denmark $20,000—and that is as far as it has gone. We have just over $1 million to fund the work to discover what has been going on.
Meanwhile, despite the call for the appointment of a special prosecutor, and despite what I believe to be the desire of the Secretary-General to proceed—resolution 827 nominates him as the person to appoint the special prosecutor—we have been bereft of resources for the special commission set up by resolution 780 and no appointment has been made. One of the reasons why that has happened—I know that my right hon. Friend will draw my remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary—is the attitude of the British Government. I am afraid that I regard that as extremely regrettable.
As soon as resolution 827 had been passed, the non-aligned members and others in the United Nations advised the Secretary-General that the only suitable person in the world to do the job was the rapporteur of the commission set up by resolution 780, Professor Bassiouni. My right hon. Friend has heard me talk about his immense gifts. As the special rapporteur, and as the man who has made available all the resources of his university department, including computer facilities, he is the man who knows most of all about what is going on in Yugoslavia. He had been there to see for himself some of the matters that undoubtedly require investigation.
It has come to my attention that the Governments of Great Britain and Canada have been putting considerable pressure on the Secretary-General not to appoint Professor Bassiouni and instead to appoint somebody—a Canadian, as it so happens, which is why Canada is joining the United Kingdom—who is much less qualified for the job and who has no substantial experience as a prosecutor. As a Government official in Canada, he would return to his Government post as soon as was convenient thereafter. He is undoubtedly not the best qualified person.
The will of the world is that those matters should be prosecuted, which is why we have established the ad hoc tribunal. If the Secretary-General is now being told by a permanent member of the Security Council, Great Britain, that he should not appoint the most qualified person, that will undoubtedly lead to considerable delay in the necessary work that must take place.
Mr. Frank Cook: I am always intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's contributions and listen to them with great interest—even more so on this occasion. What possible motive could there be for the

801
collusion between Great Britain and Canada? Why do they want to appoint somebody other than the hon. Gentleman's preferred candidate?
Mr. Powell: Canada is anxious to secure the position of special prosecutor for itself and is seeking allies. There is, however, a more profound reason. Does the world community really want any cases to be brought before the tribunal? Having established the tribunal, might it not be the case that, the more deeply one goes into who might be prosecuted, the more embarrassing the names might become? Lord Owen, accompanied now by Mr. Stoltenberg, although he had Mr. Vance and others with him in the past, has said on a number of occasions that his mission would not be assisted if there were any question of putting Mr. Milosevic or any others on trial. War crimes become something of an embarrassment to those who are seeking a diplomatic solution.
The trouble is that serious crimes against humanity are being committed in the former Yugoslavia and diplomatic progress is slow. The situation is serious. Having established the tribunal, too many United Nations members do not wish to carry out what is implicit in its establishment—namely, to bring forward evidence so that indictments, where proper, can be laid.
The evidence that is being amassed in Chicago suggests that charges for serious crimes against humanity could not merely be brought forward against private soldiers and the small fry who have committed appalling crimes on the orders of others. Evidence is now emerging that increasingly involves the leadership of the Yugoslav army and the leadership of Serbia. We are rapidly reaching the point where evidence that would lead to charges against the leaders, not the foot soldiers, could be brought before an indicting chamber. That is the reason for war crimes tribunals. The more one brings charges against the leaders, the more one interferes in the work being done by people on the diplomatic front. I have referred to some of Lord Owen's comments.
A budget is being prepared for the work of the tribunal. About $35 million is sought, but $5 million only is being allowed for prosecutions. That is little short of outrageous. Resolution 827 mentions The Hague as being an appropriate site for the court, but leaves open the possibility that it may sit elsewhere. The Hague is not an appropriate site. It is too far away from the events. Witnesses would have to be brought too far and the plans that are being made for their protection amount to no more than bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That simply would not do. Those people have been the subject of the most fearsome and horrendous criminal acts. To offer them no more than bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Holland would be to make them extremely vulnerable to reprisals and much greater work to protect witnesses would have to be done.
The prosecution department has a planned budget of only $5 million. That will not take us very far. The special prosecutor will not only need a staff of trained lawyers, detective police officers and military policemen, but facilities that might have to last for more than two years, and $5 million simply would not cover that—$50 million would be a much more realistic sum. It is planned that most of the money will be spent to refurbish a building in The Hague. Nothing could be more inappropriate than
802
spending large sums of money on refurbishing an unsuitable building in The Hague simply because the Government of Holland wished it to be done in that way.
The time has come for a realistic political grip to be taken on proceedings. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to draw that point to the attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The United Nations General Assembly should be asked to vote on realistic budgets, not only for travelling expenses and long weekends for people who work for the United Nations, but for the necessary work to be undertaken.
I beg my right hon. Friends to stop the nonsense of trying to appoint someone whom the whole world knows is not the best person for the job. I beg them to allow the one person in the world who knows about the job to get on with it, and to appoint him now. Each day lost means that witnesses are lost, making it more difficult to examine the evidence, which is bound to disappear the longer that we delay. We cannot wait for the United Nations General Assembly in September, as some people wish. We cannot wait for the clanking processes of international justice to start to grind—perhaps next year or the year after.
Above all, the world community must do what it has been prepared to do until now: to say that what has been going on in Yugoslavia is wrong and that we cannot allow it to pass without enforcing the United Nations' moral sanction and bringing prosecutions before the tribunal.
7.4 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I will not continue on the same tack as the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), although I think that he is right to pursue the subject of bringing more criminals to justice. They should have to face justice, however long that takes, so I support him in that sentiment.
This House should not leave for the recess until an Education Minister has made a statement about blind pupils and other disabled schoolchildren being refused places at opted-out schools. That new, obnoxious and discriminatory policy seems to have come about as a by-product of Government education policies rather than as a deliberate result of them. I raised the subject on a point of order earlier and Madam Speaker encouraged me to mention it in this debate.
I have notified the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), as Highams Park school is in his constituency. The school has just ended its 20-year-old agreement with a special school nearby to teach blind and partially sighted children. Highams Park has only recently opted out of the local government system. In an article in The Guardian of 24 July 1993 Mr. Andrew Lockhart, the chief education officer of the London borough of Waltham Forest, described what is happening as
"a particularly nasty kind of selection."
I shall quote from him again later. The article also stated:
"About 15 blind and partially-sighted children attended lessons and were integrated … into Highams Park"
school. The head teacher of the school has now said that that arrangement must be brought to an end, although he has imposed a couple of conditions, whereby he will continue the arrangement if he gets extra money—something like £26,000—from the local education authority, plus additional staff support from the special school that was feeding blind pupils into Highams Park.

803
To ask for money in those circumstances is to hold the authority, the parents of those children and the children up to ransom. Really it is blackmail.
The article goes on to say:
"The number of visually-handicapped pupils being integrated fell as Highams Park placed more emphasis on academic courses."
It quotes Mr. Frank Smith, the head teacher of the special school whose pupils fed into Highams Park, who said:
"It was difficult to negotiate with the school at the top level. We believe things were made difficult to squeeze us out. Children with special educational needs are not welcome."
That is a serious allegation. Indeed, a blind pupil who was integrated into Highams Park school has had to be taken out. The local authority has found her a place at Rush Croft school, another school with a good reputation in the Chingford area. I pay tribute to the local authority for preserving that blind girl's education within the main schooling sector—no thanks to the head teacher and the narrow-minded governors of Highams Park school.
The chief education officer of Waltham Forest, Mr. Andrew Lockhart, said:
"A grant-maintained school can refuse to accept a pupil with special educational needs. In the long term, it would seem to allow grant-maintained schools to select not to have pupils with special educational needs. It is a particularly nasty kind of selection."
I endorse those comments and ask the Government to comment on this serious matter.
It seems that the governors of opt-out schools are trying to grab as much money as they can from the local education authorities at the expense of the schools run by those authorities and that is quite wrong.
The article made it clear that Highams Park school was choosing not to take blind children or children who need special education because it has an eye on the Government's league table policy, which places emphasis on examinations and a school's academic record. That policy is not working properly when it means that schools do not take such children. For a start, there is a false assumption that blind children will not gain academic qualifications and are not intelligent enough to be in the mainstream of education. The Government should not contemplate such an argument.
Secondly, league tables based purely on examinations do not reflect a school's qualities or its achievements. Part of its achievements should be to deal with children who need special education. Plainly, the policy has gone wrong when Highams Park school and other opt-out schools can exclude such children. It seems that schools such as Highams Park are getting ready to go fully private and when that happens they will not want those children. There should be a rule that private and opted-out schools have to take children with special educational needs.
A Lords amendment to the Education Bill would have given local education authorities the power to direct grant-maintained schools to accept such pupils. However, last week the Government turned that down without proper debate. They should think again about their policy. What is the Government's attitude to blind and disabled pupils? Do they want them ghettoised, out of the mainstream, or do they favour my policy, which is that they should be properly integrated in the mainstream education system? If the Government agree, they should require opted-out and private schools to take those pupils and give them a proper education. There should not be an obnoxious discriminatory system of policy. I hope that the Minister will deal with that.
7.12 pm
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I want to add to the gallery, if not the galaxy, of subjects that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have to address. The single subject of my speech is the BBC World Service, an issue that I have raised before. In an Adjournment debate a month ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) dealt with the matter in detail.
Early-day motion 1780 is by far the best supported motion this Session. It has 378 signatures, the number is increasing, and the motion has not been off the Order Paper since it was put down some months ago. The aim is to obtain 400 signatures. The motion is in the top 10 of all time and its support ranges from right to left across both major parties. Almost all Liberal Democrat Members, including the leader of that party, who does not usually sign early-day motions, have signed it.
I shall not do a complete roll call, but I can say that it is also supported by the right hon. Members for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the leaders of the Scottish and Welsh National parties. The motion has almost unique cross-section support because the BBC World Service does an outstanding job for Britain. It carries out a function that Britain performs best and in these times of challenge and change we should hang on to such functions.
In national budgetary terms, the money involved is minimal and out of all proportion to the job that the World Service does. The service has already taken a considerable cut. The early-day motion does not argue against the cuts, but points out that there has already been one in the current year of some £5 million and that the service is threatened with a further cut of 2·5 or 5 per cent. The service could not absorb such costs and it will suffer.
The Government should adopt a flexible view in imposing the cuts that will have to be imposed, bearing in mind our financial situation. There must be flexibility in dealing with low-cost functions which Britain does well and which do for Britain an amount of good throughout the world quite incommensurate with the minimal cost that is involved. A deputation representing the signatories of that motion intends to seek a meeting with the Chief Secretary before the recess is out.
7.16 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I remind the House of the terms of the motion:
"That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 27th July, do adjourn until Monday 18th October."
That is 12 weeks less one day. The recess is excessive, and many problems arise because of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that he was prepared to divide the House on his amendment to the motion. If he does, I shall certainly support him.
Who benefits from the 12-week recess? The main beneficiaries are obviously the Government, because any Executive benefits from not being harassed by a Parliament to which they are answerable. This Government particularly will benefit from such a recess in view of their difficulties and the fact that they had to force a vote of confidence on the House. Their only survival factor is the 12-week break, because they hope that in that time something will turn up to their benefit.

805
Perhaps some hon. Members benefit from such a long recess and some part-time Members with other jobs find it convenient. Perhaps overworked Members find it beneficial to get away from the Chamber and involve themselves in constituency and other work and have a change of scenery. However, our constituents do not benefit from Parliament being away for 12 weeks. Their only benefit is that the Government cannot press on us more anti-social legislation.
Hon. Members use the House to probe the Government on behalf of their constituents, but answers often come from civil servants rather than Ministers who may not particularly care about the issues that are being raised. Civil servants protect their Ministers. The well-understood avenues for hon. Members are written and oral questions, questions on statements, debates and early-day motions. The hon. Member for Leominister (Mr. Temple-Morris) spoke about an early-day motion that has been used in an excellent way because it has been fully extended and a campaign has been organised around it. Even with minor early-day motions, during business questions on a Thursday we can ask whether a particular early-day motion will be discussed. The PPS to the Leader of the House will pass to him details that have been prepared and in that way we can learn the official response.
Some hon. Members may have more access to information than others to pursue their constituents' interests. Various avenues are open to a Minister; a prominent Opposition Member will be listened to. But what happens to Opposition Back Benchers? What they have available to them is attempted contact with Ministers —through letters, telephone conversations and perhaps persuading their hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to harry Ministers into a meeting to discuss a particular subject—but they do not have the ready responses that come from being able to conduct a campaign on the Floor of the House.
We should not have 12-week breaks. Parliament meets long enough over the year and half that 12-week period could be used throughout the year for early-day motions and the like. The absence of early-day motions and such options would not matter much for a week—people can survive that—but their absence for 12 weeks can leave many difficulties and many of the issues that constituents wish to raise are not seriously considered. Last year many hon. Members tried to telephone the Benefits Agency during the recess in order to push particular cases, but they did not have the avenues available in the House to supplement that activity.
We should oppose the motion for the sake of our constituents so that we can represent them better. I hope that, in time, the spread of business of the House will be organised in such a way as to enable us to serve our constituents more effectively.
7.22 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I should like to make a brief contribution before the recess and before hon. Members disappear with their buckets and spades to the seaside for 12 weeks minus one day.
The House knows that the size of the public sector borrowing requirement is huge and that the Government have the problem of addressing it. Currently, the
806
Government have the worst of both worlds: they must address both the deficit and the public perception that they have been cutting public expenditure for years. That incorrect public perception started in 1979, when the then Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, and her Ministers announced that they were going to be tough on spending. That misconception has grown over the past 14 years.
The truth is that, in real terms, public sector expenditure has soared, although the public believe that there have been cuts. Anyone who disbelieves that need only hold a survey on national health expenditure, which will show that the majority of the public think that there have been cuts. We know that there has been an increase, in real terms, of over 50 per cent.
The Government must deal with both expenditure and income. Cutting public expenditure will help, but I believe that it is easier to increase income. Perhaps that is not a fashionable view in the House. I have noticed that some hon. Members are very good spenders, but not good earners.
Let me draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an aspect of the legislation concerning property leasing which could be detrimental, in some cases, to industry and commerce, especially small businesses. That aspect—which is currently under scrutiny—is the growing practice of upwards-only rent reviews and the liability that remains with the original leaseholder of a property if subsequent leaseholders default.
I know that solicitors are supposed to be responsible and point out the pitfalls, especially to people entering such agreements for the first time, but that does not always happen. Many small business men starting their first business do so with starry eyes. We should remove some of the pitfalls, which I believe should not be there in the first place.
I am fully aware that the value of property has a particular niche in public consciousness, but I sometimes wonder whether we have an excessive obsession with property. Once property has been built, it is the use to which it can be put that is of value to the nation.
The two aspects that I have mentioned damage the mobility of companies, their growth and, in some cases, their very existence. If we have consistently high inflation, the upwards-only rent reviews do not matter so much; however, in a stable economy with low inflation—or even during recessions—true rents may drop. I do not see why rents should go for ever onwards and upwards. Companies face varying circumstances over the years. Some companies may want smaller premises—they may be losing money and want to get out of their larger premises —but they are locked in. Some companies may disagree with the rent review and want to move to cheaper premises. Too bad; they are locked in.
Arbitration can create further pressure on a business. Often a company has built up a successful business, it has grown and their customers know where it is; but the cost of location is high. The natural tendency when there is a rent review, if it goes to arbitration, is for the arbiters to say, "That is a successful business: it can afford an upward move." In that way, the rent can unfairly reflect the success of the company to the advantage of the landlord.
As for the liability of the original leaseholder when a lease is disposed of, again there is a locked-in element. If the landlord refuses to lift the liability, it is possible that, several years later, the original leaseholder will be liable for any defaults. The landlord can go back to a company or

807
person through, literally, several changes of ownership of the lease and receive payment, perhaps several years later. The original person or company will have no influence whatever on the management of the failed company. A limit on liability should be introduced to help such companies, perhaps based on time—for instance, the period to the next rent review.
I will not develop the ways in which the two aspects might be further improved, because of the time restrictions operating this evening. We make great play of the mobility of labour; I think, in turn, we should have a degree of flexibility as regards companies. Small businesses are affected and it is in small businesses that we will see a growth in employment and the profitability of our nation. We put that at risk at our peril. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take this on board when reviewing the legislation for the forthcoming year.
7.30 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I will be extraordinarily brief. I wish to raise the issue of Norwegian whaling. The cause is close to my heart, and is close also to the hearts of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is quite outrageous that, since the ban on commercial whaling imposed in 1986 by the International Whaling Commission, the Norwegians—under the guise of scientific whaling—have slaughtered 1,000 minke whales. That is unacceptable. They have used the word "science" as a way of getting around the ban on commercial whaling.
They have now gone further. At the most recent IWC meeting in Kyoto, Japan, the Norwegians announced that they would completely ignore the renewal of the commercial whaling ban, and that they would resume commercial whaling. They have now done so, and have slaughttered 100 minke whales in the north Atlantic this year. They intend to slaugher another 200 of the whales.
The whales belong to all of us. They are migratory creatures, and are not the property of Norway. Mrs. Bro Harlem Brundtland calls herself a socialist, and goes around the world talking about her green credentials. She has acted like a stinking hypocrite in the way in which she has flouted an international agreement on whaling. This country, and indeed the Government, must take a strong lead: they must make it clear to the Norwegians that their behaviour is unacceptable and that, while they continue to slaughter those beautiful creatures, there is no place for them in any civilised family of nations.
The Government should tell the Norwegians that they should not be allowed to join the European Community until they give up whaling. This country should also take appropriate sanctions against Norwegian goods. If Norway continues whaling, I must say on behalf of many Londoners that the traditional Christmas tree erected in Trafalgar square will not be welcome. If the tree is erected, it will become the focal point of a number of demonstrations. Those demonstrations will, of course, be peaceful, as those of us who love and believe in the rights of co-existence of all living creatures believe in peaceful demonstrations.
I hope that the House and the Leader of the House will join me once again in utterly condemning the actions of the Norwegians.
7.32 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I hope that we will be able to send a message to the Norwegians that we want to save the whale. Whales are beautiful creatures, and should not be hunted and killed.
There has been a range of calls during this short debate for statements and debates. If one thing is completely predictable, it is that the range of topics covered in our little debate this evening will be exceeded by the range of announcements that will come from the Government immediately after the beginning of the summer recess. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) pointed out with uncharacteristic cynicism that the Government are convenienced by our removal from this place over the summer.
The Leader of the House's more usual role is to announce what is to happen in the next week or the week after. I wonder whether he could give us a list now of the statements that we can expect from the Executive in the next fortnight. Those statements will cover topics that the Government would be slightly more hesitant in covering were the House still in session. Experience suggests that there will be a range of statements. Can we expect, for example, a supplementary statement on assisted area status? A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed dissatisfaction with the announcement made earlier today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) spoke of the hurt suffered by his former steel industry community. He felt that his area had been treated unfairly. A common theme in the speeches by Opposition Members was that, in making their decisions on assisted area status, the Government have concentrated on what they deem to be political advantage, rather than considering issues on their merits alone.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) mentioned the purchase of the stories of criminals by newspapers, and the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) agreed with that view. Both hon. Members should sign the early-day motion that has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), which addresses that question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) brought to our attention the continuing scandal of the lack of progress over Cyprus. He pinned the blame where it clearly belongs—with the leadership of the Republic of Northern Cyprus. That country is now acting as host to Mr. Asil Nadir. My hon. Friend hoped that Mr. Nadir's present position would focus attention on northern Cyprus. I do not think that it is likely that the Conservative party will pursue the issue with any vigour.
One of the saddest documents I have read in the past year was an article in the July/August issue of Business Age on the funding of the Conservative party. Among a number of major donors named in the article was Mr. Asil Nadir. [HON. MEMBERS: "You don't believe that"] Some hon. Members may say that I do not believe that. I have not, however, heard a convincing refutation of the points contained in the article. Were such a refutation of those thoroughly researched points ever produced, I would consider it in my usual fair-minded way.
I remind Conservative Members of the concluding words of the editor and publisher of the magazine:

809
"Britain's ruling party is riddled with corruption. It's time to clean up government. Now."
That is a damning indictment of the Conservative party, and does not suggest any vigour in following the affairs of Mr. Asil Nadir.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) expressed concern at the rising support for the Labour party in his constituency. Clearly, his rejection by the electorate of Newcastle, East has had a lasting and searing effect on him.
The hon. Gentleman then went on to make a Labour party speech. He advocated state intervention to revitalise the construction industry and public transport in the form of urban light railways. Both are sound Labour party policies, and I congratulate him on his belated conversion to some of the causes we favour. If that conversion has been produced by electoral pressure from the Labour party in Altrincham and Sale, the Conservative party is probably in even more trouble than the newspapers say.
The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) followed an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennet). My hon. Friend denounced the Sheehy report, spoke about the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and regretted the loss of assisted area status for Manchester. He said that the outcome had been gerrymandered, which was a constant theme during the debate.
The hon. Member for Basildon spoke with some expertise about broken election promises. He could have referred to the promises to maintain the value of the currency, to retain membership of the ERM, not to impose tax increases and not to increase or extend VAT. Those were not, however, among the broken election promises to which he drew our attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) drew our attention to the guidance for Ministers in the declaration of their directorships. He compared that —helpfully, I thought—with the rules for those who claim state benefit. It did seem that those claiming state benefit are treated more harshly than the four Ministers that my hon. Friend mentioned. I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of the serious point in my hon. Friend's speech. If Ministers are in breach of the guidelines, that matter should be drawn to the Prime Minister's attention and rectified immediately. It is a serious matter, and should be treated as such.
The hon. Member for Corby echoed the hon. Member for Basildon in asking what control we have over local councillors. The subject is often raised in the House, but the truth is that hon. Members cannot exercise any direct control over councillors, either members of their own party or of others. The call to introduce a Bill of attainder or to impeach them seem to be rather wild remedies. They were not an appropriate trailer for the serious content of the hon. Gentleman's speech, dealing with war crimes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) raised the disgraceful case of the blind pupil who has been refused a place at an opted-out school. That is a direct consequence of money following the pupil, which means that some pupils are more expensive. Therefore, schools sty that they cannot afford to have them unless they get extra money. According to my hon. Friend, the head
810
teacher has made it clear that the row is about money. That is a disgraceful state of affairs and one which I hope will be remedied quickly.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) made a plea for the World Service. I agree with him: the BBC World Service is an institution much respected among hon. Members on both the Opposition and Conservative Benches. I, too, make a plea for the World Service. On that bipartisan note, I wish the Leader of the House a happy recess.
7.39 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) was a good deal more emollient than the speech that he made in our last such debate. I welcome the spirit in which he spoke. I noted his reference to Government announcements. All I can do is assure him that Her Majesty's Government remain as assiduous in their activities on behalf of the citizens of Britain when Parliament is not sitting as when it is.
The hon. Gentleman quoted Business Age. If I remember aright, the magazine to which he devotes so much credence described Brunei as a small desert kingdom. He also referred to Bills of attainder. Given the record of some Labour local authorities, I can well imagine that he does not believe that anyone should be in a position to take effective action against malpractice.
Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an excellent programme on Scottish Television tonight revealed some of the scandal of corruption and nepotism in Monklands district council? As a result of the investigations by Scottish Television, no fewer than four agencies are investigating the wrongdoing that has taken place in that council—the Inland Revenue, the fraud squad, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Government.
Mr. Newton: If all those investigations are taking place, that is probably a good reason for me not to comment from the Dispatch Box. The investigations certainly conform with my hon. Friend's assiduous activities in raising the matter over the months. In due course, we shall undoubtedly see a report of the television programme.
I apologise for the fact that I shall not be able to comment in detail in the eight minutes remaining to me on all the speeches that have been made. In particular, I simply pick up the kind invitations of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) to note their remarks and make sure that they are transmitted to the relevant Ministers for consideration. I shall certainly do so.
I also apologise to the one or two hon. Members whose speeches I was not able to hear. I had intended to mention the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), but as I understand that the main burden of his remarks was that the House should go on sitting and sitting, perhaps almost everyone else present in the Chamber is happy that I was not present to lend an ear to his plea, lest I should respond favourably.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) kindly warned me that he would not be able to stay for my reply. He made several important

811
points and asked me three specific questions about matters affecting the standard spending assessment of Shropshire and elsewhere.
He asked me whether the paper had been received. I can inform him that a representative from Shropshire presented a paper on behalf of the Association of County Councils on the area cost adjustment to the SSA sub-group and the settlement working group earlier this month—I hope that the House has digested all that. All the points that have been made will be taken into account by Ministers before they make their provisional decisions on the 1994–95 revenue support grant settlement later this year. I hope that my right hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment will write further, as need be, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) made several points principally about what had happened to his constituency under the proposed new assisted areas map. I understand that the level of assistance has been reduced because the position has improved since the previous map was drawn. The intermediate area status takes into account the assisted area status of the neighbouring travel-to-work area. The hon. Gentleman also made some points about steel and the actions of the United States, which I shall draw to the attention of the relevant Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) made important points about water quality and cost, generally and in the south-west, and about the important link between Plymouth, Newquay and Heathrow. He described the way in which the link could best be protected. I know that he has corresponded with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who has said that he regards the acquisition by British Airways of Brymon Airways as a reassuring development. I shall make sure that the attention of my right hon. Friend is drawn to everything that my hon. Friend has said on the matter tonight. I shall also draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to what my hon. Friend said about water quality and costs.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) raised four important issues. The first concerned some reports about money that might be paid to Karyn Smith and Patricia Cahill following their return to Britain. I shall confine myself to saying that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Government deplore the exploitation of criminal activities for gain. I am sure that the feelings that the hon. Gentleman expressed will be shared by hon. Members from many parties. I shall draw his comments specifically to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
The hon. Gentleman also touched on objective 5 status for his constituency. The criteria for objective 2 and objective 5(b) status were agreed in the structural funds regulations adopted on 20 July. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will announce in the near future the arrangements for drawing up the list of areas which Her Majesty's Government will propose to the Commission for that status, and the arrangements for any representations that regional and local bodies wish to make.
The hon. Gentleman will perhaps not expect me to comment in any depth on his remarks which trenched right into budgetary policy, especially in the immediate aftermath of my announcing the date of the next Budget.
He and several other hon. Members on both sides of the House also made extensive reference to the Sheehy report.
812
I emphasise, as I did in business questions, that it must be understood that the Sheehy report is a report not by the Government but to the Government, which the Government will consider. There will be full consultation with the police and other interests before any decisions are made on the implementation of the recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) raised the important issue of nuclear safety in the former Soviet Union. He will know that the Government share his anxieties and continue to play a full part in the multilateral action programme agreed at the Munich summit. He made a considered and extensive speech, to which I am sure my right hon. Friends will wish to reply more fully in other ways, as I have said about the speech of the hon. Member for Tooting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) must count as an Adjournment groupie. Few hospital projects can have been pursued more assiduously by a Member of Parliament for so long, certainly with this Leader of the House and, for all I know, with earlier ones, than the South Trafford community hospital.
As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, North Western regional health authority will discuss tomorrow the desirability of a major refurbishment there. I am not sure whether it is proper for me to say from the Front Bench that my fingers will be crossed. I at least hope that my hon. Friend gets what he wants, even if only because it might cut by one the number of speeches in future Adjournment debates.
My hon. Friend made some other important points about housing associations and about the Metrolink. In that, he was supported by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I have taken those points on board.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish made other points about the Manchester travel-to-work area and the assisted areas map. The basis of the Government's thinking is that the TTWA as a whole is not in the worst third for current unemployment. We do not expect the Olympic bid to be affected by the new map. A great deal of other money is going into the area, including in connection with the Olympic bid. Up to £75 million of Government money has been promised.
I cannot add to my implicit comments about Lancashire Hill post office, although I am sure that the Post Office will carefully consider the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As Lancashire Hill is a sub-post office, it is in effect a private venture, and the Post Office cannot compel people to undertake it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) invited me to engage in Essex local political controversy on a scale that I am not sure would be proper, and for which there certainly is not time. I noted his remarks about Pitsea post office, and will draw them to the attention of the Post Office.
I will pass over the latter comments of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but as to assisted area status—
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments).
The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 52.

Division No. 362]

[7.50 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Jack, Michael

Amess, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Ancram, Michael

Kirkhope, Timothy

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Ashby, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Legg, Barry

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Bates, Michael

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Bellingham, Henry

Lidington, David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Lightbown, David

Blackburn, Dr John G.

MacKay, Andrew

Booth, Hartley

Maclean, David

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

McLoughlin, Patrick

Bowis, John

Malone, Gerald

Brandreth, Gyles

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Brazier, Julian

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Merchant, Piers

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Burt, Alistair

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Butler, Peter

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Cash, William

Neubert, Sir Michael

Clappison, James

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Nicholls, Patrick

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Norris, Steve

Colvin, Michael

Page, Richard

Congdon, David

Patnick, Irvine

Conway, Derek

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Powell, William (Corby)

Cormack, Patrick

Rathbone, Tim

Couchman, James

Richards, Rod

Cran, James

Riddick, Graham

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Day, Stephen

Shaw, David (Dover)

Dover, Den

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Duncan, Alan

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Dunn, Bob

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Spink, Dr Robert

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Sproat, Iain

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Steen, Anthony

Fabricant, Michael

Sweeney, Walter

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Forman, Nigel

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Forth, Eric

Temple-Morris, Peter

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Thomason, Roy

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Thurnham, Peter

French, Douglas

Trend, Michael

Gallie, Phil

Twinn, Dr Ian

Gill, Christopher

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Gillan, Cheryl

Waller, Gary

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Ward, John

Gorst, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Wells, Bowen

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Whitney, Ray

Hague, William

Whittingdale, John

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Widdecombe, Ann

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Hampson, Dr Keith

Wilkinson, John

Hawksley, Warren

Willetts. David

Heald, Oliver

Wolfson, Mark

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Wood, Timothy

Hendry, Charles

Hicks, Robert

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Mr. James Arbuthnot and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

814

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Bayley, Hugh

Loyden, Eddie

Bermingham, Gerald

Lynne, Ms Liz

Boyes, Roland

McAllion, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

McAvoy, Thomas

Caborn, Richard

McKelvey, William

Callaghan, Jim

Mackinlay, Andrew

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Madden, Max

Clapham, Michael

Mahon, Alice

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Cohen, Harry

Miller, Andrew

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Mullin, Chris

Cox, Tom

Pendry, Tom

Dafis, Cynog

Pike, Peter L.

Dixon, Don

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Rogers, Allan

Eastham, Ken

Simpson, Alan

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Skinner, Dennis

Gunnell, John

Spearing, Nigel

Hall, Mike

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Hanson, David

Wareing, Robert N

Harvey, Nick

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Tellers for the Noes:

Illsley, Eric

Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Harry Barnes.

Johnston, Sir Russell

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 27th July, do adjourn until Monday 18th October.

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

  RESIDUES IN MEAT
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6654/93, relating to the control of residues in meat, including the proposal that the current Community-wide controls in this area should be strengthened; and supports the Government's aim of ensuring that any further steps should take into account the effective measures already in operation in the United Kingdom to control the level of residues in meat in the interests of consumers and producers and to protect animal welfare.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

  HUMAN RIGHTS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9909/92, relating to human rights, democracy and development; and welcomes the Conclusions adopted at the Development Council on 18th November 1992, which take full account of United Kingdom interests in this field.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That the House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

  Latin America
  8.2 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): It is an honour to open the Consolidated Fund debate this evening with a debate on Britain's relations with Latin America. At the outset, I must declare an interest. My company, which is listed in the Register of Members' Interests, does business with Latin America.
  Owing to the accident of family circumstances, I take an intense personal interest in the region. When democracy was restored in Chile, I was instrumental in restarting the Chile all-party group in Parliament, which I now chair. The cause of improving relations between parliamentarians of Latin America and of the United Kingdom is well served in the House by the various parliamentary groups for the region, and especially by the umbrella British-Latin American parliamentary group, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who is an old Argentina hand from his days in Her Majesty's embassy in Buenos Aires.
  The British-Latin American parliamentary group holds, in June, an annual parliamentary seminar at Canning house and hosts visits to Parliament of distinguished high officials from Latin America, the next one of which will be tomorrow morning by His Excellency Senor Cesar Gaviria, the President of Colombia, whom we warmly welcomed to the United Kingdom today.
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: May I heartily endorse my hon. Friend's welcome to President Gaviria of Colombia. The House will recognise that his visit could hardly be more appropriate, following that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Colombia, the first visit ever by a serving British Prime Minister to a south American country.
  Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming proposed visits by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who is on the Front Bench tonight, and other Ministers, and, above all, the proposed visit by Madam Speaker during the recess to endorse this country's long friendship with Colombia, its long tradition of democracy and the new constitution that was initiated by President Gaviria?
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am most grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, who knows Colombia particularly well. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will have taken note of what he said.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who lived and worked in Brazil and travelled through most of Latin America before being incarcerated in this place, organises an active programme of meetings and lunches with Latin American ambassadors, Ministers, parliamentarians and officials.
  We have the closest links with the other place, too, through the distinguished patronage of Lord Montgomery of Alamein, the president of Canning house, Lady Hooper and many other Latin American experts, some of whom, like Viscount Torrington, have led trade missions to the south American sub-continent.
  The link with Canning house is of great importance to us in Parliament. Canning house is a unique forum for the study of the politics, business, society and culture of Latin America. Less specialist than the International Institute

  817
  for Strategic Studies and more focused than Chatham house, it is an invaluable source of information about Latin America, fulfilling, above all, a unique commercio-diplomatic role which is of inestimable value to London as a centre of Ibero-Latin American interests.
  Ministers, to their credit, recognise this as well. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells, whose presence I welcome on the Treasury Bench, made a particularly well-received debut speech to our parliamentary seminar at Canning house on 30 June.
  Canning house has been directed by a succession of distinguished former ambassadors to the region, the present incumbent being Sir Michael Simpson-Orlebar, who served as British ambassador in Portugal and Mexico. Funded jointly by individuals, corporate subscribers and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it fulfils a quasi-diplomatic role at minimal cost to the Exchequer and represents outstanding value for money to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British business community. As its 50th anniversary approaches, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would do well to confirm that the grant to Canning house is not at risk.
  When addressing a theme as broad and deep as Britain's relations with Latin America, it is easy, when describing British policy towards a region that is not given to understatement, to get carried away by the grandiloquent treatment of what are necessarily inspiring themes, like the blue of the Pacific, the white of the snow on the Cordillera and the red blood of the heroes, as symbolised on the flag of Chile.
  The heroics of the founders of the independent republics of south America may inspire us, but we must address the future of the United Kingdom's relations with the region in the context of British history and the development of British trade with the area.
  From the ending of the Napoleonic wars to the great war, Britain played a key role in the south American liberation struggle with Spain and dominated the development of the Latin American sub-continent economically and, in many senses, industrially. British capital and entrepreneurs opened up the pampas of Argentina, laid down the railways throughout the southern cone and were active in shipping, insurance, banking, mining and the export of wool, meat and a wide range of primary products to Britain. In return, British manufacturers had a predominant position in south American markets.
  Today, although the United Kingdom is still the leading European investor in Latin America, our exports to the region have remained fairly static over the past few years at £1·2 billion. However, probably as a consequence of Britain's leaving the exchange rate mechanism last September, which allowed a realistic valuation of the pound, Britain's exports to the region have risen by more than 22 per cent. in the first quarter of this year.
  To my knowledge, the Latin American trade advisory group, local chambers of commerce like the London chamber of commerce, and national chambers of commerce like the British Chilean chamber of commerce all do an excellent job in furthering growing trade between the United Kingdom and Latin America, and so do our embassies throughout the region.
  818
  Ministers have also played their full part in increasing British awareness of the importance of the region as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) so rightly reminded the House. As my hon. Friend told us, the process began with the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Colombia and to the Earth summit in Rio. There were also visits by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to Argentina and Chile and by my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to Mexico, Argentina and Chile.
  My right hon. Friends made it clear, and this has always been the Government's consistent policy, that there is no incompatibility between British insistence that the sovereignty of the Falklands islands is not an issue and the maintenance of Britain's interests throughout the region. On the contrary, I believe that our presence in the Falkland islands is an important strategic interest which physically demonstrates our concern for the region. It provides a counterbalance to international relationships in the southern cone, it protects passage around the horn and it demonstrates our concern for Antarctica, its resources and for the environment of the southern seas.
  However, British exporters must overcome their obsession with markets in the EEC, where we have a trade deficit with all the member countries except Ireland, Spain and Greece, and turn to the growth regions such as Latin America and the Pacific basin. Latin America is well placed to trade with Europe and the Pacific nations. We must ensure that Latin America looks more to Europe, its traditional focus, than to the Pacific basin exporting nations—although we would not think that it did when we see the number of Japanese cars in Santiago
  The growth of the leading economies of south America far outstrips that of the EEC nations, although the economies of south America are, of course, much smaller. For example, the rate of growth in Chile last year was 10·4 per cent. For the region as a whole, even including Brazil which suffered recession, recorded growth was 2·6 per cent. last year. Without Brazil, growth rose by 4·3 per cent. There were growth rates of above 5 per cent. in Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Guyana, Panama, Uruguay and Venezuela.
  An engine for growth in the region has been domestic investment which increased by more than 10 per cent. in six of the aforementioned countries in 1992. Furthermore, net capital inflows to the region from abroad have grown from $8 billion in 1989 to $54 billion last year. At the same time, the burden of external debt has generally diminished.
  The regional ratio of interest payments to exports fell from 37 per cent. in 1986 to 20 per cent. in 1992. Only six countries in the region registered increases in inflation last year. In short, with the notable exception of Brazil, most of the principal nations of Latin America, which are significant potential markets for the United Kingdom, saw sustainable growth for the third year running allied to reasonable price stability. Only terrorism remains a nagging problem, especially in Peru and, to a much lesser extent, in Colombia. It is a scourge of contemporary humanity that mercifully appears to be coming gradually under control.
  It might be assumed that, with European and north American markets so depressed and with Latin American markets buoyant by contrast, and with no regime in the region seriously out of line from the democratic free enterprise model apart from Cuba, British exporters

  819
  would be falling over each other to exploit the trade opportunities of the region. Those opportunities are indeed considerable, as I have explained.
  We should take into account, especially in this connection, the British experience of privatisation and of financial services and the commercial efficiency of our privatised utilities such as water and gas. Those experiencies enhance the business opportunities for British exporters throughout the region.
  When George Canning proudly wrote, upon the liberation of Spain's south American colonies and their emergence as independent states, that:
  "The deed is done. The nail is driven. Spanish America is free and, if we do not mismanage our matters sadly, she is English",
  we could not have a better example, even 150 years or so on, of the opportunities that present themselves today to the United Kingdom throughout the region—that is, if Her Majesty's Government do not interpose obstacles or impediments to the development of this potentially extremely fruitful trade.
  I can list some potential stumbling blocks which should be discreetly removed. The first is the elimination of Portuguese from the GCSE syllabus. That seems crazy. Brazil accounts for 40 per cent. of the Latin American economy.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend may be interested to learn that, following much pressure by Canning house, members of the British Latin American parliamentary group in this House and many others, the London examining board has restored the examining of Portuguese at GCSE level.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that everyone will appreciate his personal efforts in the matter. He is the leading Portuguese speaker in the House and I am sure that he campaigned especially hard.
  Another potential stumbling block is the elimination of key posts in British embassies such as that of defence attaché at our embassy in Ecuador or the downgrading and paring of British missions which militates against Britain's interests to strengthen diplomatic and commercial efforts throughout the region. In addition, the process militates against the provision of the maximum assistance to British business men in what is all too often for them still unfamiliar territory. If reductions in diplomatic manpower are necessary, they should occur in EEC countries with whom we are supposed to be moving towards ever-closer union.
  We must also consider the malign effects of the European Community's common agricultural policy. I will let others address the current EC banana regime. However, curtailing European imports of Chilean apples seems daft to me as is the CAP policy which militates against our importing succulent cheap Argentine and Uruguayan beef in favour of expensive, scrawny European meat.
  However, I regret to say that every now and again a cause celebre erupts out of a blue sky to prejudice years of political and commercial effort and it does so in a way which could seriously damage the normally outstanding good relationships between the United Kingdom and a Latin American country. A case in point is the orimulsion issue, whereby Her Majesty's Government are seeking to impose duty on the import of Venezuelan-produced bitumen transported in suspension with water, and to
  820
  persuade the European Community to classify it as a mineral oil. Coal and water slurry does not become something different just becasuse a water-based suspension is required to transport coal down pipelines, nor does bitumen lose its qualities as bitumen if mixed with water. The British case is, I regret, disingenuous to say the least. I have seen the minutes of the relevant EEC committee, and the United Kingdom is unnecessarily in the minority of one on the issue.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that orimulsion is considered by many to be an extreme pollutant when burnt in power stations, as is proposed?
  Mr. Wilkinson: That is not the case. It produces more suphur dioxide, but, in every other aspect, the combustion of orimulsion produces fewer noxious emissions than that of oil or coal.
  The issue is potentiallly prejudicial to a British-Venezuelan joint venture company, BP Bitor, which makes the product, and to our trade with Venezuela, which the Department of Trade and Industry, following an admirable initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has been a target country for British exporters. The United Kingdom should accept European Community proposals on the matter and come to an accommodation with Venezuela, or I fear that the United Kingdom will risk the widening and deepening of a wholly unnecessary dispute.
  I now refer to Export Credits Guarantee Department cover. To his credit, the previous Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), announced an extra £1·2 billion for ECGD cover in his last Budget statement. However, the ECGD's portfolio management systems criteria for local risk and premium pricing do not accord with present south American realities.
  Rightly, Chile has competitive ECGD premium rates, under the Government of President Aylwin, as under their predecessor, and the country has maintained essentially sound economic policies. However, in markets of immense potential for British exports, such as Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela and Argentina, British ECGD premium rates are far higher than those for export credit guarantee cover available to firms in our competitor countries. The matter should be rectified, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do so in his Budget statement of 30 November.
  The House has always taken an interest in Latin America. It might be a minority interest, but on occasions it can be of great influence, as was the role of a former Member for Westminster, Lord Cochrane, who was wrongly expelled from the House, from the Navy and from the Order of the Bath, for fraud in 1816 and who went to Chile and founded the Chilean navy. His capture of the Spanish flagship Esmeralda in Callao harbour contributed largely to the independence of Chile and Peru. In the House of Commons of those days, his contemorary, James Mackintosh, said:
  "There has never been a major demonstration of judgment, wisdom and action capability than the one demonstrated on that occasion."
  Few of us have such a eulogy addressed to anything that we do, but few of us are in Admiral Lord Thomas Alexander Cochrane's league for originality and for

  821
  courage. However, if we share but half of his love of liberty, we will have served our country well and, I hope, south America, too.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that we are debating Latin America, as we seem to do every July. It is a good tradition, because that area of the world is not sufficiently discussed. My problem with the speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is that I do not agree with the philosophy behind it. The problem is that, in his heroic moves to liberate Latin America from the clutches of the Spanish, what George Canning was about was liberating people from the Spanish in order to put them under another colonial power. He was not talking about the liberation of Latin America.
  Indeed, the regimes that followed the George Canning liberation movement were essentially elitist regimes of the settler community. They did much to oppress the indigenous population. Indeed, many practised wholesale genocide against the indigenous population of south America. The Spanish conquistadors and their move into Peru and what was later to be called Bolivia were unbelievably brutal, but the regimes that followed were also brutal towards the indigenous population. Indeed, that brutality continues today towards large numbers of indigenous peoples living in the Amazonas region, in particular. We should remember that. The reason why it did not become a massive British colony was that the British and the United States agreed on the Monroe doctrine and then calmly divided up that part of the world, largely in the interests of the United States.
  The other aspect on which I disagree with the hon. Gentleman—he will not be surprised, because we have had this discussion many times—is his glib description of democracy and free enterprise as synonymous, equal and mutually dependent. Many Opposition Members simply do not accept that. When we saw the brutality of the free enterprise model under General Pinochet, there was not an awful lot of democracy in Chile at that time. There was great free enterprise. There was also great brutality in the promotion of the free enterprise model, supported by the World bank and the International Monetary Fund in many other parts of Latin America.
  Indeed, it is 10 years or so since the great debt crises of the early 1980s, when the Latin American Parliament as a whole voted for a process of refusing to pay the interest on debts, and that sent a shiver down the spine of the United States and world banking systems. That crisis was averted by a series of bilateral deals and buy-offs and, indeed, in the United States nationalisation and subsequent resale to the private sector of some banks by the Reagan Administration to prevent the collapse of that banking system. But the way in which the overseas debt burden has been reduced in Latin America has had some truly horrific consequences.
  The debt burden came about basically because of the increase in world oil prices and the underpricing of primary products produced throughout Latin America. The debt-for-equity swaps that have been imposed upon one economy after another have had some horrendous
  822
  consequences in terms of social infrastructure, privatisation of former state-owned institutions, cuts in public spending and the laying off of state employees, with some truly horrific consequences for the education and health services of the countries concerned. That is not the equality of free enterprise and democracy; that is the brutality of the private sector saying that it is not prepared to spend anything on public services and public infrastructure. We should be aware that many social problems of Latin America are closely related to those issues.
  The other general problems throughout Latin America include enormous population movements away from rural areas into the shanty towns surrounding major cities. That is a consequence of changing agricultural systems and practice. In the case of Chile, it is a consequence of wholesale land purchases—indeed, in some cases, by multinational capital to develop high-intensity fruit farming which requires fewer workers than the previous farming practice did—and still higher levels of unemployment in the shanty towns around many capital cities of Latin America. Surrounding every capital city in Latin America is a smoking cauldron of extremely poor, extremely bitter and extremely angry people.
  It might be strange for those in western Europe to note that Latin American countries have refused to pay the foreign debt because it is unpayable, unjust and uncollectable. However, those reasons are common parlance among liberal and left-wing parties throughout Latin America. It is a feature of normal political debate.
  The development of the Latin American economies has caused some serious environmental and health problems. The frightening spread of cholera throughout Peru just two years ago was a consequence, in part, of the cuts in health programmes and in the development of water purification plants. That was done to please the wishes of the bankers of the north. Serious environmental concerns have been expressed about the extraction of minerals and the construction of roads throughout the Amazon rain forest and the destruction of that forest.
  It would be wrong in a debate about Latin America not to mention some of the people who are truly heroic, such as Chico Mendes, who stood up for the rights of indigenous people within the Amazonas region. In effect, he was murdered by the interests of multinational capital; its future for the Amazons region was different from that envisaged by Mendes.
  In the past decade things have changed considerably in Latin America. Most of the military regimes are no longer in government and there is a civilian or quasi-civilian regime in most countries. The human rights abuses that took place under the military regimes of Argentina, Chile, Honduras and Nicaragua, as well as in other countries, have not, however, ceased. The disappeared have not returned. The graves of thousands and thousands of people have not yet been discovered. They died because they were not prepared to support military regimes and because they believed in a genuine form of liberty.
  Although no one can be happy with the current situation in Peru and Bolivia, there is an economic dimension to the terror. The poverty in many of the rural areas and the lack of decent prices for the primary products produced by the campesinos, particularly those in the Andean region, have turned those people to the cultivation of drugs. Drugs, quite simply, are far more profitable than the returns on maize. It is possible to make

  823
  a living from growing drugs, but it is not possible to make a living from growing normal crops. Until pricing and poverty are addressed, the attempts to wage war on drugs will not be successful. I do not condone the production, distribution, sale or use of drugs—it is an evil and vile trade— but one must recognise that it has an economic logic of its own which we cannot ignore.
  The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred to Chile, which I have visited on a number of occasions. In common with him, I have family connections with Chile, but I have no commercial interests in that country, or anywhere else for that matter. The situation in Chile has changed dramatically, but we should not forget that President Salvador Allende was brutally murdered in 1973 —20 years ago this year—for leading a Government who sought to oppose the power of multinational capital. He was assassinated by the forces led by General Pinochet. Some 20,000 people were killed at the start of the coup and, over the next 17 years of Pinochet's total control, 50,000 lost their lives. One million Chileans were forced into exile as a result of the terror that was wrought upon them by that brutal, fascist regime.
  That regime had its apologists in Britain. It had its apologists in the House. It was one of the most brutal regimes that the world has ever known. Although the situation in Chile has dramatically improved, it is faced with serious constitutional problems. General Pinochet is still the head of the armed services and members of the armed services are still protected from any type of judicial process taken against them for denial of human rights, murders or for taking part in the disappearance of people. For example, the murder of Orlando Letelier, in Washington in 1980, led the United States authorities to call for General Contreras to be extradited. That cannot happen because he is protected by the constitution, which protects the military. It is a serious matter when someone who is known or is believed to have murdered Letelier cannot be extradited to face the judiciary in the United States.
  There are still 80 political prisoners in Chilean gaols, who have been there since the Aylwin Government came to power. Since that time, another 120 people have gone to prison. They believe that they have been sent there for political reasons and that they should be released.
  Although six secret prisons and cemeteries have been
  discovered by the human rights commission in Chile and some state compensation has been paid, all human rights abuses should be uncovered. At least those who have lost family and friends—I know those who have gone through the horror of wondering what happened to a person who was taken away in the middle of the night—would then know what had happened to the bodies of their loved ones after they were murdered by the secret police in Chile during that horrific and vile period.
  During that time a Conservative Government in Britain happily supplied arms and traded with that regime. We should not forget that—it is not forgotten by many in Chile.
  At the time of the Falklands war it was quite correct to criticise the appalling human rights record of the Galtieri Administration in Argentina and that of previous and subsequent Administrations. Because we are now trading with Argentina and because it was part of the coalition force in the Gulf war, there is now, apparently, much less concern in western Europe about the fate of those who disappeared.
  824
  I still receive letters and a magazine from a wonderful group of women known as the abuelas de la Plaza de Mayo. They are the grandmothers of the disappeared of the Plaza de Mayo. Those children were taken away during the Galtieri regime and it is believed that they were given to the families of officers of the Argentine army. It is horrific to think of those women looking for their families. I do not know why the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) seems to find this so amusing.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: I do not find it amusing. What I find extraordinary is that, year after year, the hon. Gentleman replays the battles of the 1960s. He seems to have no idea what has happened since then and no interest in what has happened in the 1990s.
  Mr. Corbyn: I raise this subject year after year and I shall go on doing so.
  Mr. Whitney: I will be here.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman will be here to listen. I shall continue to raise this subject because I believe that the issue of human rights abuses does not go away just because a different person is in Government house. If one has lost family, one has lost family. If one does not know what happened to a person, one does not know. It is perfectly reasonable that those people should want to know what happened.
  We are, apparently, also concerned about human rights and so we have some responsibility to bear. All that I am saying is that those people should not be forgotten. I am not reliving all the battles of the past, but I have recognised that there is still a need for human rights and human justice. It might be convenient for Conservative Members to say that we are in the 1990s and can forget about the past, but I remember those self-same hon. Members apologising for the Pinochet regime, year after year, in debates on Chile. I intend to keep reminding them of that because that is necessary.
  It is worth considering what has happened in Nicaragua since the Chamorro Government took over in 1990. The rate of unemployment in that country is now at an all-time high, as is the level of external debt. Apparently the serious environmental and economic problems are getting worse. The United States promised aid once the Chamorro Government took office, but most of that aid has not been forthcoming. Most of the European Community aid that has been earmarked for Nicaragua has been tied to specific development projects. I understand that only half that aid is now capable of being spent because there has been such a cut in Government agencies that they are now incapable of administering such aid.
  Nicaragua is suffering, as almost no other country in the region has suffered, from the type of quack economics that we thought had been forgotten about with the Chicago school. Unemployment is now reaching an all-time high and there is great poverty in Managua and the other cities. We should consider giving more aid to Nicaragua to help those people to get out of poverty. They suffered enough during the civil war from the United States bombardment. If the United States would just spend a fraction of the money on development aid that it spent on bombing the Sandinistas out of existence, the people of Nicaragua would be considerably better off.
  Some of us have seen at first hand the horrors of years of conflict in El Salvador. I am glad to say that it is no

  825
  longer being fought and elections are due to take place. But questions have been asked in another place about the size of the disfranchised electorate, the number of serious spelling mistakes and double entries on the electoral register and the need for vigilance during registration and preparation for the election. The Foreign Office has been asked to send delegations from this country to assist and observe during the electoral registration period and the election itself. If democracy is to mean anything in El Salvador, everyone must have the chance to take part in the electoral process. I hope that the Minister will tell us the British Government's response to these requests.
  On 30 August Honduras will hold a commemoration day in honour of the disappeared who vanished under former military regimes, thanks to the secret police. Before we embrace any new Government or regime we should always ask them about their human rights record and about the fate of the many people who stood up for human rights, for dignity and for trade unions and who were murdered or spirited away for their pains.
  On Saturday last week the fourth meeting of the Sao Paolo forum ended. It represents more than 100 political movements throughout the Caribbean and Latin America. The last meeting took place in Havana; the first was held in Brazil three years ago. The forum brought together people who are concerned by the fact that the whole continent is in thrall to neo-liberal economics, with its attendant unemployment and obsession with market economics. They believe that there must be a better way of organising society, as do many other people all over the world.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I do not want to enter into a long argument with the hon. Gentleman, but may I point out that Chile, the real forerunner of free market reforms throughout south America, has only 4·4 per cent. unemployment? No ne can say that free market economics engenders unemployment. If organised properly, free enterprise engenders prosperity; and the new Government seek to share that prosperity much more widely.
  Mr. Corbyn: Granted, economic growth in Chile has been fast by any standards, but I question the basis for the 4·4 per cent. statistic. The hon. Gentleman should ask some of the voluntary agencies working near Santiago and in the poblaciones about the high unemployment there and about the informal economy. There is still serious poverty in Chile, even though unemployment there is not as high as elsewhere. There is also bad housing and had health care —and, in any case, it was never the poorest country in the region.
  Today, 26 July, is an historic day for Cuba: an important national day. In 1959 Cuba was one of the poorest countries in the region, with the highest degree of illiteracy and the most serious social problems. Today illiteracy has been conquered and Cuba has a low infant mortality rate and high standards of educational achievement—despite a rigorous blockade by the United States throughout the period. Owing to the break-up of the Soviet Union and the Comecon trading block, and Cuba's inability to trade as before with eastern Europe and the USSR, it faces serious problems, as my hon. Friends who have visited the country more recently than I have can testify.
  826
  It cannot be right that the blockade should include food, medicines and fuel, aimed at breaking up the very infrastructure of life. The British Government have always allowed trade with Cuba but never encouraged it. I hope that they will at least recognise that it is wrong to starve the population of Cuba unti they agree to a change of political course. There is not much sign of the people of Cuba wanting such a change; there is every sign that they would like to live in dignity and independence. So I hope that the British Government will bring what pressure they can to bear on the United States Adminstration to lift the blockade so that the Cubans can at least enjoy a reasonable standard of living.
  Running through many people's attitude to Latin America is the belief that western Europe and the United States can impose an economic system and way of life on the continent. They fail to understand the anger beneath the surface, not among the political elite of the region but among people who will no longer tolerate the impoverishment of parts of the continent, particularly of those living in the shanty towns around major cities.
  I welcome trade with Latin America. We should recognise that, for a long time, many workers in farms and factories there have been grossly underpaid for their efforts. If there is any justice in the world, much more debt must be written off and much fairer trading arrangements with the continent must be agreed.
  I believe that poverty, oppression and human rights abuses go together. We should do what we can to alleviate all three horrors, which for too long have been visited on the people of Latin America.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on initiating the debate, which is becoming something of a tradition in the House every July.
  This has been a good year for Latin America: democracy has been sustained, despite the pressures sweeping the world. In Brazil, the impeachment of President Fernando Collor de Mello on corruption grounds has been carried out in a constitutional manner with his replacement by Vice-President Itamar Franco. In Venezuela the same progress has happened, with the suspension of President Carlos Andrés Perez to face charges of corruption. He has been replaced as an interim measure by Senator Ramόn José Velásquez.
  In Peru the duly elected President suspended the Congress in what has been termed a new process of self-coup. In the face of pressure from within Peru and from the international community he has backed down and the Congress has been superseded by a newly elected Congress, thereby restoring democracy to Peru. That example may have caught on. Indeed, President Serrano in Guatemala did likewise, suspending the Congress and the constitution, following which rapidly applied pressure led to his resignation and replacement by Ramiro de Léon, the human rights ombudsman of his country. So democracy, despite all the pressures, is safe and well in Latin America —with the notable exception of Cuba.
  Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that before and during the election in Cuba last February a widespread campaign organised by Cuban exiles in Miami and by American-owned television and radio stations urged the Cuban

  827
  people to destroy their ballot papers or not to vote. In the event, 80 per cent. of those entitled to vote came out and supported the regime run by Fidel Castro. The hon. Gentleman should reflect for a moment on the fact that the Government whom he supports have never had the support of more than one third of those entitled to vote. He should be hesitant before decrying Cuba's lack of democracy—it has more democratic legitimacy than this Tory Government have.
  Mr. Arnold: I should have been much more impressed if candidates other than those approved by communist party committees had been allowed to stand. I shall return to that issue in a moment.
  Mr. Whitney: Will my hon. Friend also invite the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) to consider why, if that is the case, at the recent conference in Brazil every other Government leader in Latin America, and the presidents of Portugal and Spain, urged President Castro to introduce democracy to Cuba at last?
  Mr. Arnold: The reason is that what is continuing to happen in Cuba—the only unreformed Marxist communist regime in the world, other than one in Asia, I believe —is a blot on the democratic escutcheon of Latin America and is a disgrace.
  On the question of economics in Latin America, it is notable that, after a decade of stagnation, recovery is under way. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood catalogued the impressive growth in gross domestic product throughout the continent. Trade liberalisation has led to far greater activity and markedly increased imports, which has to be good for Britain's opportunities, but only modest increases in exports. The resultant trade deficits could, indeed, cause an economic crisis in Latin America.
  The growing protectionism in the United States and Europe is dangerous, which is why this country's efforts for a successful completion of the Uruguay round of GATT is so appreciated in Latin America and is also vital to it. It would be a tragedy were there to be a return in Latin America to the tried and failed policies of import substitution.
  It has been a good year for Britain's relations with Latin America. Our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Colombia. He visited Cusiana, one of the largest oil discoveries of recent years, and he also visited Brazil for the Earth summit and held bilateral meetings with the Brazilian Government. Our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently visited Argentina and Chile, and our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been to Mexico and Argentina and spoke of his impression of the development and sophistication of both countries.
  Other Ministers have also visited Latin America in recent months or are due to he visiting it during the recess, joined by Madam Speaker. Ministers have been ably supported in their visits by our embassies. I counsel my hon. Friends at the Foreign Office not to impose false economies by closing or reducing our diplomatic and trade missions in Latin America.
  In the other direction, we have been visited by President Lacalle, a splendid anglophile friend of this country. We are honoured this week by the visit of President Gaviria of Colombia, who will visit the House tomorrow morning for discussions with members of the British-Latin American parliamentary group and other right hon. and hon.
  828
  Members. There have been visits to this country and to this Parliament by delegations of parliamentarians from Mexico and Brazil and countless Latin American Ministers and political leaders.
  The greatest credit for the improvement in our relations goes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford Mr. Garel-Jones), who, until his retirement, gave three great years to strengthening British-Latin American relations. His greatest strength has been his natural empathy for Latin Americans, derived from his command of the Spanish language, which greatly enhanced our relations with the Hispanic countries in particular. I wish the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), well in his task, not least in following my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford.
  However, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford had a fault, it was his propensity to give to the only non-hispanic major country in Latin America—Brazil—far less weight than it deserves. For that reason, the remainder of my remarks deal with the importance of Brazil.
  Of the 24 countries of Latin America, Brazil covers more than one third of the area. It is the ninth largest economy in the world. Its annual GDP is US$500 billion., which is three times that of Mexico and more than twice that of Belgium. The economy of the state of Sao Paulo alone is one and a half times that of the entire Republic of Argentina. We must put Brazil's importance into perspective.
  Although concerns are rightly expressed about the high rates of inflation suffered in Brazil, they are not a new phenomenon. Over the decades, Brazilians have learned to live with them and, indeed, how to prosper. In recent years, Brazil has resumed the servicing of its foreign debt and has built up current foreign currency reserves of almost US$25 billion. For many years, it has run a significant trade surplus. Recently, its trade surplus was exceeded only by those of Japan and Germany. This year, it is expected to reach US$20 billion—if only we had such a surplus. Brazil's growth this year is forecast to be 3·5 per cent. which, in real terms, is a very significant increase in such a vast economy.
  How is Britain participating in such vast growth? We have a long tradition of co-operation with, and investment in, Brazil, going back to independence early in the previous century. Brazil's public utilities owe much to their British founding fathers. We have long been a supplier of capital goods and technology, but we must continue to participate in great projects in that country.
  I draw to the House's attention some projects currently under consideration: the Bolivia to Sao Paulo state gas pipeline, which is worth billions; the cleaning of the Tietê river, which serves the state of São Paulo; the development of the Tietê-Paraná waterway, which links up to the whole waterway system which descends to the River Plate; and the modernisation of Brazil's ports.
  British industry's difficulties in competing for a part in such projects is the lack of cover from the Export Credits Guarantee Department, in competition with cover available to our competitors from their national credit insurance agencies. Companies can compete, as Westland showed by achieving the contract to supply eight Lynx helicopters to the Brazilian navy and to recondition its current fleet of such helicopters. It could only be done,

  829
  however, with the financing support of the Banco do Brazil. We cannot rely on its being achieved on each and every occasion.
  These difficulties are not confined to Brazil alone. The new ECGD criteria are hampering British trade throughout Latin America. The ECGD has announced cover for Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela but, even then, small British exporters cannot obtain access to that cover due to ECGD's need for bank guarantees and the lack of existing lines of credit. In particular, it works against small exporters pursuing credits of between £50,000 and £250,000. There have been too many examples recently of British groups having to source through foreign countries to obtain credit cover. I cite two examples.
  The first involves GEC Alsthom. Due to the better deal offered by Coface, the French Government export credit department, its recent project to supply electricity generating units to Mexico had to be channelled through its French associate. Secondly, the project by Biwater at Puerto Vallarta in Mexico had to be sourced from Spain due to the better conditions offered by its Government's export credit agency. High on our Government's European Community agenda must be the standardisation of terms by Community Governments' export credit agencies.
  I point out to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that it is indeed true that General Pinochet remains head of the armed forces in Chile and that he has behaved himself in that position. However, Humberto Ortega, the brother of the former Sandinista president of Nicaragua, remains head of the army of Nicaragua. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander.
  Mr. Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously trying to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Is the hon. Member giving way?
  Mr. Arnold: In view of the time, I shall finish my speech.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Due to the shortage of time, my remarks will have to be brief, but I hope to deal with some of the matters that have arisen in the debate. I pay tribute to the chairman, the secretary and the members of the Latin American group for the work that they do on behalf of fostering relationships with Latin America. It is appreciated on both sides of the House. I also pay tribute to the work that is done by and through Canning house to develop business, cultural, academic and social links with Latin America. There is a great deal of cross-party support for, and a desire to restore, our historical relationship with the area. That is why I especially regret the remark just made by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), and I shall return to the point of attitudes towards south America and some of the obnoxious regimes that have existed there.
  One of the things that have struck me since taking this job is that so many people in this country simply see the continent of south America as a business opportunity. That is why I am pleased about the work that has been done by Canning house that tries to extend the
  830
  relationship with Latin America beyond that. The hon. Member for Gravesham implied in last year's debate that the area is simply a business opportunity. He quoted the fact that the ex-Minister the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) had
  "emanated a clear vision that Britain is missing out on business opportunities."—[Official Report, 9 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 589.]
  Business opportunities are important, but I hope that developing south America is not simply seen as that, or even as an extension of our colonial rule, which did not last all that long, thank goodness.
  Latin America is in a promising phase. I use that word advisedly because, although the continent holds promise of democratic and economic development, both are fragile and could be easily reversed or eliminated. Labour Members are delighted, as are all hon. Members, to see democracy develop in the region and it was pleasing to see Mr. Ramiro de Leon Carpio, the human rights activist, become president of Guatemala with an absolute commitment to rebuilding democracy.
  However, all is not good news in Latin America. Although some economic growth has been achieved, it has varied from country to country. Progress is patchy and sometimes non-existent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, the vast debts that were accumulated in the 1970s and 1980s have resulted in a reversal of the policies of protecting industries. Under the instructions of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, countries now have to throw open their economies to encourage foreign investment and expose their domestic industries to foreign competition. That process has been in operation long enough for us to see some of the effects of liberalisation—they are not all good as Conservative Members would like us to believe.
  In previous debates, Conservative Members have talked at great length, as they have today, of free-market economics. The right hon. Member for Watford said in a prescriptive mood on 22 July 1991:
  "it is the combination of freedom provided by liberal democracy together with market economics that will deal with the cardboard cities and with the appalling poverty"— [Official Report, 22 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 858.]
  Since then, as hon. Members need scarcely he reminded, the shanty towns of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have not gone away. Only last weekend, we saw the appalling crime of child murder on the streets of Rio de Janeiro.
  To try to create the impression that all is well and progressing is fundamentally wrong. As with domestic and European matters, the ex-Minister got it wrong here. To think of Reaganomics and Thatcherism as a solution to the ills of Latin America is as foolish a proposition as it was and is in this country.
  The debt crisis is over, but only for the banks. The United Kingdom banks have used the tax laws and financial markets to cut their losses, but the debtor countries of south America still owe what they did before and are still spending one third of their export earnings paying interest on debts. They are still trying to earn more abroad and spend less at home to repay debts. It is wrong and misleading to suggest that all is well and that the debt problems of those countries have been resolved. In addition to putting the market first, Governments have been forced to sell state-owned industries and cut health, education, other domestic needs and import taxes.
  Most hon. Members would agree that it is arrogant to generalise on Latin America because each country has its

  831
  unique problems. The time that the hon. Member for Gravesham devoted to Brazil showed the uniqueness of that country, but some issues apply to many south American countries: the fragility of democracies, the issue of human rights, the exceptional level of poverty, which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North mentioned, and the undue influence and participation of the military, which although not in government is seemingly waiting in the wings.
  Although Chile, Mexico and Argentina performed well, in other countries, such as Brazil, reform has juddered to a halt and in Venezuela, partly as a consequence of political crises, progress is intermittent. In Ecuador and Paraguay, the process is only just beginning.
  The opening up of economies is likely to boost consumption rather than production, and unless indigenous industry is developed, promoted and invested in, countries will retreat into being primary producers with their people receiving only the trickle down benefits from an elite group of people. in last year's debate, the hon. Member for Gravesham spoke of the republics'
  "enthusiastic adoption of the free market system"
  giving
  "great inspiration, which this House should duly recognise." —Official Report, 9 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 589.]
  Unlike him, I believe that it is vital that the continent is not left to the mercy of market forces. State participation is essential, and there is a mood among Latin American people for change and for a rejection of harsh market economics.
  Although greater economic stability in civilian government has become the norm for most of Latin America, the majority of its people have not shared in the economic growth. The 1992 Economic Commission of Latin America reported that 183 million of Latin America's 450 million people already live below the poverty line. The Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Cooperation showed that, of 27 million people in central America, 19 million live in poverty and 13 million live in extreme and abject poverty. That is hardly a success story for free enterprise.
  As a result, millions of people have been forced to work in the informal economy. People who once worked together on farmers' and workers' co-operatives are now having to sell sweets and cigarettes in the city, competing with each other just to get enough to eat. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Gravesham thinks that poverty and starvation is a laughing matter, but Labour Members certainly do not. Half of Peru's population—12 million people—earn only enough in a week to buy food for two days. Chilean apple pickers received $3 dollars a day in 1987; in 1991, although living costs had doubled, they received the same. That is part of the "economic miracle".
  As larger estates expand to produce more crops and beef for export, poor people are forced off the land into either ecologically fragile areas or to the sprawling shanty towns that surround most urban areas.
  Government measures to curb inflation and to meet foreign debt commitments have led to cuts in services and high unemployment. People leaving rural areas and moving to the cities face unemployment and inadequate housing and services. They are denied credit. their environment is deteriorating and their incomes are declining because they are paid unfair prices for their produce.
  832
  The continent is paying a high cost for free market economics, not only by the destruction of parts of its economy, but by the pollution of its environment, which is under considerable pressure. Although Chile is a success by most neo-liberal standards, and foreign investment has topped £3 billion in the past year, as the world's second fastest growing economy, there are still areas of environmental pollution that need to be looked at urgently.
  Coming to my present job from the defence team, one of my first tasks was to read last year's debate on Latin America. One thing that surprised and disturbed me—I was not really surprised—was the way in which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) used what should have been a constructive opportunity to indulge in his partisan rantings about far-left organisations. Such a one-eyed view of the world will never be in danger of disappearing as long as the hon. Member for Gravesham follows on the hon. Gentleman's tailcoats.
  Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman described my "partisan rantings". Is he referring to my attack on the Sendero Luminoso, because no other "ranting" took place? If the hon. Gentleman calls that ranting, I accept the charge. Is he seeking to defend Sendero Luminoso? Is that what he is saying?
  Mr. Rogers: No, not at all. The hon. Gentleman is using a typical ploy. He tried the same ploy last year against my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I will not fall for it. The hon. Gentleman's prejudices came through. I suggest to hire that he reads his speeches.
  The inability of both hon. Members to recognise that terrorism is not exclusive to any side of the political spectrum is disturbing, and we have seen a manifestation of it this evening. Terrorism is utterly condemned by decent politicians wherever it comes from, especially by those who might condemn the right-wing neo-fascist dictatorships, about which the hon. Gentlemen seem to be such experts. Pinochet is one example.
  It is important that the opportunity for debating Latin America is not used year after year in the way that it has been in previous years. I hope that what I am saying tonight will stop that happening. People of all democratic persuasions, or even of no particular persuasion, suffer when the generals and their business men colleagues repress, starve, torture and imprison.
  The same ordinary people suffer when the so-called liberation movements do exactly the same. There is no refuge for criticism of terrorism. The only decent and proper way to conduct a debate on democracy and human rights is to remember that terrorism is an absolute evil which has no qualification whatever.
  One serious concern that I should like to mention briefly—I shall sit down immediately afterwards to be fair to the Minister, as I have slightly overrun my time—is the issue of drugs. It is a problem. We should do more for the people who are being forced into the drug economy because of their inability to sell their products abroad. It is a great shame that economists, for example, in Peru can say that the Peruvian economy is addicted to drugs.
  Britain's continued involvement in Latin America is crucial. We must not allow ourselves to be isolated from the region. The all-party group, to which I and most of the hon. Members present belong, has a vital role to play in it,

  833
  but it has to be a non-partisan, cross-party role. We should support increased human rights, environmental protection and the development of the regions. There is no intrinsic reason why Latin America should be poor. It has immense natural resources and we should all try to help it to achieve its potential.
  9.14 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing the debate and on describing our relations with Latin America with such knowledge and understanding. I believe that the debate has become something of an annual event and, as a newcomer to the job, I welcome that. I hope that I shall take part in many future such events.
  Even in my few weeks in these responsibilities, I have become aware that something of a new chapter is opening in our long-standing relations with Latin America. At least some of the credit for that belongs to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). I join in the generous tribute paid to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who put on record the energy and enthusiasm that my right hon. Friend brought to that part of his job. His commitment enabled Britain to strengthen her relations with a number of those countries, and the benefits of that will endure for many years.
  Latin America has long been regarded as having exceptional potential, both in its natural and human resources. The problem is that, too often, that potential has not been realised, but the recent changes that have been described by many hon. Members justify our optimism about the future. The most important overall fact is that democracy is established in the continent as the normal form of government. There are exceptions, but they are few in number. The most noticeable is Cuba, which has been alluded to by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who is not in the Chamber now, made the remarkable claim that Cuba's democratic credentials were secure because its Government received 80 per cent. of the vote in the last elections there. That was not very difficult to achieve, as no candidate who did not have the consent and support of the ruling party was permitted to stand. I dare say that the hon. Member for Dundee, East would have received 80 per cent. of the vote in his constituency if only the Labour candidate had been allowed to stand; but that hardly amounts to democracy.
  The reason why Cuba's economy is on the edge of collapse has less to do with the American embargo and much more to do with the fact that the former Soviet Union has turned off the subsidies and that Cuba is still trying to run its economy along centralised state-run communist lines. That is why the people of that unhappy island are suffering.
  Mr. Corbyn: Should not the Minister concede that the United States blockade of Cuba from 1959 onwards, and the diplomatic and financial pressure that it used on the whole of Latin America, prevented Cuba from selling its produce—sugar, fruit or anything else—in the region? The
  834
  only area with which it could trade was the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Is it not time for the United States to grow up, withdraw the blockade and permit the Cuban people to have medicines and food and to be able to sell their goods in the rest of Latin America, as they wish to do?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sure that the United States would be willing to review its embargo if Cuba improved its deplorable human rights record and held free and fair elections.
  The crucial thing about the rest of Latin America, however, is that those countries are now governed by constitutional means, by civilians, and from that fact all other reforms can flow. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham reminded us, there have been political crises in south America recently—in Brazil, Venezuela and Guatemala—but the significant and new fact is that they have all been dealt with constitutionally and not by military intervention.
  I emphasise that we take seriously the question of human rights, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I disagree with the rest of the latter's old-fashioned sub-Marxist analysis of political developments in Latin America, but I do not dismiss his concerns about human rights.
  Violence, including political violence, is still too common in some of those countries. Some of it is drug-related, some perpetrated by guerrillas or paramilitary groups and, regrettably, in some cases the security forces are implicated. But there is a new determination to bring those responsible to justice. That is true of the President of Colombia, who is visiting this country as our guest at the moment. Colombia is still a violent country with a weak judicial system, but I applaud the progress that is being made by the President and the Colombian Government to counter the drug menace and to bring a number of guerrilla groups back into civilian life.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend referred to the weak judicial system in Colombia. It is worth bearing in mind that the system may be weak because murder threats are made against the judges, magistrates and their families. Our country has supported the Colombian judicial system by providing technical expertise and the like.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I certainly accept that we must recognise the difficulties of enforcing laws in a country where intimidation is rife.
  Another new feature is that Latin American countries are pursuing the policies of the open market and encouraging international trade and investment. No longer do they seek state-owned, state-run solutions to all those problems. So in many ways, the government and administration of those countries are improving, and have improved out of all recognition during the past decade or more.
  Serious problems remain. I have mentioned human rights. I also endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda about the drugs problem, which is serious and must be dealt with. We are playing our part. Last year, the Prime Minister visited Colombia and the Home Secretary visited Colombia, Peru and Venezuela to assess the drug situation and see what we can do to help.
  Another encouraging feature that has been mentioned is that those countries now seek to play a responsible role

  835
  on the wider world scene. The hon. Member for Islington, North was rather dismissive about the help given by Argentina during the Gulf war, but Conservative Members welcome the fact that those democratic countries are now willing to make their own contribution to United Nations peacekeeping efforts throughout the world. We wish to encourage them to do so.
  I shall now say a little more about this country's relations with Latin America. Many hon. Members have drawn attention to the visits—at a political level and to assist in bilateral trade—of Latin American statesmen to this country and of our Ministers to that continent. I mentioned the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Colombia and Brazil last year. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary went to Mexico in 1992. and more recently went to Argentina and Chile. I have already spoken about the Home Secretary's visits in connection with the drugs menace.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade recently visited Mexico and Argentina, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently returned from a successful trade promotion visit to Mexico and Chile. I hope to visit the region during the recess, and I shall make a particular point of visiting Brazil. I know that that will please my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham.
  I welcome visits to this country. The President of Uruguay came to London last month as a guest of the Government, and President Gaviria of Colombia is here at the moment.
  I cannot miss the opportunity in a debate about Latin America to refer to Argentina. It is more than three years since we restored diplomatic relations with that country, and we attach a high priority to returning to as near a full and normal relationship as possible. There are deep and historic links between the two countries that should draw us together, but in discussing political links and developing trade, we must never forget the Falklands aspect. Diplomatic relations were restored only on the basis that we leave the sovereignty issue to one side while discussing other practical matters.
  I regret that the Government of Argentina continue to press their claim. President Menem, who has in many ways done much for Argentina, nevertheless repeatedly asserts that the Falklands will be Argentinian by the year 2000. i reject that, as will every hon. Member. We have no doubts whatever about our sovereignty over the islands. I hope that the Government of Argentina will reconsider their continuing claim.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood rightly praised Canning house. In its 50th anniversary year, I am also pleased to pay tribute to the work of Canning house. It was founded during the second world war and was a visionary undertaking at that time. It has become a crossroads and a meeting place in London for Latin American presidents, Ministers, academics, business men and, of course, parliamentary colleagues.
  Visiting presidents from Uruguay and now Colombia always make a point of meeting at Canning house. Its
  836
  reputation remains high because of the quality of its staff and the way in which it has always been led. It makes a vital contribution to British-Latin American relations. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said about his perception of the need for continuing financial support. I hope that all hon. Members will continue to avail themselves of its facilities, and that they will join me in wishing Canning house success during the next 50 years.
  Several hon. Members mentioned trade with Latin America. It is too low. We want to increase our exports, and I am glad that last year we achieved a 20 per cent. increase. In 1992, exports to Latin America were worth some £1·3 billion. I expect that trend to continue in view of our continuing efforts.
  Some hon. Members emphasised the need for Export Credits Guarantee Department cover. That is under constant review, but it has not been available in a number of countries for some years because of previous defaults on debt. We want to resume cover as soon as possible. Cover in Argentina resumed in June and in Paraguay it resumed in July. I hope that that list will be extended as economic reforms, open markets and a liberal trading system take hold in other countries as well.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gives a great deal of emphasis to trade with Latin America. A number of export promoters have been appointed, and we have two business-led trade facilitation groups, one for Colombia and one for Mexico. The Government's export services have produced a marketing plan for Latin America, concentrating initially on the top six countries.
  Aid is also important. In 1990, we announced that we would double the aid programme, though admittedly from a low base. It is focused primarily on technical co-operation, training, health programmes and the importance of encouraging management of sustainable natural resources.
  I must emphasise that, although aid is important, the resources released by freer trade are much more important in the long term. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood criticised the CAP. Even so—and despite our continuing efforts to reform the CAP—it is worth noting that 65 per cent. of Latin American exports to Europe enter the Community duty free. We are in the vanguard of member states pressing for a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round. If we can achieve success in global free trade, it will release far greater resources than any conceivable aid programme.
  I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Our relations with Latin America are enormously assisted by the presence in the House of a group of hon. Members with knowledge, expertise and interest in that region. If any hon. Members will be visiting that region during the summer recess, they should let the Foreign Office know, and we will endeavour to give them all the assistance and briefing that may be required.

  Yugoslavia
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am heartened by the number of hon. Members who are present and who, presumably, hope to speak during the debate. It is testimony to the intense and continuing dismay felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House at the degeneration of the position in Bosnia, and the continuing lack of international will to do anything about it.
  The Minister often claims that there is no political or domestic will in the House or the country. I genuinely think that he is utterly wrong to make that claim. I think that there is a huge groundswell of opinion among ordinary people in the country that the United Kingdom should be doing much more than it has over the past two years. That opinion is widely reflected in many newspapers—certainly among the journalists reporting from Bosnia—and it is widely felt in the House. I have no doubt that the Government could secure a broad consensus in favour of a stronger stand, if they wished to take that initiative.
  A number of my colleagues have been most eloquent on this subject for what seems to be a depressingly long time, notably the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I first spoke in the House on this subject as long ago as 13 November 1991, when Dubrovnik and Vukovar were being bombarded and flattened. I called then for military measures to be taken to halt Serbian aggression, but unfortunately, as we all know, nothing was done. Resolutions aplenty were passed but never implemented, or never implemented with sufficient force. The aggression continued in Croatia, as it then was, intensified and inevitably spread into Bosnia, with all the horror that we now know.
  I went to the Library to see how many resolutions have been passed. I was given the weighty collection of paper that I have with me—I might almost say, "I have in my hand a piece of paper." The collection happens to be the 41 resolutions that have been passed during the past 23 months. They have been passed but never fully implemented and, in essence, have changed nothing in former Yugoslavia.
  I shall emphasise that point by referring to one of the 41 resolutions. It was passed on 6 May this year and concerned safe areas. In the resolution, the UN declared that Sarajevo, the capital city of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and other threatened areas—in particular the towns of Tuzla, Zepa, Gorazde, Bihac and Srebrenica—should be treated as safe areas by all parties concerned, and should be free from armed attacks and from any other hostile acts.
  The resolution went on to demand the immediate cessation of armed attacks and any hostile act against the safe areas and demanded free and unimpeded access to all the safe areas in the republic of Bosnia. Since that resolution was passed, 400 people have been killed and 2,500 wounded in Sarajevo alone, one of the supposed safe areas.
  The Minister should reflect seriously on the long-term consequences of the debasement of the prestige of the UN, on the currency of international diplomacy and on the prestige of the west— particularly the liberal democracies—by the continued and constant failure to implement and enforce the resolutions the UN has passed.
  The Minister has chastised hon. Members for raising inflated expectations of what can be done in former
  838
  Yugoslavia. The Government, however, have put their signatures to all the resolutions. They have helped to draft all the resolutions, including the resolution on safe areas. The Government have sadly failed to do anything to implement their declarations.
  The message that I hope will come out of tonight's debate is that, despite the delay and despite the pattern of appeasement, it is not too late. Europe can still rediscover its will and its conscience. By taking action now, we can still turn back the tide of nationalism and neo-fascism that is welling up in the Balkans and which threatens to spread across central and eastern Europe.
  The Government often give the impression that they are playing for time. They give the impression that, if they can stretch out the endless series of resolutions and play out the endless sequence of conferences and negotiations for long enough, the public will eventually become disinterested. Those of us in the House and elsewhere who want to see stronger action taken will also become disheartened and will accept or reconcile ourselves to what Ministers like to call "realities on the ground." That is not what is happening, however. As Sarajevo has teetered on the brink of collapse, the calls for stronger action have become louder and more numerous.
  On Friday more than 80 American congressmen signed an open letter to President Clinton calling for a 72-hour ultimatum to lift the siege of Sarajevo and the other besieged towns, and advocated the use of force if it was not complied with. General Morillon, released finally from the leash of his political masters, has called for military action and air strikes to lift the siege on Sarajevo. He made it plain that in his view that was feasible.
  Last week several of us listened upstairs in a Committee room to Larry Hollingsworth, the United Nations special representative for humanitarian aid in Bosnia. He stated his view that we should have been firm with the Serbs from the outset of the delivery of humanitarian aid and that if we had been firm and decided that aid should be delivered on our terms without negotiating and compromising with the Serbs, the aid could have been much more effectively delivered. He added that it was time to stop bargaining and negotiating with the Serbs and time to start using force to deliver that aid.
  Bit by bit, the Government's claims that all the expert advice from humanitarian workers, the military and the diplomatic corps is against intervention are being shown to be grossly and gravely misleading. A group of us visited the NATO headquarters recently. We left there with the clear impression that the most senior officials in NATO were satisfied that intervention was not only feasible and advisable but urgently required. We received a clear impression that there was intense frustration at the failure at the political level to take the steps necessary to resolve the crisis.
  When Ministers search for an excuse for nonintervention, they often say that there is a civil war in former Yugoslavia and Bosnia and that we cannot become involved in a civil war. Of course, communities and civilians are caught up in the war. In that sense, it is civil. Indeed, the main brunt is being borne by the civilian population as it is deliberately targeted and terrorised by Serbian and other forces. However, it is not a civil war in the sense that its primary source and inspiration is internal and domestic—absolutely not.
  It is contradictory for the Government to continue to trot out that claim as an excuse for their lack of action.

  839
  Last December, at the summit of the European Council in Edinburgh, it was plainly stated by the Heads of State who gathered there that, although there were civil aspects to what was happening in former Yugoslavia, the primary responsibility lay with the Serbian Government in Belgrade. They stated that plainly in the communiqué from the European Council, in which they made a declaration on former Yugoslavia. That was in December last year. Paragraph 2 of the communiqué reads:
  "The primary responsibility for the conflict, and its brutality, lies with the present leadership of Serbia and of the Bosnian Serbs …The Serbian authorities in Belgrade bear an equal responsibility for fomenting the conflict."
  So the argument that it is a civil war in which we cannot intervene simply cannot be used with consistency by the Minister. He can search and grope for that excuse in desperation, but he cannot use it consistently because it has been rejected by the European Council.
  Nor can the war be confined to a particular local area or its consequences restricted to the Balkans—another frequent excuse for inaction. Sometimes it seems that it is Government strategy to cordon off the war in Bosnia and to allow it to burn itself out. I firmly believe now, just as I did in November 1991, that that is an utterly false hope. The Bosnians will not stop fighting. In the short term, they may be forced to accept some kind of ethnically based settlement—but that will not last.
  A radicalised and embittered rump state in Bosnia will not accept the so-called reality on the ground, any more than the Palestinians have accepted the so-called reality in the middle east since the last war. The Croats will not accept either the effect of annexation of one third of their territory. The recovery of what are viewed as occupied lands will remain the overriding goal of future Croatian policy and of any rump state created in Bosnia.
  It is not just the Bosnians and Croats who will not desist in the long term. The more that sanctions threaten economic collapse in Serbia, the more that President Milosevic will be compelled to continue his policy of ethnic cleansing and territorial consolidation. Carving out a greater Serbia is about the only means of economic growth and the only source of political credibility and legitimacy available to Milosevic's regime.
  There can be no doubt that when the fighting in Bosnia subsides, Kosovo will be next. As Serbian policy there gradually escalates from intimidation to terror and to ethnic cleansing eventually, at what point will we draw the line—or will we simply wait for a general Balkans war?
  I cannot emphasise too strongly that the belief that a carve-up of Bosnia into territorial spheres of influence between Tudman's Croatia and the Serbia of Milosevic and Arkan, with a small rump Muslim statelet crushed between, is a recipe for any kind of stability and long-term settlement in the Balkans is dangerous nonsense and a delusion.
  Today's issues of The Independent has an article explaining what needs to be done now. The immediate need is to lift the sieges of safe areas. The wider political objective must he to restore a plural, intercommunal, political and civil society in the whole of Bosnia—if necessary, in the way that the allies reconstructed German society after the second world war.
  Two measures are necessary to enable that wider political role to be achieved efficiently. The United Nations must declare the whole of Bosnia as being under its protection. That would be welcomed not just by the
  840
  Bosnian Government, who have already suggested that possibility, and by the population of that country, but by the majority of the people of Croatia and by many in Serbia as well. The UN must make it absolutely clear that its purpose is to guarantee the civil and social rights of all the communities equally within Bosnia under an impartial UN-administered interim Government.
  The second measure necessary to ensure the efficient achievement of the wider political objective is for the UN to delegate to NATO, and primarily to its European members, the military task of lifting the sieges and of disarming the warring forces within Bosnia.
  The maximum tactical and strategic freedom should be allowed to NATO forces to fulfil those missions. Anything short of that formula will make the overall task that much more difficult. For example, to restrict the political objective simply to protecting the safe areas is a recipe for a second Gaza and an endless stalemate, while inhibiting the tactical freedom of NATO in its ability to respond to events on the ground will mean having to deploy many more soldiers to accomplish the same task.
  The figure of 70,000 to 80,000 troops to implement the Vance-Owen plan, for example, was a deliberate overestimate by NATO commanders, intended to compensate for the variable quality of UN troops, their lack of common training and the lack of an efficient command and control centre at the United Nations. Delegation to NATO would dramatically reduce the number of troops required and increase the efficiency of the operation. That is not to criticise the United Nations, or those involved in trying to implement UN peacekeeping missions. It is not their fault that the member Governments of the United Nations hve not supplied the resources and the wherewithal to allow the UN to carry out these missions effectively and properly.
  Ms Clare Short: Does my hon. Friend agree that when we visited NATO we were told that all it took to enforce the safe areas strategy was the commitment of 8,000 troops and a change in the rules of engagement? Does he also agree that we were told that NATO had done the work and felt that this was a European responsibility and that European troops, at that very small level, should be committed? Furthermore, does my hon. Friend agree that we were told that, although Bangladesh and Pakistan had committed troops, Europe had not committed enough troops for the strategy to be implemented? Does not all that symbolise a lack of political will?
  Mr. Macdonald: It represents an appalling abdication of the responsibility of European Governments, as my hon. Friend points out, that they have absolutely failed to fulfil the request for the minimum number of troops required to enforce the safe areas policy.
  Of the 23 observers or monitors that the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe said that it would be putting into Kosovo to monitor the situation there, I understand that only eight or nine have been put in place and that some of them are Americans, not Europeans. The Serbian authorities are making difficulties and are refusing to co-operate with European Governments in Kosovo over the monitoring of the situation there.
  The sad fact is that the entire United Nations peacekeeping budget for 1992, covering its tasks in the Balkans, Cambodia, Angola and elsewhere, was less than

  841
  the combined budgets of the New York city fire and police departments for the same year. It is no wonder, therefore, that problems have arisen in Somalia and difficulties in Bosnia. The lesson is that the onus is all the greater upon the Governments of Europe and the Governments who comprise NATO to take a lead.
  There are now 4 million people who depend upon humanitarian aid in Europe, 3·5 million of whom are still in the Balkans. Half a million of them are now outside the Balkans. Of those 500,000, 300,000 are in Germay, 80,000 in Switzerland, 73,000 in Austria and 40,000 in Hungary. In Britain, there are only 4,424. We do not need to look much further for an explanation of the British Government's complacency regarding the position in the former Yugoslavia. They have repeatedly insisted that British interests are not directly involved. There is no doubt that we should not be adopting that attitude if we, like Germany, had not 4,000 but 300,000 refugees living among us.
  It is deeply ironic that a Government who have spent more than a year of parliamentary time on ensuring the ratification of the treaty of European union still, apparently, have no idea, no concept, of the significance of that to which they spent a year trying to persuade us to put our signature. The treaty of European union should at least signify or recognise the existence of a new Europe: a Europe without barriers and of common citizens. It should recognise a Europe in which Britain is no longer an island apart and a Europe in which Germany's refugee problem is also our refugee problem.
  Right up to 1940, British Governments considered the fate of the Low countries of the Netherlands and Belgium as being of vital national interest to Great Britain. The trouble with the Foreign Office is that it still thinks that way. It has still to adjust to the new Europe which was created after 1945. The Balkans are to the European Community today what the Low countries were to British Governments in the past—an area of vital and immediate interest and importance on which British Governments simply cannot turn their backs.
  Sadly, we can have no great expectation that action will follow this debate. Most of us in the Chamber today are just junior Back Benchers and we are ranged against a Government who claim to have the weight of diplomatic and military opinion on their side—and they claim that falsely, I would add, for the reasons that we have been given by the Government.
  We will not accept what the Government try to tell us is now inevitable. We will not accept the extinction of a democracy and multi-cultural civilisation in Bosnia. We will never accept a settlement that is based on the principle of apartheid in the middle of Europe.
  The American Secretary of State, Warren Christopher. has described Bosnia as a problem from hell. He is wrong. Bosnia is a problem not from hell but straight from the pages of European history. The way to solve the problem can also be found in the history books. The lesson to be learnt from the history books is something that we should all have learnt 50 years ago: one cannot pacify aggression by appeasement. The only way to stop aggression is to stand up to it.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) who made an excellent speech and who outlined with controlled passion and lucidity the situation that we are debating this evening. I simply regret the fact that the Chamber is so empty even though, for a Consolidated Fund debate, I acknowledge that it is quite full.
  The contrast between last Thursday and Friday and tonight is stark, yet the relative importance of the subject discussed, if we think about it for a moment, is also in stark contrast. What we are discussing this evening is, in its far-reaching consequences as well as in respect of its own intrinsic importance, a far graver situation than that which exercised us last week.
  I have been a Member of the House for 23 years. During that time, I have felt, as every hon. Member feels from time to time, frustrated, elated and bored. However, until this past year, I have never felt deeply ashamed. I do feel ashamed about what has happened in the Balkans and about the lack of will and resolution displayed, particularly by the European powers, in the face of this catalogue of misery, crime and depravity. Two hundred thousand fellow Europeans have been slaughtered in Bosnia in the past 16 months, about 40,000 women have been raped, about 750,000 people have been wounded, many of them children and many of them badly mutilated, and 2 million of our fellow Europeans have been displaced —uprooted from their homes. The monuments and buildings which symbolised their culture have been wantonly destroyed or vandalised.
  That is an appalling catalogue of desecration which impoverishes and shames us all that it should have happened. That it should have happened as the first great repercussion of the end of the cold war makes it even more shaming and shameful.
  For a long time, the hon. Member for Western Isles and I have been involved in seeking to draw attention to those problems and to urge action. He and I were among those who, when Dubrovnik, a world heritage site, was being shelled—that alone was a reason for the rest of the world to take an interest—urged that a naval patrol and an air patrol should be put in place. I firmly believe, although I could never prove it nor could anyone disprove it, that had resolute action been taken then, we would probably not be having this debate tonight and many thousands of people would still be living in Bosnia in peace, accord and amity. as they had lived for generations.
  I recently stayed with some friends. The wife was a Serb—from Mostar—and she said to me that in her childhood there was no more peaceful society. People got on well together, they lived side by side, they enjoyed each other's company, they respected each other's cultures, and they had a common culture, too. The word "multi-ethnic" is often tossed around without much thought or regard, but Sarajevo was a multi-ethnic city. Its mosques were among its most glorious monuments, but its churches also were revered and respected by people of all persuasions and name, yet in the past 16 months we have seen a city and a country destroyed.
  What makes it so appalling is that Britain recognised that country as an independent nation. Last April. about 65 nations recognised Bosnia as an independent nation. It was given and still has a seat in the United Nations. That

  843
  country was not a Muslim country but one with a united presidency—Muslim, Croat and Serb—which it still has, and with a Government who reflected those three cultures and symbolised the one that Bosnia was. We recognised it and we have stood by while it was being destroyed.
  Of course, I yield to no one in my admiration for the bravery and skill of British troops. I do not gainsay for a minute the value of the humanitarian aid and the enormous courage that has been needed to take that aid to people, nor do I deny that many tens of thousands of people would have died of starvation and malnutrition had it not been for the aid that was taken to them, but we must not shelter behind praise for the troops because there has been a political vacuum.
  I do not say these things easily. I have a high regard for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who will reply to the debate. I kept him up in the small hours in December 1991 during the Consolidated Fund debate, when we first debated the former Yugoslavia. I called for action at the time when Dubrovnik and Vukovar were attacked.
  The west, collectively, has failed, as have the institutions that we created to guarantee the world order. What has happened in the former Yugoslavia is an indictment of the United Nations, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and every other institution to which we have all paid, from time to time, enthusiastic lip service. Above all, it is an indictment of the failure of NATO and the European Community to respond.
  There is no point in saying that the British public did not want action to be taken. What sort of leadership is that? "Those are the people, I will follow them because I am their leader." If the Prime Minister had come to the House and said that a fundamental British and European interest was involved and that it was necessary to take certain action, what would have been the response? I suggest that it would not have been dissimilar from the response at the time of the Falklands war or the Gulf war. British people are not slow to recognise national and international interests.
  In this country and other European nations there has been a craven refusal to measure up to the enormity of the challenge. I am ashamed.
  Ms Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis that this is a European failure, but does he agree that two nations, Britain and France, take supreme responsibility? They are the two European members of the United Nations Security Council and they have the armed forces capable of taking action. Those countries, of all countries, are the most guilty. The evidence of opinion polls reveals that, way back from the time when Lady Thatcher first spoke about the need for action, the majority of British people have called for action.
  Mr. Cormack: The cannon should be pointed at Britain and France, and at Germany, too, because its precipitate action in another context is also responsible for the failure.
  Mr. David Howell: It is much more responsible.
  Mr. Cormack: I note what my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs
  844
  says. Be that as it may, at no time, either individually or collectively, did we convince the Serbs that we were prepared to take action.
  I have talked to soldiers, diplomats and journalists. I do not want to break confidences or embarrass people, but suffice it to say that I am not persuaded—how shall I word this carefully—that what has been said in the House entirely reflects the advice that I am told has been given at a lower level. Perhaps that advice has not permeated to the top and, if that is the case, there is something wrong with the system. There is an appreciation among diplomats and those responsible in NATO and elsewhere that there is something that should and could be done.
  Nobody in the House who has taken close interest in this subject has, in irresponsible and gung-ho fashion., recommended vast ground troop involvement.
  We should pay tribute to the bravery of the journalists in Bosnia, among whom Martin Bell is perhaps the most outstanding. He said at a meeting in the House a couple of weeks ago that he was convinced that the Serb gun positions could easily have been taken out. They were not as mobile as some would have had us believe. If just a quarter of the resolve to teach Saddam Hussein a lesson had been applied to Bosnia, we would have turned the Serbs back. The technique of precision bombing is not restricted to one part of the world.
  When we say these things we are told that there would be civilian casualties, but have there not already been tens of thousands of those? We are told that some soldiers would be killed, possibly British ones among them. I am reminded of the visit that I paid in April to the young men of the Staffordshire regiment who were celebrating their reprieve. They asked the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and me, "Why do you think we joined the Army? What is the Army for? Of course we have to go into action sometimes."
  Had there been any resolve or determination the Serbs would have backed down. As Martin Bell reminded us, Karadzic recently signed the Vance-Owen plan because he thought that at long last the west would take action. When it became apparent that we would not, he reneged.
  So much for the sorry history of the conflict. What of the future? If the end of this terrible episode is the extinction of a sovereign nation from the map of Europe, that will be a dire portent for the next century. If the message goes out that, having recognised a state, we were neither prepared to defend it nor to give it the means to defend itself so that it vanished in carnage from the map of Europe, that message will be heard in the former Soviet Union.
  I do not want to be told that there are many other conflicts in other parts of the world. We do not refuse to help our neighbour just because we cannot help someone who may be in even worse trouble in a far-flung land. And we are talking about the centre of our continent; our neighbours.
  If we finally fail—we have failed badly enough hitherto —and this nation disappears, that will be a most damning indictment. Today I was glad to see that The Independent devoted the whole of its front page to a call to save Sarajevo. Colleagues may have seen and read it. I am persuaded by those to whom I have talked in the military and elsewhere that even at this late stage it would be possible to save Sarajevo, that great European city—to employ black humour at its most grotesque—whose citizens have been reduced to conditions worse than those

  845
  suffered by people in the middle ages. Sarajevo is still there; it has not fallen. It need not fall and, if we are to rescue any vestige of honour from this appalling catastrophe, it must not fall. Even now, it would be possible to halt the Serb aggression by delivering an ultimatum, as suggested by the 80 congressmen to whom the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) referred.
  Let us not balk at placing the responsibility where it belongs most—with the Serbs. In recent months, awful things have been done by all the communities involved, but, as was said at Edinburgh where we also held a Bosnian summit, which the hon. Gentleman and I attended—not that it did much good—the prime responsibility lay with the Serbs. They started it and they fuelled it from Belgrade, literally and metaphorically. Although we criticise some of what Croatia has done, we should not forget that, in defiance of some of those 41 United Nations resolutions, vast tracts of Croatia are still occupied by the Serbs. A couple of weeks ago, a senior diplomat said that, if we started by enforcing those resolutions, in Croatia, we would send out the right signal.
  We cannot allow the situation to continue. If we do, it will not end there. Sooner or later we shall be sucked in anyhow. Will the Serbs end with Bosnia? No. Will they end with Kosovo? No. Unless this rampant belligerent aggression is halted, and unless the Serbs who believe in democracy—many do—are given a lifeline, we shall have in the Balkans the smouldering beginnings of a war which could become a conflagration at any time and could involve not only Bulgaria and Albania but Greece and Turkey. Two NATO nations could be fighting each other.
  Let us also consider the signals that we are sending to the Muslim world. Some in the Muslim world are already beginning to show their disfavour in quiet ways. Do we want to enter the next century not only in a Europe in which a cancer has taken hold but in a Europe in which we are regarded as enemies by those in the middle east? Do we want to enter the next century with a Europe which, if it is not a cohesive continent, will not be in a strong position when the balance of power inevitably moves from the Atlantic to the Pacific? This debate covers all those problems.
  You, Madam Speaker, have done the House a service in allowing three hours for this debate. The hon. Member for Western Isles has done us a service in choosing the subject matter. A number of us did likewise and we are grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for recognising its importance. I wish, however, that the debate could have been awarded a full day and a full House because if, when we return in October, Sarajevo has fallen and Bosnia is no more, we shall have written one of the most appalling chapters in European history and we shall reap the consequences. What is worse, our children and our grandchildren will do so, too.
  10.18 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) ended his excellent speech by saying that he wished that this debate was not being held with such a limited number of hon. Members here, although among those present are many, like him, who have been committed to the issue for
  846
  a long time. He thought that it would perhaps have made a difference. Sadly, I do not think that it would. Like the hon. Gentleman, I read the front page of The Independent this morning. It caused me to look back at my papers and read:
  "In Sarajevo, people are in their cellars without electricity, water or food. If you have children, think what that would be like. Soon, those who have escaped the shells will starve. Only force can be understood, and force should be used, and we should also give air cover for food and medical supplies. We can, of course, also do nothing and just let people die."
  That was a broadcast that I did on Channel 4 on 10 June 1992—a year ago. I mention that not to say, "Look how clever I was saying that on 10 June 1992", but to say to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South that I am afraid that we have been looking at the present situation for a very long time. The situation has simply become worse, but intrinsically it has been very bad for a long time.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) about NATO. I remember visiting the headquarters of Action Rapide in Paris about a year and a half ago. During the briefing, the general was asked specifically what he thought about the military implications of lifting the Beige of Sarajevo and he more or less said,"If you give me proper notice and 36 hours, I will do it". I do not think that the head of Action Rapide was given to exaggeration. It was possible; what was lacking, as has been repeated several times, was the will.
  Two or three nights ago, a scrap of news on the television showed a man sitting behind an enormous gun, which appeared to have an enormous number of shells. He was just pumping them out into the air towards Sarajevo —to whatever it may have hit. We allow that to happen and we say that we cannot take any risks. Without some military action from the west, Sarajevo will ultimately fall and all over Bosnia there will he some sort of Srebrenica defeat. I am not looking for a military solution—none of us is—but without the threat and almost certainly the use of some military force, and with a threat of more, negotiation will not succeed. That is essentially what the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South said.
  The hon. Members for Staffordshire, South and for Western Isles concentrated on Sarajevo and on the particular problems of Bosnia. Since many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall spend a little time on other related questions in the former Yugoslavia.
  The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South was right to say that the Croats have problems with the occupied areas in Croatia, but what they are doing at Mostar is indefensible. They are clearing out all areas on one side of the river, preparatory to doing it on the other, with a view to making it the capital of Croatian Bosnia. I gather that there are between 6,000 and 8,000 Muslim men in camps on the edge of Mostar with a view to being transported goodness knows where.
  I should like the Minister to say what action the Government have taken with the Croatian Government. He may find it difficult to answer all the questions, so I hope, therefore, that he will answer in writing. I ask questions only because I want to know the answers: that is what these debates are supposed to be for.
  There is no doubt that economic sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro have been a considerable success. One needs only to look at the position of the dinar to realise that the collapse of the currency is nigh. I readily accept that it is an exceedingly difficult issue, and I am not being critical.

  847
  The question is, what are we trying to do with sanctions? Presumably, we are trying to put maximum pressure on Milosevic so that he, in turn, will do the same to Karadzic and General Mladic. That is the straightforward position. I understand that, when Lord Owen was here, he was saying sotto voce—rumour goes around in the House—that Milosevic was being quite co-operative, and we should be thinking in terms of progressively reducing sanctions. I would not wish to do that without four things —first, an agreement in Bosnia; secondly, an agreement in Kosovo; thirdly, an agreement in Vojvodina, which we must not foget, as it has a substantial Hungarian population; lastly, we have to look at somehow disarming Serbia. It is an enormous military power squatting in the region.
  We have to face the fact that some in the House will say that sanctions are bad. I listened to the views put by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about Iraq. They say that our sanctions there are punishing women and children and making the population poor. If that argument can be applied to Iraq, it can easily be applied to the former Yugoslavia. That is a difficulty which all of us who think that sanctions are an effective and relatively peaceful way to bring pressure to bear have to face up to.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Is not the problem with sanctions that they are put forward as an alternative to engaging in military action? The hon. Gentleman has already spoken of the devastating economic effects; sanctions work in Kosovo as well and cannot be doing anything to help the situation there.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Supposing I accept everything that the hon. Gentleman says, what else can one do? There is only the military action that we have been talking about, but there is a lack of will to do that.
  Owen is wrong on Kosovo. I heard him say in the plenary session of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg that he thought that the people of Kosovo ought to accept that they are part of Serbia, and that should be the end of the matter. I understand that he has said that elsewhere as well. However, that cannot be the end of the matter.
  There is a population of 1·75 million, which is relatively homogenously dispersed in a compact geographical area, 90 per cent. of which is Albanian. It is all very well saying that there was a great battle in 1300-odd against the Turks which was lost and the area is now part of the soul of Serbia. I understand that and I understand nationalist feelings, but, in the 20th century verging on the 21st century, we cannot listen to such an argument.
  We must look at the disarmament of Serbia—I have mentioned Vojvodena. That is a major issue, to which sufficient attention has not been devoted. Even if we got peace in Bosnia and an agreement in the areas that I mentioned, we would still be left with an embittered population. Milosevic could still be in charge, and we know what he did with the opposition within Serbia. If he has to hand powerful military forces, he may well use them.
  I have two short specific questions that have not yet been properly mentioned. If the Minister has a proper opportunity to reply, I hope that he will. First, what is going on with the war crimes tribunal which was proposed in the United Nations? What has happened about the inquiry into the rapes which was instituted following the
  848
  summit in Edinburgh with Dame Anne Warburton, who produced a report? What has been the follow through to that and how does it relate to the war crimes issue?
  Secondly, the economic situation in Macedonia for a period was awful, because she was obeying sanctions and there was a problem with Greece. Of course, Macedonia has no forces of her own, but I understand that there are some American forces there. What is the up-to-date position about Macedonia? I think that the hon. Member for Western Isles spoke about CSCE monitors in Kosovo. I think that they have all been cleared out. Did not the Yugoslavs say that, because they had been put out of the CSCE, all other CSCE monitors were to be put out?
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Gentleman tempts me to interbene. The position is unsatisfactory. The Government of Servia have stated that the mandate of the CSCE to keep the monitors in Kosovo has been withdrawn. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. Some of the monitors are still there, because some are on leave and have not had their visas renewed. We are seeking to persuade the Government of Serbia to agree to a renewal of the mandate.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention. It clarifies the position which, as he says, is highly unsatisfactory. We need a firmer basis.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South that this has been a test of European will and our humanity. We have shown some humanity: our troops and French troops have done enormous good. General Morillon and people of other nationalities have done well within the narrow confines of the United Nations mandates under which they had to operate. The lack of will and the absence of any capacity to take risks have been saddest. Neil Ascherson who writes so well in The Independent on Sunday described it some months ago as
  "a policy of non-intervention disguised as humanitarianism."
  So far, the outcome has been to our shame, but, as the hon. Member for Western Isles said, it is not too late; it is never too late. If we begin by lifting the siege of Sarajevo, all things can become different.
  10.32 pm
  Mr. David Howell: The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has rendered the House a service by introducing this debate at this late stage just before the recess. The situation will grow much grimmer and much worse, and before we sit here again many more terrible and dangerous things will happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has also done the House a service by articulating his views with great eloquence.
  I do not totally agree with the analysis or the conclusions of hon. Members who have spoken. The issue has dark and expanding consequences for us all. That cannot be in doubt for a moment, although some people think that it can all be shut away in a box and put aside as it is happening in far away countries of which we need know nothing, and that it has nothing to do with us.
  I join with as much feeling as I can muster those who praise the humanitarian work of the relief workers, the non-governmental organisations, the UNHCR and our troops who are protecting those relief workers. They are offering a superb and abnormal degree of protection. No words are adequate to praise what they are doing, and I

  849
  hope and pray that they will not be forced to withdraw because conditions have become impossible. That threat is always present, but we have the assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that if the risks become too great or the mission impossible our troops will be rapidly withdrawn. I hope that that will not happen.
  The humanitarian operation is right. The conscience of the world is rightly outraged by the horrific medieval atrocities that this terrible saga has revealed. It would be impossible, uncivilised and equally barbaric for us to stand back and say that we can do nothing. It would be impossible for us to say, "Leave them to fight it out, starve and die." My right hon. and hon. Friends have acted positively and constructively throughout in recognising that something must be done.
  On the politico-diplomatic side, however, it is far less easy to see the positive aspects—the good that has been done by the policy-making efforts of the European powers. It may be said that we are now in such a miserable situation, with Sarajevo about to die, that to look back is to rake over the ashes and to cry over spilt milk; but I do not think that that is entirely right. Unless we can trace the way in which we got into this quagmire with more precision than we sometimes use in the emotion of the moment, we shall not find a way out of it, or guard against falling into equal chaos in the next crisis.
  That applies particularly to Macedonia. People remember the parts of history that they choose to remember, but it is worth remembering that Macedonia is behind the present circumstances, which began to unfold when the Turks withdrew about 120 years ago. The motives born of that moment still drive the present horror. In the 1870s, Macedonia was the boiling point—the potential Bosnia, or killing field—that led to the Balkan crisis of the time. It is waiting to fulfil the same role, and it will do so unless we learn our lesson and do not follow the same miserable path.
  Why is the world so critical of what has happened on the diplomatic front? The source of the beginning of failure is clear. At the outset, when it became clear that the old federation was going to break down in the familiar slaughter and the ancient ethnic quarrels would all be raised again, there was a choice for the international community. It was between saying, "We will not intervene in military or political terms; we will help relief workers, and intervene in a humanitarian context, but we will not intervene in a decisive policy way", and saying, "We will now embark on this operation, fully aware that one thing can lead to another; fully aware that we may have to intervene with increasing decisiveness, commitment and force. We are ready to do that, so that, from the outset, our threats will carry credible weight: they will have behind them the threat of full intervention".
  The international community's first act was to step aside from that choice. It did not follow either of those routes, although either one of them might have led to greater coherence and less bloodshed; I do not say that either could have prevented what has occurred. Instead, the international community chose the option of uncertain, wavering half-intervention, adopting a number of dangerous options, each of which has made the horrors worse and prolonged miseries, dangers and, probably, the
  850
  incidence of death. I believe that, looking back; some commentators, including hon. Members, think the same, looking forward.
  First, we said that we would not intervene militarily but we had some diplomatic solutions to the problem. That was a dangerous first step. Again, a study of history would have shown—here I disagree with some hon. Members who have spoken—that no outside influence could ever have stopped the wish of the Serbs to regain their lands, after all those hundreds of years of being suppressed by Turkish and Ottoman rule. Any idea that that could have been stopped by plans, arrangements or diplomatic solutions was absurd vanity—unless, as I say, people were prepared to support it with massive military intervention.
  The first half-baked semi-intervention, which has done more harm than good, was the attempt to impose diplomatic solutions, or detailed maps, on the unfolding agenda of greater Serbia and the greater Croatia—which were there and remain there—and on the hope and belief, now dashed and destroyed, of the Bosnians, including those sometimes called the Bosnian Muslims—
  Mr. Cormack: They are not all Muslims.
  Mr. Howell: As my hon. Friend says, they are by no means all Muslims—that they would have a whole area of Bosnia which they could rule.
  Once the international community began to say that it did not accept that and had some better ideas, maps, plans and diplomacy, we began, even at that early stage, to fly in the face of, instead of working with, mitigating and redirecting the unfolding reality. We pretended that we did not understand that reality. We did not have the historical insight to see what would happen. That was the first of the fatal interventions. I shall come to the others in a moment.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I listen to the right hon. Gentleman's argument with increasing incredulity. He has made two assertions—one about greater Croatia and the other about greater Serbia. He speaks as if those nations had existed within a known time scale. But then he dismisses Bosnia out of hand. If he looked a little more closely at Balkan history, he would know that Bosnia existed as an independent state 500 years ago. Most of its current borders have been internationally recognised for the past 120 years. If that is the case, why does he go along with the appeasement of Serbia, and to a lesser degree of Croatia, at the expense of Bosnia?
  Mr. Howell: That is the danger of mixing analysis of what is happening with what the hon. Gentleman would like to happen. He draws certain lessons from a particular point in history. One could go with a microscope over the history of the area and draw different lessons. We all try to draw the best lessons to see that we do not make mistakes in the future. I am not saying what I want to unfold; I am merely describing what is happening. I am not saying what I wish or plan it. I am not saying what I would impose on the area if I was king of the world. I am merely describing the unfolding reality. When politicians and diplomats plunge into a situation and try to defy it but deny themselves the force, machinery and equipment to do so, they end up in some sticky situations. As my argument unfolds, the hon. Gentleman may understand more what I am trying to say.
  The second half-baked intervention was the diplomatic act of recognising Bosnia at the beginning of last year. It

  851
  was against the advice of the Badinter commission, which said that Bosnia did not satisfy the conditions for an independent state. It is ironic that Mr. Badinter said that Macedonia qualified and yet we did not recognise Macedonia as a state. Bosnia, which he said did not qualify, has been recognised.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend said that we had not recognised Macedonia. By voting for the admission of Macedonia to the United Nations, we have accorded recognition to Macedonia.
  Mr. Howell: We have recognised it now, but all last year, when the Macedonians sought recognition, they were told that they were not on the list because of the Greek problem, with which we are familiar, whereas Bosnia had passed through the hurdle and become a recognised state. Many people said that that act of recognition would lead to more hideous bloodshed. The renewed intensity of the horrors, the adjectiveless killing that took place, and the new and ugly drive of the Serbian Bosnian forces as they moved against the Muslim strongholds was a terrible and predicted sequence. Recognition was not the only reason why the events that followed unfolded, but it was a diplomatic intervention which made the situation worse.
  The third intervention was the decision to continue maintaining the embargo on the movement of arms in a way that discriminated against one of the combatants. Whatever else one says, clearly that was intervention. I must be careful in saying what might be the way forward. Some argue—and we may be close to this—that the answer is not to give more arms to the area to foster more killing but to reduce, if this is realistic, the arms available to the other combatant forces. Others say—as did my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the other day—that if we cannot see any other way forward, we may in due course have to consider lifting that arms embargo. There are those in the Washington policy-making machine who think that that point is near.
  Whichever way one slices the argument and goes from here, the international community has intervened by holding the situation as it is. Whether one likes it or not, true non-intervention, and true military and political stand-off—and I am totally against humanitarian stand-off, because involvement there is right—would mean a lack of consistent and pursued implementation of the UN resolution that in effect denies the Bosnian Muslims the means to defend themselves.
  The big lesson of half-intervention, the implications of which some of us in the Select Committee tried to set out in our recent report on the UN's expanding role, is that when the United Nations or a more regional grouping, such as the European Community, seeks to move into and grasp some horrific situation of conflict, it should first pause and ask itself a basic question.
  It should first accept—and this is the theme of the Select Committee's report—that one thing will always lead to another, and that the smallest toe in the water of involvement in intervention is likely to lead to greater things. When it does, all the intervening nations or parties concerned must have the political will, resources and equipment to see the matter through. If they do not, they should not get involved in the first place.
  I may be too idealistic, but that seems a necessary line of reasoning and test, to ensure that we do not see again the half-intervention—the realisation that it will lead to
  852
  more promises, the raising of high hopes of intervention, backing down, a feeling of betrayal, bitterness, and the increasing sense that the international institutions have lost their authority.
  In the Bosnian Muslim case, the disaster is wider—as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South warned. The signal has been sent to the ever-sensitive and rather divided Islamic world that moderate Islamic leaders who believe that co-operation with Europe, the west, the Christians—whatever term one likes to use—is the right way forward in bringing stability to the whole Islamic world, in the middle east, have got it wrong. It will be said, "Look at what these people have done. We put our trust in them, and that trust has been belied, undermined and destroyed."
  Extremist, subversive and terrorist Islam—in total contrast to the moderate, wise Islam with which we need to work closely and befriend—has received an almighty boost. There are further sinister developments to come. The idea that the system would settle down under a greater Croatia and Serbia and a crushed Muslim Bosnia and that there would be equilibrium is false. It is more likely that we shall see an increasingly agitated Islamic interest. There has already been an offer of 10,000 Iranian troops to save Sarajevo or to maintain another area, and of Pakistani and Malaysian troops. Other countries have raised the banner of Islamic military intervention. It has not happened yet. I shall be fascinated to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who struggles nobly and with vast skill with these issues, whether that was just a straw-in-the-wind suggestion, or faint bravado, or whether that plan is going forward. Either way, it is exactly what policymakers said at the beginning must not happen.
  Mr. Max Madden: Would not the spectre that the right hon. Gentleman raises be laid to rest if Britain, France, Germany and other NATO countries said today, "We are prepared to put in sufficient forces to lift the siege of Sarajevo and to give full protection to the so-called protected areas"?
  Mr. Howell: That is a solution one can come to, but I am not sure that I have sufficient confidence to think that it is happening. In the past, there were many suggestions that it might happen but it did not, and that led to an even worse situation. I see no sign that the NATO powers are prepared to act in that way. If they were, it might have a beneficial effect on the Islamic attitude, but at the moment I see no sign of it.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: We on this side of the House are listening with bated breath to find out what the right hon. Gentleman suggests is the solution to this terribly complex problem. As he is Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, we treat his views with particular respect. He has been speaking for nearly 20 minutes, but we still do not have a clue.
  Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman says that, because I am the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, I must have a wonderful solution that rises above the efforts of diplomats and all the others who have failed to find a solution. I cannot do that; I cannot deliver a miracle. I can only suggest that if we analyse what has happened clearly, we may, just possibly, be in a better position to halt the still downward slide and prevent the

  853
  war spreading into, for instance, Macedonia, where at least we have taken the first right move. Preventive diplomacy has been followed by preventive deployment.
  There are now, which I greatly welcome, American soldiers there—only a few hundred of them—but I hope and pray that, this time round, preventive deployment, or the beginning of intervention has behind it a credible threat: that there will be no question of ever withdrawing those troops, should they be attacked, should borders begin to be messed about with and should we begin to see the horrors in Bosnia translated on to the Macedonian map. I hope that that is what it means. It is important that we should make it clear that that is what it does mean so that we do not see Macedonia going the way of Bosnia.
  No, I cannot at this late stage produce wonderful solutions out of a hat. I can, like every other right hon. and hon. Member, speculate on whether Sarajevo can be saved and whether that can be done either by some NATO force, which I do not believe will be forthcoming, or by—
  Mr. John Gunnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howell: No. I am about to end my speech. I have kept the House too long already.
  Alternatively, we can speculate on whether Sarajevo can be saved by strengthening the Bosnians, perhaps even with the support of those Islamic forces, and by weakening the endless Serbian drive, incentive and determination to try to smash Sarajevo which at present the Serbs feel is necessary because they do not understand any other settlement and can see no prospect other than that, somehow, they must seize Sarajevo.
  Mr. Gunnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howell: No. I am about to finish.
  That is the grim prospect that we face as the House goes into recess. I do not offer cheap solutions or, indeed, expensive ones. The dangers are very great. It is possible to save Sarajevo if there is a whole combination of measures, not just the pouring in of NATO troops. That is what may occur. However, I see nothing other than blood and misery following on from the errors of the past. I pray and hope that those errors arc not repeated on the Macedonian scene.
  10.53 pm
  Mr. David Young: The former Yugoslavia is one of the greatest challenges that faces not only the United Nations but each and every one of us.
  Various reasons are given as to why we cannot intervene. We are told that it is a civil war between neighbour and neighbour and that it is a war with no front line. It is a war similar to that in which guerrilla-trained people defeated Hitler and put him to flight.
  When we hear all the reasons why we cannot act, I sometimes wonder whether it is time to consider some reasons why we should act. Perhaps action would have occurred long ago if Bosnia had oil. We find that action occurs quickly from surrounding countries in respect of oil-bearing states.
  What perturbs me is that ethnic cleansing smacks of the holocaust. From our not too distant history, we know the
  854
  penalty that was paid by ignoring the slaughter of the Jews in Germany. Reasons were given then for why we could not act.
  No one is entirely guiltless in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. However, the Serbs—above all—have consistently thumbed their noses at the United Nations. Yesterday, only seven minutes after a truce, the United Nations forces were attacked. I do not argue easily for the engagement of British land forces. However, if we are to abide by the United Nations, we must act together with a United Nations force. In respect of this issue, the United Nations has acted too little and too late.
  Let us consider the growing request of the Muslims to be allowed to be armed. That would not have come about had there been an attempt to make an even playing field from the start. However, sanctions were never implemented enthusiastically and no thought was given to the point made by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) that if we could not supply the Muslims, we should effectively have disarmed the Serbs.
  There are many Bosnian Muslims in my constituency. One Muslim said to me, "We appreciate your food and we appreciate the bravery and dedication of your soldiers in getting it to us, but are we just going to be kept alive so that eventually we can be raped and butchered?" That is the challenge that we in this House face.
  Will the United Nations eventually secure peace only on the aggressor's terms—the terms of a raped Bosnia and a butchered Bosnian Muslim population? If that is the case, the United Nations will be the principal loser—a latter-day League of Nations. Is the United Nations going to stand by while its authority is flouted and its troops attacked?
  Also, we can and must embrace more enthusiastically the problem of former detainees and refugees and the sick and injured. We said that we would accept 1,000 ex-detainees and their relations. Germany agreed to take 2,000 and France agreed to take a meagre 385. Little Switzerland agreed to take 1,500. However, we have not yet taken a quarter of our promised quota. We can hardly set ourselves up as a world leader on humanitarian issues if we cannot, even now, fulfil that quota.
  The situation is too fluid, too dangerous and too unstable to talk just about quotas. We should produce a policy that will react enthusiastically and quickly to the situation. As the slaughter continues, the casualties will increase and there will he a greater need for medical help for those who are injured: it calls for a policy of humanitarian support for our Bosnian neighbours.
  It worries me when we consider what the United Nations did in the middle east, yet it is only now considering taking in only 300 ex-detainees. It is by one's deeds, not one's words or resolutions, that one is eventually known. There is growing evidence that the aggressors are determining play in the war. The League of Nations failed because its policy became one of appeasement. The United Nations is on trial. It is a test of every member country.
  If the Serbs and other warlords win, the ideals of the United Nations will have been sacrificed, and the United Nations will founder on the rock of appeasement, just as the League of Nations did many years ago. The principles of the charter of the United Nations will be flouted if we do not act. The rising nationalism throughout the world will regard the conflict in Bosnia not as the end but as only the beginning of a world holocaust.
  11.1 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: This debate is an emotional affair, principally because of my own Serbian background. It might be assumed that, because of that background, I could be enormously supportive of Milosevic and try to excuse him or take a deeply critical and horror-struck view of all that has gone on in the name of so-called Serbia. Milosevic might be their leader, but he does not represent all his people.
  Interestingly, during the election in December, despite the enormous, one-sided campaign that Milosevic conducted against his opponent, Milan Panic, who had been scorned and derided and had not been allowed access to the media, people who heard Milan Panic's message turned out to vote. It is remarkable that, despite enormous pressure—for example, names slipping off the electoral roll, jobs being lost, double registrations, and no registrations—34 per cent. of the electorate voted against Milosevic.
  I say that with tremendous feeling for that beleaguered community. If there is any chance of bringing the terrible slaughter to an end, we must do everything in our power to back the opposition.
  A few weeks ago, Vuk Draskovic, the leader of the Serbian Renewal party, was savagely beaten. It was interesting to note that the outcry that followed put more pressure on Milosevic than anything else that the international community had done. It shamed him. I was proud of the fact that our Prime Minister sent a letter of protest—quite right, too. The way in which Madame Mitterrand went to Belgrade and badgered Milosevic was also impressive, and quite right, too. It was interesting to note that, ultimately, he yielded to the pressure where it hurt, because, frankly, he was made a fool of. He did not like the reality that, at long last, some opposition had risen up. He did to the opposition the only thing that the butcher of the Balkans could do—he wiped it out. He closed down the Serbian Renewal party and made it impossible for other parties to function.
  We can learn many lessons from that incident—and I hope that we will—because, for once, Milosevic had been challenged on his territory and he backed down.
  I share the anguish expressed in the Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on initiating the debate. I also support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
  I have watched the events of the past year with horror. I have tried to put my point of view to our Government. I accept that they are genuinely anguished and it is unfair to accuse them of complacency. I do not believe that that is right. The Government could protest, quite rightly, that they have spent more man hours on this issue than on many other topics and with less clear answers. I am sorry that the Government have encountered that difficulty.
  I do not put all the blame on the British Government, because I accept that they have made a positive contribution in terms of humanitarian aid. The fault lies with international dithering—I use the word international deliberately. The European Community has failed. I believe that the countries that make up the UN have failed. The crisis over Sarajevo confirms that. Even as we speak, the shelling, the mortars and the sniping continue. That is
  856
  the result of non-intervention. I find it humiliating that yet another ceasefire has been turned into a mockery after seven minutes.
  It is humiliating to learn of the shelling of the French UN protection force in Zetra, just outside Sarajevo—a Serb snub if there ever was one. Mercifully no one was killed in Zetra, but 38 people were killed elsewhere. I find it depressing to read in the newspapers today of Barry Frewer, the UN spokesman, who said of the shooting:
  "It is not being respected by either side. It is very disappointing."
  I find it disappointing that we seem to have difficulty accepting that defenceless people have a right to protect themselves. We should reconsider the whole question of lifting the arms embargo. I am encouraged by the fact that the Foreign Secretary has not ruled out the idea. At present these people are using what few weapons they have to hand; we are offering them no human protection. We are thereby exposing them to far greater dangers, because they are so vulnerable.
  What is the definition of a safe area? In these areas residents and security forces alike are being killed. Spanish forces, for instance, are under fire from the Bosnian Croats. The other day two Canadian UN soldiers were wounded. And the British aid convoys are continually under fire.
  The United Nations has said that it will launch air strikes if its troops are fired on. When will the allies take such action? What is the breaking point? If we continue to do nothing, it is hardly surprising that we are never believed.
  There are dangers associated with inaction, too. The United Nations is no longer respected as a world authority. That could have dangerous repercussions across the globe. It sets a precedent. I am worried because the authority of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe process has been grossly diminished, even though it has been instrumental in activating monitors.
  Scorn has been heaped on all the declarations of the past 50 years designed to improve the lot of the beleagued human race—the 1948 universal declaration of human rights, the 1950 United Nations human rights convention, and the 1960 United Nations covenant on civil and political rights. Is it really right to ignore them all? I believe that we ignore them at our peril.
  I feel uncomfortable when I hear that this is not our war, or that we have no interests at stake in it. I do not accept that. Bosnia is at the heart of Europe and it is no good pretending otherwise. Greece is regarded as a healthy member of the European Community. Italy, Austria and Germany, all near Yugoslavia, are of course regarded as European nations. After all, where is the heart of Europe? Some people might not regard the Shetlands as exactly at the heart of Europe, but they are certainly part of it.
  Yugoslavia and Bosnia are our prime responsibility. I do not accept the argument that we should exercise our responsibilities in Cambodia or Somalia but not in Bosnia. Certainly, if we can afford to send our troops there, we should do all we can—but surely not at the expense of a country and a people who are our own kind.
  I do not condemn the Vance-Owen efforts, or those of their successors, to find a solution.
  I know that the Minister has spent many hours meeting the leading personalities in the Balkans and I know how difficult and frustrating it has been. None the less, I do not believe that we should back off because of the difficulties.

  857
  I do not believe that appeasement has ever paid; I cannot think of an example of where it has done so. The price will be tomorrow's account of bloodshed. It could begin in Kosovo. We could see the inexorable spread of a war that no one bothered or had the heart to stop in time. The danger now is that it has become unstoppable. Territorial ambitions may almost have been satisfied in Bosnia. Regrettably, Greater Serbia has come about and the Serbs could now turn their attention to Kosovo.
  I was in Kosovo last December as one of the monitors of the election. It was eerie and uncomfortable to be in that silent town, with a people cowed, knowing that a bombshell would drop at some stage although they could not tell when; it was like the silence before a storm. Do people realise that all the schools there are closed, that children are not being educated? Do they realise that the people there are not getting jobs? The town is already under siege. I saw for myself that the warlord Arkan had his camps in the vicinity. It is hard to believe that anyone could say that it was hard to take action when the camps were so visible.
  Undoubtedly, Milosevic will feel that he has unfinished business. I was disappointed to find that, in the mind of the socialist party, there seems to be a question of Kosovo being allowed to return to the 1974 constitution established by Tito. To give that autonomy seems like common sense when one is sitting in this country, but, regrettably, I found that the socialists and Milosevic take a wholly different view. That is why I fear that reason will, yet again, go out of the window.
  As soon as Bosnia has been cleared up, the Albanians, then the Bulgarians and the Greeks will become involved. The Macedonians will also be under tremendous pressure. I congratulate the United Nations on deciding to put in a token force as a deterrent which, I hope, will be increased. Nevertheless, a widening of the war to embrace Turkey is a possibility. Anything could happen. We have a moral responsibility to decide when we should do something other than our very important humanitarian aid—although I do not denigrate the marvellous aid, which has saved many thousands of lives.
  I have a particular interest in our aid convoys because they were organised through the Crown Agents, which are based in my constituency in Sutton. They told me about the morale of the drivers. They are not military men, trained for war; they are civilian truckies who decided to offer, at great risk to themselves, to carry out the important driving work. They sent a message back to the Crown Agents saying that, if the British troops are withdrawn because of fears for their safety, they will carry on driving because they believe that they should. I am proud of them for taking that action.
  I am proud of our British troops. I have not heard a word of complaint about the dangers to which they have been exposed. They are a highly professional fighting force with a job to do. If anything, we hear of their frustrations at being unable to do more or to respond as their instinct tells them. I wonder to what degree they give debriefings to Ministry of Defence officials; and do officials listen and learn from their lessons?
  We must take great care about the future of the Muslims in Bosnia. The Geneva talks get going yet again this week and some unsatisfactory partitioning will take
  858
  place. If a viable area of country with access to the sea is not given to the Muslims, the price that we shall pay will be a Palestine for the next 40 or 50 years.
  Furthermore, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, we must watch the Islamic community. The Arab world is intensely following events on television. It is remarkable that they have not been more involved, but if in the long term the Muslims, or what is left of them, are left besieged and hopeless, they will turn to guerrilla warfare, aided and assisted by Islamic fundamentalists, and we shall be helplessly at their mercy until land is given to them. If the Geneva talks do not define clearly the Muslim territory and put in United Nations forces physically to protect them from the Serbs or Croats trying to take an extra bite, the price that we pay could indeed be terrible.
  Ultimately, the real challenge and, I believe, the only way to bring this terrible war and fighting in the Balkans to an end is to concentrate more on President Milosevic. He is the inspiration for Serbian expansionism. The buck stops with him. The warlords do not act alone; they are sustained by Belgrade, where they return for more assistance. Milosevic is rightly known as the butcher of the Balkans. I find it difficult to accept that he is regarded by the international community as the only means to peace. I do not believe that we can achieve peace by accepting every word and promise that he makes, because since these terrible tragedies began he has been empty, cold and calculating. He has broken promises and has been determined to mislead and to try to get away with it.
  Let us look again more closely at this man. The one moment when he was under genuine pressure was at the Athens summit because the Americans supported the concept of air strikes, which he believed were imminent. That is why he buckled down on Karadzic, went off to Pale and pressured Serbs by saying, "You must now accept a peace deal". What happened? We all suddenly leant back with a huge amount of relief and said, "Great, the deed has been done; we can now relax our vigilance." That may not have been the message that we intended to convey, but that was the impression that Belgrade got.
  We had fine words from Milosevic. He would close the frontier; no more vehicles, assistance, weapons, oil or armaments would go from Belgrade to Bosnia. That did not happen. One or two roads were closed and eight remain open. The no-fly zones are continually breached. From a parliamentary answer, I discovered that of the 800 breaches, the allied forces had been able to intercept about eight, because of all the short helicopter flights ferrying personnel, the wounded and weaponry.
  In his own land, Milosevic is tightening up his totalitarian rule. He is becoming a more skilful, intelligent and charming Saddam Hussein, who seems more acceptable but who somehow or other manages to have his hideous way. He sacked the president, Cosic, the man with whom he had worked closely, because he dared to question his methods.
  Now, we must give all the support that we can to the opposition parties. We must assist Studio B so that it can extend its transmissions to the rest of Yugoslavia with the message about the kind of man that its leader is. If the hope of the international community is to rely on internal dissent, we must facilitate that and encourage the people who have the means and the will to stand up to him.
  We should bear in mind just how Milosevic is tightening the ratchet in his country. Some 1,000

  859
  journalists were sacked from the state radio and television for daring to be politically incorrect. People in leading jobs —whether in universities, in medicine or the arts—lose their jobs if they are not politically correct and their places are taken by socialists at Milosevic's behest. We should also bear it in mind that he is taking action to purge the army, for the second time, of any leadership about which he feels doubtful. Some 40 officers are due to go within the week, to be replaced by younger officers who are compliant and who will assist Milosevic in his terrible work.
  We are seeing a country that is moving dangerously towards a totalitarian state that will push wherever it can. I urge the international community to seize the political will and follow through UN resolutions by saying that if those resolutions are broken, we shall take action—and then do it. The Serbs are cowards when they are attacked, as we can see from what happened when Vuk Draskovic stood up to Milosevic. We have reports about cowardice in the field. They are not the great fighting men that people believe them to be. They just have heavier weaponry.
  We should not be so awed by the Serbs. It is important that we take stock and realise that this Balkan monster will never stop until he is challenged by the will of the international community.
  11.34 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: It is not every day that I find myself on the same side as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)—at least, I think that we are on the same side. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) not only on his initiative in obtaining this debate but on acting as an unofficial Whip to those of us who have a clear idea of what should be done in such a terrible state of affairs.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on a very fine speech—as fine a speech as I have heard in some time. I do not say this in any party political sense, but I am only sorry that more of his colleagues were not here to hear it. However, he can have the satisfaction of knowing that he and his colleagues outnumber the members of the Press Gallery, to which we are not supposed to refer. Whenever we discuss something of great importance, the Press Gallery is empty.
  The House and the country have been badly misled. From the outset. we have been told that nothing can be done about anything in Bosnia. We have been told that the terrain is impossible, that the people are impossible and that the experts are against doing anything. No doubt those same arguments were rehearsed in the 1930s. However, I think that we have been misled and that the experts, of all persuasions, have been saying something different. As the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South said, for some unaccountable reason the message has not reached those in high places—or if it has, it has been suppressed.
  I hope that the Minister will say something about that, because I am genuinely puzzled about what has happened. The more we learn about what the people on the ground have been saying, be they journalists or whomever, the more puzzled we become. A number of distinguished journalists who have spent months in Bosnia have visited us in the House. The opinion of all those whom I met was unanimous. Indeed, not only did they speak for
  860
  themselves, they spoke for many of our diplomats and military men with whom they are personally acquainted. For a long time, they have held the view that military intervention has been and is feasible, but it is getting less feasible by the hour. I remain puzzled why word of that, if only to rebut it, has not reached the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
  From time to time, colleagues meet British diplomats in Yugoslavia, NATO or the United Nations. We are surprised to learn that they, too, feel that the Government's policy has been what one described recently as
  "a diplomatic and strategic disaster with major implications for western security."
  One of the Government's own diplomats, with close knowledge of the position, felt so frustrated that he made that comment.
  Another diplomat who spoke recently to some of my colleagues referred to the need for an ultimatum to the Serbs to be followed by military action. He was asked whether he had made that clear to his political masters. He said that he had. He was asked whether he had met them during his visit to London. He said that he had not because no one at the Foreign Office had asked to see him. They knew he was here, but no one asked to see him.
  I am sorry to say that I am not really all that puzzled because I understand what is happening—we are being misled. The biggest surprise was to learn that there are senior people in the military who take a similar view about military action. Of course, we must always be cautious when talking to soldiers who say that a little strategic or surgical bombing, as they like to call it, will do the trick. Anyone who followed the various pronouncements of the military men during the Vietnam war will know that they got it badly wrong. Therefore, I do not suggest that politicians should always take what the military says as the absolute truth. However, it is surprising to hear very senior military people talking about policy to date as having been too little, too late. The word "appeasement" is openly used, and one now hears the former French commander on the ground, General Morillon, saying that the siege of Sarajevo should be lifted by military force if necessary.
  However, the puzzle continues, and on 12 July the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles that no advice had been received
  "either from senior diplomats or from military figures that a solution could be imposed by military force."—[Official Report, 12 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 682.]
  I should be surprised and amazed if what those of us who are not that well connected in the relevant circles had been saying—or at least a flavour of it—had not reached the Prime Minister. About a dozen of us wrote to the Prime Minister—I think that the letter was dated 14 July—and we have not yet received a reply. We put to him, in words which I think that he will understand, our firm view that the country is being misled. I hope that we shall receive a detailed explanation, if not from the Minister present tonight, perhaps from the Prime Minister later—I should prefer to hear it tonight.
  The position is more complicated than it is being made to seem. Our diplomats and military personnel have been misled by Ministers about the state of public opinion and, perhaps, the state of opinion in the House. I think that they have been told not even to contemplate anything that involves military action, because the British public will not wear it and Members of Parliament will not support it. It

  861
  is disappointing that some of the same people who whipped up hysteria over the Gulf war and the Falklands war—I do not want to be diverted by those quite separate issues—have been less straightforward about telling the public and the military the truth about Bosnia.
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I am puzzled. I believe that the feeling from the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Brussels is that military intervention is feasible. If that is true, is my hon. Friend implying that that advice from the most senior military personnel was never given to the Prime Minister or his senior colleagues, or does my hon. Friend feel that, for some reason, despite the Government assuring the House that no such advice about the feasibility of military intervention was given, they felt that it would be unwise to pass that advice on to the House?
  Mr. Mullin: I cannot pretend to know what the position is but there is a serious problem. However, what most hon. Members present this evening have been hearing from those in positions of authority who brief Ministers daily is different from what Ministers say that those experts are saying. Perhaps the advice that those experts have given Ministers has been hedged around with qualifications—perhaps the experts have said one thing to us and another to the Ministers. I do not know what the explanation is, but I should like to hear the Government's version of events from the Minister.
  Military intervention by ground troops would be practical and honourable. Plans for it exist already, but we lack political leaders capable of rising to the occasion. Our soldiers in the field—there are many of them—have been badly let down by the Government.
  Ms Short: The answer might be that military personnel are not entitled to say what Britain should do politically; they can give that answer only if asked the question. If asked whether limited military action to stop the aggression and the destruction of multi-ethnic Bosnia can be taken, the answer is yes. But it is said that military action consists of political objectives secured by military means, and if the politicians will not ask the question, the military are not allowed to say, "Yes, we know how to do it if you want to do it."
  Mr. Mullin: That is one possible explanation. I do not know what the explanation is, but I should like to hear it. The evidence that my colleagues and I have seen and heard does not accord with pronouncements of the most senior Government members.
  Our soldiers on the ground in Bosnia have been badly let down. They have been placed in the humiliating position of having to negotiate—if that is the right word —with drunken gunmen in some cases. They have witnessed unspeakable atrocities without being able to do what they want to do and are capable of doing—intervene and put a stop to them. Soldiers who say that they are entitled to expect a clear objective from politicians are right. We should be giving a clear objective and grasping the nettle.
  A number of suggestions have been made in the past which have become an excuse for not doing much. One suggestion was that there should be an air exclusion zone. That bore absolutely no relation to the problem, because
  862
  everyone knew that the main problem did not come from the air. Others suggested that we should do a bit of bombing as a substitute for doing something of lasting value. That is no good, either. People who talk in vague terms are not grasping the nettle. I grasp it unequivocally —as I and others have done previously—and say that I am in favour of using as many troops as necessary for as long as necessary to bring this tragic state of affairs to an end.
  I recognise that that is a large thing to say, but it is not an impossible thing to say. Frankly, it is a smaller objective than defeating Saddam Hussein and driving him out of Kuwait, liberating the Falkland Islands, which are 10,000 miles away, or using thousands of troops to maintain that not very perfect regime in South Korea for 40 years. It is feasible and we should do it.
  The casualties are much more than simply the unfortunate people of Bosnia. The United Nations has been let down by its most senior members who are unable or unwilling to enforce its resolutions. We should be told clearly now—I thought that we already understood this —that negotiations without credible threat of force behind them do not work. The Serbs are laughing at the United Nations. They are not only doing that—yesterday, they were shelling the United Nations. On the 9 o'clock news tonight, I was pleased to see that United Nations soldiers in Bosnia have been given permission to shoot back when they are shot at. I agree with that. However, it is not the solution. There is an urgent need to restore the credibility of the United Nations. That can be done only by a calculated ultimatum to the Serbs, backed up by the threat of military action.
  We must start somewhere. The situation has deteriorated so much recently that intervention is getting more costly, more dangerous and more difficult by the hour. The obvious starting place is that suggested by the 80 or so congressmen—to lift the siege of Sarajevo by whatever means are necessary. From there, one goes on, hopefully, to lift the siege of the other so-called United Nations safe areas and remove the artillery that threatens not only Sarajevo but one or two other places. Heavy artillery is fixed. It cannot be moved easily, but it can be destroyed easily—and should be. I remember Martin Bell, who knows something about the situation, telling us that clearly when he came to see us the other day. Unless someone tells me otherwise, that is what I will continue to believe.
  Finally, I ask the Minister whether there is any level of atrocity in the former Yugoslavia that could cause us to support military intervention. If so, what is it? If there is none, will he say so clearly?
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on securing this debate and on his comprehensive speech.
  For the sake of brevity—as a number of colleagues wish to speak—I begin by asking the Minister several questions relating to the refugee crisis. As he and the House will know, in October-November 1992 the United Kingdom Government agreed to take 1,000 former detainees and 3,000 dependants. The latest figures reveal that, so far, we have received 250 ex-detainees and 424 dependants. I am grateful that the quota for ex-detainees has been extended to cover those who are deemed by the United Nations

  863
  High Commissioner for Refugees to be vulnerable. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government will shortly consider increasing the quota of 1,000 to enable Britain to take more of the people who have suffered as a result of this horrific war in Bosnia.
  Secondly, will the Minister assure us that the Government stand ready to receive more medical cases? So far, we have taken 68 and I am advised by the UNHCR that there is great urgency about persuading countries, especially those in the EC, to take medical cases. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government are sympathetic and will take more such cases. As we have heard in the debate, Sarajevo is in crisis. Hon. Members have mentioned Mr. Larry Hollingsworth, the UNHCR Bosnian representative.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I listened to the last two speeches, and I am listening to the hon. Gentleman. I have noted the almost studied indifference of Ministers. Would it hurt Ministers to listen to the speeches on this important subject?
  Mr. Madden: I consoled myself by noting that the Minister was taking notes of my questions, and I expect to receive detailed replies.
  Mr. Hollingsworth recently met hon. Members from all parties and stressed the great urgency of funding to enable his organisation to purchase plastic sheeting, shelter and other necessary items to protect the people of Sarajevo in the coming winter. Those purchases need to be made now, but they are not being made. Will the money be made available?
  At the meeting in the House, Mr. Hollingsworth repeated the words that were reported in The Guardian on 20 July. That report stated:
  "The head of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees' humanitarian operation in Sarajevo criticised the UN's programme as ineffective yesterday and called for military action to break Serbian blockades,…
  Speaking in London at the launch of a Refugee Council appeal for Bosnia, Larry Hollingsworth, a former colonel in the British Army, called for military force to allow aid convoys to reach Sarajevo and the besieged enclaves of Gorazde, Zepa and Srebrenica."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles said that a broad-based alliance of senior British diplomats, senior military commanders and senior aid workers holds the unanimous view that military intervention could and, indeed, should be taken, not only to protect the so-called safe areas, but to halt the aggression in Bosnia, which would, we hope, lead to an effective and sustained ceasefire. Hon. Members have confirmed what my hon. Friend has said.
  A military commander recently said that rapid response military forces needed rapid response politicians. The central charge of the debate is that politicians, especially those in the European Community, but also those in the UN, have singularly failed to ensure that the aggression, genocide, rape, atrocities and horror of Bosnia should he halted. We believe that that can be done only through effective military intervention.
  I hope that the Minister will not recite the usual catalogue of excuses for not engaging in such intervention. I hope that he will seriously consider the military-intervention options now available, which are mentioned regularly by the alliance of diplomats, military commanders and aid workers to whom hon. Members—including myself—have referred. I also hope that we can
  864
  engage in a mature and sensible debate about the military options; many of us believe that now is the time to adopt them.
  11.50 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: It is very unfortunate that the problems of Yugoslavia should have prompted so little interest years ago, long before the present crisis. In 1990, I went to Whitehall to tell the Minister of State—he will remember the occasion—that a crisis was looming. Precious few people wanted to know about the crisis then and for that reason many have not studied its root causes.
  To a large extent, the crisis was caused by the over-decentralisation of the old Yugoslav state under President Tito. Not long after the end of the communist system in Yugoslavia, even Croat, Slovene and Montenegro communists thought of themselves as Croats, Slovenes and Montenegrans, rather than as Yugoslavs. When the nationalists in Croatia pressed for Croatian independence, the British Government at first adopted an even-handed approach. However, on 26 June 1991—when both Slovenia and Croatia declared independence—between 500,000 and 800,000 people in Croatia were members of the Serb ethnic group. Many lived in very compact areas, in particular the area around Knin and Krajina. In Serbo-Croat, "Krajina" means borders or frontiers. There was a substantial Serbian majority in many parts of the large frontier area between Knin and central Croatia.
  When Croatia became independent—or was declared independent—in June 1991, non-Croatian citizens were immediately "ethnically cleansed". Serbs were immediately declared not to be citizens and were refused passports. They were driven out of their homes and jobs through intimidation. After only a few months, 60,000 Serbs were refugees in Serbia, having fled from Rijeka, Zadar and Zagreb itself: indeed, it is now said that about one third of the Serb population of Zagreb has been ethnically cleansed and driven away. Important people in particular were intimidated by the Croatian regime.
  At the beginning of May, I visited the mass grave of Serbs and Muslims who had been massacred by the Croats between November 1991 and March 1992. Hon. Members should mark the dates, which include part of the period before Bosnia-Herzegovina was recognised as an independent state—the period when it was still within the state of Yugoslavia that was recognised by the international community. The Croatian army had invaded and taken over Bosanski-Brod and Deventa and massacred large numbers of people. I shall never forget seeing bodies exhumed from the grave at Bosanski-Brod. The first to be taken out of the grave was a woman. I know that it was a woman only because of the blue skirt and white spots. I saw 38 other corpses laid out. I remember the stench. The interesting thing is that that area was designated under the Vance-Owen plan to the Croats.
  I might be accused of being pro-Serb. I remind the House that I was the first person to mention the names of Šeselj and Arkan. In the debate on the Queen's Speech on 1 November 1991, I warned of those dangerous neo-fascist nationalists who are now undoubtedly war criminals following events in Croatia.
  We must bear it in mind that many of us are being hoodwinked. Not only the Government are being

  865
  hoodwinked. Indeed, to a large extent, I congratulate the Government. I thank God that there has been no military intervention by British or United Nations forces in the former Yugoslavia. It would have made the situation a million times worse. So many of the people who talk of military intervention have never been to the former Yugoslavia and seen the situation for themselves. They have certainly never been under fire. They do not know what it is to be bombed. Military action certainly does not make for a retraction of effort on behalf of those who are accused of aggression.
  The public relations firms have come into their own in the Yugoslav crisis. The Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, led by a Muslim fundamentalist in the shape of Izetbegovic, who wrote the Islamic Declaration in 1970, reprinted in 1990 in Sarajevo, have said that a majority or even a substantial minority Islamic population cannot live at peace within the political and social systems of non-Islamic communities.
  It is false to imagine that the Muslims have been exclusively victims. We often hear people and sometimes Government spokesmen say that all groups have perpetrated atrocities. Yet the only ones which we hear about in the media are those committed by Serbs. Undoubtedly, atrocities have been committed. How many people in the Chamber tonight have referred to Muslim atrocities? They have certainly taken place, but the Muslims are running a good PR operation, especially from New York. [Interruption] I have listened quietly and I have not interrupted anyone.
  Hon. Members should look a little further than their noses. If they picked up the 16 December 1992 edition of Epoca, the Italian magazine, they would see an illustrated article about the torture of Serbian prisoners by Muslims in Sarajevo. If hon. Members read the edition of the weekly German newspaper Die Zeit published at the end of last week, they will find that a Muslim commander in Sarajevo has been sacked by the Bosnian Government because 28 Serbs were massacred in a mass grave just outside the centre of the city of Sarajevo. Those hon. Members who cannot read German should have that article translated—but they should not claim that the Muslims are totally innocent because they are not. I was told by an Italian and French journalist in Bosnia that the Europa and Zagreb hotels in Sarajevo arc used as brothels by Muslim soldiers, who force Serbian women and girls into those hotels. It should not be suggested for one moment that all the atrocities are committed by one side.
  It is suggested that British soldiers should be sent into Bosnia to fight on behalf of people who are committing atrocities, but that is not something that I should want to see. It is interesting that many of my hon. Friends are keen to see British troops withdrawn from Northern Ireland and rushed to Yugoslavia.
  Sanctions have prevented the Serbs from putting across their case. Ian Greer and Associates acted for the Serbs at the beginning of the conflict but they are prevented from doing so now because of the sanctions. That is also true in the United States. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can heckle as much as they like, but Major General Mackenzie —the United Nations commander in Yugoslavia until last November—was quoted in a Los Angeles magazine as saying that every ceasefire that he negotiated was broken
  866
  by the Muslims. General Waldren, who recently gave up his command in Yugoslavia, said the same about the recent ceasefire negotiated at Srebrenica. Hon. Members should study the details, and not believe the propaganda that appears in our newspapers.
  I will not defend Milosevic, Tudjman or any of the other leaders. None of them is a true democrat. Tudjman's Croatia is no more democratic than Serbia—it is to a large extent less so. At the time of the election to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) referred, Mr. Micunovic, leader of the Democratic party, told me that Belgrade television was controlled by Milosevic. When I asked about the press, Mr. Micunovic said that the press was on the side of the opposition. I said, "I wish that had been the case in our last general election. We might just have pulled it off."
  Mr. Barnes: I accept that paramilitary excess exists on all three sides—perhaps more heavily on some than on others. What is to be done about three groups that are at each other's throats when at least one of them has far more military power than the others?
  Mr. Wareing: The important thing is that human rights should be respected in Croatia and Bosnia. International pressure must be brought on them both to ensure that human rights are respected on their territories. If a solution is to be found for Bosnia, it must be acknowledged that it is not a state but a province. It was a province under the Austrians and Turks and in the former Yugoslavia. The human rights of all Bosnia's ethnic groups must be respected in any solution—and that solution cannot be imposed on the significant Serb minority. If we forget their plight, no lasting solution will be found.
  12.4 am
  Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful for having been called to speak at this point. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) has been squeezed out. I shortened the time of my wind-up speech on behalf of the Opposition in the hope that he would be able to speak.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), though the word "congratulate" is not perhaps the most appropriate word in the circumstances, on obtaining this debate, which is in relatively prime time by Consolidated Fund Bill standards. He spoke with conviction and authority. Although, as he knows, I do not agree with every word he says, I respect the strength of feeling that he expresses. My hon. Friend was joined in the passion of his speech. as on so many previous occasions, by the hon. Member for Staffordshire. South (Mr. Cormack). What they say brings a dimension to the thinking on this most worrying subject that should be heard. Those who urge caution over the former Yugoslavia would find, were they here, that they were in the minority at this evening's gathering of right hon. and hon. Members. Perhaps that is why they have stayed away.
  I, too, recognise that the tragedy that we see unfolding in the country that used to he called Yugoslavia, or in the conglomeration of new countries that used to be called Yugoslavia. must affect all of us. Those who watched the news this evening saw the choir of schoolchildren that used

  867
  to travel the world. The realisation that those children are hiding in buildings that are being bombed every moment brings home the awful reality of the situation.
  It is difficult to escape feeling emotional when watching something that is happening in a country that for so many years was the holiday destination of many citizens of this country. The killing, the destruction of property, the outrage of mass rape and the effect that the war has had on so many innocents, including the millions of children in that country, is not something from which any of us can easily walk away.
  I do not underestimate for a moment the depth of the tragedy, but it is important to recognise that there have been two successes. The first—I accept that it is a limited success—is that, contrary to all the predictions of the last two years, the conflict has not yet spread largely outside the areas where the fighting initially took place.
  Ms Short: Not yet.
  Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend says "Not yet." I accept what she says. However, there has been some limited success in containing the conflict to that area. I shall turn later to why I believe that it may continue to be contained.
  Secondly, the humanitarian effort has been successful. I refer not just to the troops under the United Nations flag who have protected the convoys. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said, civilian truck drivers have gone to that area and stayed there, notwithstanding the dangers. Non-governmental organisation people have served there, as have civilians who work for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other organisations. This huge operation has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise would have died of starvation or cold during one of the nastiest and bitterest winters in that part of the world. We should not forget that they did an enormously successful job. The number of casualties, high though it already is, would have been much higher had they not gone to the area. We must not underestimate, either, the difficulties involved in assisting in this bitter conflict.
  It is easy, in the security of this Chamber, debating this issue in a civilised manner according to rules that have been formulated over the years, to talk about putting troops into the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), whose views on previous wars and conflicts I have listened to with interest in the past, said—as if this was easy—that he would send in as many troops as it would take for as long as necessary.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Indeed.
  Mr. Robertson: The Minister confirms that; and I wrote down what my hon. Friend said. That is easily said, but not so easy to do.
  Mr. Mullin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I will give way briefly, but I have only a limited time.
  Mr. Mullin: I quarrel about the word "easy". I did not say "easy" and of course it is not easy and one accepts that. I was talking about the same degree of determination as that displayed in the Gulf and Falklands wars. That is what I was talking about.
  Mr. Robertson: I know that my hon. Friend did not use the word "easy". I am ascribing "easy" to his comparison to what was done in the Gulf war and in the Falklands war. Those wars are not comparable, and my hon. Friend said that himself. Even if there was the political will, the physical logistics of the area might make it extremely difficult to attempt anything of that nature.
  Mr. Macdonald: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not only some Members of this place who are advocating that course? Larry Hollingsworth, who has been in charge of the humanitarian aid effort in Bosnia for many months now, has said that force should be used to try to deliver that aid. It is not just the armchair theorists who are saying that; it is also being said by the people on the ground.
  Mr. Robertson: Some people on the ground say that, but others do not agree. Cedric Thornberry was in the House only a few weeks ago and he argued the opposite view. He said that if we start to impose military personnel in any kind of peace-making capacity, we would close down the humanitarian effort almost overnight. Even before we could start to deploy the limited troops available, we would stop the humanitarian effort which has created such life-saving capability.
  I do not want to enter that argument too deeply. My party and I believe that there are serious problems in respect of the involvement of an open-ended commitment of a military peace-making exercise. I would like to leave the point on that parenthesis as I believe that there are other things that Governments could do and should be doing at the moment. The fact that they are not doing these things is assisting the degeneration of the conflict.
  First, the international community in general should recognise that serious errors have been made in the conflict. Those errors include the way in which recognition was given prematurely to Croatia, and perhaps also to Slovenia, and the poverty of will that characterised the way in which mandatory economic sanctions were first imposed on Serbia. For 10 months, the Serbs were able to get around the potential of economic sanctions by setting up dummy companies and the like.
  Had we implemented the sanctions with the vigour and force that we are now deploying, perhaps a greater impact would have been made on Mr. Milosevic at a time when that might have mattered very much in relation to the fighting in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
  It all matters not just because we are outraged by what we see on our television screens, but because that wave of refugees coming way beyond the borders of Bosnia, Croatia and even Slovenia will be a problem for the nations surrounding that benighted part of the world and also for many other countries, including our own. Many of my hon. Friends have referred to the fact that, despite the Government's initial offers to take in refugees, especially those who were former inhabitants of the detention camps, we have not even reached the miserable level that the Government originally offered.
  The problem matters also because the credibility of the UN and of international institutions is at stake as a result of what is happening in that part of the world. Of course, the fighting need not necessarily stop even with an agreement, if an agreement were to be reached in the next few weeks. That endless fighting will undoubtedly affect the rest of the world.

  869
  We must recognise that the Washington agreement was a disgraceful watershed for which our Government, along with others, share responsibility. In one fell swoop it destroyed the Vance-Owen plan and left no real political objective in its place. It was an open invitation to the Serbs and Croats to move quickly to partition what was left of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The constant loud reference to the ending of the arms embargo that we heard from the Americans simply gave greater impetus to the Serbs and Croats who wanted to grab as much territory as possible before that eventuality occurred.
  The agreement claimed that there would be safe areas, but they were in no way to be made safe. Has that not been vividly displayed since then? It claimed that the borders of Bosnia would be sealed to the supply of arms coming in from Serbia, but there was no way in which they would be sealed. It said that there would be threats against further action from Serbia and from Croatia, but there was to be no back-up to those threats at all—not even the possibility of limited air strikes on supply routes which might at the time have had and might even yet have an impact on the fighting that is taking place in Bosnia. There was to be no action, and there is still no action, taken against the land-grabbing of the Croats who are still engaged in aggression in that part of the world.
  What should we do? I make a few limited suggestions, because the House wants to hear the Minister's reply to the many points that have been raised. First, we must make safe areas safe, as was promised. That means a British commitment to supplying the 7,500 troops that the United Nations Secretary-General said were necessary to carry out that promise. All those troops have been promised, but they are certainly not in place. I understand that they are short of the logistic and technical support that would allow them to be deployed to the former Yugoslavia, and to Bosnia-Herzegovina in particular. The British Government could make available that logistic support, and they should do so immediately.
  It is right that there should be troops from Islamic countries, but I go along with the Government in their resistance to the use of troops from Iran. Islamic troops are an important signal to the Muslims in that part of the world.
  Secondly, we must be much tougher on Croatia, and we must be tougher immediately. Although they have taken large numbers of refugees—of course, there is a worry that they would move them out of their territory—what is happening on the side of the Croatians in the south of Bosnia is as unacceptable as what the Serbs are doing in the north.
  Thirdly, we must make it clear that any three-way partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina is not a long-term solution for that part of the world. Indeed, it is a recipe for long-term violence in that area. We need to escape from the mentality that keeps people in small ghettos without any passageway, especially to the sea. We must cut off supply routes to the Bosnian Serbs where they are still using force.
  Mr. Gunnell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I am afraid I cannot give way. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Gunnell: Will my hon. Friend answer a fourth question?
  Mr. Robertson: I have a couple of points to make before I finish my speech.
  We must cut off the supply routes and we must be prepared—
  Mr. Gunnell: Will my hon. Friend answer a fourth question? What would he do about Sarajevo?
  Mr. Robertson: I apologise to my hon. Friend because I am in the last few seconds of my speech. I cannot curtail the Minister's time for replying to the points that have been made. No doubt the Minister will take my hon. Friend's question on board.
  We must also consider the long-term future of the refugees in the area. We must do something about the recognition of Macedonia, and we must do more about deploying more troops to the area. Kosovo's guarantees and observers must be maintained in position because it is extremely important that it is protected.
  That list of items is the minimum that we can do and the minimum that we need to do at this time. We must do what is necessary and what is possible, and we must do it right away. To wait any longer is to court real disaster.
  12.19 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Members who have been present throughout the debate would agree that its tone has been measured and concerned. By the standards of the House, the debate has been remarkably free of party rancour. That is how it should he, because we all accept that what is happening in the former Yugoslavia is the greatest tragedy that Europe has seen since the end of the second world war. It is not just the greatest tragedy; it is a tragedy that was precipitated and carried forward by crime and wickedness on the part of many of those who are participating in the leadership on all sides.
  I agree with much of the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who said that all sides have a responsibility to bear in the matter. I think that the Serbs are the most guilty, but all the participants —Serbs, Croats and Muslims—have been guilty of crime and wickedness in the war.
  It is also true that our concern is greatly deepened by the fact that we have 2,400 troops in Bosnia and many people from the Overseas Development Administration, the Royal Air Force and other service men on the ground, all of whom are engaged. All of their lives are at risk.
  The debate has been treated with the gravity that it deserves. I find it somewhat odd, however, that among those who are most prominent in calling for military engagement are many who opposed British involvement in the Gulf war. As the hon. Member for West Derby also pointed out, many of those who are most keen to see British military engagement in the former Yugoslavia are those who want us to withdraw from Northern Ireland. It is difficult to reconcile those opinions.
  When people talk about public support for military intervention, I believe that they are wrong. When I look round the Chamber, I accept that, probably, the majority of those present are in favour of military intervention, to some degree. I do not believe that that represents the majority view in my party and I suspect that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) does not believe

  871
  that it represents the majority view in the Labour party. I have made it my business to try to determine where political views lie and I do not believe that they lie in deepening military engagement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said that the issue was about leadership. He said that one should go to people and say, "These are the issues: support us." That is an important point. but I should like to reply to him in something like the language used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). I do not believe that one commits oneself to military action unless one is prepared to suffer all that is required and to go on for as long as may be necessary. I do not believe that one can do that unless one's effort is truly underpinned by national will. I do not believe that that will exists in this case.
  In common with me, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has heard the leader of his party speak on Yugoslavia on many occasions. We know that, for many months, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has called for a forward policy of military engagement. It has taken many forms, but the right hon. Gentleman has always pressed for that policy.
  I was in the Chamber on 11 June when the Minister of State for the Armed Forces reported to the House on the occasion when British troops had been engaged in action and had killed certainly one Croat and possibly two. At that point, the right hon. Member for Yeovil responded by saying that we should now consider withdrawal.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), sitting in front of him and referring to the right hon. Member for Yeovil, said:
  "I have never heard such a two-faced statement in my life. The right hon. Gentleman wanted more troops before. Now he wants them out."—[Official Report, 11 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 559.]
  I believe that the Liberals' policy is unsustainable and that it varies: it is difficult to identify. Secondly, when the body bags start coming back, the public support will fall away—
  Mr. Hugh Bayley rose—
  Mr. Hogg: No, I want to make progress.
  It is important to stand back and identify the chief elements of the the war and of our policy. Bosnia's is essentially a civil war. It is perfectly true that Serbia and Croatia are involved to some degree, but the principal participants in the fighting in Bosnia are the people of Bosnia. And what are they fighting about? They are fighting about the character of the country in which they live. This is essentially a civil war, not a war between independent states.
  It is primarily this fact which distinguishes Bosnia from the Gulf. In the Gulf there was a clear act of aggression by one sovereign state against another. The political objective could be clearly defined: the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. But the political objective in Bosnia is an agreement between people who have been murdering one another for two years—an agreement to live in harmony. I do not believe that we can bring about such an agreement by the application of external force.
  We are content to continue as long as we can with a policy of delivering humanitarian supplies. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and my hon.
  872
  Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) were right about that. Not only soldiers and RAF men are involved; so are the ODA drivers and many others. Two thirds of the population of Bosnia now depend on external aid and there is no provision for the forthcoming winter. So, unless they are inevitable, we must not take measures that put at risk this aid. If we do, when the winter comes, there is a risk—perhaps even a probability—that people will die in their tens of thousands.
  Mr. Bayley rose—
  Mr. Hogg: No, I want to make progress.
  We are also pursuing a policy of sanctions. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber asked why. He was good enough to admit that the impact of the sanctions on the Serbian economy had, in many respects, been effective. We are pursuing this policy because it is the only way of putting continuing pressure on Serbia and Serbia is the only power capable of bringing the Bosnian Serbs to heel. We will continue the policy until an agreement that is honestly implemented is in place—
  Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise what he has just said? He has said that this is the only way of putting pressure on Serbia. Does he really mean that? Is that now the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Hogg: If I have time, I shall deal with other questions of military action.
  A further point about the structure of our policy is that we are seeking to create the circumstances in which the three parties to the conflict can come to an agreement. Whatever agreement they are likely to reach will certainly be associated with misery, disappointment and word eating. We know that, but there is a chance—even a reasonable chance—that the three parties to the war will come to an agreement. That is why I welcome enormously what Lord Owen and Mr Stoltenberg have done and the presence of all the relevant parties at Geneva. We cannot make them come to an agreement, but we can create the circumstances in which they are capable of coming to an agreement. We can create the mechanisms and the international principles that will guide our approach to the outcome of such an agreement, but we cannot compel people to come to an agreement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said that he is ashamed of the failure of Europe. We have to face the fact that there are many conflicts in Europe that will not be solved by international action because conflicts that are in essence civil wars can be solved only be agreement between those engaged in them. It is a great error to suppose that the United Nations, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, NATO or any other such body can, by the application of external force, put an end to such conflicts.
  Something else to which I take grave objection is the way in which people condemn what the British Government have done. We have been at the forefront of the international effort: we convoked the London conference; 2,400 British troops are now—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

  London Transport
  12.31 am
  Mr. John Marshall: I hope that, before I start the new debate, it will be in order to congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on instituting a successful debate in which many hon. Members spoke with great conviction and from the heart. It was also one of the best attended late night debates that we have had for a long time, although I think that some hon. Members should perhaps have spoken not from the heart but with the head. It was a pleasure to listen to it, but I do not necessarily expect the hon. Gentleman to stay to listen to this debate.
  Although the debate refers to the Northern line, London transport goes much wider than the underground and includes buses. My hon. Friend the Minister will expect me to say something about the proposed deregulation and privatisation of London Buses. I greatly welcome the proposed privatisation, which has of course been preceded by the usual scare campaign. We are used to such campaigns before privatisations. Before British Telecom was privatised, we were told that payphones would cease to exist and that rural telephone services would be ignored. In fact, since the privatisation of BT, there are many more payphones and they work, which they did not do when they were owned by the state. There are also better services in town and country. Wherever we look, privatisation has led to increased investment, dramatically improved productivity and improved morale in the industry involved. I believe that there will be similar benefits for London Buses. As soon as London Buses is removed from the public sector, investment will be increased, and the same will be true of the underground.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Marshall: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, the refugee from the police.
  Mr. Banks: On the contrary; I am not a refugee from the police, who acted in exemplary fashion. We had an interesting discussion, during which I learnt a great deal about how much the police dislike the Sheehy proposals. However, that is by the by.
  It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to talk about scare stories. I do not want to spoil his yarn, but it was the Select Committee on Transport which warned of a disaster on London's buses if deregulation is pressed. As he well knows, that Committee is Tory dominated.
  Mr. Marshall: We have often heard of Select Committees being Tory dominated. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) used to be Chairman of the Health Select Committee, which we were told was Tory dominated. That was a surprise to the Whips and to the House. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) knows, most of the scare stories originate from Labour Members and we have seen similar campaigns before.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I have experience of bus deregulation in a rural and semi-rural area. Many early morning works journeys and uneconomic services were lost and passenger numbers declined, even though in some cases bus mileage increased because of
  874
  competition. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Transport Research Laboratory studied bus deregulation and found that, in many instances, services had severely deteriorated?
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there has been an increase in car ownership outside London, which is why the number of passengers has declined. He also knows full well that the number of passengers was declining before deregulation. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West said that the Select Committee had produced a wonderful report. The Select Committee pointed out that there has been an increase in bus miles, a fall in operating costs and a fall in public subsidy. Given the record of bus deregulation outside London, I am willing to say that it will be beneficial within London.
  Until we had competitive tendering for bus routes in London, the service was very inefficient. Across the system, competitive tendering has led to a 20 per cent. reduction in costs, which surely emphasises the role of competition in achieving a more efficient service.
  We must also consider the quality of the service in London. Before tendering, 92 per cent. of buses ran and 8 per cent. did not. Today, 98·1 per cent. run on the tendered routes. Instead of 8 per cent., only 1·9 per cent. now do not run—a much more efficient service.
  I do not believe that deregulation will lead to hundreds of extra buses running down Oxford street, but there will be more mini and midi buses in the suburbs, we will have new routes and a more innovative service, which will be to the benefit of everyone in London.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to nail the wicked lie that is being put across London: that deregulation and privatisation will lead to the end of the concessionary scheme for senior citizens. All too often, those who want a few cheap votes in London go round frightening elderly people by saying that the concessionary fares scheme is at risk. I believe that the scheme, which is the linchpin of Government policy, will remain. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to underline that commitment.
  The Department of Transport has a limited budget to invest in London Transport and in road improvement in London. The budget should therefore be spent in a way that is most likely to relieve congestion. That is the best solution for individuals and commerce, but if we are to relieve congestion in London we must seek different solutions for inside and outside London. Outside London, improving the M25, London's bypass and industry's archway to Europe, must be a major priority. The M25 succeeded in taking traffic off many London roads. The need to widen it so soon after its completion is a tribute to the lack of foresight of traffic planners and the excessive preoccupation of the Treasury in the 1970s with the short-term and not the long-term needs of this country.
  Within London, the emphasis must be on public transport and on improving buses, Thameslink and London Underground. We must recognise that 83 per cent. of people in central London move around by public transport rather than by private car.
  We shall never secure the objective of eliminating or reducing congestion within London by tinkering with our road system. Such a strategy would be prohibitively expensive, divisive—because most people do not want big new bits of concrete and tarmac within London—and

  875
  counter-productive, because, as the experience of Los Angeles confirms, urban roads are wonderful examples of Say's law that supply creates its own demand. All that new urban motorways do is entice more people into motor cars.
  Any preoccupation with the private motor car will fail to solve the basic problem of London—the need to enable millions of Londoners to travel to work in the City, to the west end and to the suburbs, and to preserve London as a centre of employment for millions, a major retail city and the centre of a major international airport. The key to the survival and prosperity of London is a decent public transport system.
  The problem of the 1990s is a legacy of the locust years of the early 1980s. After the change of control in the GLC in 1981, the emphasis within London Transport was not on the quality of service or investment in the future, but on the level of fares. When my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) was a member of the GLC, the emphasis of the then leader of the GLC was on subsidising fares for American tourists, rather than on producing a better metro system for Londoners to enjoy in the 1990s.
  We are today reaping the whirlwind because on many routes in London the level of investment in the early 1980s was far too low to give us a decent service in the 1990s.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The Tory Government stopped it.
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. In the 1980s, the Government allowed local authorities to reinvest the proceeds of any capital receipts. The GLC was awash with unnecessary capital investment, as was shown by the way in which the London residuary body was able to flog assets all over the place. If the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) had not had a pathological desire to own large tracts of London, regardless of the use to which he could put those assets, the GLC could have invested much more.
  Mr. Banks: We were not allowed to.
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman, now that he has been released by the police. has a desire to speak from a sedentary position. I was, at that time, chairman of a London borough finance committee and I can confirm —no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister can as well—that local authorities were allowed to spend their capital receipts and to reinvest them. If the GLC of the day had been willing to sell assets, it could have reinvested those receipts.
  Mr. Banks: If the hon. Gentleman had been chained to the door for as long as I have been, he would realise that it is necessary, at my age, to make sedentary interventions. As he has forced me to my feet, let me just tell him that although the GLC had proposals for capital investments and for giving substantial revenue support to Network South East, we were told by the Government that we would not be allowed to put them into effect and that anything that we gave to Network SouthEast would merely be deducted from the central Government grant. What would have been the point in those circumstances?
  Mr. Marshall: It would have been perfectly in order for the GLC to top up its capital programme by selling assets. The real trouble was that the then leadership of the GLC knew that it had assets that it was not using, but had a
  876
  pathological desire to cling on to them. There was a sort of machismo—one had to maintain one's assets. It did not want to sell them, to flog them off, to use sites to create homes or jobs; instead it wanted to keep them in the public sector. Without that approach from county hall, the level of investment in the underground system would have been substantially higher.
  In recent times, there has been a substantial investment in modernising the Central line and I thank my hon. Friends in the Department of Transport for the money that they have spent on that. Elsewhere on London Underground, we all know of stations with defective escalators, platforms in need of a lick of paint and clocks that do not work, and of the fact that on many routes the rolling stock is old, uninviting, frequently graffiti-ridden, and often rather dirty. In fact, if the first impression of London for overseas visitors was based on the Northern or District lines, they would not return to, for example, the United States saying that London was the most modern city in the world.
  The objective shared by all Conservative Members is the need for a decently modern metro. During recent years there has been great emphasis on the Central line, the Jubilee line and crossrail. However, by putting emphasis on those three main routes there has been inadequate investment in other parts of the core service.
  In the autumn statement the Government gave a commitment to funding the Jubilee line provided that there was also some private sector funding. More recently, the House gave a Second Reading to the Crossrail Bill, but it has been made quite clear that there should also be significant private sector funding for that project. I welcome the Government's determination to get private sector funding for part of both those projects.
  There is no doubt that the Jubilee line extension will lead to a dramatic increase in the value of Canary wharf. It will convert what looks like a white elephant into a very valuable asset. That was recognised by the Reichmanns with their original commitment to help fund the extension. It would be wrong for private gain to be financed solely by public funds. The autumn statement underlined the need for private funding and the tardy reaction of the bankers is to be condemned. They know that jobs and the viability of their own projects are at risk. I hope that they will be somewhat more aggressive in providing the necessary funding in future. Indeed, if they had been as slow in funding some property developments as they have been in funding the Jubilee line, they might be in a much happier position today.
  Crossrail will also be a major bonus, not only to the private sector but to many people in London. Once the Paddington to Heathrow extension is funded, it will be possible to go from the City to Heathrow in 35 minutes. It is to be a joint private sector-public sector project, which is the way in which many of our routes will be funded in future.
  In 1988 Sir Keith Bright, the then chairman of London Transport, described the Northern line as an abomination. Little has changed since, except that the rolling stock is five years older. The rolling stock is too old and the trains are graffiti-ridden, dirty and colourless. The stations are often dirty and they need modernisation. Those of us who use the Northern line, as I did this morning—or yesterday, to be more precise—and pass through Angel station have a reminder of what a modern station should be. We can rejoice for the people of Islington that they have a very

  877
  expensive, modern station. Those using other stations on the Northern line wish that they could also have equally good stations.
  At Hendon Central, my station, the clocks do not work and the dot matrix system, which was once at the forefront of technology, is now hopelessly out of date. Many stations still lack automatic ticket barriers, despite the fact that they are self-financing. It is not unknown for escalators and lifts not to work.
  The Northern line requires a major overhaul—modernised stations, new rolling stock and improved track. It has been estimated that there will be an 18 per cent. growth in the number of passengers using the line over the next nine years. Once the modernisation of the Central line has been completed, the southern aspect of the Northern line will be the most congested route in the whole of London. The mere replacement of the signalling and control systems on the line would lead to a 28 per cent. reduction in the time of the average journey and a 25 per cent. increase in the line's capacity. Given the anticipated increase in the number of passengers who use that line, those statistics show the need for improvement.
  In the 1992 autumn statement, the Government confirmed approval for the conditional expansion of the Jubilee line, but cut investment in the core services in London Transport. Before the House returns in the autumn the public expenditure round will be well under way. The message that we must give to the Government is that we need a substantial commitment to modernising London transport and the Northern line. In my constituency, the decision not to maintain the grant to the core services at the previous promised level meant that the modernisation and refurbishment of Hendon Central, Golders Green and Brent Cross stations did not take place. Trains need to be refurbished and emphasis should be placed on passenger security measures.
  I have two suggestions for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, in last year's autumn statement, the Government allowed British Rail to lease £150 million worth of rolling stock. If it is all right for Thameslink to lease rolling stock, why is it not right for London Transport to do so? Secondly, in 1992 there was a substantial reduction in the planned investment in the core services of London Underground—will my hon. Friend the Minister restore part of that cut? Such a move would be warmly welcomed across London.
  My hon. Friend has already become a popular hero due to his decision over the Oxleas wood. I should like him to become a doubly popular hero by deciding that more money should be spent on London Underground as that would benefit all Londoners and would he warmly welcomed, not least in my constituency.
  12.52 am
  Mr. Keith Hill: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on his choice of subject and its selection for debate. However, his resounding support of bus deregulation in the context of a debate on investment in London transport seems bizarre when viewed in the light of the well-reported hiatus in bus investment in London. That hiatus results directly from the joint threat of bus privatisation and deregulation. Investment in London transport, the sensible purpose of
  878
  the hon. Gentleman's debate, is of fundamental importance to the future prosperity of our capital city, and the condition of the Northern line is of particular and vital daily concern to many thousands of Londoners.
  I declare my interest in the debate. Hundreds, if not thousands, of residents in the Clapham and Balham districts of my Streatham constituency rely on the Northern line stations of Clapham Common, Clapham South and Balham for their day-to-day travel needs. In addition, I am privileged to be a member of the Select Committee on Transport, which was much maligned in the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South. Only last week it published its own highly critical report on London's public transport capital investment requirements. I shall refer to both my interests during my speech.
  The background to the Select Committee report is that of a persistent long-term decline in the quality and efficiency of our transport system in London. Gross overcrowding on our British Rail and underground lines and at our railway stations has been the normal daily experience of all London passengers for as long as any of us can remember. Since 1989, the Government-induced economic recession has brought an unanticipated, and hopefully temporary, relief to the unfortunate London commuter. There are simply fewer Londoners with jobs to travel to now, but if and when—as we all pray—the recession lifts, without drastically increased levels of investment, a future of yet more overcrowding in a decaying public transport still beckons us.
  Londoners have long been familiar with the observation that traffic on our roads now proceeds at a slower pace than in the days of the horse-drawn carriage. The health costs of environmental pollution resulting from slow-moving, stop-start traffic are almost certainly reflected in the appalling growth of bronchial illness, especially asthma, and particularly among young children, in London's population recently.
  But congestion and an inadequate public transport system bring formidable economic costs as well. In the late 1980s, the Confederation of British Industry estimated that £10 billion was the yearly cost to the London economy of late deliveries, missed appointments, cancelled meetings and stress-related illnesses associated with the chronic congestion and overcrowding of London's transport system.
  The implications of that neglect of our transport infrastructure for London's already precarious economy are both dire and well attested. In May 1990, the Corporation of London published a report entitled "London's Transport: A Plan to Protect our Future". It should still be the bedtime reading of every Transport Minister, especially the Minister for Transport in London, and not merely because it identifies the extension of the Northern line to Streatham as an important scheme worthy of consideration. On the basis of extensive consultations with more than 20 major City financial institutions, the report concluded:
  "There is an immediate crisis of high congestion and low quality of the transport system. What is at risk is not just the City as Europe's premier financial centre. It is London as an international capital, and as such one of the UK's greatest assets."
  In other words, it is not only environmentalists and long-suffering London commuters who are saying that things cannot go on as they are; the Government's friends

  879
  in the City are warning that London's future is now at risk. Certainly nothing has changed in three years since that report was published, unless it is to get worse.
  It will not be good enough for the Minister to argue —as I expect he will—that, at £2 billion out of the Department of Transport budget of £7 billion, London already gets a disproportionate slice of the cake. The truth is that London's role in the national economy is unique, and its transport problems are also unique. With less than one seventh of the population of England and Wales, London produces almost one fifth of the gross domestic product, yet it has been uniquely ravaged by the current economic recession. That comes on top of a prognosis for the London economy that was already highly dangerous.
  A major source of the threat to London's economy is the inadequacy of its public transport system, yet Londoners are uniquely reliant on public transport for their travel to work. For 30 years, Governments of all political shades—I fully concede that—have systematically starved London's transport services of the necessary investment.
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The hon. Gentleman was characteristically generous in attributing blame for past sins to Governments of all complexions. He seemed to be developing the argument that insufficient capital funds were expended on London. I ask him to expand that in one of two possible ways. Is he suggesting that, of the £7 billion currently spent by the Department, more than £2 billion should be spent in London? If so, can he indicate which parts of the Department's programme outside London he would cancel? Alternatively, is he saying that the whole budget should be bigger? If so, does he have policy clearance from the Labour Front Bench for that assertion? We are in dangerous territory, unless he is capable of substantiating both of those propositions.
  Mr. Hill: With his usual prescience, the Minister anticipates precisely my proposition that, in the allocation of resources in the existing transport budget, more funds should be transferred to London. If he will have patience, that is precisely a point that I will address in my ensuing remarks. I have argued that, because of that history of neglect, there is a powerful case for sustaining higher investment. That was precisely the recommendation in last week's Select Committee report.
  It is undoubtedly true, as the Minister will again undoubtedly argue, that there is record investment in the early 1990s, but two or three years of high investment following the lowest ever level of investment in the 1980s is a small swallow, and the summer has been remarkably short-lived. In its report, the Select Committee states:
  "We received evidence from both Network SouthEast and London Underground Ltd that the absolute level of investment is insufficient to maintain or improve the system. The danger is that the speed, frequency and reliability of passenger services will decline rapidly if the railways' infrastructure continues to deteriorate."
  Such deterioration is inevitable on London's underground and, as London Underground's evidence to the Select Committee made dramatically clear, it is inevitable on the Northern line in particular. That is because London Underground was the special victim of the investment cuts that flowed from the autumn statement. Those cuts jeopardise the short-term upgrading and the longer-term modernisation of the Northern line.
  880
  When the Secretary of State for Transport appeared before the Select Committee, I asked, half in jest I confess, whether he had recently used Clapham Common tube station on the Northern line. He replied that he was sure that he had, but that it had not been recently. I suspect that that was something of an understatement. I also suspect that it would be helpful for Transport Ministers occasionally to discard the ministerial limousine and see London's public transport as it really is.
  Mr. Norris: The first time that I asked to use the tube as part of my ministerial duties, London Transport was kind enough to provide me with a train of my own. Thereafter I have used the system incognito, which is a far better way to find out what the system is really like.
  Mr. Hill: I am pleased to hear that. If the Minister has been to Clapham Common tube station—
  Mr. Norris: I went last month.
  Mr. Hill: In that case, the Minister should be ashamed of himself for allowing its present deplorable condition to continue.
  I regularly travel on the Northern line to and from my constituency—I did so today—and it is not an agreeable experience. At the southern end of the Northern line, the passenger walks through dank, dark and dingy corridors to the gloomy caverns of platforms at the end of those corridors. Stained plaster bulges on walls that do not appear to have had a lick of paint for decades. The stations are bereft of staff, which is the result of another of the forced economies on the underground. No wonder women are so reluctant to use the underground outside peak times.
  That is no way for commuters to have to travel at the end of the 20th century. Yes, trains do keep running—just about—but passengers travel in antiquated, overcrowded and rickety rolling stock, which at the age of 35 years is rapidly approaching the end of its useful life. It is a miracle that the system runs at all. It is a triumph of managerial and engineering ingenuity over lack of financial resources, and it cannot continue for much longer.
  In the 1992 autumn statement, London Underground's capital budget was slashed by a massive 30 per cent. A direct and immediate consequence of that cut will be the delay until 1998 of the full upgrading of the stations at the southern end of the Northern line. More alarming still is the fact that the cuts in the London Underground investment programme for this and the next two years will mean a delay in the total modernisation of rolling stock, track and signalling on the Northern line until the year 2005—more than 10 years away. Northern line commuters face another 10 years of train, track and signalling breakdowns, failures and delay—that is, if the modernisation ever takes place.
  As Mr. Denis Tunnicliffe, managing director of London Underground, made graphically clear to the Select Committee, for London Underground to embark on a project involving £1 billion worth of investment—a massive proportion of the underground's budget—would require a level of confidence in the Government's commitment of resources that would be difficult to justify against the backdrop of the recent wild fluctuations in funding for the underground system. What a way to run a railway!

  881
  It goes without saying that the Minister will plead the necessity of cuts, in the light of the Government's £50 billion budget deficit. Let us leave aside the obvious comment that the London commuter is being forced to pay the price of the Government's economic mismanagement. Even within the constraints of the overall budgetary deficit—here I come to the point made by the Minister in an earlier intervention—the Government have made a clear decision to disadvantage the underground passenger.
  The truth is that, wherever else the autumn statement cuts may have fallen, they did not reduce the overall transport budget: that remained stable. In the autumn statement, the Government made a conscious decision to shift transport spending away from public transport in London—and London Underground in particular—into road-building projects outside the capital. They could have chosen to sustain investment in London Regional Transport; they chose not to do so. The London commuter will not forget that act of discrimination in a hurry. Nor will Londoners lend any credence to the Government's pleas of poverty for London Regional Transport, in the light of the decision—announced last week, and much lauded by the hon. Member for Hendon, South—to devote £144 million to the lunatic creation of a 14-lane M25. That was an act of massive despoliation of the green belt, which will suck yet further resources away from London.
  The Government still have an opportunity to make amends in their next autumn statement by committing a stable, sustained and higher level of funding to both British Rail and London Underground to permit the maintenance of services through infrastrcuture renewal over the medium term. I hope that they will heed the advice offered unanimously by both Conservative and Labour Members of the Select Committee:
  "If no such funding is granted, passengers in London will inevitably experience a rapid decline in the speed, reliability and frequency of their services, which would seriously affect the quality of their lives and the competitiveness of business in the nation's capital."
  Those are sombre words which the Government ignore at their peril—and at the peril of London as well.
  1.7 am
  Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on choosing this subject for debate. After his customary out-to-lunch bit, he made a number of useful points. Having noted the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), I felt sufficiently humble not to speak; after all, he can make a much better speech than I can. Then I looked at the Minister and thought, why not?
  Few would deny that London's transport system is in a poor state. That is not to talk the system down; it is merely to acknowledge that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, it has been underfunded for years. Let me point out yet again to the hon. Member for Hendon, South that, when the last Labour GLC declared its intention to invest heavily in capital projects in London Transport generally, the Conservative Government of the day used various devices to block our aim. That is the truth of the matter.
  One needs to look at the position today in terms of capital investment decisions and take it on a little to show
  882
  that the Government have let down Londoners badly. There was a time when we thought that perhaps the Government had changed their mind and saw how important it was to invest in an efficient transportation system for the capital city; it would be to the benefit of not merely London but the whole national economy. Just before the 1992 general election, in the 1991 autumn statement the Government made a commitment to provide investment to meet the target of a "decently modern metro"—the term which comes up time and time again —in 10 years.
  In autumn 1991 the Government promised £633 million towards London Underground's capital investment in the core system mentioned by the hon. Member for Hendon, South—that is, in trains, structures and services of the existing network. The hon. Gentleman referred to new projects such as crossrail and the Jubilee line extension as if they were already up and running. They have not even been started. Those new projects are subject to separate ring-fenced funding. Such projects are often prayed in aid by the Government when they talk of record sums of investment for future years. As we know, construction has not yet commenced on any of the projects.
  The Government safely won the election in April 1992, having promised such capital sums as I have mentioned and, I might add, not to increase value added tax or to cut public expenditure. They managed to renege on all those promises. The 1992 autumn statement is crucial to what is happening now to London underground in particular but to London transport in general. In the 1992 autumn statement the Government allocated only £416 million to the core system in expenditure year 1993–94. That was a shortfall of £217 million, or 34 per cent., on what was promised.
  The Minister has always been very open and he admitted that the amount allocated in 1992 was less than was promised. But the investment is crucial. The Government said in the previous autumn statement how much was needed. To reduce the amount in the subsequent one seems like reneging on a firm promise. How can one expect London Regional Transport to plan adequately given that uncertainty?
  In November 1991 the then Secretary of State for Transport pledged the necessary investment and said that by 1993–94 London Underground investment in the existing railway should be more than £700 million a year taking into account the Monopolies and Mergers Commission statement that that amount was needed to provide an adequately modern framework. [Interruption.] The Minister says that that was a London Regional Transport figure, but it was accepted by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. One must assume that both knew what they were talking about. The same statement was then emphasised by the Minister for Public Transport on 17 February 1992.
  So one could have expected Londoners to believe that Ministers were speaking the truth and that London Underground and London Regional Transport could proceed in the full expectation of getting what they were promised. Of course, it has not worked out that way. In 1991 the Government promised London Underground £571 million for 1994–95. In 1992 that was revised to £343 million. That was a shortfall of £229 million, or 40 per cent. In the 1991 statement the Government promised

  883
  London Underground £585 million for 1995–96. In 1992 that was revised to £425 million, a shortfall of £160 million, or 27 per cent.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, that is no way to run a railway. I have heard the Minister say that, when one compared the position in the 1992 autumn statement with that in 1991, the Government could not proceed on the original basis because the circumstances looked bad. Yet the allocation from the Treasury to the Department of Transport remained virtually unaltered between those two years.
  Then Ministers decided to change the allocation between the different transportation modes for which they are responsible, giving greater emphasis to roads than to London's transport system. By comparison with 1992–93, the total roads budget for 1993–94 increased by £125 million, or 4 per cent., but London Regional Transport's share fell by £132 million, or 30 per cent. The situation will worsen in 1994–95. The total roads budget is set to increase by £194 million, or 31 per cent.
  It is not a question of pleading a shortage of money. The sum allocated by the Treasury seems to remain the same between those years, but the Government's priorities changed in 12 months, and that is something that the Minister must address.
  I presumed that the hon. Member for Hendon, South would concentrate most on the Northern line—and rightly, given that his constituents suffer a poor service on that misery line, as do many other commuters. I believe that it has one the longest tunnels in the world, extending 17 miles. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, keeping that line running is a triumph of managerial and engineering expertise.
  I remember travelling on exactly the same trains that run today when I made the journey from my school—Archbishop Tennyson at Kennington Oval—to Tooting. The stations also seem remarkably the same.
  Mr. John Marshall: It could not have been all that long ago.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is very kind. I wish that it were so, but it seems a long time ago to me.
  Trams were running in those days. I do not know whether the Minister is old enough to remember trams and trolley buses. I was only a babe in arms at the time, but I still remember them, and much deplore their passing. Trams had their guaranteed road space, and no one got in the way of one of those great clanking vehicles. Introduced in their place were unenforceable bus lanes—but now Croydon is considering a tramlink, and there are trams in Manchester and Sheffield. Trams are making a comeback. They never left some continental cities. I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon, South that the Government got transport planning badly wrong, and London and other cities have suffered as a consequence.
  The Northern line also has been affected by the change made between the 1991 and 1992 autumn statements. Some of its stations have been refurbished—London Bridge, Borough, and High Barnet to East Finchley inclusive. Refurbishment was to be undertaken at eight stations this year, but that work has been cancelled because of the 1992 cut in Government grant. The planned £56 million package of refurbishment of 10 stations at the southern end of the Northern line has been postponed until 1998.
  884
  The hon. Member for Hendon, South mentioned Angel station, but Mornington Crescent will remain closed until further notice. It cannot be reopened until its lifts are replaced. Because of the cut in the 1992 budget, London Underground does not have sufficient funding for that work.
  As to passenger security measures at the southern end of the Northern line, it was planned, as part of the 10-station modernisation project, to replace the life-expired equipment at Clapham North, Clapham Common, Clapham South, Tooting Bec, Tooting Broadway and Balham stations and to install equipment at Oval, Colliers Wood, South Wimbledon and Morden. Those proposals also have stalled, and that work will not be undertaken in the current financial year. The money that London Underground was clearly promised by the Government before the general election is being cut.
  Call me an old cynic if you wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I cannot believe that there was not some connection between the general election and London in the promises that were made by the Government in the 1991 autumn statement. If indeed, as the Minister for Transport in London said, it was because the situation looked a lot worse in 1992, perhaps the Government did not know enough about the way the economy was functioning. The Government do not show up in a particularly good light either way. Either they misled the electorate, or they did not know what was going on in the economy. Neither possibility reflects credit on the Government.
  I hope that the Minister has studied the report produced by the Centre for Economic and Business Research. Its title is "The Economic Impact of the London Underground Core Investment Programme"—not what one would consider to be a particularly catchy title, but certainly it is a vital piece of research. We all want a "decently modern metro." As the report finds, that programme would deliver passenger benefits worth hundreds of millions of pounds a year. It would deliver an improved quality of life in the capital, enhance the availability of skills for employers, boost the economy and employment in both London and the rest of the United Kingdom, and offer value to the United Kingdom well in excess of its cost to Government and pay for itself in 10 years.
  The Minister knows a good deal when he sees one, and he has concluded one or two in his time: he has the gold watch to prove it, I understand. That seems like a good deal to me. I cannot understand why the Minister does not reach out with both hands and grab it. There is a difference between borrowing money in order to fund current expenditure and borrowing money in order to invest for the future. One has to draw a distinction between those two aspects of expenditure. We are debating investment for the future. Unless we have a properly funded London underground and London transport system—not just properly funded but at a sustained and predictable level, for it is the unpredictability that tends to throw costings and plans up into the air—we shall not get London's economy right.
  It is not just a question of pleading for more money for London—London Members obviously do that—but investment in rolling stock and new buses for London means jobs for people in cities outside London, because Greater London has lost most of its manufacturing capacity. Investment, therefore, means jobs for people outside London. That, again, must surely be what the

  885
  Government want to achieve. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept that to borrow money for investment in public transport is completely different from borrowing money merely to sustain a budget deficit, due to revenue spending problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham mentioned the two Transport Select Committee reports, in both of which he played a most conspicuous part. The first, on the question of capital investment, stated that London's public transport system is being crippled and, with it, the future of the city. It said that London Transport needs both a higher and a sustained level of investment, the very point that I made earlier.
  These are not the ramblings of some wild-eyed Trot —the kind of person whom the hon. Member for Hendon, South seems to see all around him. This was the considered view of a Committee of our colleagues, with Conservative party Members of Parliament in the majority. The Committee was not in the hands of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is seen as a bit of a loose cannon on the Tory Benches; it was in the very safe hands of the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I am sure that the Minister would not put him in the category of being a wild and unpredictable maverick within the ranks of the Conservative party.
  The second report—the hon. Member for Hendon, South touched upon it—deals with bus deregulation. It was even more damning. I went to get a copy, for greater accuracy. It says that deregulation, which already presents something of a gamble, could prove to be a disaster for London.
  The Select Committee went on to make several recommendations to the Government. It said that they should not proceed with deregulation and should try something else. I have seen no response yet from the Government. Perhaps the Minister can give us a clue to encourage us in the belief that that Select Committee report will not be shelved and ignored like so many other Select Committee reports.
  If he does not mind my saying so, the hon. Member for Hendon, South was very selective in his quotes from the Select Committee report when he referred to deregulation elsewhere. With regard to deregulation outside London, the report states:
  "While bus mileage has increased, so have fares in real terms, and while operating costs are down, so is the level of patronage. Similarly, whereas in places like Oxford and Inverness, passengers have experienced genuine improvements in the quality of services, in larger cities such as Sheffield and Manchester deregulation has led to considerable problems of congestion and unreliability. This inconsistency is mirrored in the sharply contrasting views of passengers surveyed in different parts of the country."
  The report then refers to the lessons for London, and makes the very good and obvious point that
  "There is no other city in the United Kingdom comparable in terms of size or population with London. That alone does not mean that the experience of deregulation in the rest of the country is entirely without relevance to what might happen in the capital. The fact that London is at least six times larger than the next biggest city in Britain implies that the problems to be tackled in introducing deregulation are of a different order of magnitude, but not necesarily unique in nature."
  Those are strongly-worded warnings from a Committee that considered deregulation very carefully.
  886
  The Minister will receive slavish and adulatory support from the hon. Member for Hendon, South in his role as a Parliamentary Private Secretary and member of the payroll vote. However, most people who look at the matter objectively are unhappy about deregulation. The experience outside London is not consistently happy. That being so, one would have expected the more cautionary Conservative Members to say, "Let's halt for a while. Let's look at it carefully once more. After all, she's gone now and there's no need to prove ourselves as ideological loonies. We don't have to run around deregulating and privatising. Let's have a look at this one because if we get it wrong it could be hung around our necks at the next general election."
  Far be it from me to pass on good advice to the Minister, but were I in his place, as I hope to be one day soon, that is the kind of thought that would have passed through my mind. However, the Minister can give us his initial thoughts about the report on bus deregulation in London.
  I will conclude by asking the Minister some specific questions. He can probably guess some of them, but I might as well use this occasion to raise them. The hon. Member for Hendon, South referred to the Jubilee extension and to what it is going to do. It can do a lot of things, but it cannot do anything unless it starts. Will the Minister tell us the latest situation in respect of the Jubilee line? It is becoming rather tedious waiting for the final announcement that everything is okay and that it will go ahead. I would like the Minister to make that announcement in the House and not during the recess so that he can receive all the praise that I know that he feels that he thoroughly deserves.
  What about the Crossrail Bill? The Government say that they support that, but we still have not seen the key reports on the scheme's viability or the potential for private sector support. We have heard that the private sector is interested, but we heard that about the Jubilee line extension. We need to see some of the old ackers up front, to put it in the crude parlance that the Minister and I fully understand.
  Through London First, the private sector has asked the Government to give a clear commitment to the amount that they will invest in the scheme. One needs to know exactly how much the Government will pay towards the funding of crossrail. The Chelsea-Hackney line is safeguarded, but there is no clear commitment to proceed with the line. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that.
  Of course there still remains considerable uncertainty about the channel tunnel rail link. Again, we would like a commitment from the Minister in respect of the finance to be provided for the central London station and the importance of intermediary stations. He knows—I have thrashed this matter around for a long time—that my borough of Newham is working hard, hoping that we will get the international station at Stratford as part of the Government's strategy for the east Thames corridor. Given the amount of money that the Government are putting into Stratford, for which we are extremely grateful, it seems that that investment could be greatly enhanced by a decision on Stratford as an international channel tunnel station. Of course, there is also the east London line extension, again approved by London Transport but without the funds available to enable construction to go ahead.

  887
  London Transport recently published its report entitled "Making Vision into Reality"—and there is also the report entitled "The Economic Impact of the London Underground Core Investment Programme". The company is seeking a commitment to £900 million per annum investment and a total investment of £6·4 billion to generate employment and additional revenue to the Treasury and London Underground's operating costs. It can be shown, not by me in this debate but by those who have carefully studied the matter, that investment in the public transport system in London can pay for itself in all the ways that one could imagine.
  I hope that the Government will join the Opposition in declaring themselves to be fully in favour of giving London the public transport system that it needs. We could then hold up our heads and point to our transport system in the capital city as being the envy of the world, as it certainly used to be. Of course, that does not happen by wishful thinking. It happens as a result of sustained work, sustained investment and commitment. We will gladly join the Government in that spirit of common purpose if only they drop some of their ridiculous ideological fixations about transport and start to realise that Londoners deserve a far better system than the one they have at the moment. When they have such a system, they may be prepared to look carefully at the Government's credentials when they put themselves forward at the next general election, but I would not count on it.
  1.32 am
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): At the conclusion of this enjoyable debate, I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on raising this subject which is important to those who represent London, London's commuters and. dare I say, all right hon. and hon. Members who, along with millions of our fellow citizens, experience public transport in London as part of their daily lives.
  I shall start with one of the ramblings of that well-known wild-eyed Trot, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to as a hugely critical report on London's public transport capital investment requirements. The quote is the first sentence of the conclusions of the report. It states:
  "There is no doubt that in the past few years investment in London' public transport has been at a significantly higher level than in previous decades."
  I merely wish to record that point to underline one assertion which I might be entitled to make. That is, contrary to a lot of very misleading nonsense that I have heard—although not from the hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—there is not a low level of investment going into public transport in London. On the contrary, in comparison with the investment made in the days of the Greater London council, we are now spending twice as much on London transport—in comparison with certain years, we are spending three times as much as the GLC.
  Not all the difference can be accounted for by the assertion of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that that is all due to the dastardly Tory Government trying to deny the right of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to spend Londoner's money on his grandiose ideas for improving London transport.
  888
  One such gem of an idea was the Westbourne Park bus garage, which won an award from the national brick council, or whatever it was. That extraordinary creation is a wondrous celebration of the joys of the brick—if one can think in those terms at this hour of the morning. Its slight problem is that it cossets buses on the assumption that they must be kept in cathedral-like splendour overnight when not in use—presumably to keep their engines warm or to stop the rain falling on them.
  Mr. Tony Banks: What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Norris: No private operator in his right mind would spend that amount of money on the simple job of garaging a bus fleet. It sums up the difference between the Opposition and the Government that, when I point out the ludicrous waste of money on that particular edifice, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West says, "What is wrong with that?". There is not a bus operator worth his salt in the country who does not know precisely what is wrong with that. What is wrong with that is that it is a gratuitous waste of taxpayers' money. What is wrong with that is that it represents a ludicrous misappropriation of scarce resources in a manner that is little short of crass. I see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, whose thirst for the battle has not been the slightest assuaged by his recent experience at the hands of the Metropolitan police, is dying to leap to his feet.
  Mr. Banks: Before the Minister goes into orbit on the question of the bus garage, may I tell him that many contractors now store buses in the open. That is not a good practice. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the standard of bus cleanliness is deteriorating rapidly. That is in part due to the fact that many buses are stored in the open because when some people get hold of bus operations they sell off the real estate, which makes them a nice bit of profit.
  Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is normally a reasonable chap, but he is wrong on two counts.
  First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that there is anything wrong with the idea of leaving a few buses out in the open. These days they are built to withstand the odd night of rain or even snow. Secondly, he is wrong about whether buses are cleaner than they were. He will be aware that the cleanliness of the service is one of the indicators of performance that London Transport is keen to see customers determine, not some statistician with a clipboard. On that basis, London Transport's stock is reckoned to be consistently cleaner now than in the past.
  I do not want to labour the point about Westbourne Park bus garage, although it is a gem of its kind. I merely stress that, in the past few years, substantial investment has been made in transport provision.
  The hon. Member for Streatham said that things got a lot better in the early part of the 1990s. He should appreciate that things are likely to get better in the middle years of the 1990s, after the return of the Conservative Government. I have no doubt that things will then go on to get even better in the late 1990s.
  There is much evidence to back the Select Committee's statement that current investment in London Transport is significantly greater than that made in previous decades.
  We are in the process of completing the £800 million renewal of the Central line, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will know from his constituency

  889
  interest. A £300 million programme is under way to refurbish a great many of the trains. I shall also run through some of the other projects that have been mentioned, so as to provide the answers for which I have been asked.
  The Jubilee line extension will begin when the agreement with the private sector is in place. I make no apology for using that tried and tested form of words. The hon. Gentleman will know that putting the agreement in place with the Olympia and York administrators was a difficult and complex business, but it is worth fighting hard to secure a private sector contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said, that contribution of about £400 million towards the cost of the scheme will compensate the taxpayer for the immense benefit that the private sector developer of Canary wharf will derive from it. I hope that we will be able shortly to make an announcement that will please the House.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that crossrail is funded for the next three years, which is as far as the public expenditure survey extends. By contrast, there is no expectation of any significant expenditure on Chelsea-Hackney during the next three years. Such expenditure as is necessary will be subsumed in LRT's general vote. The hon. Gentleman was right to point out, however, that the line is safeguarded. There is no question but that the scheme should follow on after we have completed the Jubilee line extension and crossrail.
  I take this opportunity to tell the House that London Regional Transport is securing agreement to the proposals for the northern extension of the east London line, and is negotiating with local authorities and others. The extension has been universally welcomed. Subject to the availability of finance, LRT would then hope to turn its attention to the equally important southern extension of the line.
  The channel tunnel rail link will continue as a joint public-private sector proposition, the precise details of which are yet to be established, but the underlying principle of which is clear. To build the line, it will be necessary to seek large amounts of both public and private sector money, because the private sector can then enjoy the benefits that the line will bring.
  I cannot help the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on the prospects for Stratford, because the work undertaken by Union Railways and others to refine the route and the positioning of the stations is still in hand and it would be wrong to anticipate the findings of the studies. I am not yet in a position to say what they may be, although I often have discussions with Newham council, whose interest in the matter I shall bear in mind.
  I accept the Select Committee's later conclusion that larger investment in the system would be desirable and that it should be consistent. I do not come here with trite words that turn night into day; I do not suggest that reductions in LRT's capital spending were desirable, or that variations over two or three years were helpful. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that when the Government became aware of the urgent need to deal with the public sector borrowing requirement, it would have been wrong to exempt this area of expenditure.
  There is a straightforward explanation for the apparent imbalance in the distribution of the "pain" between the
  890
  various aspects of the programme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of the road programme is committed some time in advance, which means that there is a need to devote a proportion of the Department's total resources to the continuance of that programme in order not to frustrate work which has already begun. In the case of London Transport, it is true to say that the decision to reduce the level of grant affected its ability to invest, but, in historic terms, it still left it substantially above its baseline of only two years ago.
  I have also read to the McWilliam study to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I shall not make a detailed critique of it, but it is the only point at which I can refer to my gold watch. The House will know that the hon. Gentleman has yet to make a speech as my shadow—long may that continue to be the case—without making an overt, or covert, offer for my watch. It is an unremarkable item and I am perfectly happy to negotiate with him. What has prevented him from turning his expressions of interest —as we used to call them in the trade—into anything more positive is that he cannot put up the money. I appreciate that his extensive television career is now accruing large royalties and that Mrs. Banks is probably constrained as to how they are dispersed, but the point that he has frequently made is, to put it crudely, that he cannot afford it. In Professor McWilliam's report, affordability is an even more important criterion than desirability.
  I draw a veil over my bungled and feeble attempts at humour to underline the serious point, which is that it is not enough for investment to be desirable to enable schemes to stand on their own when, in the public sector, they have to queue behind so many other calls on the public sector. Affordability becomes the key criterion. That is and always has been the fundamental advantage conveyed by privatisation, as proved by British Telecom, British Airways, the British Airports Authority or even the current proposals in the Railways Bill.
  There are innumerable propositions for investment in Network SouthEast, which would lead to a positive cash flow in five years but which are not entertained because the resources are not there. As long as British Rail is in the public sector, it calls on the Exchequer's liberality, along with London Transport, roads, hospitals and schools. In the private sector, the situation is entirely different. If a scheme is good and will bring a positive cash flow within three to five years, no bank will refuse to finance the investment. Once investment is made, the quality of service is improved, the public purse is relieved and we all gain. Even at this stage, I urge members of the Opposition to recognise that privatisation is not a matter of dogma; it is a matter of recognising one of the great truths, which is that, however much money is available to a Transport Minister, of whatever party, there will always be more demands than funds to meet them. In those circumstances, we should be tapping the private sector market, which after all is the only other real source of capital available to any Government beyond that which they can raise by taxing, borrowing or printing. Regardless of which party is in power and how much the Chancellor gives the Secretary of State for Transport, there will be more demands on the public purse.
  Mr. Keith Hill: The hon. Member dilates on the advantages of the private sector, but the blunt truth is that, in the Government's spending programme for 1993–94, London Underground lost precisely £300 million. That

  891
  went to Government spending on the roads programme. Which roads programmes benefited from London Underground's loss in the 1993–94 capital programme?
  Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman knows that, even if I wished to, I could not answer that. If he has any pretensions to assuming office in this Department, he would do well to recognise that well over 90 per cent. of goods and people are transported by road. It beggars belief that Opposition Members can treat the road programme as if it were entirely dispensable—as if there were no value in relieving city centres of the appalling problems of pollution and of asthma among young children, which they are keen to allege but not so keen to see relieved by a bypass. The hon. Gentleman should be careful about assuming that all the shortfall in public transport expenditure could necessarily be made up merely by massive transfers from the road programme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South did the House a service by raising the subject. I emphasise the positive aspects of the work of Denis Tunnicliffe of London Underground Ltd. and of Clive Hodson of London Buses. LUL's company plan led to the rationalisation of more than 1,000 pay and grading agreements, which previously created a climate of jobsworth that made any management improvements on the underground almost impossible to achieve. The company plan, which was not an easy task, rationalised those pay and grading agreements into an intelligent managerial structure. That has allowed London Underground to make huge leaps in quality, although I recognise that much investment is needed in the Northern line—a case that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South prosecutes assiduously on behalf of his constituents.
  I share an interest in the southern half of the line, which is where I live, and I know the stations to which the hon. Member for Streatham referred, running from the Oval down to Morden. There is, none the less, clear evidence, to which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission referred in its 1991 report, of the way in which management action has transformed the quality of the line. My hon. Friend will know that we now receive few complaints about the line compared with only two or three years ago. That has been achieved not by large investment but by tremendous management effort. I take the opportunity to congratulate all those who are involved in the management of the Northern line because they have done a superb job. On present form, it looks as if the refurbishment of the line will now he completed before 2003, not 2005. I accept that that is too long away for any of us to take great pleasure from, but the programme is there and we plan to take it forward. I know that if there is any opportunity to do so, my hon. Friend will urge me to urge, in turn, LT to give that scheme high priority.
  The management improvement means that, in the second year of the LT customer charter, we see standards improving across the board, and those standards being monitored not—I am sorry to use the analogy again, but it is important—by a man with a clipboard, but by customer reactions, obtained live by independent survey. They are a serious sign of whether we are getting the system right.
  Both the hon. Members for Streatham and for Newham, North-West spoke of bus deregulation. On the evidence, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South is entirely right. I accept that the trade unions, many
  892
  Labour local authorities and, I am sorry to say, normally quite intelligent Labour Members of Parliament all hate it, for obvious reasons, but bus deregulation has achieved exactly what my hon. Friend has said—a great deal more bus miles run.
  If one wants to get people on buses, the first thing that one has to do is run a bus. That is a simple proposition, but it is one that even Labour Members should be able to get their minds around. Once one has done that, it also makes sense to try to get the operating costs of the buses down, and they are down by about a third. Far more importantly, the subsidy required from the taxpayer has been reduced by half. That is the experience of deregulation outside London.
  I congratulate on behalf of other hon. Members the hon. Member for Streatham for his part in the work of the Select Committee, which produced a rather helpful report on bus deregulation. I know that it is a matter of great political importance, so it imported a note of potential danger, which is perhaps understandable, in suggesting that unless certain steps were taken, there could be dangers in bus deregulation in London. I accept that proposition. It would be irresponsible to introduce any significant change into a market as sophisticated as London unless one were entirely clear what the changes were designed to achieve. One should take account of experience elsewhere —whether in Sheffield, Glasgow, Oxford or Bristol—the good and the bad, the advantages and the disadvantages.
  I welcome the opportunity to tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that the Department has not yet formally responded to the Select Committee's report. I want to take some time to give it the attention that it deserves. I can say now that I think that it was right to point out that we need to know clearly what we shall do about the extra buses that are the happy consequence of bus deregulation. I am convinced of the need to ensure, by legislation if necessary, the continuation of, for example, the travel card. The concessionary fares scheme will continue, and continue to be funded by the boroughs as now, and it will apply across the board, not simply among selected operators in selected areas.
  I give those commitments for a straightforward reason. If I were not to do so, it would imply that I did not understand what the market for public transport in London was. I hope that the House will give me credit for at least understanding that. Anyone who bothered to examine what makes London's public transport tick would understand why the travel card is important. It is the key to the willingness of people to use the system and to their ability to use it. I want to see it developed with such things as stored value ticketing. That is not available at the moment, but technology is bringing it forward, and it will open up a whole new market.
  I believe that about 85 per cent. of routes will be run commercially in London. That has been the experience outside and the London bus executive will be funded to secure those socially necessary routes that are not profitable. That would again be a necessary part of the deregulation process. If, with those caveats, we can move forward, it is with one signal proposition as our banner —that deregulation does not mean no regulation.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will take some comfort from the fact that I do not foresee deregulation as meaning a free-for-all. It is important to learn lessons from elsewhere in the country and from our experience of the workings of the 1985 Act. I believe that,

  893
  in general, the experience has been good, but it would be crass not to open our eyes and look at experience elsewhere.
  Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South on giving us the opportunity to have this useful debate. If I may say so without incurring the wrath of the Whips, we enjoy each other's company in these debates. At least, I do; I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. God knows, his taste is so eclectic that I have no idea what he enjoys, but I am prepared to make my statement on a unilateral basis—
  Mr. Tony Banks: See me afterwards.
  Mr. Norris: I will indeed see the hon. Gentleman afterwards. I hesitate to think what, at 2 o'clock in the morning, he has in mind. Still, with his rather eclectic tastes I have no doubt that we can think of something amusing.
  I am grateful to have had the opportunity to set out the Government"s response to some of the points that have been raised. I believe that the future of public transport in London is exciting. It will involve more commercialisation, more private initiative and investment and an awareness of the need to achieve yet better and better standards. I hope to take that work forward through the interesting days that lie ahead over the next 12 months.

  Energy Conservation
  2.1 am
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am glad to have this opportunity to say something further about my Energy Conservation Bill, which was first presented to the House as a ten-minute Bill on 24 February. I shall begin by briefly reiterating its main provisions. Its core provision is to require district and borough councils, after extensive public consultation, to draw up energy conservation plans for all domestic properties in their areas with the aim of achieving energy savings of 10, 20 or 30 per cent. The plans would assess the estimated reduction in fuel bills, the resulting reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, and the cost of implementing the plans.
  The relevant Secretary of State would set a date for the completion of the plans, which would be sent to him. He would then, at his discretion—I emphasise that—publish a timetable for the implementation of the plans and make arrangements for the funding. Local authorities would ensure that the works to bring about increased energy efficiency were carried out. Almost inevitably nowadays, they would do that in their role as enablers rather than as providers.
  From that focused programme of activity, a whole range of benefits would flow. First, there would be environmental benefits. Under the Rio accord, the Government are committed to stablising carbon dioxide emissions at the 1990 level by the year 2000. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that that target will not bring about a stabilisation of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. To achieve that, the United Nations estimates that we need a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the near future. I repeat that the Government's commitment is to stabilise by the year 2000.
  With 27 per cent. of the United Kingdom's CO2 emissions deriving from the domestic sector, a programme activated through my Bill could make a useful contribution. Of course, there would also be reductions in sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Other instruments will have to be brought into play, as well as the one proposed in the Bill. The Combined Heat and Power Association advocates a target of 6,000 MW from combined heat and power—treble the present level—by the year 2000. Will the Minister say tonight whether the Government would be prepared to adopt that target? However, I say that merely in passing, and I shall now return to my Bill.
  In addition to the reduction in atmospheric pollution, health gains would result from the elimination of cold and damp in homes, and there would be subsequent savings in social security expenditure for health authorities. Landlords, both public and private, would gain through reduced maintenance costs, which would slacken the upward pressure on rents. Newark and Sherwood district council has made an efficient attempt at quantifying many of the savings.
  The quality of life, especially for poorer families, would be significantly enhanced. Their energy cost savings would release additional spending power. Another important consequence of the measure would be job creation—in manufacturing, distribution and installation. That would, in turn, result in an improved tax take for the state and a reduction in unemployment and social security benefits —a virtuous cycle.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. At this hour, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that, as a general rule applicable to all substantive motions for the Adjournment, the subject to be discussed must not involve legislation, except by incidental reference. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in reminding the House, at this early hour, of the exciting prospect of his future legislation.
  Mr. Dafis: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance. I was not aware of that rule, but I shall studiously avoid reference to legislation from now on.
  There has been massive support for the proposals in principle—there is room for modification. A total of 110 district and county councils have expressed support for them, and the range of other organisations to have done so is truly impressive. It includes environmental organisations, ranging from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, through to the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
  Other supporters include the Institute of Housing, the Trades Union Congress, the National and Local Government Officers Association, the Gas Consumers Council and the National Housing and Town Planning Council. Significantly. the list also includes groups such as the Child Poverty Action Group, Age Concern, Help the Aged. the Disabled Living Foundation and the Right to Fuel Campaign. In addition, more than 350 Members of Parliament have registered their support for such proposals. either by signing early-day motion 1483 or by letter to me from organisations that support the measures. There is wide-ranging and impressive support for such proposals.
  Both because of the programme's intrinsic merits and the overwhelming support. the Government must take seriously the proposals and the topic. That is particularly true in view of the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel—a measure announced after I presented my ten-minute Bill. The proposals have suggested that funds for energy efficiency programmes and works should be through a levy on electricity and gas bills. I am sure that such a provision would rightly be regarded as inappropriate. as domestic fuel is to be taxed.
  The Government presented their proposal for VAT on domestic fuel partly as an environmental tax. Now, it is a sine qua non of environmental taxation that it should be recycled in some form to correct the environmental phenomenon that the tax is supposed to address. If a proportion of the VAT proceeds are recycled to meet the cost of a domestic energy efficiency programme, the Government's claim that VAT is an environmental tax would gain some credence and some of the hardship that VAT on domestic fuel will impose on the less well-off, the elderly and the disabled would be mitigated. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the Government have no plans for any major environmental legislation in the next Session.
  I turn to some of the comments made by the Lord President of the Council in his reply to me and some of the supporters of my proposals. He referred to some of the Government's energy efficiency schemes and suggested that more could be achieved by encouragement than by
  896
  introducing a mandatory requirement for the drawing up of schemes. I say two things in reply. First, some of the Government's schemes, especially the home energy efficiency scheme—HEES—are laudable enough but too limited in scope. That is recognised by the managers of the HEES Neighbourhood Energy Action whom I have met and who support my proposals.
  Secondly, the plans that would be introduced under my recommendations would provide a source of information and data that would maximise the effectiveness of, for example, HEES, whether at the existing expenditure level or an expanded version of it. In 1992, HEES incurred Government expenditure of £45 million. In the same way, schemes introduced by the Energy Saving Trust, which is one of the Government's instruments for bringing about energy savings and environmental improvements, would find the framework provided by the comprehensive plans envisaged in my proposals invaluable. Clearly, there is a need for a comprehensive account of the need for energy, the scope and opportunities for it and the means to bring it about.
  The support of many local authorities does not indicate an unwillingness to accept mandatory responsibility. Local authorities accept that it is something that they can undertake as long as financial provision is made by the Exchequer to meet costs. The core of my energy efficiency suggestions is the information-gathering process. Plans involving information would enable the work to he prioritised according to social need and environmental impact to achieve maximum efficiency. It is acknowledged that that is lacking in the haphazard collection of schemes operated by the Government at present.
  Once the plans have been drawn up and are in place, the Secretary of State could timetable their implementation according to what is realistic in budgetary terms and in keeping with the Government's policy and priorities. My proposals would not commit the Government to a massive investment programme from the beginning of the process, although a substantial investment would be more than justified and bring about great benefits.
  Suggestions for modifying the proposals would be welcome, and some organisations have already committed themselves on them. For example, regional energy boards have been suggested. Perhaps that would be a superfluous tier, and other details of that suggestion have been criticised. The Government may have reservations about strengthening local authorities and giving them a more prominent function in the development of energy efficiency. However, housing and environmental health departments are uniquely qualified to carry out the kind of survey work involved in preparing plans. They would have a crucial role, but not necessarily as providers.
  Contractors who currently deliver the home energy efficiency scheme for Neighbourhood Energy Action, would be well placed to carry out installations. Organisations such as TECs could stimulate interest and carry out the training programmes that would be necessary to implement such ambitious proposals.
  There is no problem about making changes, but comprehensive provision for a radical improvement in domestic energy efficiency is crucial for environmental, social and economic reasons. My proposals attempt to describe how such provision might be made.
  2.16 am
  Ms Clare Short: I welcome the debate, but not the hour at which it is taking place. One of my colleagues who is no longer in the Chamber said that the best contribution that we could make to energy conservation would be to turn off the lights and go home. There is something in that, but our strange procedures require us to be here at this hour.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on the immense amount of work and commitment that he has put into the issue of energy conservation. Labour strongly favours such a policy, and many months ago we published our policy document on energy efficiency for the environment and the economy. It contains detailed proposals for a scheme for household energy conservation which would have an enormous number of benefits, and, unusually in social policy terms, they could be obtained at limited cost.
  Such a policy would contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. We gave a commitment on that in Rio that must be met by the Government. I see in today's issue of The Times—today is still yesterday under the funny rules of the House—that the Secretary of State for the Environment is apparently about to announce proposals to increase energy conservation measures in business. I do not know whether the Minister will tell us anything about that. That is the first objective that would be met by Labour's scheme.
  The second benefit of our scheme is enormously important at this time, because it would create thousands of desperately needed jobs that would enable people to cease relying on benefits and start making a contribution to their communities. That would also enable them to regain their independence and not have the humiliation of having to live on benefits.
  Thirdly, it would help to solve the enormously serious problem of fuel poverty. Far too many of our citizens struggle from week to week to keep themselves and their children warm and to pay their bills. A serious programme of energy efficiency and conservation in households would help to relieve that poverty.
  Fourthly, under Labour's proposals, the details of which I shall shortly present to the House, there would be no cost to the Exchequer because the scheme would be funded by requiring gas and electricity providers to invest in energy conservation measures and put on all the households that had been so improved a cost that would be less than the amount that was saved. In the long term, that would pay for the measures and create an incentive for energy providers to invest in energy efficiency. That would be better than their current incentive, which is to try to sell as much energy as possible, despite the damage to the environment and to people who suffer from fuel poverty.
  Labour's proposals differ somewhat from those of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. He said that he was interested in any proposals that might improve on his. I hope that he has read our document: I feel that it has some advantages, although we have exactly the same objective.
  Let me tell a story about my constituency that encapsulates the enormous benefit that can result from this kind of social policy. The Ladywood ward of my constituency contains many maisonettes and tower blocks that were built in the 1960s. They are very badly insulated,
  898
  with underfloor electric heating which was installed at a time when electricity was very cheap and was provided very inefficiently. Those blocks are now riddled with cold, damp and black mould; people often come to my advice bureaux bringing items of clothing covered in mould, and telling me about the number of times children suffering from asthma have been in and out of hospital. Evidence I saw a few years ago suggests not only that damp and cold heighten suffering from asthma and bronchitis, but that the spores in the mould damage children's lungs in the long term. The same story is told up and down the country.
  In one block, Beale house, the tenants banded together rather than taking legal action individually against the local authority over the provision of unfit housing. They found a local solicitor, and acted collectively against the local authority—as citizens are entitled to do under existing housing legislation—on the ground that it had provided inadequate housing. They cited the damp and mould. They won their case in the first court: the local authority was ordered to improve the block and provide insulation and better heating.
  Birmingham city council then had to decide what to do. It knew that if the case was upheld it would be bankrupt, given all the blocks and maisonettes in the city that were in a similar condition: much as it might have wanted to improve the heating and insulation in all those blocks, it had not the resources to do so. It told the Beale house tenants that it would appeal against the ruling, that the tenants could act collectively against the local authority, and that it would honour the victory of the tenants of that particular block.
  The council got together with the Midlands electricity board to launch a programme of insulation in the block, and to install off-peak electrical heating. The results were truly wonderful. At that time—some years ago—a "hard to heat" allowance was still provided under DSS regulations; all the tenants receiving benefits received the allowance—which, of course, cost the Exchequer money.
  The net result was the provision of jobs in an area of high unemployment. The block was insulated and equipment was installed—equipment that had been built in the west midlands. People's bills were reduced significantly. People were warmer, and had more hot water. Moreover, the Exchequer saved money because the "hard to heat" allowances were no longer required. That superb social-policy move brought benefits to the environment and individuals: it ended fuel poverty, and improved the health of my constituents' children.
  The Labour party—and the hon. Gentleman's Bill, which we are not allowed to mention, but we can mention the suggestions that he has made tonight—proposes the adoption of such a policy on a national level. We should change the regulations controlling the providers of gas and electricity. The appointment of a regulator for the gas industry since deregulation has introduced some sensible provisions—for instance, the E-factor, which seeks to encourage energy efficiency in gas providers. However, there is no similar control on electricity providers.
  As I said earlier, funding such investment through a premium on bills that was smaller than the saving that would come to individual citizens if we went for big packages of energy insulation would mean that the poor would be better off, no bills would go up, people would be warmer, there would be less fuel poverty and our carbon dioxide emissions would go down.

  899
  There would be no cost to the public sector borrowing requirement because the investment would be funded by private borrowing by the domestic fuel users. It is a wonderful scheme that would benefit everyone and would overcome many of the problems that the country faces.
  It is shocking and surprising that the Government have not seriously considered the scheme and gone for it. In contrast, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said, the Government propose to impose VAT on fuel. That is an enormously unpopular proposal which will probably cost the Government the Christchurch by-election, and rightly so. Yet again the measure will bite most heavily on the poorest people in our country. That is the record of the Government since they took power in 1979.
  The Government claim that the reason for the measure is protection of the environment. That is a bogus claim. Anyone who has scrutinised the proposal objectively knows that the imposition of VAT on fuel is a tax-gathering measure at the cost of some of the least well-off people in our country. Other measure are available to protect the environment if the Government were really interested. The remedy is energy conservation.
  In case the Minister intends to repeat the disreputable allegations made by the Prime Minister about current Labour party policy on energy, let me say that we are, have always been and continue to be opposed to the proposal to impose VAT on domestic fuel. We are currently engaged in a consultation about our environmental policy. We have asked members of our party to consult with local communities about the current European Community proposals for a carbon energy tax. As the EC is putting the proposal to all the countries of the Community, and the proposal appears to be favoured by most countries except Britain, we have asked for the views of members of our party on it.
  The Prime Minister misuses that consultation to suggest that the Labour party is in favour of VAT on fuel. That is simply untrue. I hope that the Minister will not attempt to pursue such disreputable and not entirely honest allegations at this late hour of the night.
  We in the Labour party welcome the debate introduced by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and his proposals for an improvement in energy conservation. We recommend to him, to the Government and to everyone else the Labour party's scheme as being slightly preferable, more efficient and less bureaucratic than some of the details of the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I do not say that in a negative spirit. We have the same objective. It is a question of how best to achieve it.
  We deeply regret that the Government have gone for VAT on fuel. That will hurt those who are fuel poor in our country who are not in a position to and will be even less in a position to invest in energy-saving measures. We further regret that the Government, in their great programme of deregulation, propose to reduce the standards for insulation contained in the building regulations rather than improving them. We suspect that that is partly because the committee which is examining deregulation for the Government includes representatives of the building industry who, of course, give funds to the Tory party. We regret that.
  Even at this late hour, I suggest to the Minister that the Government should take up proposals for energy conservation and energy efficiency which would benefit all of us at little cost to the Government.
  2.28 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has given us a useful opportunity to discuss energy efficiency.
  I wondered how long the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) would speak before she came clean on the Labour party's proposals for VAT on fuel. I thought that she sought to get her retaliation in rather early to explain away the most recent Labour party briefing which recommended an energy tax. The hon. Lady's protestation that Labour had never contemplated value added tax on energy would carry more conviction if it were not the case that a Labour party document published in 1990, "Looking to the Future", stated:
  "Proposals by the European Commission to remove the zero rating from Value Added Tax would impose new burdens on the poorest in our community."
  The House ought to take careful note of the next sentence:
  "Zero rating on items such as food, fares, books and children's clothing should remain as an essential part of the VAT system."
  No mention there of VAT on energy or domestic fuel. I have no doubt that Labour's draftsmen chose their words very carefully—just as the hon. lady did this evening, in seeking to claim that suggestions for some form of energy tax, as proposed in Labour News recently, were part of a wider consultation exercise among constituency parties.
  At least the hon. Lady had the decency to turn up for this debate—unlike hon. Members of other parties.
  Ms Short: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am sorry that, at 2.30 in the morning, the hon. Gentleman repeats dishonest allegations made in the House by the Prime Minister. The Minister knows very well that an old Labour party document stating, "We don't support"—
  Mr. Baldry: I am not giving way to the hon. Lady—
  Ms Short: I am sorry, but the Minister did give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has given way.
  Ms Short: For the Minister to suggest that an old Labour party document saying that we did not propose the extension of VAT to items "such as" means that we were in favour of imposing it on domestic fuel is unreasonable and unworthy of him. The document to which the Minister referred is part of a consultation with party members as to their views on current EEC policy. May we please have an honest debate, not dishonest and misleading allegations?
  Mr. Baldry: That was not worth giving way for, so I do not intend to give way to the hon. Lady again. I have no doubt that in the run-up to the last general election Labour party draftsmen chose very carefully the words to appear in "Looking to the Future". However much the hon. Lady protests, she cannot disguise the fact that that document specifically excluded any reference to VAT on energy. She cannot deny that Labour's most recent consultation document recommends that party members should use
  "Chris Smith's article to help you discuss the following questions: Economic Policy—In what ways can economic policy he developed to encourage environmental protection? You might consider Taxation Policy (e.g., energy tax…)".

  901
  Most people would rely on a reasonable interpretation of those words, and most people can understand plain English.
  As I said, at least the hon. Lady had the decency to turn up to explain her party's policies—unlike Liberal Democrat Members. I am sad about that, because I wanted to ask them a few questions. I note that my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) and for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) are in their places. Liberal Democrats have been scurrying around parts of the country saying how monstrous it is that we propose to introduce VAT on domestic fuel. That is surprising given that only recently the Liberal Democrats produced a paper entitled "Costing the Earth—Liberal Democrat Policies for an Environmentally Sustainable Economy". All good stuff, one might think. It states:
  Liberal Democrats advocate as a first priority the imposition of a tax on energy."
  I wonder whether the Liberal Democrat candidate in Christchurch is explaining that to the local electors. The document goes on to say that
  The United Kingdom is unusual amongst EC members in not applying even standard rates of VAT to domestic fuels … If it proved completely impossible",
  say the Liberals,
  "to persuade our international partners to adopt energy taxes, we would nevertheless press forward, but phase them in at lower levels than otherwise—for example, by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel."
  If a Liberal Democrat Member had bothered to turn up in the House this evening, I imagine that he or she would have sought to argue, as did the hon. Member for Ladywood, that that means something other than what it means in plain English. But in plain English, to end the zero rate of VAT on fuel means no more than that.
  Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister address the suggestion that I made—that part of the proceeds from VAT, granted that that imposition is to be made, should be dedicated specifically to financing energy efficiency programmes?
  Mr. Baldry: I noted the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and I shall turn to it in a moment. First, however, I want to deal with the question of VAT generally and the policies of the Opposition parties towards it. The hon. Gentleman made his policy very clear.
  The Liberal Democrats go on to say:
  "we also recognise that the poorest income groups usually lack the capital required to invest in these items."—
  meaning energy efficiency appliances.
  "Although we are clear that this problem must be addressed, we are equally clear that this must not" —
  the word "not" is in italics, so that we all clearly understand that the Liberal Democrats mean "not"—
  "be achieved through granting exemptions to particular target groups; everyone must face the same incentives to use less and cleaner energy."
  The Liberal Democrats do not even intend, therefore, to mitigate the impact of their VAT proposals for fuel—
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Baldry: No, I am not going to give way.
  They do not intend to mitigate the impact of those proposals on the most vulnerable members of society.
  Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Baldry: No. The last time that I gave way to a Labour Member it was not worth doing so. I want to make some progress.
  What is clear, therefore, is that the Liberal Democrats propose to introduce VAT on fuel and that they do not intend to grant exemptions even to the more vulnerable members of society. I hope that that is being explained throughout the country.
  It should not, of course, come as a surprise to people in Dorset. As long ago as 1990, Liberal parliamentary candidates in Dorset made that clear. I have here the Dorset Evening Echo of 3 December 1990 in which the Liberal Democrat candidate for Dorset, South proposed that there should be VAT on domestic fuel.
  I hope, therefore, that it is clearly appreciated that the Opposition parties would, if given the opportunity, impose VAT on fuel and that some of their protestations—
  Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Baldry: —are unwarranted. If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that the Labour party had no intention ever of so doing, he will simply repeat what his hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said. If he wants to make another point, I shall gladly give way to him.
  Mr. Martlew: I am surprised that the Minister did not give way before, but we have to be grateful for small mercies at this time of night. Can the Minister tell me where it is said in the Conservative party manifesto that the Conservatives were going to put VAT on fuel?
  Mr. Baldry: It did not say in the Conservative manifesto, in terms, that we were going to do that. However, the point that I am making is that the Opposition parties made it clear that they intended to introduce VAT on domestic fuel. It does not lie in their mouths to deny that, to oppose VAT on domestic fuel or to suggest that, if they had the opportunity, they would not have introduced VAT on fuel as an energy efficiency measure.
  The Opposition parties make a suggestion and they simply attack it when the Government introduce the proposal. It would be more honest and straightforward if Opposition parties and Opposition candidates on the hustings made clear where they truly stand on such proposals.
  I do not intend to take up much more time because I sense that the House would like to make progress. I should like to respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North because he asked about energy policy.
  The debate is timely because, in the past few days, the Government have published a consultation paper that sets out proposals for a national sustainable development strategy and proposals for completing the programme to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made those proposals clear in an announcement today.
  Our sustainable development strategy will consider the state of the environment now and how it might change over the next 20 years on present trends. It will consider the way in which development in different areas of the economy can both harm and benefit the environment and ways in which we as individuals can promote the principles of sustainable development.

  903
  As I said, last week we published a consultation paper setting out our proposals on sustainable development. Indeed, we have led the field on sustainable development for several years by monitoring and reporting on our environmental policies. Since 1990, when we published our White Paper "This Common Inheritance", we have had an annual progress report on our environmental policies.
  The key to our success has been in setting ourselves specific targets. Last year's report listed nearly 500 separate environmental commitments from Government Departments and other public bodies. We have already acted on the great majority of them and have committed ourselves to further action.
  We have been at the forefront of international action to tackle the threat of climate change. We played a major part in brokering the framework convention on climate change in Rio last year, and we are committed to producing a national plan, setting out in full how we will meet our obligations under the convention by the end of this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced today our proposals for completing Britain's carbon dioxide programme. As no one referred to this earlier—perhaps because hon. Members had not realised that the Government had moved forward in that regard—let me briefly set out, for the benefit of the House, the elements of our proposals for completing our carbon dioxide programme.
  We intend to strengthen the Energy Efficiency Office programmes of information and advice, to stimulate additional savings from industry, and to reinforce the work of the Energy Saving Trust to encourage households to use energy efficiently. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North called for that to happen, and it will happen through the Energy Saving Trust and we expect public sector bodies to provide a lead.
  In addition, we intend further savings to be achieved in transport emissions and a further increase in the target for combined heat and power to 5,000 M W. That is a substantial increase. It may not be quite as much as the Combined Heat and Power Association would have liked, but it is a substantial move in that direction.
  Earlier this year, we discussed widely our carbon dioxide programme. The issues that were discussed included the types of measures that the Government should take as part of the programme, and the role of other organisations and groups outside Government. Our view has been that an effective and efficient national carbon dioxide programme requires a partnership approach. We believe that our role is to provide the right fiscal, regulatory and financial framework for our programme to tackle carbon dioxide and to help to disseminate advice and information on the many actions that can be taken to achieve savings.
  Decision makers in business and each and every one of us in our own homes throughout the country can take the action that will lead to lower emissions. We are looking to business groups, trade associations and voluntary and consumer groups to act as channels of information and encouragement.
  Several measures have already been announced. They include those announced in the March Budget to increase the price of energy in domestic transport sectors, which I have already discussed, the establishment of the Energy Saving Trust to provide financial incentives to energy efficiency, and an increase in the objective for renewable
  904
  energy. Taken together, those measures are expected to stimulate savings amounting to two thirds of our national target.
  Last week my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy announced his proposals for further renewable energy orders under the non-fossil fuel obligation in pursuit of the new objective for renewable energy. Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced a trial of local energy advice centres being conducted by the Energy Saving Trust, with finance from the Energy Efficiency Office—again, a measure that I hope will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and other hon. Members who are keen for energy efficiency to be promoted.
  We have considered what additional measures should be taken to complete the programme. We have concluded that we should take further action to help business to make energy savings, so we shall strengthen the Energy Efficiency Office's programme of advice and information aimed at business, and we will discuss with business groups how to obtain the maximum response. Significant additional savings can be achieved in that sector. We recognise that public bodies should provide a lead, so we will be setting further targets for the Governments estate—that is, buildings in our control—which should take energy used by central Government down to well below 80 per cent. of 1990 levels by the year 2000, and looking to other public sector bodies to adopt similarly stringent targets.
  We will also continue to provide information and encouragement to households to use energy efficiently, and we will increase the resources devoted to that, working with the Energy Saving Trust to reinforce the impact of the trust.
  Concern has been expressed about the prospect of increasing transport emissions. We believe that it is reasonable to work towards further savings by the year 2000 over and above that which is expected to be saved as a result of the fuel duty increases that were announced in the March Budget. We also take the view that energy should be produced and delivered in a way that keeps carbon dioxide emissions at the lowest cost-effective level. consistent with our other environmental goals. That is primarily the responsibility of the energy industries. We will be working towards the achievement of 5,000 M W of combined heat and power capacity by the year 2000—an increase of 1,000 MW on our previous target.
  The framework of our carbon dioxide programme is now in place. Many organisations have indicated their willingness to participate in the programme. We are substantially ahead of our international partners in meeting our programme for carbon dioxide emissions, and we look forward to their joining us so that, together, the international community can meet its obligations.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will consider the measures that we have already had in place for some time. For instance, I refer to the £60 million that we have been investing in the greenhouse demonstration programme; the best practice programme of the Energy Efficiency Office, which has been going on for many years; the home energy efficiency scheme, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute, and which provides grants to help to provide basic insulation measures and advice to low-income households; the promotion of the take-up of home energy labelling; our consultations on proposals to strengthen provisions in

  905
  the building regulations which set standards for the insulation of dwellings; and the setting up of the Energy Saving Trust, in partnership with British Gas and other energy providers to develop programmes designed to promote the efficient use of energy.
  I hope that the House will accept that those measures, taken together, represent a comprehensive programme to promote energy efficiency in a manner that ensures that we can meet our international obligations and, at the same time, ensures our competitiveness.

  Support Helicopters
  2.50 am
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I welcome the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate on the further development of the programme for providing efficient, up-to-date helicopters for our armed forces. Many hon. Members believe that they are crucial to the effective defence of our country. The debate refers specifically to support helicopters for the Royal Air Force.
  I do not believe that I need to spend too much time arguing that it is necessary for us to provide such helicopters. Every indication suggests that modern warfare is increasingly becoming a matter of quick, positive response. Helicopters are an essential part of that reaction.
  Whatever reductions it may be possible to make in our defence budget and that of other nations, there is no evidence that any power, major or minor, has decided that it is possible to reduce the requirement for and dependence on helicopters.
  We have had experience of warfare in the south Atlantic and more recent experience in the deserts of Arabia. We pray not, but we could have experience of warfare in the mountains of Bosnia. Those theatres of conflict are immensely different, but it would not be possible for us to maintain our national interests in each one if the helicopter did not act as a main element in our operations.
  We can move on from deciding whether we need to increase and develop our helicopter capacity for our armed forces to considering what kind of helicopter is needed for the support role undertaken by the RAF. We need a utility helicopter that is capable of a multiplicity of roles. If possible, we need a helicopter whose design relates closely to those used by other sections of the armed forces. That immediately brings to mind the decision of the Royal Navy to choose the Merlin version of the EH101 helicopter, which is built by Agusta of Italy and Westland of the United Kingdom.
  I should declare an interest—and speak with pride—about the fact that my constituency is home to the Westland subsidiary of FPT Ltd. It is at the cutting edge of technology in the use of laminated substances for self-sealing petrol tanks and other containers that need to survive the kind of treatment to which they are subject in war.
  The United Kingdom headquarters of IBM is also in my constituency. It is good to see the commercial expertise of that great international company involved in collaboration and co-operation with a British defence manufacturer. I take pride in that, too.
  The EH101 is the only truly modern helicopter being developed in Europe which will be available within the period of need to our armed forces. That is why I suggest that the Minister puts it at the top of his procurement list for the RAF. This is not just another helicopter that one could purchase off the shelf anywhere else. It is designed for the needs of today and of tomorrow. It has the potential to meet the needs of our armed forces for many years to come.
  I shall not go into the details of the aircraft's technical advantages over its most obvious rivals, but it would be sensible at least to list them for the benefit of those who

  907
  examine these matters closely. Apart from its Anglo-Italian design, the EH101 has certain technical advantages over all its competitors.
  First, the design of the rotor blades is remarkable. That is the key to the technical efficiency of the helicopter. Nothing else flying either in Europe or America offers the same efficiency.
  Secondly, allied to the efficiency of the rotors is the increased capability of the EH101 due to its built-in active control of vibration. Vibration is a major cause of wear in helicopters, leading to problems of maintenance and repair, which are in turn key factors in the immediate availability of an aircraft in wartime. The EH101 can measure and counteract the development of vibration, thanks to its careful original design.
  With any aircraft being used intensively in war, there is a need to check on its efficiency and safety, both for the success of an operation and for the safety of the crew. Such monitoring of safety and usage has been applied later to some helicopters, but the EH101 is the first to have had the monitoring system built in from the start. The idea was that this is an essential: it should not be a boll-on afterthought.
  I referred earlier to the different theatres of war in which our forces might be called upon to protect our interests. The EH101 has an enormous advantage over its potential competitors in that it has an all-weather capacity that is unsurpassed—indeed, unequalled—by any similar rotor aircraft. It means that it is an aircraft which can be used in weather in which helicopters would usually be grounded. Such arguments must be taken into account when we make a final decision.
  We have a British product which is well ahead of its nearest competitor and which is already likely to be a world beater. When the Royal Navy announced that it would opt for the Merlin version of the EH101, Canada followed and placed an order for the naval version but also ordered some of the utility versions, which we are recommending for the Royal Air Force. It is clear that other countries are watching closely the decision to be taken by the Ministry of Defence. They are looking to see what decision the British take on British products. If we show confidence, the product will he a world beater in not only the military but the commercial sense. It will be something that we can promote with great enthusiasm.
  I stress that the EH101 is not an expensive aircraft that we are trying to persuade the Minister to buy; it can be sold on the basis of value for money. If the Royal Air Force follows the Royal Navy and if, at some later stage, the Army also decided on a compatible helicopter to allow for flexible operations and the exchange of aircraft and spares in an emergency, not only would this helicopter remain excellent value, but its unit costs would be reduced. If the EH101 were the helicopter chosen across the armed forces, we would be getting an extremely good bargain. That should surely be kept in mind in the present economic circumstances.
  I have sought to establish that we need a decision that the EH101 is the prime choice. The final question is, when should an order be placed? The answer is tonight. A decision should be taken here and now. We need a commitment that the EH101 is the Government's choice. We need the decision to be taken quickly so that it is possible to continue the development of this fine aircraft and move on rapidly to its production. We need immediate
  908
  confirmation, which will itself convince potential customers that they can place their confidence where we have placed ours.
  We must express our confidence in the EH101 project. A great deal of money has already been spent on it. It is not an untried proposal but an aircraft available as the basic helicopter for our armed forces well into the next century. It is the ideal choice as a support helicopter for the Royal Air Force.
  3.3 am
  Mr. Michael Colvin: Even at this very late hour, I am pleased to take part in this important debate on support helicopters for the Royal Air Force.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) on initiating the debate and on the way in which he set out the arguments for the EH101 utility helicopter to fulfil our defence forces' requirements for support helicopters.
  I thank other hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, who signed the motion and therefore enabled this debate to be extended to three hours.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on his long-standing interest in the project. He has many potential subcontractors for the EH101 project in his constituency and he would have welcomed the opportunity to be here to participate in the debate, but unfortunately he has to visit the glorious Gloucester Regiment, which faces amalgamation. I believe that he must be there in time for reveille, so he is unable to be with us.
  I should like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), whose constituency is the home of Westland, on supporting the EH101 project throughout. The saying that a politician's mind is conditioned by the state of his seat certainly applies to the right hon. Gentleman, but I have some difficulty in reconciling his support for the project with his views on the social chapter and his party's views on defence expenditure.
  I put that point to him during our debate last Friday afternoon, but I was not satisfied with his response. He could not say which would cause the most damage to Westland's workers: the social chapter, with the additional burdens that it would impose on Westland as employers —Westland is very much against the social chapter—or the 50 per cent. cut in defence expenditure that his party advocates. He did not say, and probably could not say, what the answer to those questions was.
  Sir Jim Spicer: He is not here now.
  Mr. Colvin: As my hon. Friend says, he is not here to answer, so we will continue to put such questions to him.
  I have forgotten how many speeches I have made on defence matters, but in each I have made a plea for more helicopters. In April 1987, I thought that at last the Government had got the message, when the then Secretary of State announced that the Government would order 25 utility EH101 helicopters. We all cheered, but we are still awaiting confirmation of the order.
  I note that the full title of today's debate is "Support helicopters for the Royal Air Force". I cannot boast a great constituency interest in the manufacture of the EH101, although I dare say that few constituencies do not have some aerospace content, but the Army Air Corps is

  909
  just up the road from my constituency and down the road from my home. I am well aware that it would dearly like to be flying support helicopters for the Army. That, in a sense, is another debate, and I do not think that we want today's debate to be side tracked into a discussion about who should fly support helicopters. Let us just accept that our armed forces need them and, for the sake of the debate, that the RAF will be providing the pilots and the air crews.
  Each time I have made my plea for more support helicopters the circumstances have changed and the need has become more urgent. We saw the collapse of the Warsaw pact in 1989, and the so-called new world order, which has developed into new world disorder. We saw the peace dividend lead to the previous Secretary of State's introduction of "Options for Change". We saw the creation of new military structures—smaller but better is the new basis for our armed forces.
  We are seeing a far greater role for United Nations operations, following the Secretary-General's paper "The Agenda for Peace" with more peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace-building operations. There are 17 United Nations operations around the world, and 25 potential flashpoints where hostilities could break out at any moment where our troops may need to be deployed.
  As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United Kingdom should be ready to participate where Britain's national interest is identified—anywhere in the world. In the new NATO structure, in which we are privileged to lead the rapid reaction corps, we have an important role to play. Under the new-look NATO structure, a British-dominated rapid reaction corps totalling between 70,000 and 100,000 men will train for quick deployment. That means having an air mobile division made up of British, German, Belgian and Dutch units, and a southern region division, probably under Italian leadership.
  We must have the equipment to meet our new role, and our new obligations worldwide, and that means greater flexibility for our armed forces, and far greater mobility—two important principles of war. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, in his introduction to the recently published White Paper on the defence estimates for 1993, said:
  "improvements to our amphibious capability and the Army's anti-armour capability, and further investment in transport aircraft and support helicopters"
  were proposed. He at least has at last got the message.
  There is no doubt that, in trying to meet our obligations in providing peacekeeping and intervention forces, the United Kingdom is not adequately equipped. The fourth report of the Select Committee on Defence for this Session homes in on the problem of mobility and helicopters. It draws attention to the fact that a number of capabilities have been prioritised in the focus on intervention forces, the principal ones being helicopters, which are playing an increasingly important role in support and combat.
  Our report goes on:
  "A number of important choices remain to be made, notably on the choice of a support helicopter to replace the present fleet of ageing Wessex helicopters, and to complement the heavily stretched Pumas and Chinooks."
  It draws attention to the fact that the RAF operates a fleet of 140 aircraft in all—Chinooks, Pumas and Wessex support helicopters. It concludes:
  910
  "It is, however, doubtful whether MoD has sufficient helicopters to be able to perform the increased role that they envisage, and we are concerned at the apparent prevarication and lack of urgency with which the Minister is addressing this point."
  That is the Select Committee's conclusion this year.
  We can go back to 1989–90, when it said in its third report:
  "MOD's consideration of the requirement for support helicopters, and the way in which such a requirement should be met, stretches back to the mid 1970s and the matter needs urgent resolution."
  And so we say again this evening.
  Our report concludes:
  "We consider that the Ministry must face up to the fact that delay and inaction is becoming costly both in financial and effectiveness terms and that a decision on the way forward must be made immediately."
  I do not think that I need to say more, but I shall none the less.
  In United Nations operations, especially in Bosnia, there is a great need for support helicopters. The United Kingdom has had to send Sea King helicopters to Bosnia, presumably because we have run out of support helicopters. We have none to spare; they are all far too busy in Northern Ireland, where almost half of all our helicopter hours were flown in 1991–92 in support of our security operations.
  No one disputes the case for more helicopters. We could probably manage with fewer tanks, but that is another debate. The question is which helicopter should the Ministry of Defence order. Apparently, we have to consider three options. I wonder whether that is genuine or whether there is really only one that we must consider seriously. Currently, the force consists of 32 Chinooks, 42 Pumas and 64 Wessex, making a total of 138 support helicopters. That includes those undergoing repair, modification or refurbishment.
  There is certainly a case for commonality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North said. However, I should have thought that we could eliminate the Pumas —not because they are French, but because they are a very old design. They do not have the lift capability and they are too small. They carry only 12 men fully equipped; perhaps 16 not fully equipped. They do not have an adequate performance—the range is inadequate and they do not fly fast enough. They are a fair-weather aircraft, and my hon. Friend made the important point that we need a helicopter with all-weather capability.
  The performance of the Chinook is not that bad. It certainly has good lift capability, and can carry 42 men in all. It has old technology and is not especially reliable. Indeed, it is notable that Chinooks are no longer used in support operations for North sea oil and gas exploration. It is certainly a costly aircraft—not so much in its unit cost, as Boeing Vertol have cut that to the bone to try to get orders, as in its life cycle costs, on which the MOD now rightly concentrates.
  Even having got rid of all the amortisation, it still costs between £2,000 and £3,000 an hour to operate. That compares with £750 an hour for an EH101. It is obvious that the EH101 has a cost advantage. In fact, it only costs —I say "only", but it is still an expensive aircraft—about £12 million. One should also bear in mind the fact that the Chinook is an old design—30 years old—and needs midlife updates, which can be extremely costly. Those costs are presently estimated at between £4 million and £5 million.

  911
  We must not forget that all that expenditure occurs in the United States, so we pay for it in dollars and the work goes to American factories and workers. It has been the British Government's policy for many years to try to make the so-called two-way street of reciprocal sales and purchases with our American allies across the Atlantic more evenly balanced. The exchange is still 2:1 in favour of the United States of America, and to order Chinooks for the RAF would only make that two-way street more out of balance than it is already.
  We might he able to justify the purchase of some Chinooks as so-called attrition buys to replace those that we have lost for one reason or another. We cannot justify buying a 30-year-old design when a new, modern technology aircraft is available. The RAF would not take that action were it considering the purchase of fixed-wing aircraft, so why does it even consider doing so when considering the purchase of helicopters?
  Tonight we are considering the utility version of the EH101—EH stands for European Helicopters, which is a combination of Westland and Agusta. The commonality issue, which has been raised, is valid. The Ministry of Defence has already ordered 44 of the helicopters—the Merlin version—for the Royal Navy. It is important to have commonality with other countries within the rapid reaction corps, which I have mentioned.
  The Italians, who belong to that force, are joint manufacturers, with Westland, of the aircraft. The Dutch, who are also in the unit, are keen on the project and have already, as a matter of defence policy, quoted a preference for buying more helicopters and fewer tanks. The all-weather capability is important in relation to the EH101, which does not ice up. That means that the big capability gap in helicopters has at last been closed.
  We should not forget that Her Majesty's Government have already spent £1·3 billion on development of the aircraft—the air frames, the avionics and the engines. In all defence procurement it is important to consider the impact on Britain's industrial capability. There is no doubt that the helicopter would bring many jobs for British industry. It is estimated that 3,000 jobs would be created by the order for only 25 of the helicopters over three to four years.
  The RTM322 Rolls-Royce engine is made jointly with Turbomeca of France—half the development goes to each country—which may improve the chances of the French looking to the aircraft as a better support helicopter than the Puma, as it has greater capability. That engine is already flying in the fourth preproduction aircraft.
  The technological lead has been mentioned, and there is no doubt that the anti-vibration development—the active control structural response—means that the aircraft has great potential for civilian use. Those of us who have travelled in helicopters appreciate that vibration is one of the hazards. Undoubtedly, with a military version, the lack of vibration will have a significant bearing on the length of time that equipment on board lasts.
  The sales potential of the EH101 is good. The Canadians have already ordered it for their navy, as well as the utility version. The middle east is certainly a big potential market. Japan is also a potential market. It is estimated that the market for the EH 101 is probably about 750 aircraft, so eventually there will be many jobs for British workers if worldwide sales achieve that target. We
  912
  await the stamp of approval from the British Government for the utility version of the EH 101. Surely that will be a great encouragement to other countries to order it.
  Paragraph 122 of the defence White Paper, which is the section on the RAF's air transport and support helicopter fleet, says how vital the EH101 is to strategic and tactical mobility. It says that the RAF Chinook helicopters
  "are already the subject of a modernisation programme which will extend their lives well into the next century. We have been reassessing our requirement for support helicopters in the light of the changed strategic circumstances. We have concluded that, in view of the need for increased flexibility and mobility in the new operation environment, there is a need to procure additional support helicopters to supplement our existing assets. We are urgently considering how best this significant enhancement to our operational capability can be achieved."
  Once more, we say "hear, hear" to that.
  Timing is absolutely crucial. The Government cannot prevaricate any longer. We need to confirm the order for 25 EH101s and order a further 25 without delay.
  Mr. Bruce George: The hon. Gentleman knows that I would join him in support if it did not disqualify me from my debate, which is next on the Order Paper. He explained why the Government had been prevaricating. Why has there been such a delay? Is it that the defence procurement budget cannot sustain such an imaginative and long-awaited approach, or is somebody on the military side in the MOD sticking the knife in?
  Mr. Colvin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that interesting intervention. As far as those who take a special interest in defence matters are concerned, somebody in the Ministry of Defence seems to have it in for the EH101. I will not name names this evening—perhaps another hon. Member will be brave enough to do so. There is no doubt in the minds of those who have investigated the matter that the preference of the Royal Air Force is for the EH101 helicopter, so probably only one person is standing out against it at present. Perhaps if it were someone else in that position, it would be a much easier decision for the Secretary of State to make. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the position.
  I hope that this is my last speech on the subject of the EH101 helicopter. I hope that the Minister has received the message loud and clear, and will appreciate that the order for these aircraft is one way to ensure that, in the words of the White Paper, we defend our future.
  3.29 am
  Sir Jim Spicer: It must be well over 10 years since my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and I started to raise the subject of the EH101 in the House. Most Conservative Members have been ardent supporters of the home-grown product, and in that we have had Opposition support.
  This is a unique occasion because there are no fewer than six Conservative Members in the Chamber who all have a direct interest in the EH101 and the Westland factory. It is sad that the person with the greatest interest in Westland—for obvious good reasons—is not here to support his constituents. I speak of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrat party. Perhaps he has other fish to fry elsewhere. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey

  913
  and Waterside said, the right hon. Gentleman has always supported the cause, and perhaps it falls to me to speak on his behalf and on behalf of his constituents.
  Westland has about 7,000 workers, and probably well over 1,000 of them live in my constituency. The Lords Commissioner to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who is in his place on the Front Bench, could probably lay claim to 700 or 800 of those workers. Other hon. Members who are present for the debate represent a substantial number of people who are directly employed by Westland.
  However, that is only part of the total number, because all over the country and in—dare I mention it?—Christchurch, hundreds of subcontractors look to Westland for orders and, in particular, to the order for the EH101.
  Over the years we have all shared a sense of frustration. I was with the management of Westland in Yeovil on the night that the agreement with the Italian Government was signed. We waited anxiously in case there was any slippage, and we wondered whether our Secretary of State for Defence had signed up and whether anyone would renege. There was a great sense of relief when, as a result of pressure, the agreement was finally signed. The co-operative agreement between us and the Italian Government and Agusta is unique.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has said, there was an agreement in 1987 to purchase the utility version of the EH101. We are not dealing with a public inquiry on the channel tunnel or Twyford down or with a bypass for Dorchester. We expect such inquiries to be long-winded because of the unbelievable democratic process. Public inquiries can go on for ever, but we are not discussing a public inquiry but an internal Ministry of Defence matter. It is almost unbelievable that we and the Westland work force are still waiting some six years later.
  I accept that delicate balances sometimes have to be struck. I am reminded of the recent battle between Rosyth and Devonport. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who is to reply to the debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had to strike a balance and make a political decision. Day after day, they were bashed and bullied by those on both sides of the argument: the Scottish parliamentary lobby spoke for Rosyth, while the vociferous west country group spoke for Devonport.
  There is no such conflict with the EH101. It is a straight choice. The EH101 is first and foremost a British product, built in conjunction with the Italians; it is a modern, well-designed, superlative helicopter that will see us well into the next century. There is nothing wrong with the Chinook, but it is a bit clapped out in terms of design.
  I made my last parachute jump from a Dakota. I loved the Dakota—it was a marvellous aircraft—but it was designed in 1937–38, and we were still parachuting from it in 1957–58. That does not detract from it, but when we have the opportunity to buy a really modern helicopter, for God's sake let's get on with it. There is 100 per cent. support for it in the House and the country. If my hon.
  914
  Friend the Minister told the House, "We have made this political decision", he would have the wholehearted support of hon. Members and the country.
  Westland holds a unique place in the affection of our people. I have known and worked with the company for just over 20 years; it must be said that some 20 years ago it was not quite the company that it is today. What has happened to the work force and the factory over the past seven or eight years is almost unique: it is now a lean, fit company, producing a magnificent helicopter. I can only say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside suggested, it is high time we recognised that. By placing this initial order, we could trigger a potential order for 750 aircraft.
  There has been some mention of where the opposition to the order lies. I do not know, and I do not much care; what I know is that we cannot pretend for much longer that we have a genuine air-mobile capability if our air-mobile force does not contain enough helicopters to warrant naming a brigade or division as air mobile.
  This is not the time to discuss relative helicopter strengths. However, whether we look at the United States, the Germans or the French, we find that every country that has adopted an air-mobile role has provided sufficient helicopters. Only two weeks ago, in the debate on the estimates, I said that it was time for us to face up to the conflict—not that there is a conflict any longer—between the tank and the helicopter. We all know that the number of heavy battle tanks will be reduced dramatically: we must move to an air-mobile role, and we cannot do that without the EH101.
  I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to stand up and, diplomatically—as I know he will—make it clear to the isolated pockets in the Ministry of Defence that may oppose the placing of the order that we will not put up with that any longer. It has to be a political decision. It would be welcomed by everyone in the country. The sooner that that decision is made, the better it will be for the work force at Westland and for everyone on this side of the House.
  3.39 am
  Mr. Mark Robinson: I join in the congratulations given to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) on his success in securing the debate. I also confess a touch of nostalgia to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer). I am perhaps a little older than I look, but my first flight was in a Dakota and I have a great affection for that aircraft.
  I have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because many of my constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West, work at Westland. They are represented at all levels, from the chief executive, who is my constituent, to the shop floor. My hon. Friend mentioned the social chapter. There is deep anxiety about the effect that the social chapter would have on Westland's costs. It is worth passing that message through to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I concede that he has been a great supporter of the EH 101 project, but I hope that he will bear in mind some of the comments that have been made in the House about the social chapter.
  The continuing success of Westland group is important to the south-west, which has seen a great contraction in the defence industries. That has served to heighten the impact

  915
  of the recession throughout the region. As our armed forces seek to take their support helicopters into the next generation, Westland has produced in conjunction with Agusta the next generation helicopter, which is the only one of its type.
  Already the Government have ordered the Merlin variant of the EH101 for the Royal Navy, but there has been overlong delay in implementing the original decision of Lord Younger when he was Secretary of State for Defence in relation to the Royal Air Force.
  I should like to dwell on the jobs aspect and the technological advantages of the EH101, which I believe are clear. It has a unique all-weather capability and long-range operational potential, together with innovations to remove vibrations from the cabin. That demonstrates its advance over the present generation and places the aircraft at least seven years ahead of any possible rival. It fits precisely with the requirement of "Options for Change", namely, rapid reaction capability, which is so vital in this era of flexible response.
  The EH101 would be an asset in not only military operations but humanitarian exercises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said. The requirement to take part in humanitarian exercises is increasingly prevalent, as we were reminded by the United Nations Secretary-General's "Agenda for Peace". It is perhaps no coincidence that an earlier three-hour debate in the Chamber this evening was about the former Yugoslavia. The Sea King helicopter is playing a significant role in that very operation. If we look to the future, we can see the EH101, with its adaptability, playing an important humanitarian role.
  I have no doubt that recent international events have served to highlight the fact that the Government's decision in 1987 to support the EH101 project was correct. The only competition in sight seems to come from overseas, either in a possible lower capacity helicopter, which is only on the drawing board at present, or in old technology aircraft such as Chinook or Puma. Replacements for old technology aircraft will inevitably be sought sooner or later by their producers, but with some considerable delay compared with the availability of the EH101.
  In this efficiency-conscious era, it is important to seek commonality across our helicopter fleet, and the EH101 provides an opportunity to do that. With the Royal Navy using anti-submarine warfare, airborne early-warning and commando helicopters; the RAF using support, combat, research and rescue helicopters; and the potential for the Army and the Royal Marines to perform a variety of functions with a support helicopter, standardisation of the United Kingdom defence force fleet would bring obvious and varied advantages.
  Cost is an important ingredient. The price for the utility EH101 is more competitive now, bearing in mind the technological advances that it embodies and the reduction in through-life costs that it offers compared with previous generations of helicopters. Also, I understand that Westland has offered to reduce the initial procurement price of both the Merlin and utility variants if the RAF order is placed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear that in mind. I thank him for his forbearance in recent weeks. Although I am new to this subject, I cannot help feeling that when my hon. Friend sees me coming down the Corridor, he thinks, "My goodness—here comes another support helicopter."
  The EH 101 adds up to a convincing case for a British
  916
  product which will be at the forefront of technology, and which can succeed in the intensely competitive overseas defence market. Success depends on winning overseas orders. The RAF order confirmation would not only add to the Government's seal of approval but would be a welcome fillip to the overseas saleability of both the military and civilian version.
  Continuing indecision has made the battle to win orders more difficult than it might otherwise have been. The time must be right to put an end to that uncertainty. The estimated worldwide sales potential for 750 aircraft has a consequential spin-off worth at least £8 billion to this country—apart from orders that could develop in the United States.
  Westland has a unique product that can exploit a considerable gap in the world market at a time when other manufacturers are not ready to fill it. The RAF needs support helicopters. When it comes to exports, success at home breeds success abroad. So there is common purpose, and one that will provide much-needed jobs throughout the south-west.
  The necessary decision should not be further delayed. It would be welcome in not just Somerton and Frome but Christchurch, where there is a Westland facility that would benefit from the order. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do his best to ensure that a decision is made at the earliest possible opportunity.
  3.48 am
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I thank the large number of my hon. Friends who signed an application to the Speaker for this debate, and I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) who interrupted his holiday plans to introduce this debate on precisely the right note, which was maintained by my other hon. Friends.
  We are here to endear ourselves to my hon. Friend the Minister at 10 minutes to four in the morning, and I hope that our diligence will be rewarded. I know that the Minister will not want us to speak for too long, as he has other things to do. It was good of him to come here to answer the debate, which I hope he will find persuasive.
  I, as a matter of principle, support the theory that it is not for politicians to support one product or another when it comes to its adoption by the armed forces. However, for various reasons, that has become the practice in recent times, when the items concerned are competing domestically within the United Kingdom for the attention of the procurement division of the Ministry of Defence.
  As has already been pointed out, this is not one of those occasions. It is not a question of either Rosyth or Plymouth; it is a question of our helicopter being, without any doubt, the item. There is no technical rival to it in the world. It is clearly a question of money and of subversive pressure being exercised within the Ministry of Defence, which we must ask our Ministers to overcome by the sheer logic of the argument.
  For many years there has been a fundamental flaw in the acquisition of support helicopters for the British Army. They have been provided by the Royal Air Force. During the short time that I was in the Ministry of Defence, I sought to make that point. Subsequent to my departure, an inquiry was conducted. I am afraid that the lobbying

  917
  and politicking that went on resulted in no change to that basic policy but, as has already been said, this is neither the time of night nor the place to go into that matter.
  If we give one service responsibility for another service, inevitably that service will put its own service requirements and its own service priorities before those of the other service. Once again, this has been shown to be the root cause of the difficulty.
  Nobody has suggested that the next fighter aircraft for the Royal Air Force should be a 30-year-old design, or that the RAF should consider buying second-hand aeroplanes from the French, so why should the RAF do that when it comes to helicopters? The truth of the matter is that the RAF does not care. The helicopters are not for the RAF; they are for the Army. This is clearly seen to be a matter of prejudice within the RAF. I hope that the Minister will either deny that allegation or deal with it in due time.
  I heard a rumour that, despite the obvious decision, the RAF had said, "Let us re-write the specification." After all this time, that is so obviously and clearly a deliberate delaying tactic that I hope it will be seen for what it is.
  The cost of the original item is an important issue. No one has suggested that the EH101 is a particularly cheap aircraft but, as has rightly been pointed out, it is a reliable one. Those of us who have used machinery, in whatever way and in whatever form it may have come, know that it is no good having something cheap if it does not work and that it is worth paying for quality, design and a modern device.
  The fact that the Royal Navy has already ordered this aircraft, though a slightly different version, leads me to believe that there must be huge cost benefits in getting together with the Royal Navy, in terms of both spare parts and training, but I am far from convinced by what I have heard that these cost benefits are being taken into account, because there is no machinery for so doing. Each service does the costing for its aircraft. That, too, will, I hope, be taken into account. The aircraft's all-weather capacity, for example in respect of the former Yugoslavia, is also important. We have sent troops into the former Yugoslavia and we have apparently had to borrow Royal Navy helicopters because there are simply not enough RAF helicopters. That is an appalling situation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), in an excellent speech in which he covered all the technical points that apply to the argument, said that he had been making speeches about helicopters for many years. I have been doing the same. For year after year, we have pointed out the absolute requirement for more helicopters, and particularly for those of a general purpose and utility nature.
  I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats have been unable to field someone to participate in the debate. However, it is acknowledged that there is all-party agreement on the issue in the House. When my hon. Friend returns to the MOD, I hope that he will take a very clear message from this debate. Although I have a Westland plant in my constituency and most of us have some interest in Westland and its sub-contractors, there is a basic defence argument that promotes this helicopter beyond all others. As I said at the beginning of my speech, that must be the parameter on which defence equipment is chosen.
  918
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to put down very swiftly the counter-arguments that have been raised for entirely the wrong reasons. I hope that he will acknowledge that this is the best helicopter for the armed forces, that it should be purchased, that that purchase should start forthwith, and that that message should go out to our friends and allies who will also consider purchasing the helicopter when they see the confidence that should so rightly be placed in it by the RAF.
  3.56 am
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) on securing this debate. He said that it was the Adjournment debate. Unfortunately, it is not. I have the Adjournment debate, which will take place at 8 am. The hon. Gentleman will understand if I am brief.
  I have just come from the Tea Room, where we saw one of the famous Westminster mice. However, before that, I smelt a rat. It is a pity that the Liberal Democrats were not here to see it. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) pointed out the Christchurch factor. I will be the first person to congratulate the Minister tonight on announcing the order for the 25 EH101s.
  Many of us have been involved in politics for a long time. I recall the Labour party once being accused of building the Humber bridge in order to win a by-election. I think that that accusation was made by Conservative Members. I am sure that the Minister is going to announce the project tonight. It is not often that we have such a noble array of knights of the shires on the Conservative Benches at 4 am. They know, and I know, that the Minister has decided that two days before the Christchurch by-election would be a good time to announce the project.
  The EH101 is an excellent aircraft which has always been supported by the Labour Benches. It is a pity that it has taken the Government more than six years to confirm that it is to be built. According to my notes, Lord Younger was only Mr. Younger—he had not even received his knighthood—when, in April 1987, he announced his intention to replace the Pumas with 25 utility versions of the EH101 in preference to the Chinooks. He said:
  "The choice will build on the investment that we have already made in the naval version, and reflects our policy on European helicopter collaboration."—[Official Report, 9 April 1987; Vol. 114, c. 470.]
  That was the position in 1987. It has taken a by-election in Christchurch to announce the project. We are pleased that a sinner repents, and I am sure that that will be welcomed in the west country.
  In the spring, I went to the Westland factory at Yeovil. It is an excellent facility. The craftsmanship was fine, the management were fine, and there was great co-operation between the trade unions and the management. I was very disappointed to hear tonight that they were against the social charter. It would not seem to have an effect on such a good employer as Westland. Perhaps that is more to do with politics than with industrial relations.
  As hon. Members have said, the situation with regard to support helicopters is desperate. It is not just one person in the Ministry of Defence, even if that person is suspected of being high up in the chain of command. I have talked

  919
  to several senior RAF officers over the past 18 months. There is no doubt that they are lukewarm about the helicopter.
  The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) mentioned that the pilots also fly helicopters for the Army. That situation is not satisfactory, and it has to be tackled. That is why we are in such a plight with our helicopters. In the past, the Army wanted more tanks, the RAF wanted more Tornados, and the number of helicopters suffered. Now, in the new ball game, we do not need as many Tornados or tanks, and we do not have any helicopters. That is nonsense. The Conservative Government have been in office for the past 14 years, so they must take the blame for the present situation.
  The Minister's announcement will save jobs. I record my disappointment that no Liberal Democrats are present. They are probably in Christchurch gathering votes. The Minister is in the Chamber gathering votes We will welcome the Minister's announcement. It is a pity it has taken so long.
  4.1 am
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) on his good fortune in securing this debate, which the House and the Government regard as a subject of prime importance. My hon. Friend said that support helicopters are essential to the future of our armed forces. I certainly concur in that judgment.
  I recognise that this nocturnal debate, polite and even-tempered though it has been, symbolises the rising political temperature of the subject. I am aware that a large number of hon. Members have signed the motion which led to the debate. I am aware also that, in recent months, many more hon. Members have tabled parliamentary questions, written letters on the subject, and even, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) said, forcefully buttonholed Ministers in the corridors. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) summed up the matter when he eloquently spoke of his feelings of "frustration" at the seemingly endless twists and turns over the long delays that have characterised this matter. I understand his and other hon. Members' strong feelings.
  The saga of support helicopters for our armed forces has been Wagnerian in its length and Shakespearean in its complexity. Many of my hon. Friends would like the saga to be brought to a glorious conclusion tonight, with the equivalent of the crashing chords of the entry of the gods into Valhalla or the speech of Henry V at the siege of Harfleur. In commercial terms, that would mean the announcement of an order. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North said that he was expecting an order tonight.
  That phrase seems to have sent the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) into orbit. In his political excitement, he has smelt a by-election rat. He thinks that it is the Tory card to win the Christchurch by-election. The hon. Gentleman's sense of smell is characteristically misplaced. What we have heard tonight is the familiar sound of the Labour party harking up the wrong tree.
  This is a serious and important subject. I understand the impatience that has been expressed by my hon. Friends, and I recognise the formidable political pressure
  920
  that has been exerted by all parties on this issue. I noted in particular the telling quotations from the Defence Select Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) reminded the House.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), a former Defence Minister, reminded us, this is, above all, a defence issue. Such issues are always subject to careful consideration and deliberation. I am sorry to say that tonight I will not announce an order for helicopters, but I will signpost the way ahead and give my hon. Friends some encouraging and hopeful signs in response to the good points that they have raised.
  As my hon. Friends reminded the House, the starting point for the debate was the announcement in 1987 by the then Secretary of State for Defence, my noble Friend Lord Younger. He declared that the Government had an intention to place an order for 25 utility EH101 support helicopters. He made it clear, however, that that was subject to the resolution of contractual and other issues.
  Since 1987, we have witnessed dramatic changes in the strategic environment. The Warsaw pact has collapsed and the former Soviet Union now belongs to the history books We have made great progress in establishing mutual trust between ourselves and our former adversaries.
  At the same time, the release of tensions previously restrained under the old cold war structures has made the world, in some respects, a less stable and less certain place. We must now look beyond the possibility of a static conflict in the central region.
  We now require a much more flexible approach. That word was used in many speeches tonight and I accept its importance in relation to support helicopters. The linear battlefield has become a thing of the past, and we must look towards equipping our armed forces so that they are adaptable and mobile.
  Against that background of change, it was only right that we should reassess our requirement for support helicopters—just as we have had to reassess our requirements for all aspects of our defence capability. "Options for Change" remains the foundation for such assessments, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear in the 1993 defence White Paper "Defending our Future", it is important that we retain the ability to respond and adapt to a fluid strategic situation. Accordingly, my right hon. and learned Friend announced in "Defending our Future" that we plan to introduce a number of additional support helicopters to our existing fleet.
  A great deal of work has been necessary to establish the new requirement for support helicopters. We have in particular been looking at the nature of the tasks that our future support helicopter fleet is likely to perform. I am conscious that this process has taken some time. Some of my hon. Friends would say that it has taken too much time. I am pleased to say, however, that we have now completed our reconsideration of the requirement. We are now addressing the next step—the procurement strategy.
  The main conclusion is to confirm that our current support helicopter fleet is not large enough to carry out the tasks that will be assigned to it under the concepts of operations which are being developed to meet the defence roles of our forces. The Army's new role in the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps is just one of the developments which has led to an increased demand for support helicopter capability. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside was right to draw attention to

  921
  that dimension of the argument. We have therefore assigned support helicopters a high priority within the overall defence programme, and we have made substantial financial provision within the forward programme for the procurement of additional helicopters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North referred to the fact that this is the age of peacekeeping. The field Army's requirement in this new age insists on greater mobility and flexibility. The requirement for support helicopters can be broadly broken down into two areas. First, we must look towards meeting the requirement for more helicopters to support field Army, providing it with the increased flexibilty and mobility that it now requires. Secondly, we need to address the problems posed by the limited performance and capabilities of our existing Wessex fleet.
  I will not go into detail here about the options for the Wessex. It would be helpful for the House, however, if I set out the considerations facing the military strategist and planner in the new strategic environment of the last decade of the 20th century and beyond.
  First, there is likely to be a requirement to project force over greater ranges. Ranges between points of disembarkation and the forward operational area may be considerable, and sometimes much more demanding than previous central region logistic requirements. For example, during the Gulf conflict, the distance from A1 Jubayl to the field force maintenance area in Saudi Arabia was 300 km, with the tactical assembly areas a further 150 km beyond. Or, as another up-to-date peacekeeping example, it is a day's journey by road or track from Split harbour and airport to the base of the British UNPROFOR battalion in Bosnia, but only one hour by helicopter.
  Secondly, Army operations may be conducted in areas with a much less developed communications infrastructure than was the case in the central region. Thirdly, operations on a more fluid and less dense battlefield will require greater support helicopter mobility and reach.
  A more capable and versatile support helicopter force is therefore needed for military activities across the spectrum of conflict, which may range from peacetime support operations to major ACE rapid reaction corps deployments and high-intensity operations.
  A support helicopter may seem a fairly straightforward piece of equipment at first sight, but the view of support helicopters as the airborne dumper truck of the battlefield is an over-simplistic one. There are, in fact, a great many operational, technical and contractual matters that have to be resolved in order to get the right kit into the hands of our forces. Needless to say, this has to be done in a way that achieves best value for money—not only for the taxpayer, but also for the forces themselves, so that they derive the maximum capability from what is inevitably a finite defence budget.
  Because these calculations are so important, we must be sure that we get them right. With the best will in the world, this takes time. It may therefore help the House if I give an insight into some of the factors that we have to take into account.
  Mr. Martlew indicated dissent.
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Member for Carlisle shakes his head, as though these things did not matter, but they are serious, and I am sorry that he is not interested in them.
  Mr. Martlew: The Government have had since 1987 to make these calculations, yet the Minister comes here to tell us of more delay.
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is still excited about the Christchurch by-election. Like Harold Wilson, he is a man whose vision is limited to tomorrow's headlines. I am trying, at this thoughtful nocturnal hour, to take the House into the Government's confidence and to outline the factors involved in reaching the decision to which all thoughtful people want to move quickly—but it must be the right one.
  First, there is the straightforward question of lift. There are some loads that, either for physical or operational reasons, cannot be broken down beyond a certain size. Indeed, some, such as artillery pieces or Land Rovers, are so large that they have to be carried as underslung loads. We thus have an unavoidable requirement for a certain minimum number of very large helicopters—I shall return later to the way in which our present fleet meets this requirement. But most of our loads are divisible and are thus liftable by a number of different helicopter types.
  At first sight, one might be led intuitively to suppose that the most economical way of carrying this balance would be with a smaller number of larger aircraft, much as it is cheaper and quicker to move house with a single large removal lorry rather than with innumerable car loads. If lift were the only concern, this analogy might have some validity. But for support helicopters, there are other considerations: flexibility, survivability, maintainability and through-life costs. Flexibility, for example, is of particular concern. This is achieved largely through having a greater number of helicopters. It may in some circumstances be operationally advantageous to have a larger number of smaller helicopters, even where that results in lower overhaul lift for a given investment. Needless to say, this greater number of smaller helicopters would be an economic proposition only if the smaller helicopter were significantly cheaper than the larger helicopter.
  We also have to consider the configuration of the helicopter itself. The ability to carry underslung loads is significant, although it is preferable from the point of view of agility and vulnerability to carry loads inside wherever possible. The capacity to carry fully-laden troops and bulky internal loads is important, as is the ability to load them on and off quickly. For this, a rear ramp is essential. That is one advantage of the EH101. Another factor is the aim of not having too many eggs in one basket. A balance has to be struck between the attraction of retaining operational coherence with large loads and the operational consequences of losing such a load.
  The survivability of the helicopter depends on three factors: first, the ability to fly with sufficient agility close to the ground to avoid being seen; secondly, the size of target that is presented, both in conventional and radar and infra-red terms; and, thirdly, the ability to withstand a hit through, for example, the duplication of certain essential flight systems. Clearly, most of those factors are influenced by size, although others could be expected to feature more strongly in a modern design.

  923
  Reliability is another important factor in operational and financial terms. The consequence of breakdowns during operations is self-evident, especially in the later phases of a prolonged battle. Reliability also influences the number of aircraft needed to maintain a given establishment in peacetime. The more reliable a particular type, the fewer helicopters we have to buy to maintain a particular establishment size.
  The final factor is ease of maintenance and low through-life costs. We see great attractions in the latest form of health and usage monitoring system, known as HUMS. HUMS monitors wear and tear on a continuous basis, thus enabling just the right amount of work to be done at precisely the right time. When taken with the ease of access and the maintainability of modern designs, it clearly contains the cost and deployment of spares and support staff.
  I hope that I have given the House a flavour of the complex analysis which has to be undertaken to find the best way forward. Some of the debate has centred around the two main contenders, the Chinook and the utility EH101. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said. It is a difficult comparison as, to some extent, the Chinook and the utility EH101 are like apples and pears. They are two very different aircraft, with very different virtues.
  The Chinook clearly has the larger lift capability and there are therefore some tasks that only the Chinook is capable of performing. Our Chinooks have given excellent service, and the fleet is now undergoing a mid-life update which will increase its viability and extend its life. We expect to gain many more years of service from this helicopter. However, the Chinook will never match every feature of a newer generation helicopter such as the EH101.
  So far, my Department has invested about £1·4 billion in the development of the EH101. It is primarily in support of our procurement of the Merlin anti-submarine warfare variant, but it included the airframe which is, of course, the essence of the utility version.
  We are well pleased with the progress of the Merlin and we have no doubt that the utility version will be a thoroughly reliable modern helicopter, possessing all the features that one would expect of its generation.
  Several of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North, mentioned the fine technical qualities of the EH101, such as its vibration control, the advanced design of its rotor blades and its unsurpassed all-weather capacity. They and a number of advantages that have been so well championed by its manufacturers, Westland, will of course be taken into account, as will the industrial factors of which some of my hon. Friends spoke so eloquently. We shall also bear in mind the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North to the effect that Westland held a unique place in the affections of his constitutents and many others across the country.
  One or two of my hon. Friends mentioned the export potential of the EH101. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome spoke of an £8 billion export potential. I assure my hon. Friends that I am very conscious of the EH101's considerable potential in that respect, and I congratulate Westland on its success last year in winning an order for 50 EH101s from the Canadian Government. My Department, and specifically the
  924
  Defence Export Services Organisation, will continue to give the company every support in pursuing other export prospects.
  There is currently an export prospect in Holland. I have had constructive and comprehensive discussions with my Dutch counterpart, and the two Ministries of Defence have exchanged detailed information about their requirements. At a recent meeting, I took my Dutch counterpart through our thinking in some detail. Hon. Members will appreciate that those discussions on a Government-to-Government basis must remain confidential, but I can assure my hon. Friends that we have done our best to be helpful in this and all other export cases.
  I have tried to summarise the wide panorama of points and interests that this helicopter decision encompasses. I hope that I have fairly summarised the nature of the decisions that we face. There is no doubt that we have a requirement for additional medium support helicopters. The characteristics that we seek are varied, reflecting the range of operational scenarios that we now face. The world is certainly a different place from the days of 1987. We need the flexibility, familiarity and dependability of a proven aircraft and the benefits of reliability and survivability that are promised by a modern design. We need lift capability and agility.
  Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend deal with the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) on the specification of the EH101? My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State confirmed before the Select Committee that the EH101 meets the Ministry of Defence's required specification. Will the Minister confirm that that is so?
  Mr. Aitken: I can confirm that. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we have looked at this very carefully, and the EH101 meets the specifications that we have laid down.
  Although the specifications of the Chinook and of the EH101 are fine, there is no perfect solution to the catalogue of requirements that I have outlined. There would seem to be clear operational support attractions in a mixed fleet solution as well as the industrial advantages to which many hon. Members have drawn attention, but the prices quoted by the manufacturers will be crucial to our choice. I cannot stress this latter point too strongly. I was very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned it in a passage of some eloquence. Overall value for money is the key. I shall certainly be delighted to see him coming down the corridor if he brings me further news of price reductions from any manufacturer.
  Sir Jim Spicer: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that there must be value for money, but one manufacturer has been producing helicopters for the past 30 years and is determined to dominate the world market. It might be prepared to enter into unfair competition with the aim of destroying the opponent's capability of breaking into its potential market. Surely there comes a point when price ceases to be a factor, and we have to bear in mind the national interest.
  Mr. Aitken: Of course we bear in mind the national interest, and, although my hon. Friend is right to signal some anxiety on this point, we in the Ministry of Defence were not born yesterday. Any manufacturing company

  925
  whose product has had a long run could, towards the end of the run, offer a much cheaper price—my hon. Friend calls it an unfair price, but it would be a much cheaper price—compared with a company that is bringing on the newest technology just after development. As I tried to say earlier, not just in product but in price one would to some extent be comparing apples and pears. I did not use the phrase "financial price" so much as "value for money", which is the key calculation. I was simply stressing that, in the final judgment, overall value for money is the key to procurement decisions.
  We are now in the last stages of our studies and deliberations. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare spoke with all his experience as a former Defence Minister of delaying tactics by service interests. I assure him that Ministers have gripped the issue firmly and are determined to move forward speedily. We are well aware of the urgency of the matter and of the urgency of our forces' requirements. We are also aware of the industrial case, which has been made so well tonight.
  I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Carlisle by not being able to make an announcement on the way forward before the recess. I assure the House that we hope to make a further announcement soon.

  Private Security Industry
  4.24 am
  Mr. Bruce George: I had thought of apologising to the Minister for detaining him at this late hour, but, on mature reflection, I concluded that his colleagues and predecessors at the Home Office had been detaining me since 1977 over the introduction of a regulatory or licensing system for the private security industry. Therefore, I feel slighly less guilty about keeping him up late, or dragging him in early.
  I presume that my speech will be as unsuccessful as the speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House in the last debate. They have been campaigning for five or six years so they have some time to catch up with my abortive campaign. My speech will not be one, as might have been anticipated, bashing Group 4 Total Security; nor shall I be nasty to the Home Secretary. Others have done that far more successfully than I have over the past couple of days, so I shall not add to his misery.
  My interest in controlling the private security industry goes back to the 1970s. The first Member of Parliament who, to my knowledge, raised the issue of control and licensing of the private security industry was the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). I see from "The Times Guide to the House of Commons" that the Minister who is to reply was his Parliamentary Private Secretary some time ago. The right hon. Gentleman, now the chairman of the Conservative party, has continued his interest in the private security industry as a non-executive director of Group 4, an interest which is well known and clearly declared. His interest was sustained, but not in seeking legislative change.
  I recall, when I started my campaign in 1977, a senior figure in the industry, having seen parliamentarians displaying but not always sustaining an interest in licensing, asked me whether I was a "flash in the pan". A decade and a half later, I am still plugging away, still facing this impenetrable wall of bureaucratic and political inertia in the Home Office. One day, maybe that will change.
  I have a non-pecuniary interest to declare. I am a patron of the Institute of Security Management. Other people in another place have campaigned for many years alongside me. Regrettably, two of those stalwarts have died—Baroness Phillips and Lord Ted Willis. I pay tribute to what they did.
  Who is opposed to the eminently sensible and logical plan to regulate the private security industry, an increasingly important industry? Many other countries have concluded that one cannot allow a free market to develop without some regulation. The Home Office is opposed to such plans. Some big captains of the private security industry are opposed, and some of the criminal classes are opposed because it would make it more difficult for them to find lucrative employment in an industry that is open to entry by them.
  The Home Office is opposed because, basically, it is anti-regulatory and there is a profound philosophical indifference to my argument for a licensing authority. However, many countries deeply committed to the free enterprise ethic do not see regulation of the private security industry as inimical to the free market. One would not call the United States a bastion of socialism, but most of its states have some form of regulatory system.

  927
  A recent report prepared by the Dutch Ministry of Justice on the European private security industry has been used by European employers and Euro-Fiet, a federation of European trade unionists, as a basis for discussion on the licensing and regulation of the private security industry across Europe. The report concludes:
  "Britain is the only country (of the 18 countries surveyed) without any legislation.… In most European countries there is some form of legislation.… A notable exception is Great Britain. In all European countries except Britain authorization requirements and operating conditions are imposed."
  But not, I emphasise, in this country.
  The Government's philosophy of antipathy to licensing is well known beyond the private security inidustry. Their antipathy to regulation of the industry is clearly expressed in a recently published, but not widely distributed, report entitled "The private security inidustry: background paper." Paragraph 25 says:
  "Market forces … operate. Inevitably, users of the industry get what they pay for … The Government would not wish to intervene in a way which relieved users of security companies of their responsibilities for setting and monitoring effective contracts with these companies. It is ultimately for users to ensure that the company they choose is competent and reliable, and to include strict requirements for employee vetting, training, supervision and performance in their contracts."
  It is wrong to argue that the people hiring the private security firm would be familiar with the organisations set up by the industry, that they would know the performance of the companies that were members of those associations, or that they wouild be familiar with the Manned Services Inspectorate. If they wished to purchase a security system —I am having one installed in four hours' time, which is not the reason for the debate but is an indication of its topicality for the George household—they would be unlikely to be familiar with the term NACOSS—the National Approval Council for Security Systems—which is the supervisory association for security systems.
  To impose on potential hirers of security companies the obligations to be knowledgeable about the technical intricacies as well as performance and competence is asking a great deal. Taxi drivers have to prove competence and honesty; surely the same should apply to personnel who will guard property and lives. It is wrong to rely on market forces and knowledge of the free market.
  The industry has grown in leaps and bounds. We can trace its private detective origins to the mid-19th century. Locksmiths go back many centuries before that. Guarding —which is what I am largely, although not exclusively, talking about tonight—goes back to the early 16th century when men were first paid by private individuals to guard private property. There was the Watch, which was made up of men working on a rota basis. Later, people who were part of the rota appointed substitutes to work on their behalf—generally speaking they were the unemployable. The author Henry Fielding said of the watches, which were disparagingly called "Charlies":
  "They are chosen out of those poor, decrepit people who are from their want of bodily strength rendered incapable of getting a living by work."
  The bad odour that surrounds the private security industry is not a phenomenon of the late 20th century. The impetus for reform came from the City of London. I accuse the Government of turning back the clock on policing by almost a century and a half.
  In the pre-policing era, if one wished for security and the protection of life and property, one had to rely on one's own endeavours. The municipality employed guards, but
  928
  they were generally pretty ineffective; banks hired their own guards for the transportation of money; people who lived in private homes or groups of homes hired private watchmen. All these measures were rendered superfluous and marginal by the establishment of the modern police force.
  When society and the state assumed responsibility for policing, the private sector atrophied. Now, regrettably, the public cannot find the remotest guarantee of protection of life and property from the police force, because its numbers have not grown commensurate with the growth in crime. The inevitable consequence is the increased use of the private security industry, which now operates in areas that were hitherto the responsibility of the police.
  Private individuals hire companies to install burglar alarms. Hospitals, and even schools, employ their own security guards. There is an enormous growth in security for the home, for factories and for shopping malls. Only last weekend I heard of a private security firm in Solihull called Rentacop. It patrols a private estate and proudly boasts that its security operation will relieve the police of the great responsibility of patrolling that housing estate.
  The area from which my parents come in south Wales provides a further example of how the public are frightened, not by the perception of crime, but by the reality of crime. Residents in the district have set up more than a neighbourhood watch; there is a rota system in which two people patrol throughout the night, with a third person manning a telephone. There has been a levy on householders to raise money to buy a mobile telephone. That measure has had the support of the police.
  In south Wales, there has also been a growth in aggressive vigilantism, which has led, in one case, to loss of life. We have seen the emergence of hell's angels and the terrifying evolution of self-help security in the era of do-it-yourself policing. I do not regard that as a model of security to which we should aspire. I would be terrified at the thought of the privatised security industry de facto, and eventually perhaps de jure, operating alongside the police—with the police responding to major crimes and the private security industry increasingly taking on tasks that were previously carried out by the police.
  The Government have deliberately encouraged the growth of the private security industry. The Government have also encouraged the private sector to take on responsibility in prisons and for the guarding of immigrants. Before the Minister says it, I know that that policy started in, I think, 1978. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 contained further inanities such as the privatisation of prison escorts and court security. The private industry is lapping up those developments.
  The private security industry has been enormously advantaged by the Government's inability to control crime —it is the principal beneficiary of that failure. I shall not dwell too long on criminal statistics, which are published annually, but the latest report for 1991 said that there had been an annual increase of 6 per cent. in the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police between 1981–91. For crimes of violence against the person, there was an annual increase of 7 per cent.; robbery, 8 per cent.; burglary, 5 per cent.; criminal damage, 8 per cent.; and other offences, 10 per cent.
  We are all aware of the percentages of crimes that take place as opposed to those that are recorded. The latest

  929
  report "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1991" Command 2134 published by the Home Office shows that recorded burglaries rose by more than 20 per cent. It says:
  "Robberies rose at a faster rate than all other main offence groups in 1991 with a 25 per cent. increase."
  The staggering increase in crime has led people who are unable to rely on the police, as they did in the past, to fall into the willing hands of the private security industry. The industry is adaptable. It sees a commercial imperative and seizes further opportunities. A further reason for growth in the private security industry is not simply the increase in the crimes but the new crimes that are coming into existence. That has led to the industry prospering.
  I am not opposed to the private security industry. There are those who see me as an enemy of the industry. It is quite the reverse. I recall giving written evidence to the Home Secretary, Lord Whitelaw, in 1979. In the foreword to my report, I said:
  "The industry is important and will develop further in the public interest as well as the interest of the companies, their employees and the consumers of security services only if the parameters of their activities are set by Government, minimum standards are laid down and entry is controlled. I pay tribute to those thousands of competent, trained, honest and dedicated people who man many security operations. They face a danger often more serious than that faced by the police. Armed criminals increasingly have, as their targets, armoured vehicles. Lives have been lost and individuals injured, even maimed, and all this for a miserable wage."
  I deny that my solution is other than in the interests of the private security industry. If the industry is prepared to press for regulation, eventually the Home Office may relent.
  We are talking about an enormous industry. It is much larger than the police. if one takes it in its broadest sense. It has a turnover of £2 billion per year—one report suggests six billion ecu. We are talking about manned security; security guards in armoured vehicles; retail security; designers, installers and maintainers of alarms, locks, safes and security equipment; security consultants; those engaged in security storage; access control; security printing; office security; private investigating; VIP protection and security in places of entertainment. This is an enormous industry and one which will prosper fully only when it is operating within parameters laid down by legislation.
  What is wrong with the industry at present? The first problem, but not necessarily the principal problem, is the penetration of the industry by those with serious criminal records. The Home Office dismisses that as alarmism. I recall a programme called "Punters" on BBC radio after the last general election. I thought of writing in and asking, "Could you find out why the Home Office is so hostile to the concept of licensing?" However, I was beaten to it by a guy from the north-east who was angry at how easy it was for him to come out of gaol and find a job in the private security industry. He was advised by a cellmate to join a specific company. It is easy to get into the industry.
  Paragraph 55 of the sixth report 1989–90 of the Select Committee on Defence, of which I am a member, says:
  "We cannot however overlook the weight of evidence presented to us on the private security industry, which demonstrates its inability to ensure that it does not employ proven criminals or those with criminal intentions."
  930
  The chief constable of North Wales, who was at that time chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers crime committee, briefed the Select Committee on Defence, and in its report the Committee said:
  "From this briefing and from information on particular cases which have been supplied to us, it is evident that there is a very serious problem with the calibre of people employed by private security firms, arising in part from the employment of guards with criminal records."
  The Minister will be aware of the leaked report from the Association of Chief Police Officers in 1987. It identified from a limited survey 609 firms that had given the police cause for concern. Another report by the association in 1990, prepared at the request of the Home Office, found 168 instances of staff, owners, managers and directors of private security firms being arrested or charged with serious offences. I understand that the police are still looking for a former Securicor employee, Eddie Maher, who hopped it with £1 million. Securicor has put up a reward of £100,000.
  Despite all that, the Government deny that there is a problem. I have bulging files on crimes committed by private security guards. Of course, they are in a minority, and it would be wrong for me to castigate a large number of honest people and taint them with criminal intentions. However, that minority is worrying, because it demonstrates that it is painfully easy to enter the private security industry. A recent report published in "Police Review" was prepared by a guy called Graham Birch, who went into the industry to seek to prove the point that he wished to make. He asked:
  "Flow easy is it to be employed as a security guard without any vetting, so gaining access to property to steal, or plant a bomb if so inclined? My research has shown that often it is frighteningly straightforward."
  I shall deal for a few moments with the case study of the growth of crime and how it affects the private security industry. Shopping centres are guarded by private security companies, and that phenomenon illustrates the range of crime that such firms have to deal with. They include car park crime, risk of fire—accidental or arson—ram raiding, a crime that is euphemistically called shrinkage, bilking, credit card theft, armed robbery, racial harassment and attacks, terrorism, extortion and kidnapping.
  Those crimes are examples of pressures on the private security industry, and I am afraid that in many cases and for a variety of reasons the industry does not measure up to the task. One of the reasons for that is the lack of any obligation on the industry to have a decent training regime. The bigger companies rarely invest more than three days in initial training on the job. How can one expect people to function as effective security officers after such a short period of training? The overwhelming majority of the personnel in the private security industry do not have three days—or even three hours—training.
  A recent report shows that we have probably the lowest percentage of trained guards in the European Community. Training schemes in the contract cleaning industry arc infinitely better thought out and more comprehensive. The British Institute of Cleaning Science manual shows that the cleaning operator's proficiency certificate is infinitely preferable to anything in the private security industry for the training of personnel. If the security services involved in cleaning can embark on such a path, I only hope that the private security industry will do so.
  There have been improvements in, for instance, the City and Guilds and the security industry training organisation.

  931
  Last year, I presented a national vocational certificate at Olympia; I believe that the British Standards Institution is doing a great deal of work, as are our universities and colleges. Progress has been made over the past decade, but only for companies that wish to subject themselves and their employees to a training regime.
  How often do such schemes involve middle or top management? In a number of American states, unless the principals of a company can prove that they have qualifications in the private security industry, they are not allowed to function. If that happened in this country, most private security companies would be driven out of business.
  Criminality and gross inefficiency are two of the problems involved. It is not surprising that inefficiency is rampant: pay is usually very bad. GMB/APEX is one of the unions that have made a great deal of progress. We are talking about good employers who pay a decent wage; but let us envisage a situation in which a good company—company A—puts in a bid for a contract. It pays a decent wage; the personnel are properly supervised; there are proper communications and proper holiday pay. The company takes out a good insurance policy, so that if one of its personnel sets fire to a factory, compensation will be possible. Company B is a cowboy outifit with low wages; the guys must work 70, 80 or 90 hours a week, and receive poor holiday pay, poor supervision, poor uniforms and no insurance.
  In many cases, the hirer will opt for the cheapest bid. Almost inevitably, price competition means that quality will suffer: in most cases, good companies cannot compete with the rubbish, and are compelled to lower their standards to stay in business.
  Turnover can be 100 per cent. in many companies; hours can be long, because the wages are so abysmal. Performance is often rubbish. The Defence Select Committee inquired into a company which will remain nameless: it was referred to simply as "serial 46". Our report concluded that that company represented one of the most appalling stories that we had heard in the last 10 years. The Committee has mounted four or five inquiries into the private security industry, as it pertains to the Ministry of Defence.
  The company had a contract with the MoD's procurement executive in north London. According to the report,
  "For a period of over a year, from early 1989, the company received a series of formal warnings, following complaints of 'too high a turnover of staff, not enough staff always provided, staff not always wearing uniform and staff coming on duty without having been through the due processes'.
  "To cap this litany, there were on more than one occasion cases of vandalism committed by the guards, including the smashing of windows. The Director of MoD Security unfolded a horrifying tale of inefficiency, idleness and absenteeism. The company was given, in effect three months' notice in November 1989, and this contract was prematurely terminated on 20 February 1990. The firm was not replaced immediately, as there were no available alternatives."
  We concluded that the fact that the company's
  "security guards should be unable to prevent occasional criminal damage on dispersed civilian sites was understandable, if regrettable. But that they should themselves indulge in an apparent spree of vandalism on a Ministry of Defence site; that it should not even be an isolated occurrence, but one matched by employees of other companies at other MoD sites: and that the MoD should not be able instantly to remove the security guards for lack of a viable alternative beggars belief."
  932
  The performance of the industry is often grossly sub-standard. The Government cannot wash their hands of performance and say that it is purely a matter for the market to determine.
  I have talked about criminality, poor performance, absence of accountability, low public esteem, which stretches from indifference to amusement, and poor relations with the police. I have not given the argument of private armies because I feel that it is invalid. I do not see Group 4, Securicor or Security Express marching down Whitehall to remove a Government, however attractive that might appear at present. There is not the will and there is not remotely the competence. Besides, a large percentage of such firms are unionised, which would probably have an effect the opposite of that which I have said.
  The Government's approach to all the problems has been minimalist. They have been hostile to statutory control, favouring self-regulation, which is so discredited in other sectors of industry and commerce. Self-regulation is an oxymoron. It is merely self-defensive companies banding together to do the least possible to stave off external criticism and Government action.
  Up to 1980, the Home Office was indifferent to the private security industry. I managed to squeeze out of the then Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees, a Green Paper on security that turned out to be a hatchet job on my concept of regulation. Since then, there has been collusion between the Home Office and the private sector, particularly the British Security Industry Association Ltd., which has encouraged a seemingly endless system of acronyms. Private security rivals only the Ministry of Defence in the production of acronyms. BSIA established MSI in 1982, then the Inspectorate of the Security Industry a few years later. We had SSI, the Security Systems Inspectorate, in 1987 and NSCIA, the National Supervisory Council for Intruder Alarms, became NACOSS, the National Approval Council for Security Systems. We also saw IPSA establishing the BRSB and the establishment of SITO. To my mind, that amounts to another acronym—SFA.
  The Government established a working group to consider ways of improving self-regulation. The committee that they established came up with the predictable and intended result, namely, ways of improving self-regulation. From whatever angle we look at self-regulation, it has been unsuccessful. It is fundamentally flawed. It is an improvement on what happened before, but it is grossly inadequate. The present system excludes many companies and tens of thousands of employees who are not part of any system of self-regulation. The motive force is the interest of the bigger companies and their professional leadership. The Government have admitted that inevitably users of the industry get what they pay for. The Government consider that issues such as training and wages are fundamentally matters for the industry and its customers. That is a fundamentally flawed argument.
  The Government's route is not the way forward. It is for the Government to accept their responsibility for establishing the parameters within which the industry operates. I have tried on several occasions to introduce a Private Security (Registration) Bill. I had all-party support. The Bill would establish a regulatory authority and a registration council. The Bill provides for—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that in an Adjournment debate, the subject to be discussed must not involve legislation except incidentally.
  Mr. George: Incidentally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that the Government will read my Bill and even act upon it.
  Sooner rather than later, a concept of statutory regulation and licensing will be accepted. It will come about because more and more companies in the industry will see licensing and statutory control as the way forward to establish their legitimacy and wipe out unfair competition.
  Jim Harrower, chairman of Group 4 Securitas, said recently that his company has been arguing for statutory control for 20 years. IPSA, the International Professional Security Association, which is closely linked with the BSIA —the British Security Industry Association Ltd.—in a new regulatory authority, is basically in favour of statutory control. Perhaps the House will take more interest in the private security industry than in the past. Eventually, public opinion will require the industry to be regulated. The creation of the internal market will provide a logic and impetus that will persuade even this Government to accept that they have taken the wrong route. If this Government do not pay heed to the warnings, I hope that the next one will.
  5 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on securing this debate. The future of the private security industry is of interest to us all, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. The House will be aware of his long-standing interest in statutory regulation. He is definitely not a flash in the pan, as someone apparently described him.
  I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view of self-regulation, nor his analysis of recent developments. Crime has been increasing throughout the western world over the past 40 years. Since 1979, the Government have increased spending on the police by more than 80 per cent. to a figure approaching £6,000 million. There are 16,700 more uniformed police officers, and more uniformed officers being released by the process of civilianisation.
  Police priorities remain to protect the public, prevent crime and tackle crime when it occurs. It has never been suggested that the police can handle crime prevention alone. As the hon. Member for Walsall, South knows, the Home Office has a wide range of initiatives. They include crime prevention units, the safer cities programme, 115,000 neighbourhood watch schemes, car crime prevention year, and so on. They all involve co-operative effort between the police, local community groups of all sorts, local authorities and business interests. Crime prevention cannot, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, be left purely to the police—and that has never been the case.
  I define a private security company as one that employs staff to protect property or individuals, or that installs systems that do so. The superficial differences between the private security industry and what one might call the public security industry—such as the police and prison service—lie in the method of funding, accountability, the authority given to individuals, and the uniform.
  934
  The private sector receives its funds direct from those who want to pay for specific services. The hon. Gentleman would no doubt agree that it is accountable only to those who have paid directly for its services. Its employees do not have powers of arrest and detention such as those held by a police constable. It is an offence to impersonate a police officer. The private security guard, therefore, must wear a uniform that could not be confused with that of a police officer. That important distinction should be made in our deliberations.
  I call those differences superficial because they are the surface indication of the substantial differences between the private and public security functions. The police are paid from public funds because they are expected to provide a service to everyone who needs to be protected from crime or public disorder. Police constables are accountable to the law, not to any individual who happens to pay them. Because of that wider accountability, they can be given the authority to interfere with the liberty of other members of the public—and because their uniform is a symbol of that authority, no one else can wear it. The private security industry, therefore, can be clearly distinguished from a public service, and it is divided into two main sectors.
  First, and most visible, is the manned guarding sector, about which the hon. Gentleman spoke. It consists of security officers who are responsible for guarding individuals, private property and cash in transit. Also included here are the door supervisors employed by night clubs to control admission and maintain order. I shall say more about them later. Then there are the security systems specialists. They install and maintain intruder alarms, security locks and safes and, to a lesser extent, access control and closed circuit television systems. There is a clear need for all these services, and the future of the private security industry is to continue to provide them.
  That, of course, is a broad generalisation. It is in the nature of commercial firms to expand and find new markets. The question at issue in considering the future of the private security industry and regulation is how far such an expansion should be allowed to go. Privately guarded vehicles use public streets. Individuals living on public estates may decide that they want protection greater than that which can be provided by the police. Police capacity is stretched and could perhaps be augmented by privately hired security guards. Security systems installed by private firms could be monitored by these firms instead of by the police.
  This blurring of boundaries is made even greater by the very welcome emphasis in recent years on the need for closer co-operation between the police and the public in crime prevention, to which I alluded at the beginning of my speech. There has been a tremendous growth in crime prevention activity, through the schemes to which I referred, up and down the country, involving active, public-spirited citizens. The public is becoming increasingly aware that the police cannot fight crime alone, or keep order without substantial co-operation from the general public. That must inevitably raise the question, which the hon. Gentleman touched on several times, whether there is room for any other commercial way of providing still more support for both the police and the public in their efforts to create the kind of society in which we all want to live.
  The scope for this kind of expansion has already been recognised in the employment of private security firms under contract to the public sector. Where the full range of

  935
  police, or prison, powers and skills is not needed, it is difficult to argue that the private sector should not be involved. That has been recognised in the employment of Group 4 to replace police and prison officers who previously had been used to escort prisoners. It is, however, at an early stage of development. The Government wish to make a full evaluation of its effectiveness and its implications before deciding on other areas in which private sector security may provide a welcome relief to the heavily pressed public sector.
  If I may be allowed to dwell for a second on Group 4, about which the hon. Gentleman made some helpful remarks, despite the well-publicised problems—not publicised by the hon. Gentleman—during the early days of the contract, the court escort contract operated by Group 4 in Humberside and the east midlands is providing significant benefits to the criminal justice system in the area. Much has been made of the escapes from custody in the first days of the contract but, given the scale of the task that Group 4 took on, it would have been surprising if there had not been some teething difficulties. They should not be allowed to overshadow the fact that about 2,000 moves of prisoners are carried out successfully each week. Group 4 has been operating for 17 weeks, so we are talking about 34,000 prisoner moves, during which time there were 12 escapes.
  The Government were able to offer a contract to Group 4 because it and other firms that tendered for the work were able to show that they maintained adequate standards, both in the employment of their staff and in defining the limits of their activities. That is not true of all security firms, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. This lack of recognised or common standards is one reason why it may be premature to generalise about the future of the private security industry. This overall description covers organisations as well known and respected as Group 4 and Securicor; smaller, less well-known but equally reliable specialist firms; and individuals who have great personal integrity and years of experience. However, it also takes in groups of people who rather more closely resemble the criminals they purport to oppose and some who are out to make quick money rather than to offer a worthwhile service, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged.
  The wide diversity of the industry is one of the factors that make it difficult to generalise at present about the future role of the industry. Another factor is the extent to which the police service, to which it is most closely compared, is itself in a process of great change. The proposals in the White Paper on police reform are intended to encourage a much closer relationship between what local people want from their police and what they receive.
  The White Paper gives chief constables much greater freedom to choose how best to meet the policing needs of the communities that they serve. It envisages stronger police authorities which may themselves have a view of the role of the private sector in their police areas. It would be premature to leap to conclusions now on the future role of the security industry before those critical changes come into effect.
  Similarly, the White Paper suggests that both national and local objectives should be set for the police. Those objectives should help the police to prioritise and may encourage them, probably with some reluctance, to drop
  936
  some tasks that have previously been seen as theirs alone. There may be other opportunities for the private security industry in that regard.
  I hope that what I have said so far shows that the Government are not blind to the opportunities for expansion of the private security industry or indifferent to the way in which boundaries between its functions and those of the police and prison service may change in response to changing circumstances. We recognise that the private security industry has a valuable part to play in the overall approach to public safety, but we think that it needs to demonstrate its own strengths and establish its own standards before it can become a strong contender for growth. We are anxious to see it become a more coherent industry of its own volition before we begin to consider seriously the diversion of large sums of public money to procure its services.
  That is why we have encouraged and supported the industry's efforts to regulate itself instead of conceding to requests from the hon. Gentleman and others for Government regulation. If all that was in question was the checking of criminal records, that could be achieved, if not immediately at least when the new computerised criminal record system becomes operable next year, but the lack of a criminal record system in itself tells nothing of the industry's own maturity and ability to set standards and to see that they are maintained. We believe that the consistent refusal to accept this as a Government responsibility has been a significant factor in the progress that the industry is now making.
  In 1990 the National Approval Council for Security Systems—NACOSS—to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was created. It has since been accredited by the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies—the NACCB—as a fit and proper body to certificate firms complying with relevant British standards in the field of intruder alarm installation. In the same year, the Security Industry Training Organisation, SITO, was formed. SITO has since been recognised by the Department of Employment as the central point of reference for training needs throughout the security industry.
  In 1992, the Inspectorate of the Security Industry—ISI—was launched. That body was set up jointly by the main trade associations in the security industry. It provides an inspection service for firms in the manned guarding sector and is currently awaiting the outcome of its application for accreditation.
  Companies within the industry may therefore apply to these bodies for certification to British standards, and customers should look for companies that comply with recognised standards. National vocational qualifications have been developed by the industry, and their increasing importance to companies as a means of assessing the quality of staff or applicants will also help to raise standards.
  I said that I would come back to the subject of door supervisors who are sometimes known euphemistically by other terms. This is an area in which individuals could all too easily abuse the aura of authority which being part of the private security industry can give.
  The Government have received representations from 1989 onwards about problems of intimidation and violence caused by door supervisors in certain areas. The suggestion was that these would be mitigated by the introduction of a statutory licensing system involving

  937
  criminal records checks on those employed as door supervisors. Police reports revealed that some 60 per cent. of force areas had such problems and had set up, or intended to set up, local regulatory schemes in conjunction with local authorities to deal with them.
  The police were invited to monitor a representative sample of the local schemes over a year. The schemes mainly operated through conditions attached to the licensing legislation requiring door supervisors to be registered. The registration procedure involved local checking of criminal records. The schemes generally worked well, and I shall discuss them further with representatives of the entertainment industry and the hon. Memberss whom I have arranged to meet later this year, including the hon. Members for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). That local process matches much more closely than a national one the vision in the White Paper on police reform of local policing being matched to local needs.
  In taking the actions that I have outlined, the Government believe that the private security industry has shown itself to be flexible enough to provide answers to demands for improved regulation within a fairly short time scale, and to offer an increasing range of services in both the private and public domains. It is our view that it will increasingly compete for contracts in all aspects of protection of private property and of individuals. Those letting contracts, whether they are chief constables, chief executives or anyone else, will ensure that the companies and their work forces are able to demonstrate the right qualifications, and will set proper standards for job performance. Those who fail to offer quality assurance, or fail to meet the standards in operation, will not be able to compete; hence the advantages of self-regulation.
  In that way, we believe that those who are accountable to the public for public safety will increasingly have confidence in the services offered by the private sector. They will be able to make pragmatic decisions about the most effective way of ensuring public safety in situations in which the division between public and private property and interest becomes blurred. They will ensure that the public and the private sector work together at local level to meet local needs to local standards. It is only then that we shall be able to make a true judgment of whether further regulation is really needed.

  Coal Industry (Water Supply)
  5.16 am
  Mr. Bill Etherington: When the list of subjects for the debate was published, I thought that I would do what I usually do, and that is begin to make my speech at 8 am, just as the debate is due to end. However, I have been very fortunate, and I am pleased to be able to continue the Adjournment debate that you chaired a week ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, when my hon. Friend and much-cherished neighbour the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) first referred to the possible effect on water supplies in the north-east should the coal mining industry in that area die.
  One reason I chose this subject is that, last week, many questions remained unanswered. Although this is a difficult subject for most lay people to get a grip on, Members of Parliament do not have to be experts to have an opinion on most subjects. Our constituents expect us to take notice of expert opinion and try to reach a conclusion on the issue.
  Until the late 1950s or early 1960s, my constituency and, indeed, what was the town of Sunderland before it became a city relied for its drinking water almost entirely on bore holes. That was an expensive way of providing water, because it required complex pumping arrangements.
  Most hon. Members are aware that, when the Kielder reservoir was mooted in the 1950s, it was to cope with what was expected to be burgeoning demand from the expanding Teeside industrial sector—an expansion which, sadly, never came about. The Kielder was far too large for the needs of the area. When the Kielder reservoir was built, the system supplying the north-east was by means of a pipeline to the River Tyne, the River Wear and the River Tees. The pipeline intersected the three rivers between 25 and 30 miles from the coast. From that time on, bore holes in and around Sunderland were gradually closed, and more and more water was taken by abstraction from the River Wear. My constituency now relies almost entirely on the abstraction of water from that river.
  The nearest plant at Chester-le-Street, which takes water out for the purposes of purification and transfer into the water supply system for Wearside, is 20 miles downstream from where that water enters the River Wear from the Kielder reservoir pipeline. This information may be mundane and boring but it explains the fears of my constituents should mining cease in the north-east.
  The way in which the matter has been handled by British Coal and the Government reminds me of that great Prime Minister, H. H. Asquith, Earl of Asquith and Oxford, as he became, who was immortalised—perhaps not for the best of reasons—for the phrase, "Wait and see." No politician or anyone who has any sense should use that phrase to answer a question. Such a reply could be a millstone around their necks for the rest of their lives. Yet that is precisely what representatives of British Coal say in response to the fears vented by local authorities and people in the north-east.
  Mining in the north-east began in the western extremes of the coalfield, which were quite shallow. Mining gradually worked its way east, to a great depth. It so happens that the one remaining colliery in County

  939
  Durham, Wearmouth in my constituency, is the deepest shaft mine in the north-east. It is at the bottom of the basin that consists of the coal measures.
  In the past 100 years, as the western parts of the coalfield have been worked out, water has migrated from the cavities created by the roadways and the collapsed coal faces. For many years, British Coal operated a series of pumping stations, spread out inland, to prevent those vast quantities of water from reaching the coastal pits. Until relatively recently, there were eight coastal collieries, which were served by a fan of inland pumping stations. Gradually, those pits have been closed.
  When the Minister replied to last week's Adjournment debate, he said that, in the 40 years since nationalisation, 107 collieries have closed. He claimed that that had not affected the water table or drinking water supplies. That reply misses the point, because, although the pits have been closed, the pumping has, until now, gone on unabated and kept the water table artificially low. It has remained at that level for the past 40 years.
  I do not want to be alarmist, because many people spoil a good argument by exaggerating the possible effects of certain action. Nevertheless, British Coal has expressed one opinion about the water pumping which has been contradicted by the reservations expressed by environmentalists and the National Rivers Authority. They are not prepared to accept the opinion of British Coal.
  The argument is about how long it will be before the subterranean water returns to its original level in the water table and about its quality when it finds its way into the River Wear. The old mine workings have created an entirely different underground environment from that which existed when the ground was solid. The coal measures contain permeable and impermeable beds through which water runs and forms Artesian wells at the bottom of the deepest measures.
  In the past, various water companies bought water from the then National Coal Board. They did, however, on occasions, stop buying it, because it was considered unsuitable for processing into drinking-quality water.
  I, like many others, have met British Coal spokesmen about this issue. The vagueness of their replies leaves one more worried than before the questions were asked. For one thing, no one can give an exact estimate of when the water will start issuing from the mineshaft, nor can anyone say what its chemical properties will be.
  Still, the coal board contends that there is nothing to worry about. It may have nothing to worry about, because by the time the problem arises, British Coal may no longer exist, but eventually someone will have to pick up the tab. Already my constituents and the rest of the people supplied with their water by the Northumberland water authority are having to pay higher bills because of the construction of the massive Kielder reservoir. It is a pity that it cannot be put to better use, and the water sent to the midlands and southern England where it is badly needed —but that is a problem for another day.
  Within the past week all Members of Parliament have received a letter from the Director General of Water Services in which he explains that the country is having great difficulty complying with EC water quality regulations. He goes as far as to suggest that some of the criteria should be made less stringent, so that we can comply with them more easily. At least we are being honest with the EC about our water quality; several other countries are not bothering to be. I understand, too, that
  940
  the regulations are shortly to be tightened up further, which will only make matters worse. Anyway, the regulator estimates that compliance with the current regulations will cost the average householder another £100 a year.
  Our worry is not that we will suddenly lose our water supply in the north-east; we are worried about the costs if British Coal, as seems likely, is proved wrong. I seem to remember the coal board being wrong about a lot of things in the past. On its analysis we should still have 80 collieries operating. We were told that there was a golden future for them in the late 1990s, but we now have fewer than 20 pits.
  British Coal may say that it knows all there is to know about pumping water and about geology. It does not know, however, about the chemical properties of the water that it produces, about the water's effect on supplies, and about the ability of the regional water companies to deal with the problem.
  I would feel more confident that the problem will be adequately dealt with if the water companies had not been privatised. The consumers are now having to pay for most of the investment, and for the vastly enhanced salaries of the people who took over the industry and got themselves a nice cushy number. These private bodies seem more concerned with selling off land and running hotels than with water.
  If problems arise, Northumbrian Water is likely to turn to the Government for a subsidy to help overcome this foreseeable problem. As British Coal has one opinion and the environmental experts have another, I hope that the Minister will announce that the Department of the Environment will set up a commission comprising a geologist, a hydrologist and other experts to give us an independent report. I have heard no statement from the Northumbrian water authority, so I do not know its position, but the National Rivers Authority, with which the basic responsibility lies, is far from happy with what is being said by British Coal.
  In last week's debate, we went through many of the arguments, and I have tried not to repeat them tonight, but there is one thing that everyone should know, even if they know nothing about the supply of water. Everyone should know that, if one creates a void, something fills it. There are hundreds of square miles of voids at various levels throughout the whole of county Durham and most of Northumberland.
  I do not think that the problem will have a great effect on the River Tees because it is on the edge of the coalfield but, as the water table rises and water percolates into streams and eventually into the River Wear, there will be insurmountable problems in the 20-mile stretch from where the Kielder water pipeline meets the River Wear and the furthest pumping station downstream at Chester-le-Street. It is important that the debate continues until someone provides some answers.
  It is no good one authority saying that it is worried while another says that it does not need to be. That is far from satisfactory. Any Government who were rightly concerned about the issue would be starting to make inquiries in their own right.
  5.30 am
  Mr. Robin Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), on the dawn of the last day on which the

  941
  House will sit before the summer recess, on giving the House an opportunity to return to a matter that has concerned it throughout the parliamentary year.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to one of the effects of the decline of the coal industry which may have been insufficiently noted in our debates. While some of us have dealt with the economic and social impact of closure on local communities, my hon. Friend rightly and properly drew attention to the incalculable impact on the environment and, specifically, on the water supply.
  I hesitate to follow my hon. Friend in talking about the water supply of his area or the impact of the closure of the pits on that supply, because he has shown such great knowledge. Having visited some pits, however, I was extremely impressed by the complexity of the charts and maps of the underground workings. I visited Markham, which has now closed. A chart of the underground workings covers an entire wall of the manager's office, going back 120 years. Each successive decade is represented in a different colour, one on top of the other. It is an extraordinarily graphic representation. Indeed, it entered my mind that the Tate gallery might pay enough for the objet d'art to keep the pit in operation for another six months.
  When one examines such a chart, what comes across is the fact that no one knows what the final impact of ceasing to pump in such areas may be on the water supply and water flow. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the wide-ranging, and to a large extent unknown, consequences which may have a permanent impact on the environment, just as the closure of the pit will have an immediate impact on the area's economy and employment prospects.
  The debate takes place in the wake of the publication of British Coal's annual report, which highlighted the cost to British Coal of ceasing work at some pits. It was clear from the bottom line losses in the report that, in the past year, it has proved much more expensive for British Coal to try to close mines than to keep them in production. My hon. Friend highlighted one of the additional costs of the closure of pits, which could well flow to the Government. It is a cost that has not hitherto been reflected in considering whether it would be profitable or costly to close the pits.
  My hon. Friend had the good sense to make the terms of the debate wide, and he has thereby attracted to the Dispatch Box two spokespersons on the energy rather than the environmental side. I congratualte him on that, because it gives us the opportunity to explore some of the questions on which we have attempted to press the Government in previous debates.
  May I therefore invite the Minister to update us on the answers to some of our questions? I say "update", but to be honest that is rather charitable, because, when we last debated the matter three weeks ago, we received no answers to our questions. May I tempt the Minister by saying that I understand why the Secretary of State, addressing a crowded House in prime time and in a fevered atmosphere, may overlook the need to answer questions posed by the Opposition, but we are speaking frankly, openly, in sober terms and in a modestly attended Chamber. If the Minister needs further temptation, may I
  942
  point out that Hansard will not be printed until the House has risen and that he can therefore risk being more frank with us?
  The Minister will be aware that it is now almost four months since the Government published their White Paper on the coal review. He will be aware that the central solution that they adopted was a subsidy on coal from the 12 allegedly reprieved pits. None of those 12 pits has yet seen extra contracts signed for its coal between British Coal and the generators; nor is there an immediate prospect of a contract being signed.
  I want to press the Minister on some of the background against which the negotiations took place and to put to him three points on which I should be grateful for his guidance and which would help British Coal and the 10 remaining reprieved pits in seeking extra contracts. I am aware that this is a late hour, and I notice that the Minister is not supported by his entire private office. He may wish to write to me rather than reply to my points today, but it would make a refreshing contrast from our previous debates and it would send me off to the summer recess in a sweeter mood if I could have an answer to the questions that I am now going to put.
  The first question is, what is now happening between the Government and the generators about stock drawdown? The most immediate reason why the two generators do not wish to place extra contracts for coal is that they have 35 million tonnes of it on their doorstep. They have taken the view that it is cheaper for them to burn the coal that they have already paid for than to place contracts, however competitively priced, for more coal. My judgment is that that may be in the short-term interests of the generators but it is not in their long-term interest, and it most certainly is not in the long-term interest of energy supply in Britain. The short-term effect of not purchasing that extra coal could be permanent closure of the extra pits that are looking for those contracts.
  The White Paper promised action and committed the Government to entering into a dialogue with generators about the rate at which they draw down stock. If I recall correctly, during the debate the Minister for Energy said that talks were now proceeding. It is not immediately obvious from the impact on the rate at which generators are drawing down or attempting to draw down stock that those talks are having a significant effect.
  May I therefore press the Minister to tell the House whether talks have taken place with the generators? What is the Government's objective in those talks, and to what extent do they hope, within the immediate future, to secure an agreement that might then concentrate the minds of generators on buying extra coal from British Coal?
  My second point arose in previous debates. If the Minister can conclude this matter the debate will have had the happy effect of drawing together some of the unanswered threads of previous debates. When we debated the White Paper, the President of the Board of Trade was pressed from his own Back Benches about the interconnector with France. He was specifically pressed by the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) about the requirement that we were making of the French to obtain common carriage through the French grid to Spain, Italy, Switzerland and other countries that might wish to purchase our electricity.
  We recognise that it is difficult to get the French to purchase our electricity. They do not need it, and even if they did they probably would not buy it. However, they

  943
  have no right, under European legislation, to deny us common carriage across their grid to neighbouring countries that need our electricity and might be tempted to purchase it, and in doing so facilitate the export of coal in the form of electricity.
  I and many of my hon. Friends find it incomprehensible that we continue to import such large volumes of electricity from France, meeting base load need in the south of England, when France will not even accept the common carriage of our electricity to third countries for sale—for no other reason than that such common carriage would provide them with competition on the sale of French electricity to those countries. It cannot be right that there is a Community obligation on us to import French electricity when there is not a parallel Community obligation on the French to provide that service of common carriage.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Romford, the President of the Board of Trade said that he was aware of the issue. He gave the impression—after all, a tense vote was approaching—that action was being taken on that front. I very much hope so. I press the Minister to share with us details of what negotiations are now proceeding with the French, and what progress there may be on obtaining common carriage across the French system. If we could secure that, there is every possibility that Britain could significantly enhance its coal burn for electricity that it could provide to countries where it would be extremely competitively priced.
  My third question to the Minister on which I would be grateful for his guidance either this morning or in the next few days by letter is: what has happened to the nuclear review? The White Paper said that it would be brought forward from 1994 to this year. The nuclear review has a close and immediate impact on the subject that we are debating this morning.
  The White Paper followed the report of the Select Committee, which clearly spelled out the extent to which the nuclear levy is more than sufficient to meet the cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations, and the excess is providing a subsidy to the operating costs of Nuclear Electric, which confers on it a substantial competitive advantage against coal, and results in the rather odd economic outcome that, although electricity from nuclear power is more expensive than electricity from coal-fired power stations, it is cheaper for the electricity companies to buy it.
  I may have missed something in the past few days, but I have not seen any announcement about the nuclear review—I confess that I have been unable to reach any of my research staff in the past hour as I have been thinking about the debate—but I am aware that there was an expectation that it would be announced before the House rose. Could the Minister guide us on when we can expect that the nuclear review will be announced and what its remit will be? In particular, could he remove the anxiety among those who want to see a broad-balanced strategy towards energy policy and those who are particularly concerned about the place within that of the coal industry?
  Could the Minister also remove the anxiety that the nuclear review, when it comes around, will be narrowly focused on how the Government will manage to achieve their ideological objective of privatising the nuclear industry? Will he assure us that, as well as looking at that question, which I am sure that the Government will look at, the nuclear review will also look at the issues of the
  944
  economic evidence of the nuclear industry and the extent to which the nuclear levy may provide it with a competitive edge against the coal industry which works against the interests of the most efficient use of fuel mix in British power stations?
  There is one specific issue on which it would be helpful if the Minister could remove anxiety and concern from the minds of those in the House before we rise for the summer recess—or, in our case, before we adjourn for breakfast. Twelve pits were "reprieved" in the White Paper. The closure of two of those 12 pits has already been announced. That leaves 10 pits for which, as yet, no extra contracts have been signed. Without extra contracts, the future of those 10 pits remains deeply insecure, and the stability of their reprieve is under a major question mark.
  Does the Minister have any information to suggest that any of those 10 pits will close during the recess? The future of those pits is an issue to which the House will have to return. I press the hon. Gentleman for an assurance that that issue will not arise while the House is not sitting. I would not wish a circumstance to arise in which hon. Members' summer holidays were interrupted by the need to recall the House to discuss further pit closures.
  It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could give an assurance that, if it turns out that our fears are well founded and that the future of some of those pits is in doubt, that issue will not arise while the House is not sitting, and that the House will have the opportunity to return before there are any further additions to the long list of pit closures that has studded this parliamentary year.
  5.45 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on securing this slot in the Consolidated Fund debate. I, like him, was under the impression that we might not reach this subject—but fortune has possibly shone on him. I shall deal with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in a moment; first, I want to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North.
  A number of the hon. Gentleman's points are really matters for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I cannot add too much to what he said during an Adjournment debate on 20 July, in which the hon. Gentleman participated. My hon. Friend said —I endorse his remarks—
  "The consequences of mine closures are complex. It is clearly an offence for mine owners, such as British Coal, to cause pollution of water courses, regardless of whether a mine is active or abandoned. I do not think that there is any dispute about that, and there need be no argument about it. Responsibility for avoiding pollution rests with the discharger. Discharges from active mines are covered by the system of discharge consents that are operated by the NRA.
  We are aware of the issues that have been raised about the legal provisions causing discharges from mine workings. The question was referred to in last year's report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on freshwater quality, which recommended"—[Official Report, 20 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 332.]
  My hon. Friend then outlined what was particularly recommended.
  There is no doubt that these matters are being continuously considered. The hon. Gentleman said that he

  945
  wanted to ensure that the debate would continue, and he has shown us tonight that it will continue and will be watched carefully. That is only right.
  The hon. Gentleman made a rather strange comment, which I felt was both inaccurate and out of place. He said that the trouble with privatisation was that the consumer has to pay for investment. That has always been the case. Both before and after privatisation, whether as a taxpayer or directly, the consumer has always had to pay for investment. It is wrong to think that, before the water authorities were privatised, people did not have to pay for investment. Since privatisation, the water companies have made substantial investment, which will lead to improved quality in our drinking water. I should have thought that that would be welcomed by everybody.
  The hon. Member for Livingston referred to the recent debate in which my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy made it clear that the conclusions of the White Paper were reached only after listening to a wide range of opinions, not only from Her Majesty's Opposition, but from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. We listened to what people said to us and took into account all the evidence that we received. We considered the independent reports which were commissioned and, in particular, we listened to the Select Committee's recommendations.
  Many different opinions were expressed, even among the experts, but the main common theme from many people was that there was the prospect of an increased market if coal could be made available at world-related prices. The estimates of the size of the market varied. The Select Committee suggested in its report that the overall market might be as large as 313 million tonnes over the next five years. Our consultants suggested figures—based on high and low scenarios—of between approximately 200 million and 260 million tonnes. Figures from others were different again, as we made clear in the White Paper. We responded to those views. We accepted the main recommendation of the Select Committee and offered a subsidy to help coal obtain the extra market.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made it clear when the House voted in favour of the White Paper's conclusions that we could give no gurantees, and that remains the case. There can be no guarantees of the precise market for coal—that is not within our control or the control of private coal producers or British Coal. We have given the coal industry a fresh opportunity to compete, backed by public subsidy, for the extra market that so many commentators believed existed. British Coal is continuing to pursue that market vigorously.
  I also remind the House of the second message that came through during the coal review: that British Coal would be better placed for a long-term, viable future if it could be given time to build on improvements in efficiency and cost reductions already achieved. The hon. Member for Livingston referred to his visit to Markham Main colliery, where he saw the coal workings. I accept that the hon. Members for Sunderland, North and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) will have seen many such maps—as I have. Therefore, the detailed workings that have taken place underground do not come as a surprise to us.
  Reference was made to the maps going back more than 100 years. We are dealing with an extraction industry
  946
  which has seen many changes. One of my memories stems from the early 1960s, when I walked over a large area of disused coal mines where the West Cannock site used to be. Over a number of years, coal mining districts have experienced radical changes in their make-up and in the availability of work in the coal industry. That is not new to the industry or coal mining communities.
  British Coal is continuing its efforts to improve productivity and efficiency and cut down costs. We are giving the industry the prospect of an increased market for coal by providing a subsidy. British Coal is also committed to making available to the private sector pits which it no longer wishes to operate. The recent letter from the chairman of British Coal to Members of Parliament shows that the corporation has been honouring its commitment.
  British Coal has now advertised 19 pits for sale. Whether or not those pits ultimately find a successful home in the private sector will depend on the market, which it is not for the Government to determine. However, I understand that British Coal has received numerous expressions of interest in the pits advertised. That suggests that there are private companies which believe that there is a market for the coal which they could produce from the pits. Indeed, many of them, as well as independent analysts, said as much to us in their evidence to the coal review. They argued that private sector companies could substantially increase efficiency and reduce costs and therefore find additional markets.
  The hon. Member for Livingston asked a number of questions. First, he asked about the French interconnector. I will give him the latest position. If I miss out any points, I will write to him, because I am keen for him to have a good recess, which he asked for.
  On electricity trade with France, the Government have published a summary of their legal advice which is clear. Action to cut off imports through an interconnector would be a breach of Community law. The non-levy status of Electricité de France could not be removed without giving it the benefit of levy payments. That would mean that British consumers would end up paying more for their electricity.
  There are a number of positive developments. Following earlier discussions with the then French Government, EDF recently reviewed and changed its bid price to supply into the pool for England and Wales to bring them more closely into line with its short-term marginal supply costs.
  Last month, my hon. Friend had useful discussions with Mr. Longuet, the new French industry Minister. In the light of that meeting, officials are pursuing the issue of trade across the interconnector and EDF's non-leviable status. The future pattern of trade across the interconnector will depend on the operation of commercial contracts. The White Paper noted the evidence to the Committee that net exports from France to the United Kingdom could progressively but significantly reduce after 1995.
  A United Kingdom generator has signed a contract for £100 million to export electricity to France over the next eight years at periods of peak demand in France during the winter. That shows in the clearest and most practical way that there are opportunities for United Kingdom generators.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the review of the nuclear industry. I am afraid that what I say to him today will not take us much further forward from the questions that he has asked in the past. The Government will bring

  947
  forward the review to later this year. Draft proposals for the scope, timing and format of the review have yet to be made. The Government will make further announcements in due course. I know that that will not bring much favour to the hon. Gentleman but I will draw his questions to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy.
  Mr. Cook: I raised another matter which the Minister may wish to pursue in writing, if not in this debate. I hope that he does not lose sight of it either way. The rate at which the generators draw down coal stocks on site is critical to the immediate prospects for any extra contracts for British Coal. Unless the generators can be persuaded the Government have the power to do this—to moderate the rapid rate at which they propose to run clown the stocks, there is little prospect of extra contracts, which would provide a permanent and secure future for the 10 pits to which the Government claim to have given a reprieve.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Since the publication of the White Paper, action has been taken to review the level of the stocks necessary for security purposes. Discussions with the generators are continuing. Coal stocks will continue to be the mainstay of security for the electricity system. We will not allow them to fall below a level that would put supplies of electricity in jeopardy.
  My hon. Friend must use his powers under the Electricity Act in a rational and defensible manner for their intended purpose. We cannot use them as a means merely of covertly subsidising British Coal. The Committee recommended that stocks should be kept at 20 million tonnes of coal, although it did not explain the rationale behind that figure. The figure is irrelevant to the debate, because stocks held at power stations at that time were more than 30 million tonnes. At present, stocks at the pithead are more than 13 million tonnes.
  The whole question of stocks is rightly being addressed. It is obvious from the figures I referred to that substantial stocks already exist. I therefore do not see our stocks falling to a basically unacceptable level. Obviously, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
  As I said, in this parliamentary year—the end of which we are approaching—coal has featured strongly in the political arena. I hope that what I have said in the debate and on other occasions shows that we are concerned about the future of the coal industry and that we rigorously question the way in which we can best ensure its future and a market for coal. Those have been our guiding principles in taking forward the discussions that we have had in the past year, and they will also guide us in the future.

  Limited List Prescribing
  5.59 am
  Mr. James Couchman: I declare an interest in the pharmaceutical industry, and it is contained in the Register of Members' Interests. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, would remind me if I did not make such a declaration. I am an adviser to the Kent company and major pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer Ltd., and I have been a friend of the industry since coming to the House.
  I have no regrets about inviting the Minister to join me at this early hour in the morning to debate this important topic. However, I greatly regret that it should be left to me to bring this topic to the House on the last morning before the House rises for the summer recess, so that we may discuss a proposal made as long ago as 12 November last year, the day of the autumn statement, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
  Since that time, apart from an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), the Government have contrived to keep the issue out of the House. I regret that the debate is not taking place in prime time when the House is packed with hon. Members who are outraged by the Government's proposals.
  In her statement on 12 November last year, my right hon. Friend made much of the fact that the drugs bill was at its highest ever in 1991–92, that in England it was £2·317 billion, and the increase in 1991–92 was 11·5 per cent. She also made much of the fact that that growth could not be sustained, and she said that she would take measures to restrain the increase in the drugs bill. Those measures would include renegotiation of the voluntary pharmaceutical price regulation scheme by which the Government and the industry have decided price for many years, and she said that the negotiations would be with the aim of restraining companies' profits from sales to the national health service.
  My right hon. Friend also said that the selected list scheme was to be extended. Under that scheme, particular drugs in specified therapeutic categories may not be prescribed under the NHS where effective alternatives are available at lower cost. In making regulations, Ministers act on the advice of the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs and rely for their legal base on schedules 10 and 11 of the General Medical Services Regulations 1992, which list banned drugs.
  Implementation is based on the advice of the advisory committee, the chairman of which is hardly independent as he is none other than the deputy chief medical officer in the Department of Health. The terms of reference have been amended for the new round of restrictions, and membership has been extended to take account of the new categories. It would not be of great advantage to list the terms of reference in detail, but they are quoted as
  "to advise the UK Health Ministers about the composition of schedules 10 and 11 to the NHS (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992, and the corresponding schedules in the Regulations in Scotland and Northern Ireland (except those items which are in Schedule 10 because the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances has advised that they are not considered drugs in the circumstances of general practice) in order that drugs to meet all real clinical needs at the lowest possible cost to the NHS are available in the

  949
  following categories: mild to moderate pain-killers, indigestion remedies, laxatives, cough and cold remedies, vitamins, tonics and benzodiazepine sedatives and tranquillisers."
  That list of seven categories arose from the original institution of the limited-list process in 1985, at the behest of the then Secretary of State for Social Services, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), ably assisted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), then Minister for Health.
  I well remember the row provoked by the original proposal to limit the number of drugs that might be prescribed in those categories on the NHS. A doomsday scenario of sorts was set up by the British Medical Association, the royal colleges, the pharmaceutical industry, various patient groups and so forth. We were visited by the godfathers of the American pharmaceutical industry, who came over to intimidate us into accepting that this was a very bad idea; however, the intimidation backfired. It was just the sort of thing that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe enjoys in his usual adversarial manner.
  What really stiffened the resistance of those of us who were inclined to take the industry's part at that time was a disgraceful campaign by the United Kingdom subsidiary of Hoffmann La Roche, which was busy trying to defend its high-priced tranquillisers.
  The year 1985 was about tranquillisers, and about remedies—frequently quack remedies—for minor ailments with self-limiting symptoms: coughs and colds, and mild and moderate pain. Eventually, the original list that the Government put up—involving some 30 drugs in those seven categories—was increased, as a result of the hastily contrived advisory committee, to 129 products. I believe that some 150 products are now included in the seven categories. The position relating to minor ailments has persisted to this day.
  We were originally told that there would be savings of £100 million; that was later revised downwards to £75 million. Somewhat evasive answers were given to questions within a year of the institution of the limited list, and since then it has been impossible to find out whether any savings have been made. However, one thing definitely has happened as a result of the seven categories: in those categories, no new chemical entity—no new significant product—has been produced since 1985. I shall say more about that later, because it is very important.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to develop 10 new categories of ailment for which there will be limitation. I think we should list them for the record, because this is effectively the first debate that we have had on the issue. My right hon. Friend proposed that the 10 new categories should be anti-diarrhoeal treatments, appetite suppressants, treatments for allergic disorders, hypnotics and anxioytics, treatments for vaginal and vulval conditions, contraceptives, treatments for anaemia, topical anti-rheumatics, treatments for ear and nose conditions and skin treatments. Perhaps three of those areas are more significant than the others. I think that the areas that are particularly worrying are skin treatments, contraceptives and treatments for vaginal and vulval conditions, which include quite serious illness.
  There has been an outcry from patients' organisations, individual patients, doctors and, predictably, the industry.
  950
  I should like to remind my hon. Friend the Minister just how important the pharmaceutical industry is. It is one of our most successful industries. It has £7 billion-worth of sales a year. Almost 50 per cent. of that produce is exported. A trade surplus of £1·3 billion is produced by the industry.
  The industry is also good at reinvesting its profits into research and development. It searches for new and better products. About 18 per cent. of its United Kingdom turnover—£1·4 billion—is invested in research. That compares favourably with other areas of manufacturing industry, which spends an estimated 2 to 4 per cent. of its turnover on research. The pharamaceutical industry employs 100,000 people in high-grade jobs. It does much to improve the esteem of British science throughout the world. We have some extremely good research workers in the industry, and we should cherish it for them.
  Medicines produce an economic remedy for many ailments. The House will not be surprised to hear that the industry contrasts pharmaceutical remedies with invasive techniques such as surgery and other advanced technological treatment of patients. Five of the world's 20 most prescribed medicines were discovered in the United Kingdom. That includes the No. 1 product in the world. That gives an impression—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister does not need reminding of it—of just how important the pharmaceutical industry is.
  I now wish to deal with the effect that the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have on patients. It is worth saying that the reason why the drugs bill continues to increase is not simply because pharmaceutical companies put their prices up. Rather, it is because many more people are living to a much greater age. It is without doubt that the elderly, particularly those between 75 and 85, are substantial consumers of pharmaceutical products. The Government have encouraged doctors to hold screening clinics, which have identified many hundreds of additional patients who require medicines—for example, for high blood pressure, late onset diabetes and asthma.
  The other fact that has increased the prescribing costs of general practitioners is the increasing tendency for hospitals to prescribe the minimum quantity of products to patients who are being discharged from hospital. The Government themselves have suggested that pharmaceutical treatment can be cost-effective. I pray in aid Lady Hooper when she was junior Minister for Health in 1989. She said:
  "High-cost medicines can be very cost-effective in raising the quality of patients' lives and are under no threat from this Government."
  In 1989, when the National Health Service and Community Care Bill was going through the House, my right hon. Friend who was then the Minister for Health and is now Secretary of State for Health said:
  "Our interest lies in cost-effective prescribing, not cheap prescribing. We are quite prepared to pay the price for innovative new medicines which will significantly improve the quality of patients' lives."
  The much-quoted former Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, said:
  "we have repeatedly made it clear that every patient will be entitled to the drugs which, in the general practitioner's opinion, the patient requires."—[Official Report, 23 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 732.]
  In the working paper "Promoting Better Health", the Government outlined their commitment to increasing the

  951
  emphasis on preventive care, recognised that that might result in increased expenditure on drugs in general practice, and said that they are committed to meeting such an increase—should it occur.
  During the progress of the Bill which became the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, there was much debate about the effectiveness of high-cost drugs as opposed to low-cost drugs. The Oxford region was particularly prone to high-cost prescribing, but in terms of the overall cost of health care, it was seen as very beneficial.
  Of particular concern is the fact that 85 per cent. of prescriptions are dispensed free of charge to those on low incomes, the elderly, the chronically sick, pregnant women and children. They will, in the main, be directly affected by the Government's proposals. Doctors are already told by their family health services authorities how much they may spend through their indicative prescribing scheme—a scheme which costs the taxpayer a good deal of money to administer.
  One aspect of the debate on pharmaceutical products is that we pay little regard to the fact that pharmaceutical products can be an effective and cost-effective form of treatment for many patients.
  Later, I shall return to the recent report on sufferers from heart disease. It is extremely worrying that many people suffering from undiagnosed heart conditions are taking no medication—and even those who are now face limitations on their drugs.
  Substantial concern has also been expressed by the Family Planning Association, which points out that, of the 35 brands of contraceptive pills, 22 have different formulations. It is a matter of general knowledge that the best pill for one woman may be the worst for another. There is general concern in family planning circles that, because the newest formulations—which might be the best for younger women—may be more expensive, some women will be forced to accept a less satisfactory treatment or method of contraception. That seems to fly in the face of the Government's "Health of the Nation" strategy, which the FPA strongly supports in giving priority to reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies.
  The director of the National Eczema Society, Tina Funnell, highlights the concerns of patients with skin diseases, some of which can be extremely debilitating and very unpleasant. She states:
  "Extending the selected list will increase demand for expensive hospital treatment. One in five of the population suffers from skin disease at some time, and responses to treatment are enormously variable. Our concern is that to reduce patient choice to two or three products in each therapeutic area will mean poor compliance with treatment. Exacerbations can quickly become acute, and these will require far more expensive in-patient care."
  That is a worrying comment from a society dedicated to those who suffer from eczema. Similar concerns have been expressed by the Psoriasis Association, the Acne Support Group, the National Kidney Foundation, Help the Aged, Age Concern, the National Association of Women's Organisations and the Osteoporosis Society.
  All these important consumer groups have expressed their worries about my right hon. Friend's proposals for two basic reasons. First, they say that it will lead to a limitation of existing medicines currently supplied by doctors. Secondly, and more importantly. they say that it
  952
  will lead to a blight on further advances and improvements in treatments that are desperately needed in all the therapeutic areas, but particularly for skin complaints.
  Patient groups realise and recognise—better, it seems, than my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers and their civil servants—that companies simply will not risk investing up to £200 million and 12 years of time in developing a new treatment that wins the approval of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, only to have the product blacklisted by the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs, which is now known, I believe, within the industry as the price control committee for NHS drugs.
  Innovative companies based in this country will go on developing new treatments, but many of them will not necessarily seek to make them available in this country. New British-made medicines will continue to treat millions of patients throughout the rest of the world, but NHS patients may be denied access to those advances simply because they will not be licensed or marketed here.
  There will be an important knock-on effect on clinical trials, which currently are carried out by our good scientists in this country. Traditionally, companies carry out clinical trials in the countries where they aim to seek licensing approval. If companies cease to seek licences for new products in this country, it is bound to lead to a curtailment of clinical trials carried out by clinicians in our major teaching and university hospitals. That brings me back to the 1·4 billion worth of research moneys that are put in each year by the companies for research into new products.
  The medical profession has expressed profound disquiet about the proposal to extend the selected list. Surveys show that 70 per cent. of general practitioners want these proposals to be withdrawn. They follow Dr. Alistair Donald, president of the Royal College of General Practitioners, who recently told a meeting of my colleagues in this House that he and the college are opposed in principle to the limited list concept and a resolution condemning the proposals was carried at a recent meeting of British Medical Association local medical committee representatives.
  Doctors are worried about it; patients are worried about it; and the doctors find other senior representatives to express these concerns for them. For example, Mr David Bromham, consultant gynaecologist at St. James's University hospital, Leeds, and chairman of the National Association of Family Planning Doctors, has expressed his concern quite vividly, as have dermatologists at the Hammersmith hospital and gynaecologists at the John Radcliffe maternity hospital, Oxford.
  According to the industry, it would appear that the Government want to renegotiate the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme as though the limited list did not exist, and that they want to extend the limited list as though the PPRS did not exist. That seems to fly in the face of reality. Companies believe that if the Government expect them to come to terms with reality, the Government should be expected to do the same.
  Health Ministers have repeatedly justified extending the limited list by pointing to the 12 to 14 per cent. annual increase in the drugs bill over the past two years. That increase, they say, is unacceptable. But why is it unacceptable? As I said earlier, the growth is due in the main to the ageing population and to the Government's

  953
  encouragement of doctors to identify new patients who require treatment for high blood pressure, the late onset of diabetes and asthma.
  The Government's "The Health of the Nation" survey, published just two weeks ago, shows that almost 75 per cent. of over 7 million United Kingdom adults who are suffering from raised blood pressure, at levels that expose them to the risk of premature death from a heart attack or a stroke, are not receiving any medication. For those patients, and their families, it could be argued that the growth in the drugs bill is unacceptably low, not unacceptably high. By spending money now on medicines to prevent or delay heart attacks and strokes, the Government will save millions of pounds in the longer term in hospital and disability costs associated with those two conditions.
  No doubt when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will claim that the price control committee—or the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs if he prefers it—will always look favourably on advances in treatment that may emerge in future. Sadly, the industry has lost all faith in Government assurances because only last July my hon. Friend the Minister for Health assured three large companies that the Government had no plans to extend the limited list. That assurance proved worthless within a very few weeks.
  In the 10 new therapeutic categories to be covered by the limited list, there are currently 200 projects in research and development, no fewer than 56 of which are for skin complaints like psoriasis and eczema and 14 of which are aimed at bringing about improvements in contraception. There is a real prospect that some of those projects will be abandoned. Perhaps more significantly, if they do reach fruition, they may not necessarily be submitted for licensing in this country. As I have said, patients in other parts of the world will benefit from advances and advantages from which NHS patients will not. That is entirely unacceptable.
  At a recent public meeting in London, a senior Department of Health official, Mr. Melvyn Jeremiah, said that it is the Government's intention to ensure that new products do not elbow out tried and trusted products. I do not believe that that remedy is acceptable to this House or to patients. We might sum that up as, "Long live leeches." It will not give any reassurance to the innovative companies that the Government will, in future, look favourably on newer, more expensive products.
  The implementation of the limited list this time is vastly different from what happened in 1985. The Advisory Committee on Drugs—the price control committee—comprising expert consultants, doctors and pharmacists, is using most peculiar tactics. It is telling companies that they must agree to bring their prices down to a reference which the committee will determine arbitrarily, or it will recommend to Ministers that their products should be blacklisted.
  That seems to be stretching United Kingdom and EC law to the very limits. I suspect that it may be challenged at some stage. It is no better and no worse than blackmail. Companies may not be screaming "blackmail" in public, but they are certainly communicating that message back to their parent companies in various parts of the world and that is having a disastrous effect on investment decisions.
  954
  I will not weary the House with too many quotations. However, Mr. Michael Bailey, a director of Glaxo, our largest national pharmaceutical manufacturer, said that
  "curbs could mean companies scrapping research rather than invent new products which never make it on to the limited list.
  What is the point of me spending millions of pounds researching a product that the Government will just blow away?"'
  Mr. Bailey asked that question at the annual meeting of the Welsh executive of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. That is an authoritative voice from within the industry to which we should pay some heed.
  There is also some doubt about how precisely the committee is determining its reference prices. Reference prices are viewed with grave suspicion throughout Europe because they can be quite arbitrary. For instance, I am told that for some topical skin products the committee is fixing a reference price for a 100 g tube of ointment, irrespective of the potency of that ointment. Potency can vary by a factor of 1:3. That means that a tube of 100 g of one product is really equivalent to a 33 g tube of another product. That is extremely worrying. The matter is summed up by Mr. Paul Mason, another official at the Department, who, at a recent meeting, was heard to say that the committee
  "does give some indication where it can or'
  what might be a reasonable price reduction, basing its calculation on "comparative average prices". When asked to define more clearly the criteria it used to determine acceptable prices for reimbursement, he conceded that the committee found the pricing issue "very difficult to handle", noting that
  "it is not an exact science by any means".
  That gives Mr. Behrendt, director of the United Kingdom pharmaceutical subsidiary of Bayer, according to a recent article, every good reason to say, as he did recently, that
  "The Government has, in effect, introduced a system of reference pricing [paying for a drug at the price of the cheapest product in its areal"—
  that is his definition—
  "through the back-door. This is very unfair. If innovative products can no longer create a premium, there is little point launching new products on the market."
  My hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues at the Department would do well to heed those warnings. Any savings that the Government hope to achieve by the proposed measures will be vastly outstripped by the costs of lost inward investment and the consequential losses of employment and export opportunities. It is economic madness. A senior executive who has worked in the industry for nearly 30 years recently told me:
  "I have never known companies in the industry so angry with what is currently happening in the UK. They cannot understand why an industry that has contributed so much to patient care and to the UK economy over so many years is being treated in this way."
  In a recent letter to a chief executive of a major German-owned company, I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister wrote:
  "We do not believe that the PPRS and the Selected List Scheme are inimical. The Selected List Scheme covers only a small proportion of the total pharmaceutical market".
  A small proportion? The categories in the extension to the limited list alone cover almost 25 per cent. of all NHS prescriptions, not to mention those seven categories in the original list that must account for at least another 5 to 10 per cent. We are probably talking about a third of all NHS prescriptions, and that blows out of the water the claim that the PPRS and the selected list scheme are not inimical.

  955
  It seems to me that, if we are talking about that as a small proportion—it is about 150 million prescriptions a year —there seems to be a very odd sense of proportion prevailing at the Department.
  Will my hon. Friend explain why three major foreign-owned companies were told in June or July last year by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health that the Government had no plans to extend the limited list scheme? I pray in aid also the question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) about that aspect. Unfortunately, that question has gone adrift, but I hope to refer to it shortly.
  Will my hon. Friend also state why the Government are not prepared to wait for the report of the joint strategic working party which they set up and which comprises representatives from the Department of Health, the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, but interestingly omitting anyone from the Office of Science and Technology? Why does he not wait for that working party to report before implementing those controversial measures?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newark and I, together with several of our hon. Friends on the Back Benches, have signed an important early-day motion that also asks the Government to wait before introducing the proposals.
  I should like to express the industry's belief that, on this issue, it has won the support of patient and consumer groups, the family doctors and hon. Members. It deserves, at the very least, for its case to be fully debated before the proposals are implemented or final decisions are taken to implement them. Today's debate does not represent a proper debate in prime time.
  If the Government seek to introduce the proposals through the back door and without a proper debate and a vote at the end of it, the industry will feel demoralised and betrayed by the British Government. If the Government are so convinced that they are acting in the best interests of patients and taxpayers, they should have no fear of such a debate. They should be prepared to put their case to the test by seeking the democratic approval of the House.
  6.35 am
  Mr. Roger Gale: First, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and to my hon. Friend the Minister for missing the opening remarks of my hon. Friend's speech. I must also declare an interest as a consultant to the pharmaceutical industry. Above and beyond that, I have a constituency interest because Pfizers at Sandwich employs many of my constituents.
  I do not believe that anyone on the Conservative Benches, and possibly very few Members on the Opposition Benches, would question the need to control public sector borrowing and public spending. In that context, the Department of Health must consider its budget as much as any other Department. We all appreciate that. That also means that, within the Department of Health, as much consideration must be given to the control of the drugs budget as to the control of any other expenditure, either on primary or secondary health care.
  Following on precisely from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, I wish to question the
  956
  efficacy and validity of seeking to use the blunt instrument of the limited list to achieve those necessary budget controls.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has expressed concern about the fact that, in the past year, the drugs bill rose by 11 per cent. The first question that must be asked is: 11 per cent. of what? The implication has always been that that increase represents an 11 per cent. increase in drug company profits and that, therefore, those massive multinational companies are making money out of the sick. It is felt that that money is badly spent and that we should control that expenditure.
  We must, of course, review the expenditure to ensure that we are getting value for money, but we need to understand what that 11 per cent. buys before we say that that increase is too great. We need to consider that expenditure in the broader context of health care and general provision. If 11 per cent. spent on drugs is keeping people out of hospitals—and, of course, it is—that money is not only well spent but it means that, in the end, less money is spent. That money is better spent than money spent on hospital beds.
  When the first limited list was introduced it was suggested that it would result in savings to the health service of, let us be generous, £80 million per year. That is not an insignificant sum of money, but no evidence suggests that any real savings have been effected on behalf of the health service as a result. It is possible to argue that about £80 million has been saved on the category of drugs in the limited list. It would he more accurate to say that £80 million has not been spent on those particular drugs.
  Any general practitioner would reveal that he has often found himself in the ludicrous position of having to prescribe two drugs, at greater expense, to do the same job as that performed by one drug on the limited list. It is abundantly clear to any primary school mathematician that, far from saving money, the real effect of the first limited list was to cost the NHS more—although I concede at once that the money spent on certain drugs was reduced.
  Today, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister again a question that I have been asking for a long time and to which I have not yet had an answer: can he tell us of any real saving to the health service or the nation resulting from the first limited list? Does he seriously believe that the introduction of a further limitation will have any helpful effect on the health service budget?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham rightly referred to the effect on investment in the pharmaceutical industry that the first limited list had—an effect from which the industry and its investment programme are only just recovering. He also mentioned the effect on investment of the current proposals. The industry has advanced various plans to assist the Department in controlling costs. My hon. Friend mentioned that a review committee has been set up, and that it comprises Government representatives, medical experts, and representatives of the industry, for which we are grateful. Indeed, the Secretary of State quickly conceded that it was necessary to put representatives of the industry on the committee, and I do not doubt that that representation will be invaluable. It is sad, however, that the committee is not to be allowed to deliver its findings before at least some of the effects of the limited list are introduced and then felt.
  Until now, it has been generally accepted that the United Kingdom has offered the best research and development base for this valuable industry—the best in

  957
  Europe, and probably in the world. The quality of our research scientists, the way we go about the job, and the results that we have delivered to the health services of the world have all been second to none. The value of the industry to UK Limited has been colossal, but it is clear that that value will diminish because of the pressures being brought to bear on the industry.
  No one suggests that the industry should be given carte blanche to spend and charge as it likes, subject to no controls of any kind. But we must seriously consider the European option. There is considerable over-capacity in pharmaceutical manufacturing throughout the EC, so companies are having to pay heed to what they do and where they do it, and the United Kingdom is no longer their first choice. That is very sad.
  In the longer term, it cannot be helpful to public spending to drive away an industry which, for many years, has produced so much tax revenue for the Treasury. We have not paid enough attention to the European option hitherto. The Minister may say that in the short term it is possible to demonstrate falls in drug prices resulting from the mere threat of the imposition of a limited list. And it is true that some companies will have to reduce their prices to marginal costs just to keep their products on sale, once they have recouped the costs of investment, research and development and production.
  Where will the seed corn investment for tomorrow come from, however? It is blandly assumed that the profits of these companies go to the shareholders. Of course, some of the profits do, and I do not suppose that the Minister would wish to deny shareholders a due return on their investment. In this industry, however, probably more than any other in the country, or the world, an enormous proportion of the money made after many years developing a drug goes back as seed corn for the development of tomorrow's drugs. It is an industry which cannot stand still unless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham wryly said, we go back to the days of the leeches.
  What evidence do I have for my alarmist suggestion? A company in Scotland was offered regional aid to extend its premises. It was a modest extension, requiring about £3 million of investment. The European headquarters said that, in the current climate, it does not regard the United Kingdom as a favourable country for investment so it will not build the extension as a direct result of the limited list. It is not a case of "may not" build it; it has already been decided.
  Pfizers at Sandwich, the company so properly and honourably represented by my hon. Friend and which employs my constituents, has invested massively in new research and development facilities. They are extremely impressive, being some of the finest in the world, and they are on the doorstep of my constituency, located in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). It has a large vacant site, awaiting the rebuilding of part of its plant. It is not being rebuilt and, in the present climate, it is difficult to believe that it will be rebuilt. That will mean that further investment will have been denied to the United Kingdom as a direct result of what is to some extent a knee-jerk reaction to a short-term problem.
  It is important that we consider the national interest. If I am right, and if the expenditure on drugs is very largely
  958
  justified to curtail the expenditure on people being treated in hospital rather than at home, the social effects are not inconsiderable. If mum or dad is in hospital, he or she cannot work. If a child is in hospital, mum or dad still cannot work because he or she has to visit the child. The same could apply to grannie or grandpa. The cost to the family in travel and time, and the cost to business and industry in terms of productivity, will rise. We shall end up paying more in unemployment benefit, income support and housing benefit because more people will be in hospital.
  We have a proud record, largely due to the reforms implemented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her colleagues. The Government have made great progress in hospital and primary health care, and we can and should be proud of that fact. It would be tragic if a short-term decision, taken without due attention to the national interest across the board, and which affected one section of one Department, were to damage the United Kingdom's interest.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to go some way to reassure an industry that is very worried about its future.
  6.38 am
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Good morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also wish a good morning to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), and the hon. Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale).
  I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Gillingham. I congratulate him on securing this debate. For many months, he and I have clashed on issues relating to the pharmaceutical industry, but this morning there was much common ground between us, especially on the efficacy and effectiveness of the Government's proposals. I cannot, however, go along with his doomsday scenario for the industry. I sometimes think that the industry is its own worst enemy. In putting a strong case to the Government, it sometimes over-eggs the pudding with allegations about the loss of jobs and investment, although I take seriously what the hon. Member for Thanet, North said about the need to ensure that we have a financially sound arrangement in terms of the Government's own monetary targets. It must be sound to ensure the effectiveness of the range of products that is available to NHS patients and a return on capital for the industry and new jobs for the NHS and for the world market.
  Before dealing with some of the problems that are associated with the Government's proposals, I should like to tease out from the Minister the Government's policy on the price regulation scheme. On the Second Reading of the Medicines Information Bill, I told the Minister that the industry would come back to him about this issue and I asked whether the Government had an effective policy on the price regulation scheme. The scheme does not work satisfactorily for the industry and does not offer public accountability. Secrecy abounds on the price regulation scheme; it is even more secret than the defence contractors' debate. In general, there is more openness in debates on defence contracts than on price regulation, which surely cannot be sustainable. I look to the Minister to say how he will remove the secrecy that surrounds these discussions and negotiations.

  959
  For some years, the industry has had a reasonably good deal out of the national health service. It is a matter not of us and them but of a joint arrangement that has ensured a flow of income and profits for the industry which have been reinvested. The price regulation scheme has allowed the industry profit ceilings on the capital employed, which has provided a method of ensuring that it has an adequate return on research and development. Sufficient leverage is built into the price mechanism to ensure that the money deployed on research and development is returned to companies through the bill that they hand to the national health service.
  The industry has been able to extend the parameters of its research and development bill by considering what it provides in post-marketing surveillance. The Government have allowed the industry to develop this area to the point where it is no more than promotion masquerading as research. We must consider the limits on advertising and promotion to see how effective they are and whether this method of securing the support of GPs is the best for the health service and patients.
  Such campaigns encourage doctors to switch patients from current drugs to new ones. We should ensure that the monitoring of the performance of drugs is effective, and adverse reactions should be recorded to ensure that meaningful data are available to the Department and the industry. If monitoring is poor, the Government must take steps to ensure that the system is strengthened and developed. If necessary, the industry may have to change post-marketing surveillance.
  The hon. Member for Thanet, North mentioned the need to deploy profits. It is true to say that in the past the industry has got away with murder in terms of some of its activities. It has, through the Department, been able to increase prices for new products to compensate for delisted medicines. It got around the original limited list proposals.
  The Government introduced the limited list as a method of curtailing the cost of drugs to the NHS, but the industry was able to transfer that limited cost reduction to other products. What steps is the Minister taking in the current price regulation scheme to prevent that from happening, or, if it happens, to ensure that the companies concerned give a more than adequate reason for price increases on new products? Will the Government be publishing the National Audit Office report on the price regulation scheme? That report has been available for some time, but, so far, the Government have chosen not to publish it.
  The hon. Member for Gillingham, in his thoughtful contribution, set out in graphic detail what is of most concern. The issue of the limited list has come a close second to the issue of sub-post offices in the postbags of hon. Members. The interest has not been engineered by the industry, although it has rightly made its view clear, for the most part in a balanced way. In the main, it has come from individuals affected by the proposals, particularly those who suffer from skin disorders and women who use the contraceptive pill.
  It is vital that, when the Government come to their conclusions, before they make announcements, they come first to the House for an open and frank debate. We do not need—we hope that this will not happen—the Government to use the summer recess to make announcements, thereby preventing hon. Members from commenting on the proposals. A significant amount of lobbying has been going on, trying to get the Government
  960
  to change their mind. Therefore, it is important that the Government make a statement in the House on how they will respond to the requests for a fresh look at their proposals. I hope that the Minister takes that into account.
  I shall deal with skin diseases and contraceptives. Some 15 per cent. of GPs' time and 6 per cent. of all new out-patient referrals result from skin diseases, and 20 per cent. of the population will at some time contract a skin problem. From September 1991 to September 1992, GP consultants in that sector were as follows. For eczema and dermatitis, 11·6 million GP consultations; for psoriasis, 1·9 million; and for acne, 3·3 million. We are not talking about a minor area of NHS activity. We are talking about a significant proportion of the time spent by GPs and of referrals to local district general hospitals. Nor is it an insignificant proportion of prescriptions for treatments. Many of those treatments are required for the long term, as the complaints are painful.
  I should like to quote Dr. Michael Beck, a consultant dermatologist. I have chosen his from the many letters that I have received, because he is a constituent of the Under-Secretary, whose constituency of Bolton, West is a marginal one. Perhaps the letter will help him to concentrate on the issue. Dr. Beck is chairman of the British contact dermatitis group, affiliated to the British Association of Dermatologists, and serves on the medical advisory panel of the National Eczema Society. He covers many of the hospitals in my area—which is cheek by jowl with that of the Under-Secretary—and in that represented by the hon. Gentleman.
  In a letter to the Under-Secretary, Dr. Beck says:
  "the implications of a reduction of prescribable items for skin disease is causing grave concern to our patients. Those of us responsible for their care are equally perturbed by the potential consequences. I don't wish to land you with the huge range of arguments against this significant restriction in prescribable dermatological preparations at this time. Suffice it to say there are very strong grounds for suspecting that patients' health will be affected and livelihoods will be lost with what I believe ironically will be an eventual financial loss to the Government. Doubtless you will be aware of the huge numbers of persons affected by significant skin disease [eg prior to the introduction of Statutory Sick Pay, when we had relevant statistics available, dermatitis accounted for more days lost from compensated occupational disorders than all others put together].
  It is my view that the political consequence to the Conservative Party may also be significant, bearing in mind the numbers of persons who are likely to be adversely affected."
  It is not usual for a consultant to write in such language. He is clearly saying that it is not just a matter of efficacy in health terms; it is a bad financial deal for the Government. The Government will quickly find that it will cost more to withdraw products than it would to introduce the limited categories, as suggested. There will be no net savings from the proposals.
  Choice is very important. Skin is highly variable, so responses to treatment vary enormously. The appropriate treatment can be found only by trial and error. Many patients develop an intolerance to the medication, resulting in the need to switch to another treatment. Patients can also develop contact dermatitis, an allergic reaction to one or more of the ingredients in a medication. The current range of branded products usually means that a suitable alternative can be found.
  Unlike tablets, a topical formulation can be regularly compared with, or substituted for, another. Differences between topical formulations are fundamental to patient

  961
  compliance. The patient has to accept the texture, colour, odour and absorbency of the medication. Irritation, staining potential, presentation and general ease of use of the product are what the doctors want to continue. With the loss of choice and a limited list, potentially a significant number of people might have their treatment withdrawn. That is unacceptable.
  Doctors have submitted detailed information to the Department of Health about why the limited list will not save money. If the Government cannot listen to the industry, but instead believe that it has an axe to grind, they should at least listen to those who write the prescriptions. They are clearly and starkly telling the Government that their proposals are a false economy.
  I cannot understand why the Government are putting forward such proposals on contraception. During the last few months the Minister has become known within the Government as the Minister of conscience and family morals. He has had a great deal to say about that, as has his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). It is a pity that the Minister has not had much to say over the past decade while many district health authorities have slashed expenditure on family planning clinics. The Department of Health has done nothing to prevent the withdrawal of that core service. A decade on, we see the consequences of that in what the Minister, through "The Health of the Nation', is trying to do to reduce the unacceptably high levels of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
  Recently, one-parent families have been targeted as scapegoats—and, indeed, over the weekend grandparents were also targeted. At the same time as the Government are making a moral attack on one-parent families, they are making the unbelievable proposal to withdraw oral contraceptives or put them on to the limited list. There will be no net savings from the Government's proposal, but there will be an increase in unplanned pregnancies and abortions. That is unacceptable to all hon. Members. Whether or not one is in favour of abortion legislation, it is a defeat in any circumstances when a woman has to seek termination. It is a personal tragedy, but it is also a tragedy for the Community and for society as a whole. If there is anything that we can do to prevent unplanned pregnancies and abortions, we should do it.
  Oral contraception in the United Kingdom is already the cheapest in Europe. We get a very good deal on the price of contraceptives. Family planning is a good investment—for every £100 invested, we can expect a return of more than £500 in saved benefits and other costs to the state.
  We should not limit women's choice; it is unacceptable for women to have their choice of contraception products for family planning limited. Not only is a woman's individual choice limited, but the efficacy and safety of many of the products is also reduced. A woman who starts to use contraceptives at an early age will use them over a period of more than two decades. She must ensure that the product which she uses does not have undesirable side effects.
  The industry has done a tremendous job in developing and improving oral contraceptives in the past two decades. A huge investment has been made into research into oral contraception, which is still improving and will continue to
  962
  do so. Just when that investment is being made, the Government announce proposals which find no support from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Birth Control Trust, the Family Planning Association, women's organisations, general practitioners or the British Medical Association. During the current debate, I have not found anyone who supports the proposals. When the Minister winds up the debate, will he tell us who supports the proposals? Is the Treasury simply looking for an easy way to make immediate, short-term cuts in the drugs bill at the expense of state spending over a longer period and women's health in general?
  At present, between one quarter and one third of sexually active women in the United Kingdom use oral contraceptives. Of women under 30, up to 48 per cent. use oral contraceptives. Of those aged between 31 and 40, 19 per cent. use them, and of those aged over 40, 7 per cent. use them. Its use among younger women is widespread because it is the most effective and appropriate form of contraception for most women. It also provides the best value for money, in terms both of preventing pregnancy and of cost to the national health service. Barrier methods, intrauterine devices, the sheath, the diaphragm and injectables are all less effective, and provide a worse deal for both women and the NHS than oral contraceptives.
  Why have the Government made the proposals? It cannot be to save money as the proposals clearly show that it would take only two additional pregnancies for every 100 women currently using oral contraceptives for the small net saving on one woman's drugs' budget for one year to be wiped out. I do not believe that the calculation of two out of every 100 women is an overestimate—I believe that there will be an increase in unwanted pregnancies. That is historically what happens, and it will happen again.
  During 1984, when there was the scare involving the pill and breast cancer, the number of terminations in the United Kingdom rose dramatically. In 1988, during the publicity about AIDS and the advice to men to use condoms, there was a further ratcheting up of the numbers of terminations as women came off the pill and relied on men to use condoms. The proposals constitute an ineffective way of implementing family planning in the United Kingdom, and we should not pursue such policies now—indeed, ever. If the Government are serious about achieving the targets contained in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper, they must make an early announcement stating that the proposals for oral contraception will be abandoned as quickly as possible.
  The termination of a pregnancy costs, on average, £200. It costs £270 for an overnight stay, and £140 for a day case. The average cost to the NHS of deliveries is £1,217. That includes GP costs and the care of any infant who must go into a special unit because of difficulties as a result of premature birth or other difficulties which, unfortunately, may occasionally arise.
  On the grounds of efficacy, and in terms of what the medical profession is saying, it is much better to use the pill than rely on males or females to use alternative methods that prove to be less effective than oral contraception. I want the Minister to set out his position clearly.
  A letter I received from a constituent GP summed up the matter as follows:

  963
  "For the sake of saving a few pence a week in the drugs bill, women will experience unpleasant and worrying side effects which will send them back to their GPs time and time again.
  It is even possible that the development of new contraceptive pills will grind to a halt as drug companies pull out of the market. The consequences of this will be to reduce further the pool of available contraceptives at precisely the time when specialists say its needs expanding."
  That puts the matter into perspective.
  I will conclude not simply because the hon. Member for Gillingham is giving me a sign—I usually take signs from my Deputy Chief Whip on such matters. The hon. Members for Thanet, North and for Gillingham and I have managed to put a constructive case to the Minister and I hope that he will respond. It is a pity that the two-man rebellion that we saw this morning did not happen on Thursday or we might not have been on opposite sides of the ring. I hope that the Minister will respond in a much more positive way.
  7.11 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): Madam Speaker, I will follow the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and wish you a good morning. He forgot to greet the Government Whip. I hope that I do not clash with the hon. Gentleman at this time of the day. He has been more constructive than he sometimes is about the drug industry. In a previous debate about pharmaceutical matters, I remember him talking about the pharmaceutical industry ripping off the national health service. I am glad that he has not resorted to such language today.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on securing this debate. He is a great friend of the industry. In the time that I have been in this job, no hon. Member has sought to speak for the whole industry in the way that my hon. Friend does.
  Having been through the Medicines Information Bill with my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Makerfield, I can attest that my hon. Friend put in a sterling performance. I shall say a few words about his regret that there has been a lack of parliamentary discussion on this matter to date, without lecturing him about how things work—he has been in the House for a long time—but for a more general audience. He will realise that the Government's priority is to propose legislation in any Session. It is not necessarily our first duty to introduce debates on such matters. That is the prime duty of the Opposition and any Back-Bench Member who wishes to raise an important matter on behalf of constituents, constituency interests, industries or whatever. Obviously, the Opposition have the opportunity to raise such matters at any time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has a strong interest in this subject. He made a powerful case, to which I will refer later.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and the hon. Member for Makerfield spoke about savings resulting from the limited list exercise. Those are hard to compute, because it is impossible to say what would have happened if some other event had not taken place. However, it is self-evident that an exercise that depresses consumption of certain products is likely to save money. It is argued that alternative products are dispensed and that that diminishes the savings. That may be true in some
  964
  instances, but to say that a preparation that is not dispensed is always replaced by another is probably fanciful.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield spoke about the price regulation scheme and about opening discussions on it. He also spoke about publishing the National Audit Office report. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that, and I note what he said about the need for discussion and announcements on these matters.
  Drugs are a powerful weapon in the war against illness, but, of course, they cost the NHS a great deal. The biggest element of NHS expenditure is pay, which accounts for about 70 per cent. of total spending, but the drugs bill accounts for about a third of the remainder. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham said, the NHS drugs bill reached its highest level in 1991–92 at £2·3 billion in England. Last year, it rose by a further 14 per cent. We cannot ignore that and must analyse the matter to determine whether we are getting value for the whole of that increase. We must keep the issue under close scrutiny. Against that background, we need to be alert to ensure maximum cost effectiveness.
  Mr. Couchman: I spoke at length in the debate and I hesitate to intervene. When my hon. Friend analyses the reasons for that increase, will he undertake to separate the portions that are due to Government policy in seeking to prevent illness and the portion that is purely an increase in the cost of pharmaceutical products?
  Mr. Sackville: It would be foolish of us to suppose that the drugs bill would not continue to rise. We have to make sure that the rate of rise is kept under review, because all health resources are precious. I have no doubt that in the years ahead we shall experience continuing pressure on NHS expenditure.
  One important development of prescribing behaviour is to be seen in the GP fund-holding scheme. We have already seen the difference in the rate of rise in prescribing costs between fund holders and other GPs. General practitioners with funds have shown that they have a direct interest in improving the cost effectiveness of prescribing. That is welcome, and they can retain any saving on drugs to reduce demand on the hospital referral element of the budget. That is not just theory: it has happened in practice. The prescribing costs of fund holders in 1991–92 increased, on average, by 3 per cent. less than those of other GPs, and we are confident that that was done without any loss of quality in prescribing.
  Mr. McCartney: Is it not also true that, where family health services authorities have introduced extensive generic prescribing policies and encouraged general practitioners—whether or not they are fund holders—there has been a significant budget saving?
  Mr. Sackville: That is true. There are all sorts of ways of trying to improve the quality of prescribing, and I do not think that some of the earlier references to indicative prescribing schemes are appropriate. I seem to remember that, when some of these schemes were announced, there were cries of alarm from the medical profession; I think it fair to point out that some proved to be unfounded.
  The selected list scheme should be seen as only one element in a wider strategy to control the rise in the NHS drugs bill. As has been said, a group of products was announced in 1985, including seven therapeutic categories.

  965
  Despite initial scepticism, it has not proved difficult or costly to administer; nor—I stress this—has it prevented patients from receiving the drugs and services that they need. I know of no case that has been made to attempt to prove that that has happened, although it was widely predicted by the industry and others at the time. Experience of the scheme has demonstrated that downward pressure can be exerted on the drugs bill without detriment to patients; that must be the key to any action that we take in this regard.
  We now propose to extend the scheme to include 10 further categories. They cover a range of products at varying price levels, and offer scope for savings while enabling all clinical needs to be met. Let me emphasise some important aspects of the scheme. Decisions on which drugs may no longer be available will be made on the advice of the advisory committee. Despite what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham about the chairmanship of the committee, it is an independent body consisting of experienced doctors, dentists and pharmacists, appointed following nomination by relevant professional organisations.
  The committee's membership has been increased to ensure that it has the necessary expertise to review new categories of drugs. For example, it now includes a consultant dermatologist, a consultant gynaecologist and a family planning doctor. It is free to take whatever outside expert advice it deems necessary.
  The committee's remit is to ensure that drugs to meet all real clinical needs can be provided as economically as possible. That is central to the argument.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield mentioned contraception. It is entirely untrue to say that the removal or review of constituents of the list will force women into abortion or off the pill, and impose contraceptive duties on men. As the hon. Gentleman may know, many oral contraceptives are currently available on prescription. Some duplicate others; I will not go into detail, as that would prejudge consideration of the list. However, if we thought—and if the advisory committee feared—that women would be forced off the pill, we would take no action that would lead to such a result.
  Let me repeat that it is a priority of our NHS policy to ensure that the appalling rate of teenage conceptions—which is five or six times the rate in neighbouring countries in northern Europe—is contained. That is an appalling national record and we shall not take any action that will cause further deterioration.
  The exercise cannot be characterised as a limitation in responding to patients' needs. If that was the case and if women were forced off the pill, the committee would not have done its job properly. I have no hesitation in saying that. Obviously, the Family Planning Association and family planning doctors are worried. They do not know the outcome of the review. They may fear the worst. But I am bound to give the hon. Member for Makerfield that reassurance.
  966
  A huge number of dermatological products are available. The committee will have to decide how many of them are efficacious. If it finds that some are being prescribed at NHS expense which are not efficacious, it will have to look hard at whether those drugs should be prescribed at NHS expense or at the price at which they are currently sold. It would be irresponsible of us not to consider that. All the doomsday predictions about the effects and outcome of the review are premature.
  All sorts of medical groups have made it plain that they are worried. I stress that the expert committee is there to ensure that there is a full range of drugs to meet all clinical needs. That is its remit. It does not have a Treasury remit or any other remit.
  The committee will ensure that manufacturers are informed as soon as possible if their products are not to be considered. Companies will be given an opportunity to make representations against any provisional view that a product should not be prescribable. In the past few months, many individuals and organisations have made representations to the Government about the selected list scheme. They have argued that they should be given an opportunity to make their views known. We have listened to all those representations. I have met several delegations. We have considered how we might respond to them.
  We have decided that, with immediate effect, we shall announce approximately a month before an order is laid the likely coverage of an order to add products to the selected list. That will give hon. Members and the public and any other bodies or individuals an early opportunity to make their views known about what is proposed.
  In addition to anxieties about patient welfare, it has been claimed that extension of the selected list scheme threatens Britain's successful pharmaceutical companies. I do not accept that view for several reasons. I do not need reminding about the value of the pharmaceutical industry to the United Kingdom. It is one of the few great research-based, exporting, manufacturing industries left.
  The United Kingdom represents 3 per cent. of the world market in consumption of pharmaceutical products. The new categories of drugs being considered by the advisory committee represents a small proportion of that. In the context of a single market, it is fanciful to assume that some restrictions on sales here, or some restriction on the list of products available for dispensing, would control decisions on investment, research and licensing here. If there are reasons for a company to move its manufacturing, research or licensing abroad, in a single market context, it is free to do so and should do so. To suggest that the introduction of some measure of control —matched by controls elsewhere in Europe—will result in companies moving overseas could, in some instances, be an empty threat. We must place that in context. We enormously value this country's pharmaceutical industry.
  I am sure that the business managers noted the requests to debate those matters, which are of enormous importance. However, there has been a great deal of doomsday prediction. This country has a strong and vibrant pharmaceutical industry. To say that we are going back to the age of leeches is dangerously premature.

  Gipsy Sites
  7.30 am
  Sir David Mitchell: I raised the problems caused by gipsies, tinkers, nomads and new age travellers in December 1991 and in May 1992. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for the hour. but not for raising that matter again, for the scenario is changing.
  The problem is in two parts. The first relates to the large number of vehicles and people that descend on my part of Hampshire and other parts of the country pre-solstice—later drawing large crowds mainly of youngsters to a noisy festival. The second relates to smaller groups of nomads who travel in caravans and converted buses. They take up residence on sites that are often unsuitable and remain there weeks and months with no proper sanitary arrangements, accumulating unsightly rubbish, and leaving filth behind when they eventually depart.
  In our experience in Hampshire, the Public Order Act 1986 is a most effective way of expelling the first group from private land. The Minister may recall that a large settlement arrived at Stockbridge Down two years ago. They were moved on using the 1986 Act, but then they settled on some green lanes where there was a public right of way as well as private property. Section 39 of the 1986 Act does not apply to green lanes.
  I suggested that that legislation should be extended to apply to such situations. The then Minister kindly arranged for the Minister of State, Department of the Environment to arrange a meeting between Home Office, Department of Transport and Department of the Environment officials, to which I made a presentation together with a representative of Hampshire county council and the deputy chief constable.
  I was delighted to receive a letter earlier this year from my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, which stated:
  "Your general interest and concern in this issue and your suggestion about extending section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 to include green lanes and byways open to all traffic were most helpful in our discussions as to how best we might proceed … We propose that section 39 should now be extended to cover minor highways, lanes and byways open to all traffic … As well as changes to section 39 we also propose to take measures to deal with illegal raves. We propose to give the police the power, where 10 or more people have gathered on a site and where it is believed that a rave will take place, to direct those people to leave. It would be a criminal offence to ignore the direction."
  That is most welcome, and will go a long way to ensuring that, pre-solstice, mass concentrations of travellers will no longer frighten my constituents. I use the word "frighten" intentionally, because that is the effect.
  However, I did not keep my hon. Friend the Minister up all night for a debate that started at half-past 7 in the morning simply to thank him. The second problem is the small groups of half a dozen or so who often camp for longer periods. They are part of some 3,900 to 4,000 unauthorised site dwellers throughout the country. I understand that there are some 4,800 county-provided sites and 2,100 private sites. My statistics, though, go back to 1989. If the Minister has more recent figures, I shall find them interesting and helpful.
  968
  I had a long letter from the Minister dated 31 March, for which I thank him warmly. He analysed the problem and spelt out the way forward, as he saw it. According to my hon. Friend, the existing system has, first,
  "failed gipsies and failed the local communities."
  I agree. Secondly, it has not reduced
  "the incidence of illegal camping … local authorities should have stronger powers to deal quickly and effectively with illegal camping."
  My hon. Friend also said that the Department proposed to "give local authorities a new power to direct trespassers to remove their caravans from land. Failure to comply … will be a criminal offence. We also propose that it will be a criminal offence to return to the same land as a trespasser within three months."
  I agree. My hon. Friend will hear the loud "Hear, hears" coming up from Hampshire—
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir David Mitchell: I have a lot of ground to cover, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if the Minister were to respond to the present consultations by removing the right of local authorities to provide sites, a duty that exists now, we should not solve the problems to which he referred but would create more of them and that the solution is to provide both private and public sites that are small and acceptable?
  Sir David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a point to which I was about to turn. I am sorry that I gave way to him.
  As I was saying, the Minister will hear loud "Hear, hears" from Hampshire regarding that proposal.
  The third point in my hon. Friend's letter is that the existing system does not provide sufficient accommodation for gipsies. I agree. It follows, logically, that steps should be taken to provide more accommodation.
  How will the Minister take these steps to put right the under-provision that he recognises? He sets that out in his draft circular of 26 May. The under-provision is a matter of sites for nomad encampments. At present, there is a duty on the county council to provide sites. There are insufficient sites, so the Minister tells us, so does he intend to strengthen that duty? No, he intends to abolish it.
  If there is no duty, how will the special needs of gipsies be met? Will it be met by relaxing the strict nature of planning controls so that either gipsies have their own camp sites or farmers use set-aside land for private sector provision? No. The Minister's main intention is, first, to reflect
  "the plan-led nature of the planning system".
  That means, in practice, that, if a local plan says it is open countryside and that there is to be no development there, it will be enforced—no matter that there is a deserted chalk quarry, or a gravel pit, hidden from sight by surrounding trees, out of the way where it does no harm to anybody. That site will not be allowed to be used, because it will be outwith the local plan.
  No matter that there is a hamlet of some 20 or 30 houses, with contiguous, half-hidden sites. That hamlet does not exist in the planners' eyes, because the planners have declared the area to be open countryside and it is forbidden that there should be any development in that sort of country. If my hon. Friend wants to know more about that, I urge him to look at the case of the Day family

  969
  in my constituency, a family of settled gipsies who sought to stay on their own land and who are under threat of being moved. An appeal that went to my hon. Friend's Department was heard by an inspector appointed by my hon. Friend, and was turned down, purely because it was outwith the plan that my hon. Friend intends fully to enforce.
  Does my hon. Friend intend to ensure that local authorities give special consideration to the needs of gipsies? No, he is going to withdraw the previous guidance stating that special consideration could be justified for gipsy sites in respect of protected areas including green belts. That is a double no, and a double blow.
  Planning applications in respect of the gipsy community should be treated on the same footing as those from anyone else. However, in our over-populated south-east of England and with tight planning controls, the prospect of obtaining planning consent for gipsy sites under the new conditions outlined by the Minister is virtually nil.
  I want now to consider the evidence given to the Department in response to the consultation document. Why has my hon. Friend the Minister not published an analysis, or placed in the Library of the House an analysis, of the responses that he has received? Is it because the advice has been generally unhelpful? Is it because it has shown virtually no support for the Minister's proposals on site provision? Is it not true that most respondents wanted to keep and to strengthen the present system?
  My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the conclusions of the Cripps report of 1976 and the Wibberley report of 1987, which stress the importance of private site provision. In response to the Minister's circular Hampshire county council stated:
  "Traditional Gypsies generally have the greatest difficulty obtaining planning permission … There is no evidence to suggest that traditional Gypsies will be more successful in the future in obtaining planning permission."
  The measured terms of the Hampshire county council response to the circular states:
  "If the slight advantage they have, by virtue of the advice given in the Department of the Environment circulars 28/77 and 57/78 is removed, then the prospects are likely to worsen. The County Council sees no prospect of a significant reduction of the numbers of Traditional Gypsies on legal and illegal sites if a main part of Government policy is to expect them to make their own provision from the same starting point as the settled community, and without the present small advantages stemming from Department of the Environment advice."
  No doubt the Minister has been to the DOE library and has read the responses. Is he aware that my research shows that the Council for the Protection of Rural England is concerned that the replacement of the statutory duty to provide sites is likely to increase the problem of identifying suitable sites? It believes that the overriding objective of gipsy site policy should be to secure sufficient sites in the most environmentally acceptable locations.
  The Country Landowners Association feels that the provision of gipsy sites should continue, while gipsies should receive encouragement to provide sites themselves. More local authority sites should be provided on local authority land. To some extent, the Caravan Sites Act 1968 was successful.
  The National Farmers Union states that the present provision of gipsy sites is unsatisfactory. There are not
  970
  enough of them, and some are poorly managed. The NFU is against absolving local authorities from their present duty. The National Trust states that a repeal of the duty to provide sites will result in lack of incentives to local authorities to provide sites.
  The Town and Country Planning Association disagrees most strongly with the repeal of the 1968 Act duties and believes that there is no good reason why travellers should not receive assistance at a level similar to that received by other sectors in the provision of places to live and work.
  The Association of County Councils believes that the proposals do not provide a solution that is intellectually coherent, acceptable in humanitarian terms or workable in practice. I agree with that. Response after response informs my hon. Friend the Minister that he has got it wrong. He rightly consulted, but he appears to have ignored the responses that he received.
  I want now to consider the draft provisional circular on gipsy sites and planning of 20 May. What does that document tell us? I will not read the whole document—I do not have time and I would not seek to do so—but I shall quote the essence of it:
  "The proposed removal of the local authorities' duty to provide gypsy sites is expected to lead to more applications for private gypsy sites."
  That is quite right. It goes on:
  "Local planning authorities will need to be aware of the accommodation and occupational needs of the travelling community".
  Hear, hear, but what is being done about that? It goes on:
  "It will be important for local planning authorities to be ready to discuss gypsies' needs at an early stage".
  Very nice. It goes on:
  "Authorities' plans may"—
  not "will have a duty"—
  "identify locations suitable for gypsy sites … Other areas which may"—
  I stress "may"—
  "be suitable for gypsy sites might"—
  not "must", not "should"—
  "include vacant land or surplus local authority land."
  So it goes on. There are pages and pages saying not very
  much. It states:
  "Authorities should"—
  not "must"—
  "take a positive approach in considering planning applications for private gypsy sites … There is, however, no special status attaching to gypsies in determining planning applications."
  In practice, that means that not a single proposed gipsy site in Hampshire, and certainly none in the Test valley, will ever be given consent. Gipsy sites are unpopular. They are an unpopular decision to be taken. Unpopular decisions can be relatively easily taken by large authorities, because only a small section of representatives will kick up a fuss. However, when the matter moves from county size to district or borough size, the furore when a gipsy site is proposed will ensure that it will be turned down by the planners.
  My hon. Friend's document consists of pages and pages, but it does not do anything to help provide for the sites that are required. I ask the Minister to draw back now before it is too late. I understand that he intends to introduce a Bill following the Queen's Speech in November. I staged this debate to say, first, that the proposals on mass disturbance and the Public Order Act 1986 are excellent; and, secondly, that the proposals to curb illegal camping are okay, provided that alternative

  971
  provision is made. But the proposals to remove the county duty to provide sites and let gipsies take their chance like everyone else with the planning system are deeply flawed.
  Local authorities will use their powers to move gipsies and nomads off unauthorised sites, and, like the Arcadians, they will go—but where? To another, probably more unsuitable site, causing more nuisance for local residents than the original site that they were on. The Minister should take back the proposal and think again, and, with respect, listen to the consultation responses that he has received. It is better that he does that now than incorporates a ministerial banana skin in a November Bill.
  I now wish to refer to unauthorised sites occupied by nomads. Parish councils and constituents alike have three principal complaints about such sites: they are insanitary—there is the comment about going into the bushes with a spade in the hand, or even none—rubbish and litter around the sites, and their unwashed appearance.
  I put a constructive point to the Minister. One of the main components of a successful policy will be the provision of transit sites, which are better chosen by the local authority than by the nomads who are driven from site to site. Such transit sites need four things: first, a bit of waste ground, well away from housing; secondly, two lavatories; thirdly, one stand pipe for water; and, fourthly, a skip for rubbish—nothing else.
  That costs a lot less than providing public housing for nomads who do not want it. Most of them live on £44 a week income support. They do not draw housing benefit. It is far more economic and makes far more sense to give them a loo, a water supply and a skip for rubbish than to criminalise them by taking away their existing unauthorised site and failing to make alternative provision.
  7.49 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I will try to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) in the comparatively short time available to me. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) intervened to make it clear that there should be a continuing duty in terms of public provision. I will also address that issue.
  My hon. Friend has had a continuing interest in this matter. In an earlier debate, he referred to three main concerns—illegal camping by small numbers of people in caravans sited on green lanes; large convoys of new age travellers who descend on my hon. Friend's constituency during the summer solstice on their way to Stonehenge; and ravers who are associated with the new age travellers in setting up unlicensed music festivals. We have taken steps to tackle those concerns—steps which have been welcomed by my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend is concerned that our reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 will not ensure that a sufficient number of sites will continue to be made available. I urge my hon. Friend to discuss his concerns with hon. Members from constituencies in Avon and Somerset. Despite the statutory duty on local authorities under the Act, which has been in force for more than 25 years, the provision of sites in Avon is woefully inadequate. Continuing disputes arise between districts and the county about the location of those sites. Every application is subject to considerable contention in the local communities and each application is politicised.
  972
  Despite the operation of the 1968 Act for more than 25 years, few districts in Somerset are designated as offering adequate provision for caravans. That Act, which commanded all-party support, was introduced with the best of motives, but it simply has not worked. Less than 40 per cent. of local authorities have made adequate provision under the terms of that Act so that they can become designated. In reality, even those that have been designated would need to make further provision because the Act was deeply flawed in its estimate of the number of gipsies for which it needed to make provision.
  We think that the time has come for that to change. As my hon. Friend has made clear, the 1968 Act has failed local authorities, local communities and the gipsies. For that reason, we believe that in future travellers should seek to make provision through the planning system.
  Many travellers already have made provision through that system and many private sites exist. I have two in my constituency, which offer 50 pitches each. In the 10 years in which I have been a Member of Parliament, I have never had any difficulty with either of them. I have never received any complaint about them; nor has any question been raised with me about them. The sites are well managed.
  The planning system is perfectly capable of making the necessary provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West is concerned that no gipsy site will ever receive planning permission in the Test valley should we opt for that system. With due respect, my hon. Friend is wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, the Test valley district council and every other district council will have to make provision within its local plan for reasonable provision of gipsy sites, just as it must make provision in the local plan for every other planning contingency. That is what the planning guidance circular is all about—ensuring that local authorities make adequate proposals and provision for travellers in their development plans.
  Then, if a local authority unreasonably refuses applications, an appeal is possible. I am determined that the planning system should operate fairly. At present, it does not explicitly recognise gipsies' special accommodation needs. Local planning authorities are required only to have general policies in their structure plans, which are seldom translated into detailed policies and local plans.
  Planning applications from gipsies are nearly always treated as departures from local planning policies. That is why we have issued, in draft form for public consultation, planning guidance which will require local planning authorities to include specific gipsy site policies in their local plans. That will give gipsies confidence in the system and encourage them to follow the rules.
  In the past, in incidents such as the one that my hon. Friend described, when gipsies have sought to make their own provision and have had their applications refused, and inspectors have then turned them down on appeal, this has almost always happened when gipsies have bought land, moved on, and sought to set up pitches without planning permission. Then, when the local authority has tried to take enforcement action, the gipsy family concerned have applied retrospectively for planning permission, and if it has been turned down, they have appealed. Not surprisingly, inspectors have said that it was wrong to flout the planning system in that way.
  I have every confidence, however, that, if gipsies make proper applications to local planning authorities, they will be provided with planning permission. Moreover, they will be able to see that local authorities make proper provision

  973
  within their development plans. If they do not, I have no doubt that the National Gypsy Council and others will draw our attention to the local authorities that they do not believe are making such provision. The Department can intervene in the development plans concerned and tell the local authorities that they are failing to make adequate provision.
  This will be a far more effective way of proceeding than the present cumbersome system, in which the Secretary of State's only recourse in such cases is to serve a statutory direction under the 1968 Act. A direction was served on Avon some years ago, but despite the application of the stick, adequate provision has yet to be made.
  The National Gypsy Council and others have welcomed the increased provision for private sites. The council, in response to the consultation paper that we issued in August 1992, said:
  "private sites are beneficial to all concerned: to gypsies because they offer them the security of a legal home and a base from which they can send their children to school; to local authorities and central government who are spared the expense of developing and managing sites; and to the local settled community by the reduction in numbers of unauthorised encampments … private gypsy sites are in locations where the gypsies who live on them will want to be; they suffer none of the problems due to incompatibility which are sometimes found on local authority sites; and once private sites become established, families on it quickly prove themselves to be good neighbours."
  So the gipsies themselves have welcomed our proposals.
  My hon. Friend asked why we do not publish a detailed analysis of the consultation. That would be very difficult, given the sort of responses that we obtained. They were often based on complete misunderstandings. For instance, press reports had led quite a few of those responding to believe that we intended deliberately to force gipsy families away from their traditional lives into domestic residential housing. There was never any suggestion of that. It was a red herring, but it affected many of the responses.
  Also, as my hon. Friend said, some of those responding merely wanted taxpayers to continue to provide a 100 per cent. grant. That has failed in the past. We have invested £56 million in the public provision of gipsy sites since 1968, but fewer than 40 per cent. of local authority areas are properly designated as having made adequate provision for gipsies.
  I very much hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the measures that we have—
  It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Michael Ancram be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Robert Jackson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  Sergeant Robin Feddon
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  8 am
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I rise, after a very long night, to request the Minister to order a board of inquiry into the death of Sergeant Robin Feddon. Tomorrow is the second anniversary of his death, but his mother has still not received a satisfactory explanation of the events that led to the death of her son. She is a constituent of mine whose husband, brothers and sons have all served with the British Army. She is proud of that tradition and of the fact that her son, Robin, served with distinction in the Gulf. She believed in the fairness of the Army and in British justice, but, almost two years after her son's death, her faith has been shattered by the Ministry of Defence's failure to order a board of inquiry into her son's death.
  I relate what happened. The Feddon family was based in Munster in Germany with the British Army. Sergeant Feddon was with the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, but served with the Hussars. On 28 July 1991, Mrs. Feddon left the family home at 1.20 pm, believing her husband to be alive. She returned at 1.30 pm with a friend, Mrs. Pritchard, and found him hanging by a skipping rope in the cellar. Mrs. Feddon and Mrs. Pritchard left the house without trying to save Sergeant Feddon. They did not seek help for at least 10 minutes—some argue that it was 20 minutes—but at 1.50 pm the guardhouse received a report about the incident. At 2.6 pm, Sergeant Feddon was pronounced dead.
  Before the funeral, Mrs. Feddon went to Holland on holiday with her boyfriend and Sergeant and Mrs. Pritchard. Mrs. Feddon decided to have her husband cremated in Germany rather than bringing the body home for burial in this country. That ruled out the possibility of a coroner's inquest. Mrs. Feddon received moneys totalling £165,000 from Army gratuities and insurance policies.
  Sergeant Feddon's brother claims that the widow told him that Robin had drunk half a bottle of spirits on the morning before he died. The post-mortem results record no alcohol in his bloodstream. Sergeant Feddon's mother says that Sergeant Pritchard phoned the family to say that Robin had been receiving psychiatric treatment, but the medical records show that that was not so.
  I have stated the facts. I am not accusing Mrs. Feddon of any crime; this is not trial by Parliament. I am relating the events to make it clear that it was not a usual death, or suicide, if that is what it was. It was unusual in the extreme; it was bizarre, yet there has been no inquest or Army board of inquiry to which witnesses could be called under oath.
  Army regulations state:
  "Matters to be investigated in accordance with Defence Council policy. The Defence Council declare that, as a matter of policy, the matters set out below are usually to be investigated by a board of inquiry."
  The first of those matters is
  "Unnatural death abroad.
  (1) Of any person subject to military law, other than death by enemy action."
  That certainly applied to Sergeant Feddon.
  Since Sergeant Feddon's funeral, his family have been pushing for further investigations. They have written to the Ministry of Defence, to Robin's commanding officer,

  975
  to generals, to the Attorney-General and to the Prime Minister. I have written to two Ministers on five occasions and have had two meetings with Viscount Cranborne. On the first occasion, I had to threaten to seek an Adjournment debate because he refused to see me. I last wrote to him on 28 February requesting a board of inquiry; I have yet to receive a reply.
  I advised the family that to take the matter further I would have to seek a debate in Parliament, which would mean making it public. They agreed that that was the only action remaining to them because of the Government's reluctance to hold a board of inquiry. I again telephoned Viscount Cranborne to see whether he would hold a board of inquiry before I applied for an Adjournment debate. Again, he refused.
  Two articles appeared in The Guardian on 13 July. The first dealt with my call for an inquiry and the other reported the suicide, or death. They were written by a Lobby journalist. It says much for the family that after two years they decided that the story should be dealt with in a responsible way. David Hencke wrote the article in a responsible way. Many of us can imagine how the tabloids would have handled the story.
  The family have been careful and patient, yet the Government have treated the matter with contempt. The Minister may argue that now is not the time to hold a board of inquiry because two years have passed since Sergeant Feddon's death. The fault for that lies with the Army and Defence Ministers, not with the family. Army regulations state that a board of inquiry should have been held, but it was decided not to hold one.
  If nothing else, I hope that the Minister will at least say that such an incident will never happen again. The Guardian article reports Lord Cranborne as saying:
  "I agree that formal proceedings might have prevented subsequent recriminations. The need for a board of inquiry in such circumstances is being reinforced."
  That is an admission by the Army that a board of inquiry should have been held, that a mistake has been made and that the matter should be rectified in the future.
  That is not good enough. I do not accept that an investigation by the military police is a substitute for a board of inquiry or an inquest. If Sergeant Feddon had died in the United Kingdom, there would have been a police inquiry and a public inquest, at which witnesses could have been cross-examined under oath. That was not the case, so I do not accept the argument that, if there was a police investigation, that should be the end of the matter. It is nonsense to say that there should be one law for the Army and those who serve overseas and another for civilians in this country.
  There has been a cover-up. I do not know why there has been a cover-up and I am not accusing anybody of committing any crime. I am just saying that justice should be done and should be seen to be done. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that the Government have given great thought to the matter, consulted the Minister in the other place, and decided that there has been a mistake and that there should now be a board of inquiry so that, on the second anniversary of Sergeant Feddon's death, his family will know that all the facts of the case will be made public. Then, perhaps, his mother can get on with grieving for her son.
  8.10 am
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has taken this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the sad facts surrounding the case of Sergeant Feddon. This is by no means the first opportunity that the hon. Gentleman has had to air the facts of the case, and I know that he knows the facts intimately. I very much hope, for the sake of the Feddon family, and not least the children, that it will be the last. He said that letters to my noble Friend Viscount Cranborne had not been answered, but he must admit that he has had two meetings with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence as a result of those letters, and has received full explanations. I hope that he will regard those meetings as replies to those letters.
  Of course, I understand the distress of Sergeant Feddon's parents. The hon. Gentleman said that this is not a trial by Parliament, but it seemed to me to be getting pretty close to it. He said that there has been a cover-up. but I believe that the facts will show otherwise. I hope that this morning will be the end of the matter.
  At about 13.55 hours on Sunday 28 July 1991, as the hon. Gentleman said, exactly two years ago tomorrow, the Royal Military police, Munster, received information that the apparently lifeless body of Sergeant Robin Feddon had been found by his wife, Mrs. Juliet Feddon, in the cellar of their married quarter. It seems he had committed suicide by hanging himself with a skipping rope.
  The scene was visited by the investigating officers of the special investigations branch of the Royal Military police and the senior medical officer. The senior medical officer pronounced Sergeant Feddon dead at 14.06 hours, the cause of death to be determined by post-mortem examination. It was established that the body had not been disturbed and, after photographs had been taken, the body was removed to the mortuary. No letter was found and there was no obvious evidence that Sergeant Feddon had intended to take his own life. A full military police investigation subsequently took place. The results of this investigation are copious and detailed, but I consider it important that I devote some time to enlarging upon its outcome.
  Mrs. Juliet Feddon was interviewed at length and it transpired that, following an argument between Sergeant and Mrs. Feddon at a mess function in the early hours of Saturday 27 July, Mrs. Feddon stayed with friends. Sergeant and Mrs. Feddon agreed to meet at their quarter on Sunday 28 July to discuss their differences.
  On that Sunday Mrs. Feddon was accompanied by a female friend who remained with the two Feddon children in a nearby park while Sergeant and Mrs. Feddon talked. Mrs. Feddon recounted that she and her husband reached an amicable agreement to divorce and at 13.20 hours she told her husband that she was going to the play park to collect the children.
  Mrs. Feddon stated that the children were reluctant to return with her to the quarter but were persuaded to do so by the promise of an ice lolly each. On reaching the house Mrs. Feddon went to the freezer, which was kept in the cellar, to get the ice lolly. On reaching the cellar she saw her husband hanging by his neck from a skipping rope tied to some water pipes near to the freezer. Mrs. Feddon estimated that this was about half past one.
  Shocked, she ran back up the cellar steps and told her friend what had happened and that she was going to seek

  977
  help from a neighbour. She stated that she went to the house of a neighbouring Army captain where a barbecue was being held. Mrs. Feddon stated that she was understandably shocked by the discovery of her husband's body and too frightened to approach him.
  Mr. Martlew: In fact, both Mrs. Feddon and Mrs. Pritchard went in. In The Guardian article from which I quoted, Mrs. Feddon said that she thought that her husband was alive at that time.
  Mr. Hanley: I do not have the information that Mrs. Feddon thought that her husband was alive at that time. I believe that she said that she thought that he was 99 per cent. dead. What exactly that means, I know not. All that I know is that she was understandably scared. I have had a report from a psychologist who says that when a person finds another hanging one of a number of normal reactions is to leave the scene immediately.
  The hon. Gentleman might want to put himself in Mrs. Feddon's place. Is it a duty to cut down someone who is hanging? Is it a duty to try to lift his feet to try to relieve the weight? Is it a duty to try to ascertain whether he is dead? I submit that it is one of the normal reactions to be so scared with what one has found that that person departs from the scene immediately to try to get help.
  I am not saying that that is the only reaction. It may not be the way that the hon. Gentleman would react in such circumstances. Certainly, Mrs. Feddon said that she was so shocked that she left the scene immediately. Her friend also stated that she, too, was scared of going down to the cellar and that she also went to seek help after Mrs. Feddon's departure from the House. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that both women left and neither of them felt that she could approach the body.
  A statement taken from another Army captain who was a guest at the barbecue confirms that he witnessed his host with Mrs. Feddon telephoning the emergency services. She was certainly distressed. At almost exactly the same moment the emergency services received a call from another neighbour of the Feddon family, a staff sergeant, who had been approached by Mrs. Feddon's friend.
  I have gone into some detail about what transpired on that afternoon because I know that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, Sergeant Feddon's family have expressed some concern at the time that elapsed between the initial discovery of the body and the arrival of the emergency services. The hon. Gentleman has also called into question whether Mrs. Feddon might be guilty of any crime by not cutting down her husband's body immediately. Some people may regard that suggestion as distasteful and inappropriate. I have tried to explain that it is regarded as one of a range of normal reactions. In any event, I am advised that there is no evidence of any criminal conduct on Mrs. Feddon's part. I also ask that the hon. Gentleman makes allowances for the shock that any wife might feel in such appalling circumstances.
  The investigating officers found no evidence to suggest foul play and that conclusion was supported by the results of the post-mortem examination. As the hon. Gentleman said, subsequent tests showed a nil alcohol level in Sergeant Feddon's body. Again, as the hon. Gentleman said, his medical records made no reference to his ever having undergone psychiatric treatment—nor is there any
  978
  evidence of anyone alleging that he had had such treatment. The special investigation branch concluded that Sergeant Feddon's death was an act of suicide and that the other details were merely hearsay.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to insurance moneys and payments from service charities. I am not sure what he is implying, but again it is true that it would be quite normal for someone to take out insurance policies, especially when her husband went off to the Gulf or to some other such episode. No doubt it is another detail that could give rise to suspicion in the minds of those who, perhaps, were unprepared for what happened.
  My sympathy and that of the Ministry of Defence remains with the whole of Sergeant Feddon's family. I know that my officials, in responding to their many inquiries, have been courteous and understanding at all times. I have been through the complete file in the few weeks since I have taken on these responsibilities. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a very thorough investigation was carried out and a number of additional inquiries made by the Feddon family were followed up.
  Once the investigation was concluded, Mrs. Feddon, as next of kin, was at liberty to choose to have her husband's body either repatriated to the United Kingdom or cremated in Germany. She elected, quite within her rights, to arrange a cremation in Germany and her husband's remains were then repatriated to the United Kingdom. Incidentally—the hon. Gentleman referred to it as a detail which might cause suspicion—that meant that Sergeant Feddon's death was not subject to a coroner's inquest as it would have been had his body been repatriated to England or Wales prior to cremation or burial. It would not have been subject to an inquest if it had been repatriated to Scotland or Northern Ireland, so the inconsistency is not total. However, the purpose of an inquest is to establish who the deceased was and how, when and where he died. It does not apportion blame or address matters of civil or criminal liability.
  The hon. Gentleman is also aware that the brigade commander exercised his discretion not to convene a board of inquiry into the case on the basis that such an inquiry would unearth no further relevant facts. The brigade commander was within his rights not to hold a board of inquiry, since although it is Ministry of Defence policy that a board of inquiry should be held into any unnatural death overseas, Queen's regulations do not make that mandatory where the death has been investigated by another form of inquiry or investigation.In this case, the special investigations branch of the Royal Military Police had made a full investigation.
  The hon. Gentleman has since requested that a board of inquiry be convened at this late stage. I understand that the reasons for the delay related to the facts as we set them out, but we must deal with the matter from this point. Lord Cranborne refused the hon. Gentleman's request on the ground that witnesses could not be compelled to return to Germany to attend if a board of inquiry were held there, and civilians cannot be compelled to attend wherever a board of inquiry is held. No further physical or witness evidence is therefore likely to emerge now. I have to concur with Lord Cranborne's conclusion that a board of inquiry, which would necessarily have to be based upon the investigating team's original findings, would achieve nothing now. Indeed, I consider it vital that we keep at the forefront of our minds the well-being of Sergeant and Mrs. Feddon's two children on whom any further inquiry could

  979
  only have a traumatic effect. Indeed, I feel that the likely publicity generated by raising the matter in that forum might be most undesirable for the children. The hon. Gentleman said that the tabloids had not got hold of the story, but it has been published in The Guardian, so it is in the public forum and available for whatever treatment the tabloids wish to give it. For the sake of the children, I hope that it is not subject to such treatment.
  A board of inquiry is not a criminal court and cannot be used to conduct criminal proceedings. The primary purpose of such a forum is to establish the effectiveness of a unit—or, as in this case, of the emergency procedures followed—and assess whether the appropriate measures were taken. I do not believe that any of those factors were in question in this instance.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have undertaken to review the Army's practice with regard to boards of inquiry with a view to considering whether they should be held as a matter of course in cases of unnatural or violent death. There is some inconsistency between the three forces. The results of that review are not yet known. However, even if a board of inquiry were to be held in every case, including this one, there would doubtless still be some who would not accept its findings, any more than they might have accepted the findings of a thorough investigation by the military police.
  980
  Since these tragic events transpired, Sergeant Feddon's family have continued to make complaints either directly to my Department or via the hon. Gentleman. Many of those complaints have contained accusations against, among others, Mrs. Feddon which are based upon hearsay and which cannot reasonably be discussed in this place. The investigation into Sergeant Feddon's death was necessarily based primarily on the witness statements of all those present or associated in some way with the case. In many cases, the individuals have been interviewed more than once and on no occasions have the families' claims been supported by factual or witness evidence.
  I can only repeat, therefore, the same conclusions which have been imparted on numerous occasions before. I am content that the matter has been investigated to the fullest extent possible and that nothing could or would be gained by reopening the case, certainly not by a board of inquiry. In such circumstances there is often a strong feeling that blame should be apportioned. I appreciate the feelings of the family, but ask them, for their own sake, to come to terms with their loss. The evidence points incontrovertibly to the original finding of suicide.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eight o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial System (Probity)
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his responsibilities in respect of the maintenance of the integrity and probity of the judicial system; and what role his Department plays in relation to allegations of bribery involving judges.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor regards integrity and probity as essential qualities for all those working in the judicial system. The investigation of allegations of bribery involving judges is a matter for the police. Consideration will also be given by the Lord Chancellor to any further action that may be required in the light of the results flowing from any such investigation.

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what steps he is taking to help victims of industrial deafness who are deterred from pursuing claims against their employers by the new regulations governing legal aid;

  (2) what steps he is taking to help victims of industrial deafness to pursue their claims for compensation against their employers.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No separate assessment has been made of the effect of the legal aid eligibility changes on litigants with specific categories of case. However, the financial limits for personal injury actions remain higher than those for other categories of civil proceedings. The disposable income limit for personal injury cases is £7,500 (£6,800 for other proceedings) and the disposable capital limit is £8,560 (£6,750 for other proceedings).

  No specific steps are proposed for the handling of industrial deafness cases, but they will benefit from a number of jurisdictional and procedural changes introduced for personal injury cases generally over the past two years. In the coming months the Lord Chancellor intends to issue a public consultation document setting out proposals for a less formal method than trial in open court for handling smaller personal injury claims. Depending on the financial limit set, a number of industrial deafness cases may benefit.

  Vulnerable Witnesses
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases defence counsel have objected to the use of video-link television equipment for the purpose of interviewing child witnesses and other vulnerable witnesses in each of the past three years; of these objections, how many were accepted by the court; and if he will make a statement.
  524
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information sought by the hon. Member is not collected, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases and in which courts video link television equipment has been used for the purpose of interviewing child witnesses and other vulnerable witnesses outwith the actual court room in each of the past four years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of cases in which child witnesses has given evidence via live television links at suitably equipped Crown court centres is set out in the table provided in answer to the hon. Member's previous question.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many court cases a screen has been used in order to shield child witnesses from those being proceeded against in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The hon. Member asked a similar question on 16 November last year, to which I gave an answer that the information was not collected. I am pleased to be able to report that from 1 January 1993 my Department introduced a mechanism for collecting this information in the Crown court. Since that date there have been 18 reported cases in which a screen has been used to shield a child witness in court.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many courts have video-link television equipment installed for the purpose of interviewing child witnesses and other vulnerable persons; where such courts are located; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Live television link equipment, for the purpose of children giving evidence under the provisions of section 32 Criminal Justice Act 1988, has been installed at the 47 Crown court centres listed in the table, which also provides the answer to the hon. Member's further question.

  TV links statistics

  Court

  1989 Used

  1990 Used

  1991 Used

  1992 Used

  Birmingham

  10

  26

  16

  18

  Bradford

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Bristol

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Caernarfon

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Cardiff

  —

  —

  12

  10

  Carlisle

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Central Criminal Court

  4

  4

  3

  2

  Chelmsford

  11

  4

  16

  7

  Chester

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Croydon

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Derby*

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Exeter

  2

  7

  4

  1

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Grimsby

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Guildford

  7

  5

  7

  3

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Hull

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Ipswich*

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kingston upon Thames*

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leeds

  3

  8

  17

  13

  Leicester

  —

  —

  6

  0

  Lewes

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Lincoln

  —

  —

  —

  0

  525

  Court

  1989 Used

  1990 Used

  1991 Used

  1992 Used

  Liverpool

  16

  11

  13

  6

  Luton*

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maidstone

  15

  18

  4

  3

  Manchester

  2

  6

  1

  0

  Mold

  9

  3

  1

  1

  Newcastle

  —

  —

  11

  5

  Northampton

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Norwich

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Nottingham

  16

  15

  14

  3

  Peterborough*

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Preston

  —

  —

  1

  0

  Reading

  —

  —

  1

  0

  St. Albans

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  5

  3

  South wark

  2

  6

  5

  7

  Stafford

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Swansea

  6

  15

  3

  3

  Teesside

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Truro

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Winchester

  5

  0

  5

  0

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Woolwich*

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Installation of equipment at the courts marked "*" took place in 1993

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Benefits Agency business plan for the current year was laid before Parliament.

  Mr. Ancram
  It is expected that the Social Security Agency's 1993–94 business plan will be published in August 1993. The agency's service and financial targets for the year have, however, already been set and are as follows. They are in line with the Government's policy of improving the service provided to customers and fully support the standards established in the Northern Ireland citizens charter. I am satisfied that the targets present a demanding challenge for the agency.

  1. BENEFIT CLEARANCE TIMES (a)

  Per cent.

  In days

  Social fund crisis loans—on the day the need arises

  Social fund community care grants

  65

  7

  95

  20

  Income support

  71

  5

  90

  13

  Sickness/invalidity benefit

  65

  10

  95

  30

  Child benefit

  73

  10

  95

  30

  Family credit

  60

  13

  95

  42

  Disability living allowance

  65

  30

  85

  55

  Retirement pension

  65

  20

  95

  60

  Unemployment benefit

  7·5

  2. BENEFIT ACCURACY

  Income support: to pay the correct amount in at least 92 per cent. of cases. Sickness/invalidity benefit: to pay the correct amount in at least 97 per cent. of cases.

  Family credit: to pay the correct amount in at least 92 per cent. of cases.
  526
  Disability living allowance: to pay the correct amount in at least 96 per cent. of cases.

  Retirement pension: to pay the correct amount in at least 99 per cent. of cases.

  3. CUSTOMERS SATISFACTION (b)

  90 per cent. of customers to regard the agency's service as satisfactory or better.

  4. FINANCIAL RECOVERY

  Recovery of social fund loans—£16·1 million.

  Recovery of income support overpayments—£1·2 million.

  Recovery of centralized benefits overpayments—£0·18 million.

  Benefit savings from detection and prevention of fraud—£10·8 million.

  Increase number of contribution surveys to 6,000—including 1,400 employer educational visits.

  Increase class 1 identified from survey—arrears and in-year savings—to £0·38 million.

  5. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

  To live within a gross allocation of £28·5 million for social fund loans and community care grants.

  To live within the agency's gross administration budget of £119·5 million, of which £113·6 million relates to running costs. A cash efficiency saving of £2·8 million—2·7 per cent.—has been deducted from the running costs—excluding Benefits Agency work.

  Notes:

  (a). Clearance times normally cover the period from the date of receipt of the claim in the agency to the formal decision by the adjudication officer or equivalent. Notification of the result is normally issued the following day. All days refer to working days.

  (b) The customer satisfaction target covers a two-year period and will be measured by an independent survey in 1994–95.

  Hospital Opthalmic Departments
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidelines are given to health and social services boards for keeping and collating statistics in hospital ophthalmic departments; and what data from hospital ophthalmic departments boards are required to collate.

  Mr. Ancram
  The same data are collected for the specialty of ophthalmology as for all other hospital specialties. Details of the forms and how to complete them are given in the guidance manual for Korner central requirements for hospital services. This is supported by a data dictionary which lists the standard definitions to be used throughout Northern Ireland. In addition, anonymised records of patients' diagnoses and any operative procedures carried out are also collected for analysis centrally.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average cost of a visit to a hospital ophthalmic out-patient department.

  Mr. Ancram
  This information is not available at present.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many referrals from general practitioners and optometrists to hospital ophthalmology out-patients clinics there have been since 1985.

  Mr. Ancram
  This information is not available in the form requested. The total number of referrals to hospital ophthalmology out-patient clinics in Northern Ireland since 1985 is as follows:
  527

  Year

  Number

  1985

  19,268

  1986

  19,449

  1987

  18,786

  1988–89

  18,306

  1989–90

  19,106

  1990–91

  19,872

  1991–92

  20,668

  1992–93

  21,832

  Director of Public Health
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if the Eastern Health and social services board intends to re-advertise the post of director of public health;

  (2) when the Eastern health and social services board expects a permanent director of public health to take up the post.

  Mr. Ancram
  The vacant post of director of public health, Eastern health and social services board, was advertised in March 1993. A number of candidates were shortlisted for the post, but following interviews the board did not make an appointment.

  The board intends to readvertise the post and, in the meantime, an effective acting-up arrangement is in place.

  Armagh Health Centre
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to sell the health centre in Armagh; what plans he has for the property to be advertised for sale to the public; and if he will make a statement on the procedures which apply to the sale of publicly owned properties.

  Mr. Ancram
  The general medical practitioners working in Armagh health centre have expressed an interest in buying the premises. The proposal is being considered by the Southern health and social services board and is subject to approval by the Department of Health and Social Services. If the proposal is approved the premises would be sold at a price advised by the district valuer.

  A sale in these circumstances would result in a change of ownership but a continuation of the general medical services currently provided from the health centre. The sale would not therefore be advertised on the open market, nor would it be subject to the normal policy and procedural guidelines for dealing with the disposal of surplus Government land which are contained in DOE (NI) lands service circular No. LSC/1/91. A copy of the said circular has been placed in the Library.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses in Northern Ireland,528
  through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and through specific programmes of support and assistance. Economic development strategy focuses on assisting companies to develop their growth potential and competitiveness and is implemented through the Industrial Development Board (IDB) and the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU)

  Each year, IDB and LEDU set challenging targets and measure performance against both these and performance in the previous year.

  LEDU had a successful year in 1992–93 with a significant rise in activity levels across its range of programmes, including 3,716 individuals receiving enterprise training against a target of 3,000, and 1,429 new business start-ups against a target of 1,215.

  During 1992–93 there was a net increase of employment of 1,020 in LEDU client companies; this represents a significant reversal of the previous years results which showed a net decrease in employment of 650.

  Overall, 1992–93 was also a year of substantial achievement for the IDB when viewed against a background of recession at home and overseas. It was a successful year for inward investment, with 10 projects offering almost 2,000 new jobs having been attracted to Northern Ireland. Companies already based in Northern Ireland, many of them employing fewer than 200 people, have been winning business in the highly competitive international marketplace. Achieving and maintaining international competitiveness is promoted by the IDB as the most important objective which companies should strive towards if they are to survive and grow.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the IDB has taken following the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland into the selective financial assistance criteria employed by the IDB to improve the assessment of the employment potential of projects.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland reported to the House of Commons earlier this year on the application by the Industrial Development Board of its selective financial assistance criteria. This report was the basis of an examination by the Committee of Public Accounts which published its report, containing a number of recommendations, on 22 July 1993. A formal memorandum of reply to the Committee's report will be issued by the Department of Finance and Personnel in early autumn.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the implementation of the Industrial Development Board's forward strategy for 1991 to 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Industrial Development Board has reported on the implementation of forward strategy in its annual reports for 1990–91 and 1991–92. A further update will be given in the report of 1992–93 to appear in the autumn. IDB officials report to me on their activities and I have regular meetings with the board's chairman. The board's activities are subject to regular policy evaluation and review.
  529

  Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what comparative assessments have been made between housing associations and the Housing Executive with regard to the value for money in the administration, management and development costs of the different organisations.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is not possible to draw meaningful comparisons of relative value for money between the Housing Executive and housing associations because of the differences in the scale of their operations, in the housing needs which they seek to meet and in age and type of their housing stock. However, work is continuing to develop valid comparisons of management, maintenance and capital costs. A recent assessment of the value for money in new housing schemes confirms that in general both the Housing Executive and housing associations provide value for money.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision for move-on accommodation has been made by the Housing Executive for the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been advised by the chairman of the Housing Executive that it does not make specific provision for move-on accommodation.

  Selective financial assistance offers

  £000

  Industrial Development Board

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  Year

  South Down

  Northern Ireland

  Down, Banbridge and Newry and Mourne

  Northern Ireland

  1981–82

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1,024

  5,545

  1982–83

  162

  144,000

  1,178

  9,027

  1983–84

  2,985

  80,000

  1,375

  13,549

  1984–85

  6,625

  133,000

  1,534

  18,027

  1985–86

  4,307

  72,000

  2,197

  21,759

  1986–87

  1,522

  109,000

  2,241

  18,890

  1987–88

  811

  97,000

  2,563

  18,200

  1988–89

  4,870

  107,000

  3,080

  26,004

  1989–90

  610

  93,000

  887

  21,668

  1990–91

  1,415

  82,000

  2,498

  22,936

  1991–92

  300

  64,000

  1,520

  20,014

  1From 1 September 1982.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all those services or functions contracted out in his Department and agencies, since November 1991, in which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were not applied.

  Mr. Atkins
  Whether or not the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations apply in any particular case will depend on the nature of the work awarded and the contractors' own proposals for carrying it out. The services or functions which have been contracted out in Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office and their agencies, since November 1991, and in which the regulations were not applied, are as follows:

  Building maintenance

  Catering

  Cleaning

  530
  The executive does however provide financial assistance to a number of voluntary agencies working in the homelessness field which provide counselling and resettlement programmes as part of their overall accommodation service. This assistance will amount to approximately £350,000 in 1993–94.

  Selective Financial Assistance
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amounts of selective financial assistance were allocated to industrial enterprises in the constituency of South Down from 1 April 1981 to 31 March 1992; and what were the total amounts of selective financial assistance allocated in each year in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information on selective financial assistance offers made by the Industrial Development Board to companies in the South Down constituency is available only from 1 September 1982, when the board was set up. Information on selective financial assistance offers made by the Local Enterprise Development Unit is available only by district council area.

  The table sets out the information available.

  Computer system

  Courier system

  Data processing

  Facilities management

  Grounds maintenance

  Gully emptying

  IT products and services

  Messengers/porterage

  Painting and decorating

  Receptionists/telephonists

  Roads reinstatement

  Security

  Sewer maintenance

  Sludge tinkering

  Stores

  Support typing

  Verge maintenance

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will publish details of activity in Northern Ireland designed to promote renewable energy sources;
  531
  (2) if he will make an announcement on future non-fossil fuel obligation policy for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  A study, jointly commissioned by Northern Ireland Electricity plc (NIE) and the Department of Economic Development, into the potential for renewable energy has concluded that there are a number of promising renewable technologies for commercial development in Northern Ireland.

  On the basis of the study's findings, and having regard to the Government's commitment to the promotion of commercially viable renewable technologies, I intend to make a non-fossil fuel obligation order next year under article 35 of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, requiring NIE to secure the availability of up to 15 MW of power from renewable sources. The size of the order and the technologies included within it, will be determined by the bids received by NIE, having regard to the need for diversity of technologies and the impact on costs to electricity consumers.

  Accordingly, NIE will today be inviting bids from developers and will be announcing details of the arrangements for the processing of such bids.

  I envisage further non-fossil fuel obligation orders being made in future years with the aim of achieving a target of about 45 MW of renewable plant in Northern Ireland by the year 2005.

  Disability Allowances (Women)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many women who qualify for severe disablement allowance and invalid care allowance will receive their full entitlement following the decision of the European Court of Justice on 30 March in case C328/91; when they will receive payments; if the payment of arrears will extend beyond 12 months from the date of claim; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from A. Wylie to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 22 July 1993:
  As I am responsible for Social Security operational matters, your recent Parliamentary Question about the effect of the European Court of Justice decision in case C328/91 as regards the entitlement of women to Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) and Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) has been passed to me for reply.
  Information about the number of women whose entitlement to these benefits falls within the scope of this decision is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, all such claims received after August 1988 have been adjudicated on and, where appropriate, payment made in accordance with normal rules and time limits. A decision regarding the payment of arrears beyond the normal time limit of 12 months is still awaited in separate cases currently before the European Court.
  I hope this is helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the official report and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Paediatrics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vacant posts of consultant paediatricians and senior registrars specializing in paediatrics have 532
  been notified in each of the past five years; on average how long it takes to fill such posts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows, at September in each year:

  Vacant posts

  Consultant paediatricians

  Senior registrars

  1988

  3

  1

  1989

  3

  1

  1990

  3

  0

  1991

  0

  0

  1992

  1

  2

  On average, from notification of vacancies, it takes three months to advertise and select successful candidates.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many consultant paediatricians and senior registrars are currently in post.

  Mr. Ancram
  There are currently 26 consultant paediatricians and 11 senior registrars employed in the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) consultant paediatricians and (b) senior registrars currently employed were trained in (i) Northern Ireland, (ii) elsewhere in the United Kingdom, (iii) other European Community countries and (iv) countries outwith the EC.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information sought is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Concessionary Travel
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has concerning the denial of concessionary travel privileges and related concessions to those persons aged 60 years or more who are in receipt of invalidity benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The concessionary fare scheme, which is administered by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, is not linked to the receipt of invalidity benefit.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many recorded visits were made by industrialists in connection with potential inward investment to each district council area in Northern Ireland from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993; and of these how many were repeat visits.

  Mr. Atkins
  Details of recorded first and repeat visits by industrialists to each district council area in Northern Ireland are set out in the table.

  1992–93 Visits by District Council Area

  District Council

  First visits

  Repeat visits

  Antrim

  17

  21

  Ards

  2

  3

  Armagh

  2

  1

  533

  District Council

  First visits

  Repeat visits

  Ballymena

  1

  2

  Ballymoney

  3

  1

  Banbridge

  —

  —

  Belfast

  55

  86

  Carrickfergus

  4

  3

  Castlereagh

  6

  2

  Coleraine

  1

  3

  Cookstown

  1

  —

  Craigavon

  7

  8

  Derry

  7

  16

  Down

  5

  1

  Dungannon

  1

  2

  Fermanagh

  2

  2

  Larne

  2

  3

  Limavady

  —

  2

  Lisburn

  5

  6

  Magherafelt

  1

  —

  Moyle

  1

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  4

  6

  Newtownabbey

  18

  12

  North Down

  6

  1

  Omagh

  —

  1

  Strabane

  —

  —

  Total

  151

  182

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Attorney-General, (1) pursuant to his oral statement of 30 June,Official Report, column 967, when he concluded that there was no credible evidence implicating the judge in the case of Regina v. Nadir and Turner in a conspiracy;

  (2) when he expects the police investigation under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions into the alleged conspiracy to bribe Mr. Justice Tucker to be completed; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when he first learned of the allegation that the judge in the case of Regina v. Nadir and Turner was involved in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice;

  (4) when he reviewed the evidence relating to allegations of involvement by the judges in the case of Regina v. Nadir and Turner in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

  The Attorney-General
  The director of the Serious Fraud Office was informed on 1 October 1992 that the Metropolitan police had commenced an investigation into an alleged plot to bribe the trial judge in the Polly Peck case. I was informed of the position during the week commencing 5 October. The investigation continues and its management is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I cannot say when it will be completed.

  The evidence gathered during the investigation will be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service at its conclusion. The information that no credible evidence had been revealed implicating the judge was confirmed in response to a specific inquiry initiated by me to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the light of speculation and concern caused by the statement made by the hon. Member himself on 29 June.
  534

  Jason Georgiou
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the previous convictions of Paul Smith, a prosecution witness in the case of Jason Georgiou; and in how many other cases he has been a prosecution witness.

  The Attorney-General
  No. Background information of this nature relating to prosecution witnesses is provided to the Crown Prosecution Service solely for use in the course of criminal proceedings.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will outline the evidence which led the Crown Prosecution Service to charge Jason Georgiou with conspiracy to murder; and why the case was dropped.

  The Attorney-General
  No. It is my practice not to give detailed reasons in relation to decisions to prosecute. The Crown Prosecution Service was satisfied that the evidence available at the outset of proceedings was sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

  The case against Jason Georgiou and three of his co-defendants was dropped because the principal prosecution witness proved unwilling to give evidence at the trial.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  World Bank
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the British contribution to the World Bank group is used(a) for projects that directly benefit the poorest people in developing countries and (b) to help to meet the goals established at the world summit for children.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  United Kingdom contributions are used to support the overall operations of the World bank. The proportion which can be attributed to projects of this kind cannot readily be estimated.

  World bank lending for human resources development has increased almost fivefold since the early 1980s to 14 per cent. of total lending in fiscal years 1990–92, and in particular is focusing on basic social services, including primary health care and education. In fiscal year 1992, the bank estimates that 14 per cent. of new lending was for projects targeted at the poor. A second, equally important, component of the bank's poverty reduction strategy is the promotion of broadly-based economic growth which generates income-earning opportunities for the poor.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what opinions have been expressed by the Government to senior officials of the European bank for reconstruction and development on the bank's financial problems.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In discussion with the EBRD senior officials and fellow members, we have consistently emphasised that the bank—like any other public sector organization—has a duty to use the tax payer's resources as cost effectively as possible. We have welcomed the findings of the recently published report of the bank's
  535
  audit committee, which makes a number of proposals to strengthen financial procedures and controls. The bank's financial position remains strong—it made a small operating profit in 1992.

  Structural Adjustment Programmes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 23, what is the proportion of total United Kingdom aid which goes to each of the countries which are currently implementing a World bank or International Monetary Fund structural adjustment programme.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  The information requested for the countries listed in my earlier answer is contained in the table.

  United Kingdom bilateral aid in 1991–92 to countries implementing IMF/ World Bank—supported adustment programmes.

  Country

  Aid in £'000

  Percentage of total gross bilateral aid

  Algeria

  336

  0·03

  Bangladesh

  57,731

  5·35

  Bolivia

  3,951

  0·37

  Brazil

  2,710

  0·25

  Colombia

  3,789

  0·35

  Cote d' Ivoire

  5,358

  0·50

  Egypt

  13,406

  1·24

  Ethiopia

  19,099

  1·77

  Gambia, The

  5,812

  0·54

  Ghana

  44,716

  4·14

  Guyana

  5,811

  0·54

  Honduras

  1,468

  0·14

  India

  136,386

  12·63

  Jamaica

  7,511

  0·70

  Jordan

  3,122

  0·29

  Kenya

  37,987

  3·52

  Lesotho

  6,453

  0·60

  Malawi

  23,153

  2·14

  Morocco

  2,029

  0·19

  Mozambique

  18,087

  1·68

  Nepal

  16,664

  1·54

  Nicaragua

  206

  0·02

  Pakistan

  37,239

  3·45

  Philippines

  7,357

  0·68

  Senegal

  1,560

  0·14

  Sierra Leone

  2,275

  0·21

  Sri Lanka

  11,249

  1·04

  Tanzania

  32,454

  3·01

  Uganda

  26,960

  2·50

  Zambia

  34,425

  3·19

  Zimbabwe

  47,671

  4·42

  Total: Developing countries

  616,975

  57·14

  United Kingdom contributions to multilateral institutions 1982–1991

  (£'000)

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  IBRD

  —

  1,600

  28,146

  3,764

  26,888

  20,168

  6,561

  12,646

  10,255

  11,782

  IDA

  153,481

  203,860

  169,218

  124,438

  118,557

  133,000

  207,000

  169,500

  173,000

  188,866

  IFC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,177

  4,129

  3,558

  3,728

  250

  430

  MIGA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,098

  —

  —

  —

  IMF

  230

  —

  10

  —

  59

  22

  8,626

  17,060

  46

  3,189

  AfDB

  —

  2,204

  2,204

  2,204

  2,313

  2,310

  329

  1,706

  1,839

  1,936

  AfDF

  3,750

  2,452

  8,442

  2,955

  8,096

  7,217

  6,374

  5,341

  11,232

  10,265

  AsDB

  —

  1,394

  1,424

  1,334

  1,524

  775

  1,172

  703

  703

  706

  AsDF

  4,399

  4,321

  7,882

  14,190

  12,384

  10,729

  13,045

  19,775

  16,504

  19,054

  536

  Country

  Aid in £'000

  Percentage of bilateral assistance to central and eastern Europe

  Bulgaria

  1149

  2·15

  Czech and Slovak Federal Rep.

  7013

  13·14

  Hungary

  6315

  11·83

  Poland

  10734

  20·11

  Total: Central and Eastern Europe

  25211

  47·23

  Source: British Aid Statistics 1987–88 to 1991–92

  Russia
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of aid to Russia goes in the form of British manufactured goods and how much in direct cash payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We make no direct cash payments to Russia under the British bilateral aid programme; nor do we deliver aid in the form of British manufactured goods. The know-how fund transfers key British skills through technical co-operation projects.

  Development Institutions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a table setting out, for each year since 1982, the total contribution made by Her Majesty's Government to each of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Association, the International Finance Corporation, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development bank, the African Development bank and the Asian Development bank; and, in each case, what Her Majesty's Government's contribution represents as a percentage of the annual income and expenditure of each institution.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The table sets out United Kingdom contributions to each of the institutions. United Kingdom shareholdings in most of the institutions are determined at the time of periodic capital increases or of replenishments of concessional funds. In the case of the International Monetary Fund, the United Kingdom's stakeholding is determined by its quota, which is effectively a loan remunerated at a market-related interest rate. Multilateral development bank operations are funded mainly by borrowings on the international capital markets. Expressing contributions as a percentage of annual income and expenditure is of marginal utility, therefore, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  537

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  IADB

  679

  667

  1,195

  1,585

  1,793

  1,869

  1,491

  1,281

  774

  503

  IADB:FSO

  4,585

  4,110

  7,316

  11,666

  9,689

  5,346

  3,001

  1,020

  1,401

  —

  Notes:

  1. The IMF figures shown are for United Kingdom contributions to various facilities, including, from 1988 on, the enhanced structural adjustment facility (ESAF) interest subsidy account.

  In common with other members, the United Kingdom's principal contribution to the IMF is in the form of a loan, the "quota", on which is paid a market-related rate of interest. As part of the 1983 general quota increase, the United Kingdom increased its loan by SDR 1,806·5 million. As part of the 1992 general quota increase, the United Kingdom increased its loan by a further SDR 1,220·6 million. At the current rate of exchange between the £ and SDR, these amounts are equivalent to approximately £1·7 billion and £1·1 billion respectively.

  2. Acronyms

  IBRD: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ("World Bank"); IDA: International Development Association; IFC: International Finance Corporation; MIGA: Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency; IMF: International Monetary Fund; AfDB: African Development Bank; AfDF: African Development Fund; AsDB: Asian Development Bank; AsDF: Asian Development Fund; IADB: Inter-American Development Bank; IADB FSO: IADB Fund for Special Operations.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names and occupations of the chairs and non-executive directors of each national health service trust in each regional health authority other than the Wessex and Northern regions.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on 20 July at column 121.

  Generic Drugs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the savings obtainable if all drugs were prescribed generically.

  Formal admissions to NHS facilities, Private Nursing Homes (authorised to detain patients under the Registered Homes Act 1984) and Special Hospitals of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and other legislation, by legal status England 1985–1989–90

  England

  Numbers

  Legal status

  Numbers (a)

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Total formal admissions (d)

  8,153

  9,134

  7,904

  8,792

  8,004

  8,773

  8,247

  8,993

  8,614

  8,698

  Under Mental Health Act 1983: Non-offenders

  2 (assessment, with or without treatment)

  3,121

  4,780

  3,416

  4,971

  3,716

  5,151

  4,047

  5,468

  4,301

  5,233

  3 (to hospital for treatment)

  943

  1,161

  902

  1,075

  1,193

  1,349

  1,322

  1,535

  1,437

  1,580

  4 (for assessment in emergency)

  1,525

  1,939

  1,205

  1,581

  945

  1,251

  885

  1,145

  826

  1,042

  5(2) (power to hold informal patient already in hospital)

  130

  137

  129

  148

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Mentally disordered offenders

  35 (remanded to hospital for report)

  114

  32

  158

  43

  188

  46

  240

  59

  230

  54

  36 (remanded to hospital for treatment)

  28

  5

  26

  7

  31

  7

  28

  1

  33

  5

  37(4)(convicted person detained in a place of safety pending admission to hospital)

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  62

  18

  59

  25

  68

  18

  37 (convicted person sent to hospital for treatment with S.41 restrictions) (b)

  157

  22

  150

  20

  230

  45

  175

  41

  194

  41

  538
  Mr. Sackville
  An estimate, based on prescribing statistics for 1992 in England, suggests that savings of up to £80 million could have been achieved if all drugs which could have been dispensed in the generic form had been prescribed generically.

  Psychiatric Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) woman, (b) men and (c) people from an ethnic minority were sectioned by section, under the mental Health Acts; and how many admissions there have been in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally. Information on the number of admissions by gender and sections of the 1983 Mental Health Acts and other Acts is shown in the table.
  539

  Legal status

  Numbers (a)

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  37 (convicted person sent to hospital for treatment without S.41 restrictions)

  646

  127

  640

  131

  403

  106

  404

  72

  516

  101

  38 (interim hospital order)

  33

  12

  34

  6

  43

  11

  55

  8

  59

  12

  44 (patient committed to hospital pending Crown Court hearing for restriction order)

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  46 (detained during Her Majesty's pleasure)

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  47 and 48 (prisoner transferred to hospital with S.49 restrictions)

  20

  5

  27

  4

  47

  11

  76

  8

  99

  6

  47 and 48 (prisoner transferred to hospital without S.49 restrictions)

  46

  13

  71

  11

  44

  8

  56

  10

  41

  7

  Place of safety orders

  135 (warrant to remove to a place of safety)

  80

  56

  58

  57

  22

  36

  33

  50

  35

  47

  136 (removal by police from a public place to a place of safety)

  1,070

  763

  867

  656

  742

  533

  670

  492

  562

  473

  Previous legislation (Fifth Schedule)

  34

  19

  30

  22

  5

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Other Acts (c)

  23

  11

  10

  6

  148

  160

  30

  39

  48

  47

  Notes:

  (a) Figures for 1985–86 were collected by the mental health inquiry from all mental illness. mental handicap hospitals and units and were based on calendar years. Figures from 1987–88 refer to the financial year and were collected on form KH15 from NHS facilities. Data for special hospitals are also on a calendar year basis for 1985–89.

  (b) These figures for 1985–1986 include section 37(4)

  (c) "Other Acts" includes Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948, sections 1, 2 or 12 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and section 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.

  (d) Data for special hospitals by sex are only included in the total number of formal admissions.

  —nil or negligible.

  ..not collected.

  . not available.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she now expects to publish the Reed committee report on high security psychiatric care.

  Mr. Bowis
  Later in the year.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to complete the review of funding for those people needing psychiatric care; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Conclusions following our review of legal powers on the care of mentally ill people in the community will be announced shortly.

  Wandsworth (Operations)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the number of operating theatre sessions held and cancelled in the Wandsworth health authority in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Scheduled sessions—all specialties

  Year

  Number

  Held

  1990

  7,842

  1991

  7,057

  540

  Year

  Number

  1992

  7,776

  Cancelled

  1990

  492

  1991

  545

  1992

  733

  Novel Surgical Procedures
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account will be taken in the budget of the NHS central research and development committee standing group on health technology of its new function in reviewing and regulating novel surgical procedures.

  Mr. Sackville
  Following the Advisory Council on Science and Technology report on medical research and health, the central research and development committee standing group on health technology has been asked to advise on a strategy to achieve appropriate control and monitoring of new surgical procedures, taking account of the roles and responsibilities of health professionals, their professional bodies, and local and central management in the reformed national health service. Until a mechanism is identified and agreed, it is not possible to estimate the
  541
  resources that may be required to support the work of the steering group and its advisory panels or to fund the research it recommends.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers the NHS central research and development committee standing group on health technology will have to control the introduction and dissemination of novel surgical procedures.

  Mr. Sackville
  The standing group on health technology will advise on new technologies where, because of their potential risk, cost, ethical implications or other relevant factors, there is a particular need to control diffusion until more information is available. The management executive of the national health service is currently considering how diffusion of such technologies can best be controlled. Following the Advisory Council on Science and Technology report on medical research and health, the central research and development committee standing group on health technology has been asked to advise on a strategy to achieve appropriate control and monitoring of new surgical procedures, taking account of the roles and responsibilities of health professionals, their professional bodies, and local and central management in the reformed NHS.

  Midwives
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number of midwifery staff whole-time equivalents in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Year

  Midwifery staff

  1987

  23,300

  1988

  23,310

  1989

  22,940

  1990

  23,770

  1991

  23,040

  Notes:

  Figures for England, as of 30 September and are quoted in whole-time equivalents.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Figures include hospital and community midwives, senior nurses/midwives and directors of nursing services working within midwifery, and student midwives.

  London Family Health Service Authorities
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the allocations for staff premises and computing for each family health services authority in the area covered by the London implementation group for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally. Allocations for staff, premises and computing for individual family health services authorities within the London initiative zone are determined by the relevant regional health authority in accordance with its assessment of local needs and priorities.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total development moneys allocated for 1992 and 1993–94 to each FHSA covered by the London implementation group and provided for in "Making London Better".
  542
  Mr. Sackville
  Allocations of development monies to family health services authorities are determined by the regional health authorities in accordance with their assessment of priorities for the improvement of primary health care services.

  Qa Business Services
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department was consulted by West Midlands regional health authority in 1989 on(a) the content of the Wraith and Casey market research report into the potential west midlands customer base for Qa Business Services and (b) the West Midlands regional health authority's own estimates of potential redundancies in the management services division consequent upon its privatisation.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are not aware that any such consultation took place.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what further consideration her Department will give to making available financial assistance to the ex-employees of Qa Business Services on the lines of those given to civil servants transferred to TICC Ltd. on the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency;

  (2) what representations her Department has received regarding the announcement by West Midlands regional health authority on 15 July that it had no legal or moral responsibility to provide financial compensation to the ex-employees of Qa Business Services; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We regret that individuals have experienced financial loss following the collapse of Qa Business Services Ltd. in 1991. West Midlands regional health authority has examined the issue carefully; they have met with a group of former Qa employees on several occasions and invited them to submit any information they held which could substantiate a claim for compensation. After a full and exhaustive review of this evidence, West Midlands regional health authority concluded on the 15 July 1993 that, on present evidence, there was insufficient grounds for the regional health authority to accept responsibility for making compensatory payments. We have been kept fully informed on this issue and on the basis of the evidence available to us at this time we have accepted the region's conclusion. We have recieved no representations on this issue since 15 July.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department held on the future commercial viability of Qa Business Services when it announced that Qa Business Services had been given the waiting list initiative contract on 27 February 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  This contract was awarded to Qa Business Services on the basis of its previous work for the Department on the management of waiting lists.

  West Midlands RHA
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations her Department received from the legal department of West Midlands regional health authority in November 1991 concerning the sale of the regional health authority's management services division.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are not aware that the Department received any such representations in November 1991.
  543
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department has on whether the actions and decisions taken by West Midlands regional health authority officers in pursuit of the privatisation of the regional health authority's management services division were fully documented; and whether proper reporting procedures were fully adhered to.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information of this nature is provided through the statutory audit process. The management buy-out of the region's management information services division was covered in the district auditor's report of 15 April 1993. A copy of this report was sent to the Department.

  Diabetic Eye Disease
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that all diabetics are screened annually for diabetic eye disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since 1 July this year general practitioners will receive separate fixed payments for organising a programme of chronic disease management either for diabetes or asthma. Practices choosing to participate are required to ensure that on initial diagnosis and at least annually a full review of the patient's health is carried out including checks for potential complications. A joint Department of Health/British Diabetic Association task force on diabetes has been established to consider all aspects of the St. Vincent recommendations and will be considering what, if any, further advice should be offered on screening for diabetic retinopathy.

  Staff Pensions
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific guidance her Department issues to regional and district health authorities on the protection of pension rights of staff transferred to employment in the private sector; and whether such guidance includes reference to the consideration of the consequences upon newly founded company pension schemes of the early collapse of companies.

  Mr. Sackville
  Advice has been issued to all national health service employers about overall terms and conditions of employment, including pensions, when an undertaking is transferred. NHS employers are also asked to issue to all staff leaving the NHS pension scheme, a leaflet which explains the pensions options open to them. This leaflet advises staff to think carefully before making any decision affecting their pension rights and, if unsure, to seek independent financial advice. A copy of "NHS Pension Scheme—Leaving the Scheme" will be placed in the Library.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish new guidelines concerning the management of difficult children in residential care homes.

  Mr. Bowis
  On 28 April 1993 the Department published guidance on permissible forms of control in children's residential care, which is available in the Library. In addition, we have commissioned the Open university to produce a catalogue of training material for staff who have to deal with difficult adolescents.
  544

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hearing aids were supplied(a) by the NHS and (b) privately in each year for the past 10 years (i) in total and (ii) to people aged over 64 years.

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of hearing aids issued to national health service hearing aid centres since 1984 is shown in the table. No data are available prior to 1984 or on private provision.

  Number of hearing aids issued to NHS hearing aid centres 1984–93

  Number

  1984–85

  601,203

  1985–86

  595,676

  1986–87

  640,949

  1987–88

  694,731

  1988–89

  628,470

  1989–90

  626,065

  1990–91

  591,468

  1991–92

  591,049

  1992–93

  591,228

  Counterfeit Medicines
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department has concerning(a) the current state of progress of the proposed EC directive on the distance selling of medicines and (b) the extent of the trade in the United Kingdom and the EC in counterfeit and reimported medicines.

  Mr. Sackville
  A European Commission proposal for a directive on distance selling is under discussion in Brussels. A first reading of the Commission's proposal has been completed. The European Parliament has recently submitted its opinion on the proposal. The Commission is now revising the text of the proposal to take account of that opinion and of the views of member states. It is expected the discussions of the revised text will begin in Brussels in September.

  There has been one instance of a fake medicinal product in the last 12 months in the United Kingdom which was intercepted before it reached the public. Records are not maintained of medicinal products legitimately reimported.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the counterfeit medicines discovered in the United Kingdom during the last three years were produced.

  Mr. Sackville
  Three instances of fake medicines have been discovered in the last three years. Production sources were never proven but investigators believed that the products came from a variety of sources.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures her Department is taking to ensure that counterfeit and copycat versions of British medicines illicitly produced in Northern Cyprus are not reaching the NHS market.

  Mr. Sackville
  Any report of alleged counterfeit or copycat version of British medicines illicitly produced in northern Cyprus reaching the national health service market would be immediately investigated by the Medicines Control Agency. In addition, the agency
  545
  undertakes regular inspections of wholesale distribution and independently samples a range of products available to the public. Both inspection and sampling procedures include mechanisms to identify possible suspect products.

  Mr. Dalyell
  The ask the Secretary of State for Health what support the United Kingdom Government have given to the World Health Organisation campaign against counterfeit medicines.

  Mr. Sackville
  The United Kingdom Government are in regular contact with World Health Organisation (WHO) and actively support its campaign against counterfeit medicines. The United Kingdom has been at the forefront in assisting WHO with the development of a unified scheme for the certification of medicinal products which are traded internationally. The Medicines Control Agency shares with WHO its own experiences and strategies gained from investigations into counterfeit medicines.

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in her Department and agencies in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information at 24 May is as follows:

  Number

  Administrative Assistants

  6

  Administrative Officers

  17

  Executive Officers

  81

  Higher Executive Officers

  58

  Senior Executive Officers

  30

  Senior Principal Technical Officers

  2

  Unified Grade 7s

  29

  TOTAL

  223

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all those services or functions contracted out in her Department and agencies, since November 1991, in which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were not applied.

  Mr. Sackville
  Whether or not the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) applies in any particular case will depend on the specification for the work to be carried out and the contractor's own proposals for meeting the specification. Since November 1991, the following services and functions have been contracted out as a result of market testing, and have not been affected by TUPE:

  Department of Health

  Office and building services, Quarry house

  Catering and building services, Skipton house

  The health survey for England

  National Health Service Estates Agency

  Clerical and secretarial support services

  546

  Geriatric Beds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the number of long-stay geriatric beds in England in total and by health authority each year from 1985; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information collected by the Department on numbers of geriatric beds does not separately identify those used for continuing care.

  Racial Discrimination
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS employees or applicants for employment have won actions or had their actions settled in their favour for racial discrimination in selection or dismissal in the NHS in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Trusts Federation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money the NHS Trusts Federation receives(a) from her Department and (b) from NHS trusts.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service Trusts Federation does not receive funding from the Department. Subscriptions from NHS trusts are a matter for the NHS Trusts Federation.

  Water Disconnections
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies she has commissioned into the health consequences for families of having their water supplies disconnected; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Surgical Operations
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of surgical operations were carried out outside normal working hours in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of surgical operations carried out outside normal working hours is not available centrally. The table shows the percentage of operations performed outside scheduled sessions—ie notional half days, usually within the working day, Monday to Friday.

  Year

  Percentage of operations outside scheduled sessions

  1987–88

  16·3

  1988–89

  16·2

  1989–90

  16·2

  1990–91

  16·7

  1991–92

  16·0

  Source: KHO8
  547

  Young People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been made by or on behalf of children and young people under the provision of the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunals) Regulations 1974 in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints from children have been received to date by each social services department in England under section 26 of the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Bowis
  The first report to Parliament of the working of the Children Act 1989, a copy of which is available in the Library shows that, at 30 June 1992, 3,810 complaints in total had been received of which 542 were from children. Information is not available centrally by local authority.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been identified as having contracted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease according to the most recently available figures; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures are contained in the second annual report on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) in the United Kingdom produced by Dr. R. G. Will and colleagues from the national CJD surveillance unit, Edinburgh. The table shows definite and probable cases of CJD notified to the unit during the first three years of the prospective study:

  Definite and probable cases of CJD in the United Kingdom

  Number

  1 May 1990 to 30 April 1991

  32

  1 May 1991 to 30 April 1992

  37

  1 May 1992 to 30 April 1993

  48

  The figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 update those in the first annual report.

  Although there has been a rise in the annual incidence of cases of CJD notified to the unit, the report concludes that this is not statistically significant and is likely to be related to increased ascertainment of cases. The report also confirms that there has been no significant change in the epidemiological or clinical characteristics of CJD since the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). A preliminary analysis of dietary history provides no convincing evidence of an increase in incidence of CJD in relation to possible dietary exposure to BSE. It will, however, be necessary to continue the study into the incidence of CJD for a decade or more to detect any change in the pattern of the disease.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Anthrax Vaccine
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many locations are licensed for the(a) manufacture and (b) storage of anthrax vaccine.

  Mr. Sackville
  Two sites in England are licensed for the manufacture of anthrax vaccine and five sites for its storage.
  548
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has commenced into side effects of the administration of(a) anthrax vaccine and (b) penicillin-resistant anthrax vaccine; and what were the results.

  Mr. Sackville
  Anthrax vaccine is a licensed product in accordance with the Medicines Act 1968. As with all licensed medicinal products, administering physicians are expected to report all serious suspected adverse reactions to the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, using the "yellow card" system. Such reports are carefully scrutinised and followed up where necessary. Penicillin resistance or sensitivity of an infecting organism is not related to vaccine composition.

  Centre for Applied Microbiological Research
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will place in the Library the corporate and business plans for the special health authority covering the Centre for Applied Microbiological Research;

  (2) if she will place in the Library the accounts and corporate plans of the Centre for Applied Microbiological Research for the last three years and the current corporate plan, indicating if they are separate plans and reports or incorporated within the Public Health Laboratory Service reports;

  (3) if she will list the chair and members of the special health authority covering the Centre for Applied Microbiological Research, together with their salaries, and other remuneration and their other present or previous occupations and employment;

  (4) what resources are allocated to the Centre for Applied Microbiological Research in 1993–94; and what resources were allocated to it as part of the Public Health Laboratory Service in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The centre remains part of the Public Health Laboratory Service board (PHLSB) until its functions are transferred to a new body: it is likely that this will not be until after the end of this financial year. It obtains resources from a variety of sources, including sales of products under a distributorship and marketing agreement with Porton Products Ltd., contracts with other commercial companies and public sector bodies, and funding through the PHLSB for work undertaken for the board. It has not in the past published its own corporate plan, although it is referred to within the plans produced by the PHLSB. No chairman or members of a new authority have yet been appointed. However Mr. J. E. Everitt, at present chairman and chief executive of Vickers Medical, is acting as chairman-designate to steer the establishment of the new body.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees there are at the Centre for Applied Microbiological Research currently; and what were the figures for 1 April of each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is:

  Year

  Number

  1 April 1990

  461

  1 April 1991

  440

  1 April 1992

  467

  1 April 1993

  457

  1 July 1993

  459

  549

  Porton International
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the agreement between the Government and Porton International comes to an end; and what was the revenue to her Department arising from the agreement in each of the last three financial years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The distributorship and marketing agreement between Porton Products Ltd. and the Public Health Laboratory Services board (PHLSB) can be terminated by either side in October 1998. The revenue arising to the PHLSB from the agreement was £3·7 million in 1990–91, £6·8 million in 1991–92 and £6·9 million in 1992–93.

  NHS Trust Directors (Political Affiliations)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are her guidelines to regional health authorities and NHS trust chairpersons on vetting applications for NHS trust directors with respect to political party affiliation.

  Mr. Sackville
  My hon. Friend the Minister of Health has written to regional health authority chairmen seeking their recommendations for appointment of national health service trust non-executive directors, and providing guidance on the criteria to be followed. This guidance does not cover the issue of political affiliation: we do not seek information on this. People are appointed to health authorities and trusts for their personal qualities, and for the skills they bring to the management and strategic direction of the NHS trust. Copies of the guidance will be placed in the Library.

  Nursing Education
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the responsibilities of regional health authorities for funding nurse education; and what monitoring is given to the discharge of these responsibilities.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regions use top-sliced funds to purchase the training places required by employers to ensure the number of qualified staff matches the demand employers identify. Regular monitoring is carried out through the national health service management executive.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the ring-fenced money allocated to regional health authorities to provide nurse pre-registration courses has actually been used for this purpose; and to what use any not so used has been put.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1992–93, all the money allocated for pre-registration nurse training was used as intended.

  Consultant and senior registrar paediatricians by country of qualification in England and Wales—30 September 1991 Paediatric specialties

  United Kingdom

  Other European Community countries

  Elsewhere

  Total

  Consultant

  812

  8

  81

  901

  Senior registrar

  179

  3

  31

  213

  550
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing students there were in each of the four Thames regions, in the years 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The figures show that the number of nursing students in each of the Thames regions as at 31 March 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  North East Thames

  6,030

  5,730

  6,310

  North West Thames

  3,940

  3,740

  4,150

  South East Thames

  4,170

  4,300

  4,460

  South West Thames

  2,830

  2,740

  2,810

  Notes:

  (1) The figures include those in pre-registration nursing, district nursing and district enrolled nursing courses.

  (2) All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students are projected to enter nursing education in each of the four Thames regions in the years 1993, 1994 and 1995.

  Mr. Sackville
  The four Thames regions will commission 5,767 training places for nursing in 1993–94. Information is not available centrally for projections to be made for 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Paediatrics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant paediatricians and senior registrars specialising in paediatrics are in post on a full-time equivalent in England and Wales.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Consultant and senior registrar paediatricians England and Wales at 30 September 1991 Paediatric Specialties

  Whole-time equivalent

  Consultants

  828·4

  Senior Registrars

  184·8

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) consultant paediatricians and (b) senior registrars specialising in paediatrics currently employed in England and Wales were trained in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) other European Community countries and (iii) countries outwith the EC.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table.
  551
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacant posts of consultant paediatricians and senior registrars specialising in paediatrics have been notified in each of the past five years; on average how long it takes to fill such posts; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Number of vacant posts for consultant and senior registrar paediatricians at 30 September 1987 to 1991 (England and Wales)

  Year

  Consultants

  Senior Registrars

  1987

  14

  6

  1988

  18

  6

  1989

  22

  9

  1990

  33

  10

  1991

  30

  6

  Notes:

  1. Data on time to fill such posts are not available.

  2. Paediatrics is known to be a shortage specialty and the number of senior registrar posts is being increased.

  General Practitioners (Drug Prescribing)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table setting out the total of the amount by which general practitioners' expenditure on prescribed drugs exceeded indicative limits in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  The indicative prescribing scheme started in April 1991, therefore figures for 1990–91 are not available. Information for 1991–92 and 1992–93 is shown in the table.

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  Indicative amount

  2,231,489,967

  2,367,401,869

  Expenditure

  2,414,708,258

  2,545,374,139

  Difference

  +183,218,291

  +177,972,270

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to bring the budget for general practitioner prescriptions within the cash-limited budgets of health authorities or health commissions; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cost of drugs prescribed by general practitioner fund holders are contained within fund-holding budgets, which in turn form part of the cash limited hospital, community and family health services budgets of regional health authorities. We have no plans to extend these arrangements to non-fund-holding general practitioners.

  Locum Doctors
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will require all national health service provider authorities and trusts to take up references on applicants for locum clinical appointments; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will make a statement on the arrangements whereby locum doctors are appointed in the hospital service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities and national health service trusts are responsible for the appointment of locum 552
  doctors in the hospital service. There are clear guidelines from the Department, designed to ensure that locum doctors are of an adequate standard to carry out the duties required of them. These include both checks on qualifications and references from previous employers. Copies of the guidelines (EL(89)P/148 and EL(92)53) are available in the Library.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide an estimate for the value of funding allocations retained by general practitioner fund holders at the year end.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information will not be available until the final 1992–93 accounts have been audited.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 20 July,Official Report, column 14, if she will estimate expenditure on trusts for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 17 May at column 29.

  District Health Authority
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average annual cost per whole-time equivalent at(a) current and (b) 1986–87 prices in each year from 1986–87 of an executive member of a district health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Complaints Review
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has appointed the members of the complaints review she announced at 18 June.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am pleased to announce that the following have agreed to be members of the National Health Service Complaints Review Committee chaired by Professor Wilson:

  Professor Judy Allsop, Professor of Health Policy, South Bank University; member, Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force.

  Dr. Ewen Bramwell, General Practitioner.

  Mr. Chris Dabbs, Chief Officer, Salford Community Health Council.

  Mr. Steve Forster, Personnel Director, London and Scandinavian Metallurgical Co. Ltd; member, Rotherham FHSA.

  Mrs. VivienneHarpwood, Head of Medico-legal Department, University College of Wales, Cardiff.

  Mrs. Deirdre Hutton, Chair, Scottish Consumer Council.

  Mr. John James, Chief Executive, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster FHSA.

  Mr. Pat Killen, Managing Director, Tyrone Crystal; Chairman, Northern Ireland Citizen's Charter Board.

  Mr. Bruce MacGillivray, Consultant in Clinical Neurophysiology, Royal Free Hospital Trust.

  Rabbi Julia Neuberger, Chair, Camden and Islington Community Trust; Vice President, Patients Association.

  Ms Irene Scott, Nurse Executive Director, Christie Hospital

  553

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacant bed spaces were identified in the task force on empty homes as being in the ownership of NHS Estates but unsuitable for commercial or social lettings; and how many of them were(a) in nurses' hostels, (b) in doctors' residences, (c) inside hospital grounds, (d) outside hospital grounds and (e) in each regional health authority area.

  Mr. Sackville
  Vacant bed spaces in hostels were generally considered by the task force to be unsuitable for commercial or social lettings. Based on a survey which covered about 75 per cent. of the national health service, it is estimated that at 1 December last year there were 11,400 vacant hostel places, of which 9,280 were inside, and 2,120 outside hospital grounds. Analysis of this information by nurses' hostels, doctors' residencies and regional health authority area are not available. Ownership responsibility for NHS staff residential accommodation lies with health authorities and trusts. The Department is issuing guidance which will include examples of good practice to encourage and assist NHS authorities to make use of empty places wherever practicable.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many empty bed spaces identified by her Department for the empty homes task force were(a) in hostels with shared facilities where all the bed spaces are vacant, (b) in hostels with shared facilities where some of the bed spaces are occupied and (c) in hostels or homes without shared facilities.

  Mr. Sackville
  From the survey carried out last year, it is estimated that across the national health service at 1 December the number of empty bed spaces were(a) 200, (b) 11,200 and (c) 3,700. These figures include properties being refurbished, due for demolition, and in the process of disposal as well as those available for letting.

  Dentistry (Sterilisation)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to the provision of additional funding to NHS dental practices to cover the cost of heat-sterilising handpieces between the treatment of each patient.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department reimburses in full to the profession, on an average basis, all dentists' national health service practice expenses. In 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 the health Departments, in their discussions with the profession in the dental rates study group (DRSG), explicitly recognised that dentists were likely to incur additional expenses for cross infection control and extra money was made available in those years. From 1990–91 onwards, any additional costs incurred from 1987–88 to 1989–90 are included in the baseline of dentists' practice expenses used by the DRSG to forecast dentists' future expenses and would have been reimbursed in the normal way.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data are held by her Department in relation to the different sterilisation practices employed by NHS dental practitioners for the cleaning of dental handpieces and the number of dentists who use each technique.
  554
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Alcohol and Drug Treatment
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of whether sufficient residential treatment is now available for people with alcohol or drug problems;

  (2) how many residential services for people with alcohol or drug problems have deregistered with their local authority since January; and how many bed spaces this involves;

  (3) when she will make available the report from Goldsmiths college on the implementation of community care and its impact on the provision of residential treatment for people with alcohol or drug problems.

  Mr. Bowis
  Comprehensive information on residential services for people who misuse alcohol and drugs and on the scale of deregistration is not available centrally. It is expected that some data on these aspects of services provision will be included in the report by Goldsmiths college which has been commissioned to monitor the impact of community care on service provision for alcohol and drug misusers during the first three months of implementation. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Ultrasound
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she had made of the evaluation carried out as to the long-term safety of ultrasound exposure of the foetus and newborn; and on what studies she had based her conclusions.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 22 July 1993]: The available evidence on the safety of ultrasound in pregnancy is contained in the publication "Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth" (1989), a copy of which is available in the Library. It concluded that:
  "so far, there is no evidence that ultrasonography in human pregnancy has any harmful biological or physical effects."

  Details of trials conducted since 1989 are included in the Oxford database of perinatal trials. Copies of extracts from the database relating to ultrasound will be placed in the Library.

  An ad hoc group of the Chief Medical Officer's radiological advisory committee is currently examining the general safety of ultrasound.

  Hypnotherapy
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to introduce standardisation of training techniques, registration on a community basis and certification for hypnotherapists; if she will give details of her Department's response to the British Medical Association's report "Complementary Medicine—New Approaches to Good Practice"; and if she will make a statement about her Department's view of hypnotherapy services and their funding.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 22 July 1993]: We support the efforts of reputable training institutes in hypnotherapy to develop standards of training, voluntary registration and certification of hypnotherapists. The

  555
  British Medical Association's report will make a significant contribution to aiding understanding in the field of complementary medicine and we shall consider its recommendations with interest and care. Hypnotherapy is, in some cases, already provided in the national health service as an adjunct to other treatment by doctors, dentists, psychologists and other health care professionals. We are currently reviewing these matters to examine whether there is a further role for Government in promoting safe and competent practice in this field.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government continue to help small businesses through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  My Department has been an active participant in the Government's deregulation initiative. It is undertaking a thorough review of the impact of regulations, from whatever source, on the business sectors in which it has a policy interest, and I have recently commissioned a report on deregulation and the tourism industry, which includes a large number of small businesses. The Department will undertake a risk analysis and full compliance cost assessment before putting forward any new regulatory measures which might affect business, and aims to maintain and improve its links and consultation arrangements with businesses operating within the areas where I have a policy interest.

  The Department's fundamental review of the public library service will reflect the extent to which public libraries play a key role in the provision of information for small businesses.

  Businesses of various sizes have been successful in tendering competitively for the provision of contracted out services, in supplies and works for the Department, its agencies and its non-departmental public bodies.

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in his Department and agencies in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. Sproat
  There are no staff employed in the automatic data processing functional specialism in the Department of National Heritage or its agencies.

  Victoria County History
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ensure that sufficient financial support for the continuation of the Victoria county history.
  556
  Mr. Sproat
  I am aware of the concerns about funding for the Victoria county history (VCH) and I know that my hon. Friend visited the Secretary of State for National Heritage with colleagues last December.

  Funding for the VCH does not fall to the Department of National Heritage, but rests with the university of London and the county councils. However, my Department recognises the valuable work being done by the VCH and has identified some possible sources of additional funding, details of which have been passed to the Institute of Historical Research, which manages the project.

  Blind and Partially Sighted People
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what arrangement his Department makes to ensure that blind and partially sighted people have access to information produced by his Department where it has not been published in alternative media such as Braille, large print or tape;

  (2) what is his Department's policy on which information produced by his Department is published in alternative media to standard print such as Braille, tape or large print.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Department of National Heritage keeps under review the need to make information available to blind and partially sighted people.

  Last year, the Department made available Braille copies of the popular version of the BBC consultation document issued by the Department.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the next stage of the review of the royal parks will commence.

  Mr. Sproat
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its chief executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. R. Boyce to Mr. Nick Raynsford, dated 26 July 1993:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your Written Parliamentary Question asking:
  When the next stage of the Review of the Royal Parks will commence.
  The Review group chaired by Dame Jennifer Jenkins have recently completed their report on St. James's Park, The Green Park and Regent's Park. The programme for future reviews is still to be decided.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Church of England
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his policy to review the amount of time given by Parliament to, and the cost to Parliament of, the consideration of Church of England matters.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.
  557

  Sittings of the House
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he is now in a position to respond to the report from the Select Committee on Sittings of the House (House of Commons Paper 20 of Session 1991–92).

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the progress of amending the hours of sittings of the House.

  Mr. Newton
  In the light of further discussions I have had with the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) I will want to consider how we might take this forward. I regret that we have been unable to make more progress before the recess.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to implement the recommendations of the Procedure Committee's report on parliamentary questions, first report of 1992–93 (HC 687).

  Mr. Newton
  The Government are presently considering its further response to the Procedure Committee report in the light of that Committee's revised recommendations following the Government's original response.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the total number of staff employed in his office; and how many are men and how many women.
  558
  Mr. Newton
  The total number of staff employed in the Privy Council Office is 33 of which 16 are women. In my private office the figures are seven and four respectively.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set up a Select Committee to consider whether the House should be consulted before further military action is taken against Iraq.

  Mr. Newton
  No. Ample opportunity already exists for discussion of these issues and, in fact, I understand the hon. Member has one of the Consolidated Fund debates later this evening on matters relating to Iraq.

  Nursery Facilities
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will make a statement on the progress of the survey of possible users of nursery facilities within the Palace.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Administration Committee has reached agreement on which company should conduct the survey of potential demand for child care facilities. Arrangements are being made for the preparation of a questionnaire which will be circulated in the autumn to Members, their staff, staff of the House, and others employed on the parliamentary estate.
  559

PRIME MINISTER

  Japan (Visit)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what specific representations he received from Japanese non-governmental organisations on(a) nuclear nonproliferation, (b) international trade in plutonium and other nuclear explosives and (c) nuclear waste management assistance for Russia, during his visit to Japan for the recent G7 summit.

  The Prime Minister
  I did not receive any representations from non-governmental organisations on these issues during my recent visit to Japan.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 19 May 1992 to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes),Official Report, column 113, if he will list the members of the new ministerial committee on the environment, referred in paragraph 4.5 of the consultation paper "UK Strategy for Sustainable Development"; how often it intends to meet; and if he will provide details of its remit.

  The Prime Minister
  The remit and membership of the ministerial committee on the environment remain as stated in my answer of 19 May 1992,Official Report, column 113. Meetings take place as necessary.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the present arrangements for co-ordinating Government action on drug misuse between the different Departments of State; and what proposals he has to improve them.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are committed to bringing forward proposals to improve further the co-ordination of the control of drug misuse. Options are currently under consideration.

  Top Salaries Review Body
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Top Salaries Review Body.

  The Prime Minister
  The name of the Top Salaries Review Body (TSRB) has been changed to the Senior Salaries Review Body (SS RB). At the same time the Review Body's terms of reference have been revised. Both these changes have been introduced at the Review Body's request, and have been agreed with it. The revised terms of reference are as follows:

  Venue

  Duration

  Purpose

  Cost (£)

  Italy

  13–15 December 1990

  European Council

  60,805·00

  USA

  20–22 December 1990

  Bilateral

  33,871·00

  Saudi Arabia

  6–8 January 1991

  Bilateral

  45,098·00

  Oman

  8–9 January 1991

  Bilateral

  Egypt

  9 January 1991

  Bilateral

  France

  14 January 1991

  Bilateral

  1,857·00

  France

  20 January 1991

  Bilateral

  1,165·00

  Germany

  11 February 1991

  Bilateral

  1,388·00

  Soviet Union

  4–5 March 1991

  Bilateral

  50,352·00

  Germany

  11 March 1991

  Anglo-German Summit

  3,153·00

  Bermuda

  15–16 March 1991

  Bilateral

  24,670·00

  Luxembourg

  8 April 1991

  Informal European Council

  8,107·00

  France

  24 June 1991

  Anglo-French Summit

  10,422·00

  560
  "To advise the Prime Minister on the remuneration of holders of judicial office; senior civil servants, senior officers of the armed forces; and such other public appointments as may from time to time be specified.

  The Prime Minister may also ask the Review Body to advise from time to time on the pay and pensions of Members of Parliament and their allowances; Peer's allowances; and on the pay, pensions and allowances of Ministers and others whose pay is determined by a Ministerial and other Salaries Order.

  Procedures
  The Review Body will make other recommendations as it sees fit
  in order that the level of remuneration for the groups covered by its remit is sufficient to ensure, over time, the recruitment and retention and motivation of suitably able and qualified people to exercise their different responsibilities;
  to ensure that, as appropriate, the remuneration for the remit groups relates coherently to that of their subordinates, encourages efficiency and effectiveness, and takes account of the different management and organisational structures which may be in place from time to time;
  to relate reward to performance where appropriate;
  to maintain the confidence of those covered by the Review Body's remit that its recommendations have been properly and fairly determined; and
  to ensure that the remuneration of those covered by the remit is consistent with the Government's equal opportunities policy.
  In making recommendations, the review body shall consider any factors which the Government and other witnesses may draw to its attention. In particular it shall have regard to:
  differences in terms and conditions of employment between the public and private sector and between the remit groups, taking account of relative job security and the value of benefits in kind;
  changes in national pay systems, including flexibility and the reward of success; and job weight in differentiating the remuneration of particular posts; and
  the need to maintain a broad linkage between the remuneration of the three main remit groups, while allowing sufficient flexibility to take account of the circumstances of each group.
  The Review Body will take account of the evidence it receives about wider economic considerations and the affordability of its recommendations."

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many overseas visits he has made since he assumed office; and if he will list the venue, the duration, the purpose and the cost to public funds of the visits.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 July 1993]: The information requested is as follows:
  561

  Venue

  Duration

  Purpose

  Cost (£)

  Luxembourg

  28–29 June 1991

  European Council

  45,323·00

  Spain

  2–13 June 1991

  Holiday

  9,560·00

  USA

  27–30 August 1991

  Bilateral

  53,951·00

  China/Russia

  1–6 September 1991

  Bilateral

  196,844·00

  France

  11–12 September 1991

  Bilateral

  10,325·00

  Netherlands

  18 September 1991

  Bilteral

  962·00

  Zimbabwe

  14–22 October 1991

  Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

  199,488·00

  Italy

  7–8 November 1991

  NATO Summit Meeting

  54,600·00

  Germany

  10 November 1991

  Bilateral

  1,340·00

  Italy

  27 November 1991

  Bilateral

  7,947·00

  Germany

  27 November 1991

  Bilateral

  Netherlands

  1 December 1991

  Bilateral

  1,736·00

  Republic of Ireland

  4 December 1991

  Bilateral

  2,684·00

  Netherlands

  8–10 December 1991

  European Council

  64,371·00

  USA

  30–31 January 1992

  United Nations Security Council Meeting

  58,928·00

  Poland

  25–26 May 1992

  Bilateral

  53,757.00

  Czechoslovakia

  26–28 May 1992

  Bilateral

  Hungary

  28–29 May 1992

  Bilateral

  Germany

  5 June 1992

  Bilateral

  1,012·00

  USA

  6–9 June 1992

  Bilateral

  318,146·00

  Colombia

  9–10 June 1992

  Bilateral

  Brazil

  10–12 June 1992

  United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

  Portugal

  25–27 June 1992

  European Council

  64,458·00

  Germany

  6–8 July 1992

  G7 Economic Summit

  140,908·00

  Finland

  9–10 July 1992

  CSCE Summit

  41,612·00

  Spain

  7–9 August 1992

  Olympic Games

  79,469·00

  Spain

  16–17 September 1992

  Bilateral

  2,293·00

  France

  30 September 1992

  Bilateral

  4,346·00

  Egypt

  23–25 October 1992

  50th Anniversary Commemoration of El Alamein

  74,616·00

  Belgium

  23 November 1992

  Bilateral

  7,041·00

  Italy/Greece

  27–28 November 1992

  Bilateral

  14,512·00

  Luxembourg

  30 November 1992

  Bilateral

  14,908·00

  Spain

  30 November to 1 December 1992

  Bilateral

  Portugal

  1 December 1992

  Bilateral

  Denmark

  2 December 1992

  Bilateral

  9,570·00

  Netherlands

  6–7 December 1992

  Bilateral

  8,148·00

  Republic of Ireland

  7 December 1992

  Bilateral

  France

  15–16 December 1992

  European Parliament Plenary

  7,910·00

  Canada

  17–18 December 1992

  EC/Canada Talks

  120,775·00

  USA

  18–20 December 1992

  EC/United States Talks

  Bosnia

  22 December 1992

  Visit British Forces

  10,828·00

  India

  23–28 January 1993

  Republic Day Celebrations

  179,512·00

  Oman

  28 January 1993

  Bilateral

  Saudi Arabia

  29 January 1993

  Bilateral

  USA

  23–25 February 1993

  Bilateral

  46,696·00

  Switzerland

  5–6 April 1993

  Bilateral

  n/a

  Austria

  6 April 1993

  Bilateral

  France

  27–28 May 1993

  Bilateral

  n/a

  Denmark

  20–22 June 1993

  European Council

  n/a

  Japan

  5–9 July 1993

  G7 Economic Summit

  n/a

  n/a=Not yet available.

  Deregulation (Construction Industry)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting held on 20 July with representatives of the deregulation task force on the construction industry.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 July 1993]: On 20 July I chaired a progress meeting on deregulation attended by Ministers and permanent secretaries from regulatory Departments, Lord Sainsbury and all the task
  562
  force chairmen. We welcomed progress on specific deregulation measures to reduce the burden on business. Ministers agreed to address changes requiring primary legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits. Ministers also agreed to publish "Working with Business: A Code for Enforcement Agencies" and a report on the operation of European Community law in the United Kingdom; to review how duplication between enforcement agencies might be eliminated; to require a small business litmus test of the impact on them of any new regulations; and to set up an eighth task force focusing on charities and voluntary organisations.
  563

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Health and Safety Training
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations he has received about health and safety training for staff of the House.

  Mr. Beith
  None.

  POLIS
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what measures are being taken to facilitate the provision of POLIS within Members' offices via the parliamentary data and video network; and when the network will be extended to the Norman Shaw buildings.

  Mr. Beith
  The parliamentary data and video network is at present available to Members on the lower floors of Millbank and a small number of Members outside via a telephone link. The network has been authorised only as a pilot phase and is currently being reviewed by the Information Committee, which hopes to report later this year.

  Any plans to extend the network, including POLIS, to the Norman Shaw buildings or elsewhere will need to await approval of the service by the House, following the report from the Information Committee and the provision of the necessary funds in the estimates.

  Members' Children (Recess)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what recent representations he has received about providing additional facilities for Members' children during the parliamentary recess; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  The Commission itself has received no such representations on this issue. Details of the Westminster holiday play scheme, in which the children of Members, their staff and staff of the House may participate, were publicised in the all-party notice and circulated to staff. In addition, progress is being made in the preparation of a questionnaire, which will be circulated in the autumn, as part of a survey to determine potential demand for child care facilities.

  Costs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what new proposals he has to reduce the costs for which the House of Commons Commission are responsible.

  Mr. Channon
  As part of its responsibility to improve the financial management of House Departments and to prepare the draft estimates for the House of Commons votes, the Finance and Services Committee continually seeks to improve the value for money of services provided to the House. Recent initiatives by House Departments which it has supported include revised arrangements for 564
  the telephone operator service and the introduction of least-cost routing; and the use of desk-top publishing in the Refreshment Department. The Committee has asked the Administration Committee to study the provision of documents, stationery, and office supplies to hon. Members with a view to reducing costs, and looks forward to receiving its recommendations. Other areas of expenditure will be examined in due course in consultation with the relevant domestic committees, Heads of Department and the internal auditor.

  The level of expenditure on House services is affected by the degree of activity of the House, its Committees and individual Members. This matter is reviewed in more detail in the Fifteenth Annual Report of the Commission, to be published on 6 September as House of Commons Paper No. 820.

  Terrace Dining Rooms
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what representations he has received about the use of the income from the use of the Terrace Dining Rooms.

  Mr. Channon
  None, although the use of income derived from banqueting services in the Terrace Dining Rooms was included in the Committee's review of the Refreshment Department trading fund.

SCOTLAND

  Police Authority
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what method of election or appointment he will introduce for members of the new Police Authority arising from the proposed changes to local government in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All new councils in Scotland will be police authorities and their members will be elected in the usual way. Where police force areas cover more than one council area there will be joint police committees for those forces made up of representatives from the councils in the force area.

  Transport Responsibilities
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with regional councils in Scotland relating to the transfer of their transport responsibilities following the move to single-tier authorities.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has discussed a range of subjects related to local government reform, including transport issues, with a number of regional councils and other local authority interests. In addition we have paid careful attention to the many responses to our consultation paper, "Shaping the New Councils", from regional councils and others, which discussed transport arrangements under the new single-tier structure.

  Community Care
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to ensure that full use is made of the independent sector in the development of community care policy.
  565
  Mr. Lang
  Two of the key objectives of our community care policy are the development of a flourishing mixed economy of care, alongside good quality public services, and securing better value for money. In order to achieve this I issued a direction on choice of residential care and I have asked all social work authorities to provide information about how this is implemented. I also consider it necessary that social work authorities should be aware of the full cost of their own provision and that this information should be publicly available. Under my powers under section 199 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 I am asking all authorities to let me have a statement of the full costs of their homes and will emphasise the need to have full regard to value for money when making decisions on the purchase of residential care places.

  I am monitoring closely, through statistical returns made to my Department, the level of use of the independent sector by local authorities and in the light of this will consider whether any further action is needed.

  Hospital Re-admissions
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish rates of re-admission to hospital following discharge.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 July 1993]: As I indicated in reply to the hon. Member's question on outcome measurements on 14 July 1993 at column 519, pilot outcome measures including 28-day emergency re-admission rate after discharge from medical specialties were included in the discussion document "Clinical Outcome Measures" issued on 7 July 1993, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions took place at the meeting of the EC Foreign Ministers on 19 July regarding economic and diplomatic sanctions against the Republic of Croatia; what proposals on this issue were tabled by the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Foreign Ministers of the European Community agreed in Brussels on 19 July to consider withdrawing Croatia's preferential trading benefits with the European Community, in view of Croatia's continued involvement in the conflict in Bosnia. Croatia will have to change its ways if it wishes to have the kind of relationship that it seeks with the European Community.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will expel the Croatian ambassador to London and recall Her Majesty's ambassador to Zagreb in protest at the Croatian Government's support for the Bosnian-Croat regime.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Such measures are not under consideration. But as Heads of Government made clear at the Group of Seven economic summit in Tokyo, the Croats and the Serbs risk placing themselves beyond the pale of the international community and stronger measures cannot be excluded. European Community 566
  Foreign Ministers also agreed in Brussels on 19 July to consider the withdrawal of Croatia's preferential trading benefits with the European Community, in view of Croatia's continued involvement in the conflict in Bosnia.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of conditions at Fojnica children's hospital in central Bosnia; how many children were found abandoned in the hospital; how many children have either died or are in a critical condition; what representations Her Majesty's Government plan to make to Alija Izetbegovic concerning the actions of his forces at Fojnica; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We share the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' concern about the desperate plight of the patients in the hospital in Fojnica. This is a further example of how innocent civilians have suffered as a result of the conflict in Bosnia. We have repeatedly urged all parties to respect the rights and interests of civilians.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the relationship between United Nations Security Council resolution 820 and World Health Organisation resolutions 41.31 and 42.24; what restrictions there are on the importation of medicines and medical equipment into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations Security Council resolution 820 is fully compatible with the terms of the World Health Assembly resolutions 41.31 and 42.24. Medical supplies and foodstuffs are specifically exempted from the sanctions imposed on Serbia and Montenegro under United Nations Security Council resolution 820.

  Supplies intended strictly for medical purposes are permitted to enter Serbia and Montenegro under United Nations Security Council resolutions 757 and 820 following notification to the Sanctions Committee established pursuant to resolution 724.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the effect on the economy of(a) Romania and (b) Hungary of the economic sanctions applied against the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The economies of Romania, Hungary and other neighbouring countries have suffered damage from sanctions against former Yugoslavia. It is difficult to quantify this, particularly given the problem of isolating the effects of sanctions from the other factors influencing these economies. In our view, the international financial institutions, especially the International Monetary Fund, are the best placed to make this assessment. This they are already doing as part of their regular activities and programmes with these countries. We have been active in encouraging the IMF's efforts in this area.

  We have also strongly supported action by the Yugoslav Sanctions Committee under the provisions of article 50 of the United Nations charter. The Committee, and subsequently the Security Council, has endorsed Romanian, Hungarian and other requests for assistance under article 50. Their recommendations have included a request that the international financial institutions be invited to consider how their assistance programmes and facilities might be helpful to affected states.
  567
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the total number of detainees in Bosnia-Herzegovina held in(a) Serbian prisons or camps, (b) Muslim prisons or camps and (c) Croat prisons or camps; and what is his estimate in each case of the number of detainees who are civilians.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) regularly visits 1,098 prisoners held by Bosnian Serbs in detention camps in Bosnia, 951 held by Bosnian Muslims and 398 held by Bosnian Croats. No figures are available as to how many of these are civilians.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees regarding the establishment by Bosnian-Croat forces of a detention camp for Muslim males at the Mostar heliodrome; how many are estimated to be detained; what requests have so far been made to visit these prisoners by UNHCR or the International Committee of the Red Cross; what response such requests have had; and if he will publish the reports he has received regarding this detention camp; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received no reports on this centre from UNHCR. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) regularly visits 15 prisoners held by the Bosnian-Croats in a detention centre at Mostar Rodoc, but we have received no details of ICRC's findings, in accordance with its rules over confidentiality.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the total number of prisons and camps currently operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina; how many are under the control of(a) Muslims, (b) Croats and (c) Serbs; and to how many such camps or prisons in each case international organisations have been denied access.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) regularly visits six places of detention under the control of Bosnian Croats: 15 places of detention under the control of Bosnian Muslims; and 13 places of detention under the control of Bosnian Serbs. ICRC suspect that further places of detention in unknown locations may exist.

  Bougainville
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the conflict in Bougainville.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We regard the conflict in Bougainville as an internal matter for the Government of Papua New Guinea, but we have made known to the PNG authorities our concern that a lasting solution should be achieved by peaceful means.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Papua New Guinea about access for humanitarian organisations including the International Committeee of the Red Cross to Bougainville.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There have been no such discussions. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent 568
  Societies (IFRC) withdrew from Bougainville after operating an emergency relief programme between April 1991 and February 1992 which the IFRC reported to have achieved most of its set objectives.

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in his Department and agencies in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There are 155 officers in the FCO and agencies in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Ninety-eight are in the diplomatic wing, in the following grades:

  Grade

  Number

  SEO

  16

  HEO

  25

  EO

  15

  AO

  8

  AA

  1

  DS7M

  8

  DS9

  18

  DS10

  7

  Forty-six in the Overseas Development Administration, in the following grades:

  Grade

  Number

  SEO

  1

  HEO

  11

  EO

  22

  AO

  12

  Eleven in the Natural Resources Institute (an ODA agency), in the following grades:

  Grade

  Number

  HEO

  3

  EO

  4

  AO

  4

  United Nations Arms Register
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many countries from the far east have deposited their entries for the United Nations arms register.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  To date we understand that 10 countries from the Asia Pacific region have submitted data to the United Nations register of conventional arms. The United Nations Secretary General will report in the autumn on the register's first year of operation and on the data received from member states. The United Nations Resolution establishing the register requests that such data be forwarded to the United Nations Secretary General. We do not therefore see copies of other member states' returns as a matter of course. With our European partners, we are actively encouraging those states who have yet to submit data to do so.
  569

  Blind and Partially Sighted People
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy on which information produced by his Department is published in alternative media to standard print such as Braille, tape or large print.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office has a broad-ranging licence with the Royal National Institute for the Blind for the ad hoc reproduction of any Her Majesty's Stationery Office publication without fee, including Foreign Commonwealth Office material when published with HMSO.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements his Department makes to ensure that blind and partially sighted people have access to information produced by his Department where it has not been published in alternative media such as Braille, large print or tape.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Inquiries to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Overseas Development Administration from members of the public who identify themselves as blind or partially sighted are infrequent, but are dealt with by telephone.

  Computer Consultancies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the computer consultancies employed by his Department and agencies, since November 1991, the tasks for which they were engaged, and the total cost to his Department.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The tables list the computer consultancies employed by the diplomatic and aid wings of the Department and its agencies since November 1991. The total cost in each wing is £7,252,824 and £430,803 respectively. In the diplomatic wing the consultancies have been employed on the implementation of the information systems strategic plan, at home and overseas. The tasks include feasibility studies, programme and project management, baselining and enhancements to systems, software development and installation, contingency planning and information technology training, and systems maintenance. More detailed information on the tasks of individual consultancies could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Diplomatic Wing Computer Consultancies

  Transaction Point

  Computer Park

  Stoy Hayward Consulting

  Lynwood Scientific Dev Ltd.

  Griffin Factors Ltd.

  NCR Ltd.

  International Factors Ltd.

  International Computers Ltd.

  Towngate Software Ltd.

  Eurostar HQ

  Duhig Berry Ltd.

  Computer Learning Centres Ltd.

  Compass

  SAS Software Ltd.

  James Duncan and Associates

  Desoft UK Ltd.

  Hogg Robinson (GFA) Ltd.

  Mega Consultancy

  Digitus Ltd.

  570

  Admiral Computing Ltd.

  J. M. Consulting Ltd.

  Brookgate Solutions

  Admiral Management Serv Ltd.

  Churchill Software Ltd.

  The SSADM College Ltd.

  Ernst and Young

  S. R. L. Data

  Hoskyns Group PLC

  UCL UK Ltd.

  Nameprime Ltd.

  Sema Group Systems Ltd.

  Uni Tech Complete Computing

  TMS Computer Authors Ltd.

  Sema Group Consulting Ltd.

  Crownshield Computers Ltd.

  Casu Elec Ltd.

  Insight Consulting

  Ferranti International PLC

  BT Customer Services

  Human Aspects Ltd.

  Griffiths Associates Ltd.

  Office Network Solutions Ltd.

  Firman Jack Ltd.

  Consult

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd.

  Logica UK Ltd.

  Secure Information Systems Ltd.

  Informix Software Ltd.

  Praxis Systems PLC

  Videcom Customer Services Ltd.

  KRCS Group PLC

  B. H. Blackwell Ltd.

  IBM United Kingdom Ltd.

  The Thomas Cook Group Ltd.

  F. W. Kensett and Son

  Price Waterhouse

  Siemens Nixdorf Info Sys Ltd.

  CSC Computer Sciences Ltd.

  OSPL Group

  Phoenix Tech Publications Ltd.

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Magic Computer Services Ltd.

  Lombard Natwest Factors Ltd.

  Digitext Ltd.

  Easams Ltd.

  Triad Special Systems Ltd.

  Fraser Williams (London) Ltd.

  Electronic Fac Design Ltd.

  ITIMF Ltd.

  C. K. Brightwell

  ITE Consultancy and Training Group

  Paton-Brown Ltd.

  Able Translations Ltd.

  Instruction Set

  M. Chadha

  Manton Office Equipment

  Kinesis Computing Ltd.

  Wang (UK) Ltd.

  Alphabyte Computer Systems

  Learning Tree International Ltd.

  Act Logsys Ltd.

  Mang Services and Design Ltd.

  Venture Factors PLC

  Aid wing computer consultancies

  Consultancy

  Rothesay Consulting

  IT Strategy Study

  Matrix Logic

  Office Automation/Local Area Network

  Charlton Associates

  Training

  Charlton Associates

  Financial Analysis

  O. C. Gardner and Co.

  Training

  BIS Information System

  Training

  HM Customs

  Asycuda

  S. P. D. Swan Consultants

  Training

  Enever Systems

  System Analysis and Programme Support

  Hewlett Packard

  Network Consultancy

  Patent Systems

  Network Consultancy

  571

  Consultancy

  Minch Consultants

  Network Consultancy

  Matrix Logic

  Network Consultancy

  J. Hinks

  IT Efficiency Review

  A. Brazier

  Monitoring and Backstopping Computer

  M. Radosevic

  Support for W.H.O.

  D. Gostellow

  Stores System

  J. C. Shephard

  Maintenance Systems

  Dr. Smyrrell

  Finite Element Analysis

  M. Walmshley

  Training

  D. Filer

  Data Management

  J. Snell

  Highway Computing and Assessment

  Mr. Robertson

  Lesotho Government Computer Centre

  Armaments
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the increase in armaments of(a) China, (b) Japan, (c) the Korean peninsula and (d) Indochina over the past five years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A number of countries in the Asia Pacific region are in the process of modernising their armed forces. As yet there is no significant increase in their power projection capabilities. Despite prospects for improved stability in Indo-China, potential troublespots remain in the Asia Pacific, not least North Korea.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  Small firms are given full opportunity to bid for business with the Department. It is also our policy to pay invoices on time.

  Business transacted by the Department with small firms in the United Kingdom has increased from £24·2 million in the financial year 1991–92 to £35·8 million in 1992–93. In 1992–93 26·9 per cent. of total expenditure on the purchase of goods and services was with small firms.

  Israel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 725, what approaches he has made to other members of the western European group in support of the admission of Israel.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have discussed Israel's membership of the Western European and Others Group on a number of occasions with our EC partners, to whom we have made our position clear.
  572

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all those services or functions contracted out in his Department and agencies, since November 1991, in which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were not applied.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Since November 1991, the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has contracted out the adminstration of the diplomatic service world-wide all risks insurance scheme and some aspects of purchasing services for office supplies and machinery. In neither case were the regulations applied. The aid wing has not contracted out any activities during this period.

  Overseas Land
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the land overseas which is owned by the Government for non-military purposes, giving the number of hectares; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office owns freehold land at the 144 overseas diplomatic posts listed.

  The total land area of the compounds, office sites and residence sites in the list is about 240 hectares. The land area of the staff houses listed is not readily available, but is estimated to be of the order of 40 hectares. The balance of the land occupied by diplomatic posts overseas is held on various leasehold or condominium terms.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office keeps the overseas estate under continuous review, and rationalises its land holdings and disposes of any surplus land where it is practicable, necessary and cost-effective to do so.

  Abu Dhabi: compound

  Addis Ababa: compound

  Alexandria: compound

  Algiers: residence

  Amman: office, residence, one staff house

  Amsterdam: office, residence

  Ankara: compound

  Asuncion: residence

  Athens: office, residence, two staff houses

  Atlanta: residence, one staff house

  Auckland: residence, two staff houses

  Baghdad: compound

  Bahrain: compound

  Bangkok: compound

  Banjul: residence

  Belgrade: office, one staff house

  Belmopan: office, residence, three staff houses

  Berlin: site

  Berne: office

  Bogota: residence

  Bonn: office, residence, two staff houses

  Bordeaux: residence

  Boston: residence

  Brasilia: compound, seven houses

  Bridgetown, residence, four staff houses

  Brisbane: residence, one staff house

  Brussels: residence, 15 staff houses

  Bucharest: office

  Budapest: residence, one staff house

  Buenos Aires: office, residence, two staff houses

  Cairo: compound, five staff houses

  Calcutta: compound

  Cape Town: residence, eight staff houses

  Caracas: residence

  Casablanca: site

  Castries: residence

  573

  Chicago: two staff houses

  Cleveland: residence

  Colombo: office, two staff houses

  Copenhagen: residence, 13 staff houses

  Dakar: compound, two staff houses

  Damascus: site, residence

  Dar es Salaam: residence, 28 staff houses

  Doha: compound

  Dubai: compound

  Dublin: office, residence, 14 staff houses

  Durban: residence

  Edmonton: residence

  Gaborone: office, residence, eight staff houses

  Geneva: residence, three staff houses

  Georgetown, office, two staff houses

  Guatemala City: residence

  The Hague: office, residence, 10 staff houses

  Harare: residence, 13 staff houses

  Helsinki: office, residence, four staff houses

  Ho Chi Minh City: office, residence

  Houston: residence, one staff house

  Istanbul: compound site

  Jerusalem: compound

  Johannesburg: residence, nine staff houses

  Kabul: compound

  Kampala: 11 staff houses

  Karachi: compound

  Kathmandu: compound

  Khartoum: office, residence

  Kingston: compound, six staff houses

  Kingstown: office, residence

  Kinshasa: compound, residence

  Kuala Lumpur: compound, residence, four staff houses

  Kuwait: compound

  La Paz: office, residence

  Lille: residence

  Lilongwe: office, residence, 22 staff houses

  Lima: residence, one staff house

  Lisbon: office, residence, three staff houses

  Los Angeles: residence, one staff house

  Luanda: compound

  Lusaka: residence, 23 staff houses

  Luxembourg: residence

  Lyons: residence

  Madras: compound

  Madrid: office, residence, 18 staff houses

  Manila: residence

  Maputo: office, residence, two staff houses

  Marseilles: residence

  Maseru: compound, four staff houses

  Mbabane: office, residence, six staff houses

  Melbourne: residence, three staff houses

  Mexico City: office, residence

  Montevideo: office, residence

  Montreal: residence, one staff house

  Munich: residence

  Muscat: compound, 13 staff houses

  Nairobi: residence, 17 staff houses

  Naples: office/residence

  Nassau: residence, two staff houses

  Nicosia: office, residence, three staff houses

  Osaka: residence

  Oslo: compound, two staff houses

  Ottawa: office, residence, 20 staff houses

  Palma: residence

  Paris: offices, residences, 15 staff houses

  Perth: residence, one staff house

  Port Louis: office, residence, four staff houses

  Port of Spain: residence, five staff houses

  Port Vila: one staff house

  Prague: compound

  Pretoria: office, residence, 23 staff houses

  Quito: sites, residencev

  Rabat: residence

  Rangoon: office, compound, one staff house

  Reykjavik: site, residence

  Riga: compound

  Rome: office, residence

  St. George's: residencev

  St. John's: residence

  574

  San Franciso: residence

  San José: residence

  Santiago: residence, six staff houses

  Sao Paulo: residence

  Seattle: residence

  Seoul: compound, one staff house

  Singapore: residence, one staff house

  Sofia: residence

  Stockholm: office, residence, two staff houses

  Strasbourg: residence, one staff house

  Suva: office

  Sydney: residence, two staff houses

  Tehran: compounds

  Tel-Aviv: office, residence, nine staff houses

  Toronto: residence, one staff house

  Tunis: office, residence

  Valletta: one staff house

  Vancouver: residence

  Victoria: residence

  Vienna: office, residence, two staff houses

  Vientiane: residence, six staff houses

  Vilnius: compound

  Warsaw: one staff house

  Washington: office, residence, 25 staff houses

  Wellington: offices, residence, 16 staff houses

  Windhoek: office, residence, five staff houses

  Zurich: residence

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had from the Arab League about proposals for reviewing UN sanctions against Libya.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received no such representations about the forthcoming sanctions review.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards Nigeria in the light of the failure of the military government to transfer power to democratically elected political leadership.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 1 July at column 589.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Nigerian authorities about the detention without charges of the author Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are extremely concerned by the detention of Mr. Saro-Wiwa on charges of sedition and treason, and by reports that he has been denied proper medical treatment. The detention of Mr. Saro-Wiwa is only one of a number of recent detentions of civil and human rights activists by the Nigerian military authorities. These arrests have been carried out under military decrees. This is one of the reasons why we attach so much importance to the military handing over power to democratic civilian rule by 27 August.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Nigeria about their decision to hold fresh elections on 31 July.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The new national electoral commission has proposed the holding of fresh elections on
  575
  14 August. We have repeatedly made clear our wish to see a transfer to a democratic civilian administration by 27 August.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from the high commission in Nigeria about the outbreak of violence since the election; and what measures he is taking to ensure the safety of United Kingdom citizens in Nigeria.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  Our high commission reported widespread unrest and disorder in south-west Nigeria in late June and early July, from which a number of deaths resulted. We deeply regret the loss of life and very much hope that the current political crisis can be resolved without further bloodshed.

  The British community in Nigeria has been advised, through the warden system, to exercise caution, and that residents without essential business, especially dependants, should consider advancing their summer leave plans and postponing school children's holiday visits to Nigeria.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take action with other countries and with international organisations including the World bank and the International Monetary Fund to encourage General Babangida to implement the democratically expressed wish of the Nigerian people.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Throughout the current political crisis in Nigeria, caused by the annulment of the 12 June election results by the federal military Government, we have consulted closely with our partners and allies. The European Council and the United States have issued statements expressing their concern at the cancellation of the elections and the hope that the transition to democratic civilian rule will take place by 27 August, and have announced measures aimed at the Nigerian military similar to those taken by the United Kingdom on 24 June. The Commonwealth Secretary General and many other countries have also issued similar statements of concern, including Japan, Russia, Australia, Norway and Canada.

  Freehold Land
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will list all the land overseas which is owned by the Government for non-military purposes, giving the number of hectares; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office own freehold land at the 144 diplomatic Posts overseas, listed as follows.

  The total land area of the compounds, office sites and residence sites in this list is about 240 hectares. The land area of the staff houses listed is not readily available, but is estimated to be of the order of 40 hectares. The balance of the land occupied by diplomatic posts overseas is held on various leasehold or condominium terms.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office keep the overseas estate under continuous review and rationalise its land holdings, and dispose of any surplus land, where it is practicable, necessary and cost-effective to do so.

  Abu Dhabi: compound

  Addis Ababa: compound

  Alexandria: compound

  Algiers: Residence

  576

  Amman: office, Residence, 1 staff house

  Amsterdam: office, Residence

  Ankara: compound

  Asuncion: Residence

  Athens: office, Residence, 2 staff houses

  Atlanta: Residence, 1 staff house

  Auckland: Residence, 2 staff houses

  Baghdad: compound

  Bahrain: compound

  Bangkok: compound

  Banjul: Residence

  Belgrade: office, 1 staff house

  Belmopan: office, Residence, 3 staff houses

  Berlin: site

  Berne: office

  Bogota: Residence

  Bonn: office, Residence, 2 staff houses

  Bordeaux: Residence

  Boston: Residence

  Brasilia: compound, 7 houses

  Bridgetown: Residence, 4 staff houses

  Brisbane: Residence, 1 staff house

  Brussels: Residences, 15 staff houses

  Bucharest: office

  Budapest: Residence, 1 staff house

  Buenos Aires: office, Residence, 2 staff houses

  Cairo: compound, 5 staff houses

  Calcutta: compound

  Cape Town: Residence, 8 staff houses

  Caracas: Residence

  Casablanca: site

  Castries: Residence

  Chicago: 2 staff houses

  Cleveland: Residence

  Colombo: office, 2 staff houses

  Copenhagen: Residence, 13 staff houses

  Dakar: compound, 2 staff houses

  Damascus: site, Residence

  Dar es Salaam: Residence, 28 staff houses

  Doha: compound

  Dubai: compound

  Dublin: office, Residence, 14 staff houses

  Durban: Residence

  Edmonton: Residence

  Gaborone: office, Residence, 8 staff houses

  Geneva: Residence, 3 staff houses

  Georgetown: office, 2 staff houses

  Guatemala City: Residence

  The Hague: office, Residence, 10 staff houses

  Harare: Residence, 13 staff houses

  Helsinki: office, Residence, 4 staff houses

  Ho Chi Minh City: office, Residence

  Houston: Residence, 1 staff house

  Istanbul: compound site

  Jerusalem: compound

  Johannesburg: Residence, 9 staff houses

  Kabul: compound

  Kampala: 11 staff houses

  Karachi: compound

  Kathmandu: compound

  Khartoum: office, Residence

  Kingston: compound, 6 staff houses

  Kingstown: office, Residence

  Kinshasa: compound, Residence

  Kuala Lumpur: compound, Residence, 4 staff houses

  Kuwait: compound

  La Paz: office, Residence

  Lille: Residence

  Lilongwe: office, Residence, 22 staff houses

  Lima: Residence, 1 staff house

  Lisbon: office, Residence, 3 staff houses

  Los Angeles: Residence, 1 staff house

  Luanda: compound

  Lusaka: Residence, 23 staff houses

  Luxembourg: Residence

  Lyons: Residence

  Madras: compound

  Madrid: office, Residence, 18 staff houses

  Manila: Residence

  Maputo: office, Residence, 2 staff houses

  577

  Marseilles: Residence

  Maseru: compound, 4 staff houses

  Mbabane: office, Residence, 6 staff houses

  Melbourne: Residence, 3 staff houses

  Mexico City: office, Residence

  Montevideo: office, Residence

  Montreal: Residence, I staff house

  Munich: Residence

  Muscat: compound, 13 staff houses

  Nairobi: Residence, 17 staff houses

  Naples: office/Residence

  Nassau: Residence, 2 staff houses

  Nicosia: office, Residence, 3 staff houses

  Osaka: Residence

  Oslo: compound, 2 staff houses

  Ottawa: office, Residence, 20 staff houses

  Palma: Residence

  Paris: offices, Residences, 15 staff houses

  Perth: Residence, I staff house

  Port Louis: office, Residence, 4 staff houses

  Port of Spain: Residence, 5 staff houses

  Port Vila: 1 staff house

  Prague: compound

  Pretoria: office, Residence, 23 staff houses

  Quito: sites, Residence

  Rabat: Residence

  Rangoon: office, compound, 1 staff house

  Reykjavik: site, Residence

  Riga: compound

  Rome: office, Residence

  St. George's: Residence

  St. John's: Residence

  San Francisco: Residence

  San José: Residence

  San Salvador: Residence

  Santiago: Residence, 6 staff houses

  Sao Paulo: Residence

  Seattle: Residence

  Seoul: compound, 1 staff house

  Singapore: Residence, I staff house

  Sofia: Residence

  Stockholm: office, Residence, 2 staff houses

  Strasbourg: Residence, 1 staff house

  Suva: office

  Sydney: Residence, 2 staff houses

  Tehran: compounds

  Tel Aviv: office, Residence, 9 staff houses

  Toronto: Residence, I staff house

  Tunis: office, Residence

  Valletta: 1 staff house

  Vancouver: Residence

  Victoria: Residence

  Vienna: office, Residence, 2 staff houses

  Vientiane: Residence, 6 staff houses

  Vilnius: compound

  Warsaw: 1 staff house

  Washington: office, Residence, 25 staff houses

  Wellington: offices, Residence, 16 staff houses

  Windhoek: office, Residence, 5 staff houses

  Zurich: Residence

TRANSPORT

  Bus Station, London SE16
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on London Transport's capital commitment to an enclosed bus station at Canada Water, London SE16.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that LT is currently assessing the costs and benefits of building a roofed bus station at Canada Water.
  578

  Public Transport, London
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects next to meet the chairman of London Transport to discuss improvements to public transport in London.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the chairman of London Transport regularly to discuss a variety of issues, including future improvements and standards of service.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the consultants who have been working on rail privatisation; and what is the cost to date of such consultants.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will write to the hon. Member with full details, but the Department employs 10 consultants. The cost for the financial year 1993–94 is estimated at £12 million.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the extent to which British Rail would be able to undercut private sector enterprises tendering for rail franchises.

  Mr. Freeman
  No such estimates are possible, but I am concerned that it would be very difficult to have a fair and equal competition if British Rail was a bidder.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that the proposed creation of RailTrack in April 1994 and the introduction of a new track charging regime will not result in additional financial burdens falling on metropolitan local authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have given a commitment to the metropolitan local authorities that, if the restructuring of the railway industry results in higher charges in 1994–95 for the service levels that they currently support, measures will be taken, including, if necessary, the payment of special grants, to ensure that these changes do not result in an additional financial burden falling on them in 1994–95. I will be discussing the position for future years with them.

  Road Closures (City of London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to monitor the effect on other parts of London arising from the City Corporation's current road closure scheme.

  Mr. Norris
  I have a quasi-judicial role if a permanent scheme is brought forward and I am advised it would be improper for my Department to collect its own data. If the City of London Corporation does wish to make the scheme permanent, it will require the consent of the traffic director and will need to provide him with information about the effects on the strategic road network on all parts of London.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman designate of RailTrack to discuss services on the west coast main line.
  579
  Mr. Freeman
  Current services on the west coast main line are a matter for the British Railways Board.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to European institutions with a view to securing financial support for investment in the west coast main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have recently announced the appointment of Hambros Bank Limited to examine the scope for a joint venture to renew the infrastructure of the west coast main line. During the course of its study it will undoubtedly examine closely the possible use of funds from European sources.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the monitoring of transport related air pollution.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Department of the Environment monitors air quality across a range of sites. It issues daily bulletins of recorded levels and a forecast of the next day's air quality.

  My Department publishes annual calculations of emissions from the transport sector.

  Fishing Fatalities
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fishermen, serving as crew members of United Kingdom registered fishing vessels, lost their lives in each of the past five years; and in how many cases of such fatalities vessels were lost.

  Mr. Norris
  The number of United Kingdom fishermen who lost their lives as a result of accidents to United Kingdom fishing vessels in the years 1988 to 1992 is 18, 19, 22, 25 and eight. The number of United Kingdom fishing vessels lost in those years is 22, 22, 17, 41, and 32.

  By passes
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses he plans to start in the current financial year.

  Mr. Norris
  We plan to start 19 new bypasses in this financial year. Many of the 22 other schemes we plan to start this year will also remove traffic from local communities.

  Merchant Marine
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the prospects for the British Merchant Marine.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Lady to the statement that I made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on Monday 28 June 1993,Official Report, column 642.

  Docklands and Jubilee Lines Extensions
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects agreement to be reached to enable work to begin on both the Jubilee line extension and the Docklands light railway Lewisham extension.
  580
  Mr. Norris
  Once negotiations have been satisfactorily concluded between LT and the parties involved with the financing of Canary Wharf on the basis of their contribution to the Jubilee line extension and once the Olympia and York Company comes out of administration, the Secretary of State will be able to authorise the start of construction.

  A private Bill enabling construction of an extension of the Docklands light railway to Lewisham received Royal Assent on 27 May. We have made it clear that this scheme should be undertaken by the private sector. The means by which proposals can best be placed before investors, consistent with our manifesto commitment to privatise DLR as a whole, are under consideration.

  Second Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of progress on the construction of the second Severn bridge; and what is the likely opening date.

  Mr. Key
  Good progress is being made on the construction of the second Severn bridge, which is on schedule for opening to traffic in spring 1996.

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has made of the effect of bus deregulation on through and joint ticketing schemes.

  Mr. Freeman
  No specific studies have been made of the effect of bus deregulation on through and joint ticketing schemes. Ticketing arrangements are a matter for operators and local authorities. Successful multi-operator ticketing schemes are in operation in the metropolitan areas and in several counties.

  M4 (Widening)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans to widen the M4 between junctions 5 and 15.

  Mr. Key
  We expect to start public consultation in the autumn on a scheme for the improvement of the M4 between junctions 4B and 8/9. Work is proceeding satisfactorily on other commissions to study the need and options for increasing the capacity of the motorway between junction 8/9 and junction 15. Public consultation on these schemes will take place once this work is completed.

  Train Leasing
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects British Railways Board to announce the results of the tender process for new trains under the recent £150 million leasing facility.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I expect British Rail to advise me of its decision within the next two months.

  Motorway (Charges)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the plans of other European countries to impose charges for the use of their motorway networks.
  581
  Mr. Key
  The Green Paper "Paying for Better Motorways" (Cm 2200) describes the charging systems for motorways already in use in a number of countries in Europe and elsewhere.

  Since then, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have announced their intention to develop a joint motorway permit system for heavy goods vehicles. Germany intends to begin field trials of the technology for electronic motorway charging in 1994. Several other countries are investigating the possibility of electronic charging.

  British Rail Rolling Stock
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total investment in British Rail rolling stock in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Freeman
  Total British Rail investment in rolling stock in 1979 (excluding service vehicles) was £93 million (£232 million at 1992–93 prices). Total British Rail investment in rolling stock in 1992–93 (excluding service vehicles) was £386 million.

  Bournemouth Central Station
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the restoration of Bournemouth Central station.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that British Rail hopes that work on the restoration of Bournemouth station can begin in 1996–97, and should take about 15 months to complete. This project will be the responsibility of Railtrack, which will own station freeholds.

  Railways (Noise Insulation)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the proposed noise insulation regulations for new railway lines will be issued for consultation.

  Mr. Freeman
  A consultation document about the draft regulations and associated technical memorandum will be issued shortly and copies will be placed in the Library of the House. I shall also be writing to all Members in the south east and London whose constituencies may be affected. The consultation period will extend until mid-November.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what role he envisages for the passenger transport authorities and passenger transport executives in the process of specifying and granting franchises for passenger railway services in their areas under the railway privatisation proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have today written to Councillor Joe Clark, chairman of the Association of Municipal Authorities public transport committee, setting out the role we envisage for the passenger transport authorities and passenger transport executives under our railway privatisation proposals, in the following terms:

  Letter from Mr. Roger Freeman to Councillor Joe Clarke:
  582
  It is our intention that under our railway privatisation proposals the PTAs and PTEs will continue to have essentially the same role as now in specifying local rail services and paying subsidy, where necessary, to support their specification.
  But, as we have discussed, some changes to the present system are going to be necessary to ensure that PTAs and the PTEs fit in properly with the new, privatised structure of the railway, and I promised to write to you explaining how the new system would work.
  Many of the trains that serve PTA passengers run on beyond a single PTA area, and it would not be operationally sensible to think of letting franchises covering only parts of a a service. That is why our proposal is that the PTAs and PTEs should be jointly involved with the Franchising Director in specifying and granting the franchises for their services.
  That means PTAs/PTEs being fully involved in specifying the service to be franchised, with each PTE specifying the local services to be supported within its area in terms of service level, service quality and fares, and agreeing that specification with the relevant PTA. The Franchising Director will then invite tenders jointly with the PTE, evaluate the bids and negotiate alongside the PTE with prospective franchisees. The PTE will then sign the franchise agreement, subject to the relevant PTA havving agreed the terms.
  The PTEs will need to agree with the Franchising Director how franchisees' performance is to be monitored to ensure that they are meeting their contractual obligations, and will be fully involved in the monitoring system, receiving all relevant information on the performance of the franchisee in respect of the services specified by the PTEs. The PTEs will be similarly involved with the Franchising Director in deciding jointly what measures should be taken where a franchisee fails to perform satisfactorily, including, ultimately, termination of the franchise agreement.
  The PTAs/PTEs' service specifications will largely determine the trainpaths that will be needed by the franchisee to run their services, and the Franchising Director will involve the PTEs in negotiating the necessary access rights.
  I hope this is helpful and reassures you that the PTAs and PTEs will have a full rôle to play in the privatised railway.

  Bus Information
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies are under way in his Department on the provision of information for bus users.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Transport Research Laboratory is conducting a research project for my Department to examine gaps in the current provision of information for bus users, the types of information passengers value most highly, and the extent to which cost-effective information provision can increase bus patronage. The project will include surveys in four selected study areas. The research should be completed next spring.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision he is making to require franchised train operators to participate in the concessionary fares scheme administered by passenger transport authorities, passenger transport executives and other local authorities in their respective areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  The way such schemes work is by ensuring that the operator of the services suffers no net loss as a result of participating in the scheme. We therefore expect that passenger railway service operators will be willing to participate on a voluntary basis following privatisation, as British Rail does now.

  Nevertheless, under the new clause added to the Railways Bill at Committee stage in the House of Lords in respect of fares and discount schemes, every franchise

  583
  agreement will include a provision requiring the franchise operator to participate in, charge fares in accordance with, and otherwise comply with the requirements of discount fares schemes approved by the franchising director. The Secretary of State also intends to instruct the franchising director to include a provision in franchise agreements which will enable the franchising director to require franchisees to take part in local authority concessionary fares schemes, provided that there is no net cost to the franchisee or the franchising director. It would thus be possible for a local authority which wanted a franchisee to join its scheme to request the franchising director to invoke this provision in the franchise agreement.

  It would also be possible for the PTAs/PTEs to seek to include a provision in the franchise agreements to which they are a party requiring the franchisee to join in their concessionary fares schemes.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency annual report will be published.

  Mr. Key
  The inspectorate's annual report is being published today. Copies are being placed in the Library.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last travelled in an official capacity on a London midibus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I regularly use various forms of public transport, including midibuses.

  Large Goods Vehicle Driver Training
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 17 November 1992,Official Report, column 161, when he expects the Driving Standards Agency to publish an official learner syllabus for large goods vehicle drivers to help trainers and trainees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Driving Standards Agency, in collaboration with Her Majesty's Stationery Office. plans to publish a book for lorry drivers towards the end of the year. The book will contain not only the official recommended syllabus for learning to drive a large goods vehicle, but also useful information for trainers, experienced drivers and operators.

  Lorry Weights
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many officers are authorised to check lorry weights in each local authority area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  At 31 May 1993, 197 vehicle inspectorate (VI) traffic examiners were authorised by the chief executive to check lorry weights. Traffic examiners are integrated into VI"s district structure and it is not possible to give a breakdown by local authority area.

  Weighing is also carried out independently by local authority trading standards officers and the police.
  584
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many prosecutions were made against transport companies for overweight loads in each region for 1992 and 1993 to the most recent practicable date.

  Mr. Key
  The numbers of successful prosecutions obtained by the vehicle inspectorate against goods vehicle operators for overloading offences for the year 1992 and from 1 January to 30 June 1993 are given in the table. During 1992 the inspectorate implemented a change in policy; it now only normally prosecutes where the vehicle is overloaded by 10 per cent. or 1 tonne.

  Traffic area regions

  Number of successful prosecutions

  1992

  1 21993

  Eastern

  378

  143

  North Eastern

  1,289

  411

  North Western

  774

  309

  Scotland

  523

  138

  South Eastern

  546

  224

  South Wales

  155

  54

  West Midlands

  417

  218

  Western

  1,008

  254

  Total

  5,090

  1,751

  11 January to 30 June.

  2 These are provisional figures. Some data from this period has not yet been processed.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his current plans for the route of the east London river crossing in the light of the exclusion of Oxleas wood from the original route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  It is too early to say where and in what form future proposals will be developed. Any new proposals will be designed to have less impact on the local environment. As with all departmental road schemes, at the appropriate stages, there will be analyses of alternatives, full environmental assessments and, if necessary, a public inquiry.

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in his Department and agencies in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. Norris
  The number of staff in the automatic data processing specialism, and in receipt of the ADP pay allowance, is set out in the table.

  Department/Agency

  Grade

  Number

  Department of Transport (central)

  SEO

  19

  HEO

  36

  EO

  42

  AO

  22

  Total

  119

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  SEO

  3

  HEO

  12

  EO

  5

  AO

  37

  AA

  267

  Total

  324

  585

  Department/Agency

  Grade

  Number

  Drivers, Vehicles and Operators Information Technology Agency

  SEO

  32

  HEO

  74

  EO

  192

  AO

  22

  AA

  17

  Total

  337

  Vehicle Inspectorate Agency

  HEO

  1

  EO

  2

  Total

  3

  Some more senior staff have responsibilities for ADP but are not separately recorded as ADP specialists.

  Birmingham Relief Road
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of land acquisition consequential upon the Birmingham northern relief road with particular reference to(a) land purchased to date, (b) the identity of the purchaser and current owner and (c) the amount of land still needing to be purchased.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has so far purchased 59 properties under the blight provisions since the original road proposals were announced in 1984; a further 16 are in the process of acquisition. The properties will remain in the department's ownership until they are taken for the road scheme or can be declared surplus and sold.

  The compulsory purchase orders will be published this autumn and the total land required for the scheme is 596 hectares, of which 482 hectares are agricultural land.

  The land already purchased in advance of the compulsory purchase orders (under the blight provisions) does not all fall within the boundaries of the land required for the scheme. Therefore, it would be disproportionately expensive to calculate the exact amount of land still required.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what grants have been made under section 12 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 or other powers, to London Regional Transport in respect of the acquisition of land blighted by the crossrail project under section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991; and how much has so far been spent or authorised to be spent for this purpose since the Crossrail Bill was deposited in Parliament in November 1991.

  Mr. Norris
  A ring-fenced provision is made for all aspects of the Crossrail project. How in detail it is spent is a matter for London Regional Transport. I am advised that it has as yet purchased no blighted properties.

  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has approved, under section 32(2) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, the lines upon which London Regional Transport and the promoters of crossrail shall exercise their discretion under section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 in relation to the acquisition by agreement of land in cases where it becomes 586
  apparent that the enjoyment of the land will be seriously affected by the carrying out or operation of the crossrail works.

  Mr. Norris
  No; London Regional Transport has made no proposal to my right hon. Friend in respect of its exercise of the power conveyed by section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act.

  Non-insured Vehicles
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the amount of revenue that is lost to the insurance industry each year through non-insured vehicles.

  Mr. Key
  The insurance industry's best estimate is that about 5 per cent. of all drivers are uninsured, though it is not possible to verify this figure. At that level, the industry estimate that they are losing about £375 million a year in premium income.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to limit the number of road tax evaders.

  Mr. Key
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the police are taking vigorous and effective action against vehicle excise duty (VED) evaders.

  Last year over 435,000 evaders were penalised with £37·5 million recovered. In addition an estimated 180,000 evaders relicensed as a direct result of enforcement action, recovering a further £14 million. The number of evaders brought to book has steadily increased over the last 10 years and this trend is planned to continue. Factors involved include the streamlining of the enforcement effort following an efficiency scrutiny, the introduction of new technology, the continuing programme of joint campaigns with the police and most recently the red windscreen warning notice scheme.

  Furness and Cumbria Coastal Lines
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects tenders to be invited to operate the Furness and Cumbria coastal lines.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Barrow to Carlisle line will be tendered as part of North-West regional railways. The precise timing will be decided by the franchising director after his appointment under the Railways Bill when it has received Royal Assent.

  Civil Aviation (Competition)
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to increase competiton in the civil aviation industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The EC third package of aviation liberalisation measures, which came into effect on 1 January, has already created very considerable opportunities for competition in civil aviation in the European Community. The Government will remain keen to ensure that obstacles are not created to hinder airlines wishing to make use of these opportunities. Elsewhere, our aim is to increase the opportunities for competition by seeking to liberalise the United Kingdom's bilateral air service agreements.
  587

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on current Government policy towards a fifth Heathrow terminal.

  Mr. Norris
  The objectives for airports policy were set out in the 1985 White Paper "Airports Policy"; this noted that the possibility of a fifth terminal at Heathrow would be kept under review, without commitment. The Secretary of State for the Enviornment has called in the planning application for a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport lodged by BAA plc on 17 February 1993. This will be for joint decision by him and my Secretary of State following a public inquiry. Because of this quasi-judicial role, it would not be proper for me to comment on the proposal.

  MV Avon
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake appropriate inquiries concerning the cause of the incident at approximately 2 pm on Wednesday 21 July when the MV Avon, en route from Southampton to China, ran aground off Browndown, Gosport; and if he will publish his findings.

  Mr. Norris
  The accident is being investigated by the Department's marine accident investigation branch. Any lessons to be learnt and how best they can be promulgated and acted upon will be considered by the chief inspector of marine accidents on completion of the investigation; this may include publication of the inspector's findings.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Market Testing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he vets bids for market testing of contracts to establish whether firmś directors have been found to be unfit to act as directors; and what vetting procedures he institutes to check this.

  Mr. Nelson
  The names of directors of firms bidding for market testing contracts in Her Majesty's Treasury, are checked with Companies House prior to a shortlist being announced. Directors who are unfit to act must be removed from all dealings with their firm and cannot act in a similar capacity within other firms. In the event of the Treasury finding one of its shortlisted firms listing an unfit director, further investigations would take place, through Companies House and the firm itself, to ensure that the director was no longer associated with the firm. If this proved to be the case and the firm had a good reputation and references, it would still be considered for the contract. However if there was still a serious doubt about the firm and/or its directors, it would be removed from the shortlist.

  Criminal Offences
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criminal offences he has introduced in the last five years under delegated legislation.

  Mr. Nelson
  No central records are kept of information in the form requested. However, the available information shows that since 1988 the following instruments have created new criminal offences by way of delegated legislation:588

  (a) Regulations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer: the European Communities (Restriction on Disclosure) Regulations 1991 (S.I. 1991/2779).

  (b) Regulations made by Her Majesty's Treasury: the Banking Co-ordination (Second Council Directive) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/3218).

  (c) Regulations made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise: the Customs and Excise (Common Transit) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988/1476); the Customs Controls on Importation of Goods Regulations 1991 (S.I. 1991/2724); the Customs Warehousing Regulations 1991 (S.I. 1991/2725); the Free Zone Regulations 1991 (S.I. 1991/2727); the Statistics of Trade (Customs and Excise) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/2790); the Statistics of Trade (Customs and Excise) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I. 1993/541); and the Customs and Excise (Transit) Regulations 1993 (S.I. 1993/1353).

  All these regulations were made in exercise of powers under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

  Customs and Excise
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will place in the Library copies of the recruitment leaflets in various Asian languages that were referred to in "News Update", issue No. 20, published in February by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Sir John Cope
  Copies of the brochures are being placed in the Library. They demonstrate the commitment of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to equal opportunities and are aimed at the parents and advisers of ethnic minority school leavers.

  VAT
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the impact on VAT revenues if new residential housing construction was subject to VAT at(a) 5 per cent., (b) 8 per cent. and (c) 17½ per cent. in (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1995–96;

  (2) what would have been the impact on VAT revenues, if the rate of VAT for (a) new residential house construction and (b) home improvement and repair work had been respectively (i) 17½ per cent., (ii) 8 per cent., (iii) 5 per cent. and (iv) zero per cent. in 1992–93; and what is his estimate of the impact of such changes on VAT revenues in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96;

  (3) what is the expected total revenue from VAT in 1993–94 in respect of (a) all construction work and (b) home improvements and repair work; and what is his forecast for revenue in 1994–95 and 1995–96 from these sources;

  (4) if he will publish a table showing the total revenue from VAT in respect of (a) all construction work and (b) home improvement and repair work in each year since 1985–86.

  Sir John Cope
  No estimates are available for the total revenue yield from all construction or for home improvement and repair work.

  The estimates of the revenue yield from applying VAT to new residential house construction for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  (i) 17½ per cent.

  1,800

  1,700

  (ii) 8 per cent.

  800

  800

  (iii) 5 per cent.

  500

  500

  (iv) 0 per cent.

  0

  0

  589
  No estimates have been made for beyond 1993–94. These estimates are approximate and subject to revision. Also, they make no allowance for the likely behavioural response to changing the rate of VAT applied to these items so the actual revenue effect could differ from the figures shown.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the rates of VAT currently applicable to(a) new residential housing construction, (b) home improvement and repair work and (c) other construction work in each other country of the EC.

  Sir John Cope
  The information requested is shown in the table. The data given are the latest available.

  VAT on new residential construction; repairs, maintenance and alterations; and other construction work in the EC

  Country

  New residential housing construction

  Repairs, maintenance and alterations

  Other new construction work

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Belgium

  119·5

  26·0

  19·5

  212·0

  12·0

  Denmark

  125·0

  25·0

  25·0

  France

  18·6

  18·6

  18·6

  Germany

  Exempt

  15·0

  Exempt

  Greece

  18·0

  18·0

  18·0

  Ireland

  12·5

  12·5

  12·5

  Italy

  2 4·0

  19·0

  19·0

  19·0

  Luxembourg

  15·0

  15·0

  15·0

  Netherlands

  17·5

  17·5

  17·5

  Portugal3

  16·0 (12·0)

  16·0 (12·0)

  16·0 (12·0)

  4 5·0 (4·0)

  4 5·0 (4·0)

  4 5·0 (4·0)

  Spain

  5 3·0

  15·0

  15·0

  5 6·0

  15·0

  United Kingdom

  0·0

  17·5

  617·5

  1 The standard rate applies to the sale of new buildings by a person who is a professional building contractor.

  2 The lower rate applies to subsidised housing.

  3 The rates in brackets apply to madeira and Azores archipelagoes.

  4 The lower rate applies to contracted services relating to the construction of immovable property where the holders of the works contract are either (a) housing and building co-operatives providing that the services are contracted directly between them and the construction of the immovable property are perforned by companies engaged in building publicly financed dwellings within the scope of the development contracts; or (b) local government agencies, provided that the services in question are contracted directly with the contractor.

  5 Three per cent. applies to dwelling defined admilnistratively as having official protection status under special arrangements, when the supplies are made by the promoters thereof. Six per cent. applies to sales of buildings or parts thereof suitable for use as dwellings, including their garages and outbuildings which are transferred jointly. This excludes business premises, even where the dwellings are transferred jointly with the business premises.

  6 Authorised alterations to listed buildings are zero rated.

  Source: VAT in Europe (International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation).
  590
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the latest annual yield of 17·5 per cent. VAT on newspapers, magazines and periodicals.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 22 July 1993]: It is estimated that the yield of VAT at 17·5 per cent. on newspapers, magazines and periodicals would be £1,100 million in 1993–94. This figure does not take account of any behavioural response to applying the standard rate of VAT to these items.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated yield in 1994–95 from levying VAT at 17·5 per cent. on(a) children's clothing, (b) passenger transport, giving separate figures for bus, coach, rail and air transport, (c) food and (d) newspapers and periodicals.

  Sir John Cope
  Latest estimates available are for 1993–94 and are as follows:

  £ million

  (a) Children's clothing

  600

  (b) domestic passenger transport

  1,150

  international passenger transport

  1,000

  (c) food

  7,200

  (d) books, newspapers and magazines

  1,100

  Separate estimates have not been made for bus, coach, rail and air transport. Consumers' expenditure data suggests that they comprise respectively, 42 per cent., 44 per cent., 8 per cent. and 6 per cent. of domestic passenger transport. Consumers' expenditure data also suggests that around 87 per cent. of the figure for international passenger transport is in respect of transport by air, and 13 per cent. in respect of transport by sea.

  Separate estimates have not been made for newspapers and periodicals. Consumers' expenditure data suggest this may be around 70 per cent. of the total figure for books, newspapers and magazines.

  Japanese Companies
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been paid in corporation tax by Japanese companies in the United Kingdom each year since 1983.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Mainstream and advance corporation tax liabilities of United Kingdom subsidiaries and branches of Japanese companies are estimated to be:

  £ million

  1987

  140

  1988

  200

  1989

  210

  1990

  140

  1991

  150

  Information for earlier years is not readily available.

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in Treasury and Treasury agencies in the automatic data processing functional specialism.
  591
  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Senior Executive Officer

  11

  Higher Executive Officer

  16

  Executive Officer

  24

  Administrative Officer

  12

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in Inland Revenue in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue's information technology office employs some 2,350 civil servants of which 1,149 currently receive an advanced data processing allowance in recognition of their specialism.

  Grade (Civil Service Equivalent)

  Numbers

  SEO

  195

  HEO

  452

  EO

  502

  Total

  1,149

  Blind and Partially Sighted People
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements his Department makes to ensure that blind and partially sighted people have access to information produced by his Department where it has not been published in alternative media such as Braille, large print or tape.

  Mr. Nelson
  No specific arrangements are currently in place but Her Majesty's Treasury will consider sympathetically any request recieved from blind or partially sighted people for access to information it produces. Facilities are available to enable us to produce information in Braille or large print.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's policy on which information produced by his Department is published in alternative media to standard print such as Braille, tape or large print.

  Mr. Nelson
  No information produced by Her Majesty's Treasury is currently available in this form, but the Department would consider sympathetically any requests for its information to be produced in Braille, tape or large print. Facilities are available for information to be produced in Braille or large print.

  Of other Departments for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has responsibility, the board of Inland Revenue will make available its revised leaflet "You and the Inland Revenue" in Braille, large print and audio rapes. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are currently considering the possibilities of issuing notice 1—allowances to travellers and the travellers charter in Braille and on audio cassette, and the Department for National Savings is planning to produce an all-in-one product leaflet next year and a tape version will be made available. A tape version of its "Guide to Savings for Non-Taxpayers" was available when that publication was current.
  592

  Computer Consultancies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the computer consultancies employed by the Inland Revenue, since November 1991, the tasks for which they were engaged, and the total cost to his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue has awarded contracts to the following computer consultancies since November 1991:

  Task

  Abraxas Computer Services Ltd.

  Computer project support

  The Berwyn Partnership

  Computer project support

  Boldon James Ltd.

  Computer project support

  CSS Trident pic

  Computer project support

  Computer People Ltd.

  Computer project support

  Computer Sciences Co. Ltd.

  Computer project support

  Cornwall Affiliates Ltd.

  Business support

  DPLACE

  Business support

  DP Support Services Ltd.

  Computer project support

  Duhig Berry Ltd.

  Project management support

  Frost Berkeley Associates Ltd.

  Computer project support

  IBM (UK) Ltd.

  Computer project support

  ICL

  Computer project support

  ICS (Sales) Ltd.

  Computer project support

  IEMIT Ltd.

  Computer project support

  Intertech Computer Consultants Ltd.

  Computer project support

  LBMS pic

  Computer project support

  Lorien Technical Services Ltd.

  Computer project support

  Lucidus Ltd.

  Market testing

  Macleod Group

  Computer project support

  MDS Consultants Ltd.

  Computer project support

  Oracle Corporation Ltd.

  Computer project support

  Organisation and Systems Innovations Ltd.

  Project support

  PA Consulting Group

  Business systems

  Panacea Ltd.

  Computer project support

  P—E International Ltd.

  Computer project support

  Rand Information Systems Ltd.

  Computer project support

  Price Waterhouse

  Strategy support

  Quality Testing Ltd.

  System testing

  Sequel Ltd.

  Computer project support

  Softlab Ltd.

  Systems support

  SPAN Contracts

  Computer project support

  Starfield Management Ltd.

  Business support

  Systems Resources Ltd.

  Computer project support

  Task Force IT

  Computer project support

  Touche Ross

  Communications support

  VNG Nationwide

  Communications support

  Winnow Ltd.

  Business support

  World Systems plc

  Computer project support

  YCS Ltd.

  Computer project support

  The spend on computer consultancy is recorded over successive financial years from 1 April each year. Since April 1991, the Inland Revenue has spent the following total amounts on computer consultancy:

  £

  1991–92

  20,296,949

  1992–93

  19,427,849

  In the current financial year 1993–94, the Department expects to spend up to £18,900,000 on computer consultancy.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the computer consultancies employed by Customs and Excise, since November 1991, the tasks for which they were engaged, and the total cost to his Department.
  593
  Sir John Cope
  The computer consultants engaged by the central information technology function together with the nature of their contracts and total cost are set out.

  Company

  Amounts paid since 1 November 1991

  Nature of work

  £

  LOGICA

  8,183,300

  Central four-year contract providing on call development support

  BIS

  2,473,500

  MFT Computer Systems

  3,300

  Amendments to Tariff Quota File

  Aspire

  44,500

  Market Testing advice

  Adbury Electronics

  3,900

  VAT Software Development

  Coopers and Lybrand

  63,000

  Market Testing advice

  Haymark communications

  11,800

  Software support

  Capita Management Consultant

  51,500

  Market Testing advice

  Interchange Associates

  84,700

  IT advice to Board

  Dove Communications

  91,400

  Telecomms. support

  Comshare

  322,000

  Technical specs, and analysis

  Datafit

  574,000

  VAT Programming

  Hedra

  51,900

  Information System Strategy Support

  Valid Consultancy

  87,100

  Telecomms. support

  TCSL Group

  33,100

  Prototype development

  CCTA

  80,200

  Management studies/ development

  Firefox Communications

  2,400

  Software Support

  Sun Microsystems

  1,000

  Technical assurance

  Data General

  49,500

  Testing and configuration support

  ACTLOGSYS

  26,100

  Technical Support

  Total

  12,238,200

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the computer consultancies employed by the Treasury and Treasury agencies, since November 1991, the tasks for which they were engaged, and the total cost to his Department.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Department's spend on computer consultancies since 1991–92 to date amounts to £64,220, including VAT. Information on individual consultancies and by task is not held centrally in the same way and cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Agricultural Partnership Tenancies
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 765, when he expects the issue of jurisdictional problems over the valuation of agricultural partnership tenancies to be solved; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many cases relating to the valuation of agricultural partnership tenancies are outstanding with the Lands Tribunal; and when he expects them to be resolved.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The case referred to in my earlier answer is due to be heard by the Lands Tribunal in early October. No other such cases are currently outstanding with the Lands Tribunal. In future, any such cases reaching the 594
  Lands Tribunal after this year's Finance Bill receives Royal Assent should benefit from clause 200 of the Bill, which proposes to allow the special commissioners to refer to the Lands Tribunal questions as to the value of land without the need for a fresh appeal.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all those services or functions contracted out in Customs and Excise, since November 1991, in which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were not applied.

  Sir John Cope
  There have been no cases where Customs and Excise have contracted out existing in-house services where TUPE did not apply. To date, there has been only one contract involving the transfer of staff awarded to an outside bidder, London HQ catering, and the staff were transferred under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all those services or functions contracted out in Treasury and Treasury agencies, since November 1991, in which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were not applied.

  Mr. Nelson
  No previously in-house services have been contracted out since November 1991.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all those services or functions contracted out in Inland Revenue, since November 1991, in which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were not applied.

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

  Records management (off-site store at Nottingham)

  Valuation banding for council tax

  Bulk mailing (employers' annual pack)

  Typing, secretarial and office support services (Nottingham)

  Catering (St. Albans)

  Catering (Leicester)

  Training Office—Writing of Training materials

  Estate management (south-east, Wales)

  Estate management (Scotland)

  Estate management (west midlands, East)

  Estate management (London and headquarters)

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government's economic policies are designed to maintain an environment in which business and enterprise can develop and prosper. The Treasury therefore places a high priority on helping small businesses. Developments in the last year include:reduction of inflation to 1·2 per cent., its lowest level for nearly 30 years;
  reductions in interest rates since leaving the exchange rate mechanism which, when fully passed through, will be worth over £5 billion a year off companies' interest payments.
  595
  In addition, the March Budget included:
  further transitional help on business rates, worth £370 million, so that no business will face a real increase in rates in 1993–94;
  changes to the loan guarantee scheme to improve the supply of bank finance to small businesses;
  allowing VAT relief on bad debts after six months rather than a year;
  increases in the VAT registration threshold from £36,600 to £37,600 and in the turnover limit of the VAT cash accounting scheme from £300,000 to £350,000;
  reductions in VAT penalties on late returns and misdeclarations, and new flexibility in applying penalties; a new entrepreneurs' relief from capital gains tax where gains from the sale of a person's own business are reinvested in new businesses, and an extension of capital gains tax retirement relief.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what requests have been received from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to release frozen funds from banking institutions in London for the purpose of purchasing medical supplies; how many of these requests have been granted; how many have been denied; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is not readily available. The Bank of England, which administers financial sanctions on behalf of Her Majesty's Treasury, has given delegated authority to individual banks to release funds in respect of the export of humanitarian goods to Serbia and Montenegro from the United Kingdom, provided that a licence has been issued by the Department of Trade and Industry and that a letter of authorisation has been issued by the United Nations sanctions committee.

  Nuclear Companies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cash contributions he has estimated that British Nuclear Fuels plc, Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear will make to the national loans fund for each year from 1993 to 1998.

  Mr. Portillo
  No such estimates are available. All three companies may deposit cash surpluses in the national loans fund. But all three also have access to other deposit facilities. They take decisions on where to deposit surpluses from time to time as appropriate.

  Financial perspective expenditure ceilings

  Preliminary draft budget

  Budget council draft budget

  mecu

  £ million1

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  Commitment appropriations

  1. Common agricultural policy

  36,465

  28,063

  36,465

  28,063

  36,465

  28,063

  2. Structural operations

  23,176

  17,836

  23,176

  17,836

  23,176

  17,836

  3. Internal policies

  4,325

  3,328

  4,243

  3,265

  3,638

  2,800

  4. External action

  4,236

  3,260

  4,174

  3,212

  4,020

  3,094

  5. Administrative expenditure

  3,579

  2,754

  3,579

  2,754

  3,578

  2,754

  6. Reserves

  1,530

  1,177

  1,530

  1,177

  1,530

  1,177

  Total commitments

  73,311

  56,419

  73,167

  56,308

  72,407

  55,723

  Total payment appropriations

  70,232

  54,050

  70,099

  53,947

  69,011

  53,110

  1 Throughout this reply the rate of £1 =1.2994 ecu has been used—the rate notified in the Official Journal as prevailing on the last working day of last month (30 June).

  596

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the organisation of executive officers in the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue has today announced moves towards a smaller number of large executive offices.

  With effect from 1 October 1993, the Controller, Inland Revenue Wales will assume responsibility for Inland Revenue midlands and the two executive offices will be combined and managed as a single executive office from 1 April 1994.

  Also from 1 April 1994, the tax offices in London responsible for some of the largest groups of companies, principally in the financial sector, will be brought together in a new executive office, top be known as the large groups office. This office will also incorporate a number of audit and investigative functions currently in the Department's head office.

  Responsibility for the remaining tax and collection offices in the three present London regional executive offices will be brought together under a single controller in charge of a new executive office, to be known as Inland Revenue, London.

  Budget Council
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent meeting of European Ministers at the Budget Council.

  Sir John Cope
  The Budget Council met in Brussels on 22 July. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The council established a first reading draft budget for 1994, totalling 72·4 billion ecu—£55·7 billion—in commitment appropriations and 69·0 billion ecu—£53·1 billion—in payment appropriations, respectively 760 million ecu—£585 million—and 1,088 million ecu—£837 million—below the figures proposed by the Commission in its preliminary draft budget. The draft budget would require own resources totalling 1·18 per cent. of Community gross national product, compared with the own resources ceiling for 1994 of 1·2 per cent.

  The draft budget respects the financial perspective expenditure ceilings agreed at the Edinburgh European Council in December 1992. The summary table compares the outcome of the Budget Council to the proposals in the Commission's preliminary draft budget by reference to the financial perspective ceilings.
  597
  The European Parliament will consider the draft budget for 1994 at its plenary session in October. The Parliament's amendments and modifications will be considered at the second Budget Council in November. The European Parliament's second reading is set for mid-December.

  The Council took no formal votes, the presidency concluding that there was the necessary majority to establish the draft budget for 1994.

  The Budget Council also considered the Commission's proposed supplementary and amending budget for 1993. It believed that further consideration of the proposal was necessary before any decision could be reached.

  Sterling Deposits
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the gross figures for sterling deposits held by financial institutions and banks in(a) the Bahamas, (b) Bermuda, (c) the Grand Cayman islands, (d) the Channel islands and (e) the Isle of Man for the latest year available.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 15 July 1993]: Neither the Treasury nor the bank collects this information. The following figures have been supplied by the relevant authorities in the Channel islands, the Isle of Man and the Cayman islands, and cover all banks with a presence in these centres. They do not cover other financial institutions.

  £ billion

  Financial Centre

  Total sterling deposits

  Jersey1

  22·35

  Guernsey

  8·9

  Isle of Man2

  8·04

  Cayman Islands3

  2·98

  1 March 1993 figure.

  2 December 1992 figure.

  3December 1992 figure for total sterling liabilities—including loans.

  Overseas Funds
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much had been placed in offshore and overseas funds by individual and corporate investors by summer 1983; and what is the amount at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 22 July 1993]: The data requested are not available.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in his Department and agencies in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. David Davis
  The Cabinet Office, of which the Office of Public Service and Science and its agencies are a part, employs the following numbers of civil servants in automatic data processing posts:598

  106 senior executive officers

  124 higher executive officers

  102 executive officers

  31 administrative officers

  39 administrative assistants

  Scientific and Technological Options
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to meet the chairman and secretariat of the European Parliament's scientific and technological options assessment programme to discuss the prospect for collaborative work; and whether his Office of Science and Technology receives copies of the scientific and technological options assessment research reports on a routine basis.

  Mr. David Davis
  The European Parliament's scientific and technological options assessment programme (STOA) advises the European Parliament on science and technological issues. I do not anticipate developing a programme of collaborative work. Nevertheless, I have instructed my officials to develop closer links with the STOA secretariat to ensure better mutual understanding of science and technology policy issues, and obtain copies of relevant reports.

  Central Scrutiny Programme
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what topics have been covered in the efficiency unit's central scrutiny programme in the last financial year; and which scrutiny reports can be made available to the general public.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Fourteen efficiency scrutinies or similar reviews have been undertaken by Departments in 1992–l93 in association with the Prime Minister's adviser on efficiency and the efficiency unit. The programme, including those which are not yet completed, is as follows:

  Department/Title of Scrutiny Completed

  Report: Publicly available

  HM Customs and Excise

  External Consultants

  No

  Ministry of Defence

  VIP Flying

  Under consideration

  Department of the Environment

  LA Superannuation Scheme

  Yes

  Department for Education

  Information Needs

  Under consideration

  Inland Revenue

  Valuation Office

  Under consideration

  Northern Ireland Office

  Community Economic Regeneration Scheme

  Under consideration

  Department of Social Security

  Property Management

  Under consideration

  Document Retention

  Under consideration

  Welsh Office

  Health Promotion

  Yes

  HM Treasury

  Principal Civil Service Pensions Scheme

  Yes

  Purchasing Group

  Under consideration

  Not Completed

  599

  Department/Title of Scrutiny Completed

  Report: Publicly available

  Inland Revenue

  Common Causes of Error

  Department of Social Security

  Fraud and Security

  Customer Satisfaction

  Decisions on the publication of scrutiny reports are taken by the Ministers responsible for the scrutinies concerned. In a number of cases, where a scrutiny has been recently completed or is not yet complete, no decision on publication has been made.

  Government Estate
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what will be the terms of reference for the scrutiny of the management of the Government estate.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The terms of reference are as follows:

  To consider what arrangements would be needed to enable Departments and/or agencies to take as much responsibility as possible for the management, including acquisition and disposal, of all their civil estate properties, including those which are listed buildings.

  In particular, to consider:
  What financial and other systems should be retained or established to ensure efficient and effective property management, value for money for the Exchequer and to safeguard the position of Accounting Officers;
  Best public and private sector practice on property management issues;
  What central advice/support is needed for Departments on property management issues, including the employment of consultants; procurement of work services; measures against fraud; standards; health and safety; fire precautions; conservation and environmental issues;
  What co-ordination mechanism would need to be retained or established to ensure the development and implementation of strategic plans for estate rationalisation, to exploit fully Government's strong position in the market place, to make Departments aware of accommodation across Government and to avoid them bidding against each other for properties;
  What arrangements should be retained or established for any Department which cannot approximately take responsibility for the management of their civil estate. To make recommendations.

  The Prime Minister has asked his efficiency adviser, Sir Peter Levene, to review how the Government currently manages the properties it occupies, to consider the alternatives for their management and to report to him by the end of the year.

  As public service reforms gather pace, it is important to consider whether Departments and agencies should take

  School examination survey

  GCSE atempts by 16 year old pupils in England

  Subject taken

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  Physics

  Number (000's)

  196·92

  152·34

  100·08

  54·87

  Per cent, of any subject

  34

  28

  19

  10

  Chemistry

  Number (000's)

  179·07

  143·66

  97·95

  55·14

  Per cent, of any subject

  31

  26

  19

  10

  Biology

  Number (000's)

  216·96

  171·36

  110·14

  58·87

  Per cent, of any subject

  37

  31

  21

  11

  600
  on more direct responsibility for managing their property, and the means of ensuring that Government property is managed efficiently and effectively to achieve the best value for money for the tax payer.

  The scrutiny is being led by a team from the efficiency unit of the OPSS and began work on 19 July. Members will be drawn from other Departments and the private sector. Their report will be published.

EDUCATION

  A-levels
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what have been the total numbers of A-level entrants in(a) physics, (b) chemistry, (c). biology, (d) mathematics and (e) other or combined sciences in each year since 1988; and what was the total number of entrants to those subjects each year as a percentage of A-level entrants in all subjects.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The exact information requested is not available on a comparable basis for each year since 1988.

  The number of candidates aged 18 and below at the beginning of the academic year in schools and further education colleges in England entered for A-level in a (a) physics, (b) chemistry, (c) biology, (d) mathematics and (e) other or combined science in 1991–92 are shown:

  Number entered

  Per cent. of total entrants

  (a) Physics

  34,892

  15·7

  (b) Chemistry

  35,659

  16·1

  (c) Biology

  39,327

  17·7

  (d) Mathematics

  56,222

  25·4

  (e) Other/combined science

  4,749

  2·1

  GCSE
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the number of GCSE entrants in(a) physics, (b) chemistry, (c) biology, (d) mathematics and (e) combined sciences in each year since 1989; arid what has been the total number of entrants in those subjects each year as a percentage of the total entrants in all subjects.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The estimated numbers of 16-year-old pupils in schools in England entering GCSE(a) physics, (b) chemistry, (c) biology, (d) mathematics and (e) combined science in each year since 1989 are shown in the table. The percentage of the total entrants are also shown.
  601

  Subject taken

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  Mathematics

  Number (000's)

  532·26

  490·26

  471·41

  460·21

  Per cent. of any subject

  92

  90

  90

  87

  Combined science

  Number (000's)

  142·11

  203·75

  300·92

  396·71

  Per cent. of any subject

  24

  37

  58

  75

  Any subject

  Number (000's)

  581·3

  544·4

  521·15

  530·5

  School Inspections
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to extend school inspections to cover(a) methods of punishment, (b) complaints procedures, (c) the views of pupils and (d) provision for children with special needs.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All inspections of schools must report on quality of education and standards of achievement, financial efficiency and development of pupils' spiritual, moral, cultural and social values. Inspections must be carried out in accordance with the framework of inspection published by the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list all those services or functions contracted out in his Department and agencies, since November 1991, in which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were not applied.

  Mr. Boswell
  Whether or not the TUPE regulations apply in any particular case depends on the nature of the work awarded and the contractors' own proposals for carrying it out. TUPE regulations did not apply to either of the Departmental functions contracted out since November 1991—the publications dispatch service and the pilot study of professional scrutiny and control of school building projects.

  Blind and Partially Sighted People
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what arrangements his Department makes to ensure that blind and partially sighted people have access to information produced by his Department where it has not been published in alternative media such as Braille, large print or tape.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department ensures that most publications with key messages are available on tape for blind or partially sighted people. We do not make alternative arrangements when this is not practical.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his Department's policy on which information produced by his Department is published in alternative media to standard print such as Braille, tape or large print.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department ensures that most publications which have important information for 602
  parents are made available on tape. It also pays for the Royal National Institute for the Blind to produce the annual booklet "Student Grants and Loans—a brief guide" in Braille.

  Medical Training
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has received for altering the arrangements for training medical, paramedical or other students of subjects principally aimed at careers in the NHS and similar employees.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received no general proposals for change in this area. Officials of the Department for Education have held discussions with officials at the Department of Health about the arrangements for funding undergraduate courses in speech and language therapy, dietetics and chiropody. No decisions have yet been reached. Any proposals for change which may emerge from these discussions will be considered in consultation with higher education institutions, professional bodies and the NHS.

  Technology Teaching
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what efforts are being undertaken by his Department to secure an increased supply of approximately qualified teachers of technology in schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The shortage subject bursary scheme for teacher training has included technology since the start. The Open university's postgraduate certificate in education, which the Department has funded, will provide 100 training places a year in technology from February 1994. The school-centred initial teacher training scheme incorporates 100 places available for secondary technology teachers to be organised through the City Technology College Trust. Sixty 20-day designated courses of in-service training for technology will take place in 1993–94, with support under the grants for education support and training (GEST) programme, to enhance primary teachers' subject knowledge. GEST funding can be used for secondary in-service training in technology and other subjects. The Department's teaching taster courses have always featured technology amongst the subjects offered. Special courses have been offered to encourage highly qualified technologists facing redundancy to consider careers in teaching.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what arrangements will be undertaken by his Department to allocate appropriate capitation, resources, workshop facilities and ancillary staff to assist with the teaching of technology in schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government make unhypothecated grant available to local authorities, which decide on
  603
  their spending priorities between and within services, or directly to grant-maintained schools. In either case, it is for governing bodies to allocate their funds as they think best between different priorities, including technology. It is not for central Government to prescribe how much should be spent locally on any one area, but in 1993–94 we are making available grants for education support and training support in England for £179 million related to the implementation of the national curriculum generally, of which £30 million is specifically for information technology in schools. The Department is also supporting £24 million of expenditure through the technology schools initiative.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will outline the changes planned by his Department to(a) curriculum materials and (b) testing and examination arrangements following the production of the National Curriculum Council's interim report on the teaching of technology in schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The present national curriculum requirements for technology will remain in force until revised ones are introduced in respect of pupils in key stages 1 to 3 from the autumn of 1995, and in key stage 4 from the autumn of 1996. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Wales will decide towards the end of this year how best to take forward the development of these new curriculum requirements and the arrangements for their implementation, taking into account the findings of Sir Ron Dearing's wider review of the national curriculum and its assessment.

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in his Department and agencies In the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of staff by grade employed in the Department in the automatic data processing functional specialism is as follows:

  Number

  SEO

  18

  HEO

  50

  EO

  66

  AO

  14

  AA

  20

  Total

  168

  None is employed in the Teachers' Pensions Agency, although a proportion are employed in account management, developmental and support work for the agency.

  Computer Consultancies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Education if he will list all the computer consultancies employed by his Department and agencies, since November 1991, the tasks for which they were engaged, and the total cost to his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  This Department has spent an estimated £942,000 on computer consultancies since November 1991. Contracts awarded are as follows:
  604
  Contractor and Consultancies

  Microsoft Ltd.—Graphical User Interface Development

  BIS Systems Ltd.—Office Systems and Infrastructure Strategy

  BIS Systems Ltd.—Upgrading Core Resource Information

  System (CRIS-F)

  Sema Group Ltd.—Dissemination of Information Study

  Microsoft Ltd.—Policy Branch Information System (PBIS)

  Forvus Ltd.—Unix conversion and Migration

  BIS. Systems Ltd.—Telecommunications Scoping Study

  Coopers and Lybrand—Information Systems Branch Scoping Study

  Insight Ltd.—Pensions Administration System security

  Hoskyns Ltd.—Training on Pensions Administration System

  Hoskyns Ltd.—Course Development on Pensions Administration System

  Duhig Berry—Preparation and provision of specialist IS related training

  Kinesis Computing—Programming advice to Information Systems Branch

  BBT Statistical Computing—Conversion of Data to Quicktab format

  BIS Systems Ltd.—Development of a Bursary Payments System

  Coopers and Lybrand—Preparation of ISB Corporate Plan

  Insight Consulting—Review of Data Collection and Processing System

  MSL Ltd.—Programming advice to Information Systems Branch

  OCTS Ltd.—Advice on Superbase software

  MFT Computer Services—Novell Hardware Platform Consultancy

  Oracle Ltd.—Transfer of Data to Oracle Case format

  Mikrofaxt Ltd.—Development work on Purchasing System

  Granada Computer—Troubleshooting on Purchasing System

  AMTEC Consulting—Development of Information System for the Office for Standards in Education

  Forvus Ltd.—Development and Processing of Continuous Student Record

  Admiral Ltd.—Guidance on Word For Windows Project

  BBT Statistical Computing—Call off Contract for Conversion of Data

  Shreeveport Ltd.—Assistance to In-house team on Market Test

  Mircosoft Ltd.—Integration of Core Resource Information System and Policy Branch Information System

  BIS Systems Ltd.—Desk Top Integration Project

  OCTS Ltd.—Advice on Excel software

  Express Computer—Advice on the Capital Grants System

  ICL (UK) Ltd.—Consultancy to Upgrade TME40 Hardware

  Kinesis Computing—Enhancements to Conference Room Booking System

  CMG Ltd.—Advice on Relational Database software

  Uden Consulting—Review of Pensions Administration System Project

  Terry Kinnard—Prototyping of Data for Parents Charter

  MFT Computer Services—Porting of Secretariat System software to a UNIX hardware platform

  Kinesis Computing—Viability advice on Clipper System

  KPMG Consulting—Advice on Business Systems for Grant Maintained Schools

  Commercell—Development of Personnel System for the Office for Standards in Education

  Ingres Ltd.—Technical Audit of the Pensions Administration System

  Kinesis Computing—Provision of Technical Report on Grant Maintained Schools System

  Express Computer Consultants—Changes to Grant Maintained Schools Payments System

  Oracle Ltd.—Advice on Relational Database software

  Education Support Grant
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much education support grant was given to each local education authority for each year since 1979, for health education.

  Mr. Forth
  Details of allocations for education support grant (ESG) and the parallel LEA training grant
  605
  (LEATG) for health education are given in the table. The table shows expenditure allocations for ESGs and LEATGs to each LEA as announced in the circular for that year. Final take-up of allocations by LEAs may have been slightly less.

  Education support grants and local education authority training grants: allocation for health education

  1990–91

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1992–93

  Support for Health Education

  Training for Health Education

  Support for Health Education

  Training for Health Education

  Support for Health Education

  Training for Health Education

  ESG

  LEATGS

  ESG

  LEATGS

  ESG

  LEATGS

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  City

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·3

  0·0

  0·0

  Camden

  25·0

  8·0

  26·3

  9·5

  24·6

  3·3

  Greenwich

  23·0

  14·0

  24·5

  16·7

  23·1

  5·6

  Hackney

  25·0

  10·0

  26·3

  11·9

  24·7

  3·9

  Hammersmith

  23·0

  7·0

  23·0

  7·0

  21·5

  2·6

  Islington

  25·0

  9·0

  26·3

  10·7

  24·6

  3·5

  Kensington

  25·0

  5·0

  26·3

  5·9

  24·5

  1·6

  Lambeth

  26·6

  11·0

  27·9

  12·0

  26·2

  4·1

  Lewisham

  25·0

  13·0

  26·3

  15·5

  24·7

  5·0

  Southwark

  38·0

  12·0

  10·3

  14·3

  9·9

  4·8

  Tower Hamlets

  25·0

  10·0

  26·3

  11·9

  24·7

  4·9

  Wandsworth

  25·0

  11·0

  26·3

  13·1

  24·7

  4·4

  Westminster

  25·0

  8·0

  25·0

  9·5

  23·4

  2·6

  Barking

  16·8

  10·0

  26·3

  6·5

  24·7

  3·8

  Barnet

  25·0

  17·0

  26·3

  17·0

  24·8

  6·7

  Bexley

  25·0

  14·0

  26·3

  10·0

  24·7

  5·3

  Brent

  25·0

  14·0

  26·3

  16·7

  24·7

  5·3

  Bromley

  25·0

  15·0

  25·0

  16·0

  24·0

  5·8

  Croydon

  25·0

  18·0

  26·3

  18·0

  24·8

  6·9

  Ealing

  26·2

  15·0

  27·5

  14·6

  25·9

  6·1

  Enfield

  28·5

  16·0

  29·9

  16·0

  28·1

  6·3

  Haringey

  25·0

  11·0

  26·3

  11·0

  24·7

  4·2

  Harrow

  25·0

  13·0

  26·3

  14·0

  24·7

  4·3

  Havering

  20·0

  15·0

  22·0

  15·5

  20·8

  5·8

  Hillingdon

  25·0

  13·0

  26·3

  11·0

  24·7

  5·2

  Hounslow

  32·7

  13·0

  32·7

  13·0

  30·7

  5·1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  30·8

  8·0

  32·3

  9·5

  30·2

  2·8

  Merton

  25·0

  9·0

  26·3

  9·0

  24·6

  3·3

  Newham

  53·1

  15·0

  55·8

  17·8

  52·2

  5·8

  Redbridge

  25·0

  13·0

  26·3

  15·5

  24·7

  5·1

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  25·0

  7·0

  26·3

  7·0

  22·0

  2·7

  Sutton

  18·9

  10·0

  26·3

  11·9

  24·6

  3·7

  Waltham Forest

  25·0

  13·0

  26·3

  13·2

  24·7

  5·0

  Birmingham

  140·9

  72·0

  147·9

  54·8

  139·1

  28·2

  Coventry

  27·0

  21·0

  28·4

  25·0

  26·8

  7·8

  Dudley

  30·0

  20·0

  26·5

  22·4

  25·1

  7·4

  Sandwell

  25·0

  21·0

  26·8

  21·7

  25·4

  8·0

  Solihull

  23·6

  14·0

  25·5

  12·1

  24·0

  5·3

  Walsall

  25·0

  19·0

  26·6

  22·6

  25·2

  7·5

  Wolverhampton

  0·0

  17·0

  26·3

  18·4

  24·8

  6·5

  Knowsley

  72·0

  11·0

  75·6

  11·0

  70·5

  4·5

  Liverpool

  44·0

  33·0

  28·2

  39·3

  27·0

  12·9

  St. Helens

  25·0

  14·0

  26·3

  16·7

  24·7

  5·0

  Sefton

  32·7

  19·0

  34·3

  22·6

  32·3

  7·5

  Wirral

  51·0

  22·0

  53·6

  24·0

  50·3

  3·6

  Bolton

  25·0

  19·0

  26·3

  22·6

  24·9

  7·2

  Bury

  24·2

  11·0

  25·0

  0·0

  23·5

  0·0

  Manchester

  38·8

  31·0

  40·7

  36·9

  38·5

  11·5

  Oldham

  26·2

  16·0

  27·5

  0·0

  25·9

  6·4

  Rochdale

  25·0

  15·0

  26·3

  17·8

  24·8

  5·8

  Salford

  25·0

  15·0

  26·3

  15·0

  24·8

  6·0

  Stockport

  25·6

  19·0

  26·9

  21·3

  25·4

  7·0

  Tameside

  25·0

  15·0

  26·3

  15·0

  24·8

  5·9

  Trafford

  25·0

  13·0

  26·3

  15·5

  24·7

  4·7

  Wigan

  29·4

  23·0

  30·9

  22·3

  29·2

  8·4

  Barnsley

  25·0

  14·0

  26·3

  16·7

  24·8

  5·6

  Doncaster

  27·2

  21·0

  28·6

  23·1

  27·0

  8·0

  Rotherham

  25·0

  18·0

  26·3

  19·6

  24·8

  6·9

  Sheffield

  44·2

  31·0

  46·4

  35·0

  43·8

  11·3

  Bradford

  45·9

  35·0

  48·5

  38·5

  45·9

  13·5

  Calderdale

  25·0

  14·0

  26·3

  16·5

  24·7

  5·2

  Kirklees

  32·0

  26·0

  33·9

  27·0

  32·1

  10·0

  Leeds

  59·7

  44·0

  63·0

  52·3

  59·5

  17·2

  Wakefield

  27·4

  20·0

  27·0

  23·8

  25·6

  7·9

  606
  The health education grants began in 1990–91, building on earlier grants to combat drug abuse which began in 1986–87; the footnote to the table gives details of the national total of expenditure supported by these grants.
  607

  1990–91

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1992–93

  Support for Health Education

  Training for Health Education

  Support for Health Education

  Training for Health Education

  Support for Health Education

  Training for Health Education

  ESG

  LEATGS

  ESG

  LEATGS

  ESG

  LEATGS

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  Gateshead

  25·0

  12·0

  26·1

  14·3

  24·5

  4·9

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  29·8

  17·0

  31·3

  18·2

  29·5

  6·5

  North Tyneside

  25·0

  13·0

  26·3

  14·0

  24·7

  5·0

  South Tyneside

  25·0

  11·0

  26·3

  10·5

  24·7

  4·0

  Sunderland

  23·0

  21·0

  27·0

  25·0

  25·6

  8·0

  Isles of Scilly

  0·5

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Avon

  80·0

  57·0

  83·3

  67·8

  64·7

  21·8

  Bedfordshire

  42·7

  36·0

  44·8

  31·0

  42·4

  13·8

  Berkshire

  54·3

  47·0

  57·4

  47·0

  54·4

  17·4

  Buckinghamshire

  52·5

  39·0

  55·4

  43·4

  52·4

  15·5

  Cambridgeshire

  54·6

  41·0

  57·6

  43·4

  50·8

  16·2

  Cheshire

  51·0

  66·0

  50·0

  50·0

  44·0

  22·0

  Cleveland

  32·5

  41·0

  34·1

  47·6

  32·7

  15·5

  Cornwall

  33·8

  29·0

  36·0

  28·6

  34·1

  11·2

  Cumbria

  42·0

  32·0

  42·0

  31·1

  39·7

  12·1

  Derbyshire

  48·4

  59·0

  57·9

  64·5

  55·2

  22·9

  Devon

  75·0

  58·0

  65·0

  50·0

  61·7

  21·9

  Dorset

  46·3

  35·0

  48·6

  33·6

  45·9

  12·0

  Durham

  42·0

  40·0

  46·6

  47·6

  44·2

  15·4

  East Sussex

  40·0

  35·0

  40·3

  41·3

  38·2

  13·4

  Essex

  61·5

  97·0

  65·7

  115·4

  63·2

  36·7

  Gloucestershire

  42·9

  34·0

  34·7

  40·4

  33·0

  11·4

  Hampshire

  90·7

  94·0

  101·7

  90·0

  96·6

  35·1

  Hereford and Worcester

  110·8

  43·0

  57·6

  48·1

  54·5

  15·0

  Hertfordshire

  58·0

  65·0

  63·3

  62·8

  60·3

  24·1

  Humberside

  62·6

  58·0

  69·5

  62·0

  65·9

  22·8

  Isle of Wight

  25·0

  8·0

  26·3

  6·0

  24·6

  2·9

  Kent

  74·5

  95·0

  69·0

  113·0

  54·0

  4·1

  Lancashire

  100·0

  94·0

  105·0

  77·5

  99·7

  35·3

  Leicestershire

  43·4

  59·0

  53·7

  70·2

  51·4

  22·7

  Lincolnshire

  40·0

  36·0

  42·0

  42·8

  39·8

  13·8

  Norfolk

  58·6

  45·0

  61·5

  52·9

  58·1

  16·8

  North Yorkshire

  35·9

  43·0

  38·7

  51·1

  36·9

  16·4

  Northamptonshire

  42·6

  40·0

  45·0

  38·8

  42·7

  15·5

  Northumberland

  18·4

  20·0

  21·0

  17·0

  0·0

  8·0

  Nottinghamshire

  48·5

  64·0

  59·1

  76·1

  56·4

  24·3

  Oxfordshire

  41·5

  32·0

  43·6

  31·0

  41·2

  12·0

  Shropshire

  33·5

  27·0

  35·6

  30·0

  33·7

  10·1

  Somerset

  36·1

  29·0

  37·9

  0·0

  35·8

  10·3

  Staffordshire

  66·5

  69·0

  72·8

  62·6

  55·7

  26·4

  Suffolk

  51·4

  39·0

  51·0

  34·9

  48·3

  13·2

  Surrey

  44·1

  53·0

  48·6

  46·5

  46·3

  19·7

  Warwickshire

  40·0

  32·0

  42·0

  32·5

  39·7

  11·8

  West Sussex

  51·8

  39·0

  54·4

  39·0

  51·4

  14·9

  Wiltshire

  44·9

  36·0

  47·1

  39·5

  44·5

  12·9

  TOTAL

  4,061·0

  30,00·0

  4,200·0

  3,100·0

  3,899·9

  1,099·9

  Note: In addition, the following grants were available to combat drug misuse:

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  ESG

  2·0

  2·4

  2·0

  LEATGS

  1·5

  1·6

  1·7

  Total

  3·5

  4·0

  3·7

  Figures for 1986–87 are not readily available.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give approval for a school opting out of local authority control where a local authority proposes to close that school as part of a review of surplus places.
  608
  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have made it clear recently that my right hon. Friend would not normally aprove an application for grant-maintained status from a school already proposed for closure as part of a rationalisation scheme, particularly where the school concerned had a large number of surplus places.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the higher education institutions which are providing in-service training for teachers from grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Ann Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how long grant-maintained schools will be able to rely on the facility to bring in services from their local education authority once grant-maintained status has been approved.
  609
  Mr. Robin Squire
  This will vary from authority to authority. There is provision in the current Education Bill to enable grant-maintained schools to trade with LEAs for two years beyond what current legislation allows.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his policy on officials of his Department participating in meetings for parents or members of the public concerning grant-maintained status other than those meetings organised by his Department.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department's activities in providing information on grant-maintained status are governed by a code of conduct, a copy of which is in the Library. The detailed wording of that code is currently being revised following discussions with the Society of Education Officers, local authority associations and others. Under the code, officials do not normally participate in such meetings.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those grant-maintained schools about which his Department has received representations from parents about (i) non-admission and (ii) exclusion of their children.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department receives numerous letters and telephone inquiries from parents about matters relating to admission to and exclusion from maintained schools. The Department does not keep a record of every such inquiry.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in what circumstances his Department will pay head teachers of grant-maintained schools to attend as invited speakers at meetings on grant-maintained status other than at their own schools; and what amount of funding would be paid in those circumstances.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Headteachers of grant-maintained schools who are invited to speak at schools considering grant-maintained status about the arrangements for that and their own experiences may claim travel and subsistence expenses from the Department. Such expenses are reimbursed at normal public service rates.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which grant-maintained schools have(a) applied for and (b) been approved to include as part of their admissions policy a process involving (i) pupil and (ii) parent interview; and in which schools the admissions policy has remained unchanged since the school became grant maintained.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is common practice for church schools, whether or not grant maintained, to make use of an interview to help decide whether the religious ethos of the school would be appropriate for the child concerned. Other schools may have arrangements which involve a senior member of staff meeting parents and children prior to admission. Such interviews, which do not affect the child's chance of gaining admission, can be extremely valuable for all concerned. The great majority of grant-maintained schools do not use interviews as part of their formal admission procedures. Relatively few schools have applied for changes in admission arrangements, of whatever kind, since acquiring grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the amounts of payments made under section 610
  79(3)(a)(iii) of the Education Reform Act 1988 and under sections 79(3)(b) of the Education Reform Act 1988 to grant-maintained schools, giving in each case the name of the school and the purposes of the payments.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The only payment that has been made to grant-maintained schools under section 79(3)(a)(iii) of the Education Reform Act 1988 was to Kirkbie Kendal school. The amount was £22,000, and the funds were made available in recognition of extra expenditure incurred by the school on meeting the needs of statemented pupils.

  Tables giving the other information requested have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the schools about which his Department has received representations from parents about the conduct of ballots held under section 61 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not collate information on representations received about the conduct of ballots held under section 61 of the Education Reform Act 1988, of which there have now been more than 1,240. Any complaints are considered individually on their merits.

  Testing
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total number of representations he has received about testing in schools so far in 1993; and what was the proportion(a) in favour and (b) against.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Since the beginning of the year my right hon. Friend has received about 10,000 letters on the subject of testing in schools. They cover a number of different issues. The Department does not keep statistical information about their content.

  Standard Assessment Tasks
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the number of schools in each local authority out of the total number of schools in each case which have transmitted SAT results to their education authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All primary schools maintained by a local education authority are required to send their key stage 1 test results to their authority for onward transmission to the Department. These must be sent to the authority by the end of the summer term. The end date for the authority's returns is 31 July. Secondary schools are required to submit their results through the GCSE examining groups by no later than 15 September. It is, therefore, too soon to have accurate figures on the number of schools that have transmitted their results as required.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 19 July,Official Report, columns 33–36, when the information requested on pupils in schools for 1993 will be available.

  Mr. Forth
  This information from the January 1993 schools' census will become available towards the end of the year.
  611

  Selection
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those grant-maintained schools which have(a) applied for and (b) been approved to include as part of their admissions policy (i) an element of selection based on pupils' ability or aptitude and (ii) a fully selective system of admissions based upon ability; and if he will list those schools where the admissions policy has remained unchanged since the school became grant maintained.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Most grant-maintained schools operate the admissions policies agreed at the time of incorporation. The schools which have subsequently applied for changes in respect of the selection of pupils by aptitude or ability are as follows:

  Approved for element of selection

  Heathside school, Surrey

  Southlands school, Berkshire

  Langley Park school, Bromley

  Beaverwood school, Bromley

  Canterbury high school, Kent

  Cooper's school, Bromley

  Abbs Cross school, Havering

  King Edward VI grammar school, Essex

  Approved for fully selective intake

  Queen Elizabeth grammar school, Cumbria

  Application for element of selection pending

  North Kesteven, Lincolnshire

  Robert Pattinson school, Lincolnshire

  Mill Hill school, Barnet

  Budmouth school, Dorset

  Application for fully selective intake not approved

  Castle Hall school, Kirklees

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each local education authority the latest estimate of the number of surplus school places in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the number of surplus places in each local authority in England during the academic year 1990–91, the latest available figures. The figures are derived from information provided by LEAs in response to a survey by the Department.

  Surplus places in LEA-maintained primary and secondary schools 1990–91

  Primary

  Secondary

  Corporation of London

  21

  —

  Camden

  972

  1,148

  Greenwich

  2,718

  3,260

  Hackney

  3,019

  1,780

  Hammersmith

  2,981

  3,251

  Islington

  2,958

  1,715

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,090

  1,046

  Lambeth

  4,479

  3,852

  Lewisham

  1,609

  3,223

  South wark

  5,511

  3,837

  Tower Hamlets

  2,864

  1,051

  Wandsworth

  9,096

  23,908

  Westminster

  891

  868

  Barking

  1,368

  717

  Barnet

  1,463

  983

  Bexley

  2,914

  3,436

  Brent

  6,585

  4,480

  Bromley

  2,259

  21,309

  Croydon

  3,389

  3,149

  Ealing

  3,016

  3,533

  Enfield

  765

  3,976

  612

  Primary

  Secondary

  Haringey

  1—

  1—

  Harrow

  888

  466

  Havering

  1,971

  3,229

  Hillingdon

  3,754

  3,693

  Hounslow

  1,226

  2,598

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  485

  1,117

  Merton

  1,639

  2,544

  Newham

  4,587

  3,899

  Redbridge

  796

  695

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,845

  643

  Sutton

  1,619

  2513

  Waltham Forest

  1,445

  2,706

  Birmingham

  8,711

  17,171

  Coventry

  6,022

  5,657

  Dudley

  2,551

  5,134

  Sandwell

  328

  7,722

  Solihull

  3,332

  6,645

  Walsall

  3,823

  4,667

  Wolverhampton

  6,116

  5,740

  Knowsley

  4,004

  3,925

  Liverpool

  19,481

  11,545

  St. Helens

  1,886

  3,621

  Sefton

  1,944

  4,519

  Wirral

  1,953

  6,580

  Bolton

  1,602

  1,612

  Bury

  -150

  1,013

  Manchester

  7,617

  13,350

  Oldham

  1,319

  1,692

  Rochdale

  1,784

  25,253

  Salford

  4,171

  3,711

  Stockport

  3,357

  2,732

  Tameside

  968

  1,854

  Trafford

  1,878

  2,955

  Wigan

  7,811

  4,025

  Barnsley

  4,220

  2,644

  Doncaster

  7,076

  8,550

  Rotherham

  4,346

  3,761

  Sheffield

  9,048

  8,730

  Bradford

  6,370

  8,331

  Calderdale

  3,324

  2,891

  Kirklees

  3,291

  6,222

  Leeds

  8,335

  15,684

  Wakefield

  4,314

  7,763

  Gateshead

  6,422

  2,941

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  4,515

  5,425

  North Tyneside

  3,802

  4,942

  South Tyneside

  2,619

  3,528

  Sunderland

  4,674

  2,5663

  Isles of Scilly

  78

  233

  Avon

  6,359

  14,904

  Bedfordshire

  9,782

  9,409

  Berkshire

  14,013

  8,825

  Buckinghamshire

  11,252

  5,564

  Cambridge

  9,401

  2,642

  Cheshire

  17,045

  11,149

  Cleveland

  10,391

  11,298

  Cornwall

  744

  3,209

  Cumbria

  5,674

  9,673

  Derbyshire

  10,230

  12,487

  Devon

  10,575

  9,012

  Dorset

  1,165

  5,941

  Durham

  11,516

  13,626

  East Sussex

  7,955

  6,350

  Essex

  22,611

  24,319

  Gloucestershire

  5,506

  5,756

  Hampshire

  24,719

  13,601

  Hereford and Worcester

  9,296

  9,570

  Hertfordshire

  20,503

  15,153

  Humberside

  16,347

  14,891

  Isle of Wight

  357

  1,101

  Kent

  15,431

  26,589

  Lancashire

  6,754

  20,135

  Leicestershire

  7,204

  16,644

  Lincolnshire

  7,236

  5,440

  Norfolk

  10,842

  7,682

  613

  Primary

  Secondary

  North Yorkshire

  9,524

  7,404

  Northamptonshire

  4,714

  8,058

  Northumberland

  4,902

  3,727

  Nottinghamshire

  17,253

  26,198

  Oxfordshire

  10,004

  9,589

  Shropshire

  5,936

  5,718

  Somerset

  2,524

  3,793

  Staffordshire

  24,485

  7,783

  Suffolk

  7,902

  8,015

  Surrey

  11,084

  8,400

  Warwickshire

  8,673

  7,277

  West Sussex

  6,940

  7,634

  Wiltshire

  9,682

  9,987

  1 Not available.

  2 Figures for secondary schools in these LEAs are incomplete.

  3 Figures for secondary schools in these LEAs are calculated on a slightly different basis since directly comparable figures are not available.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the fees charged by each school taking part in the assisted places scheme in 1992–93.

  Mr. Forth
  The fees charged to the parents of assisted pupils in each of the participating schools in the academic year 1992–93, and which are remitted either in whole or in part by the Department, are given in the table:

  Assisted places scheme

  School name

  Average fee charged for assisted pupils in academic year 1992–93

  £

  Abbey School, Reading

  3,405

  Abingdon

  4,212

  Ackworth

  3,906

  Aldenham

  6,762

  Alice Ottley

  3,849

  Alleyns, Dulwich

  5,205

  Ardingly College

  8,145

  Arnold School, Blackpool

  3,189

  Ashford

  4,505

  Ashville College

  4,299

  Austin Friars

  3,693

  Bancrofts

  4,224

  Barnard Castle

  4,014

  Bath High GPDST

  3,189

  Batley Grammar

  2,973

  Bedales

  7,797

  Bedford

  5,628

  Bedford High

  4,148

  Bedford Modern

  3,751

  Belvedere GPDST

  3,189

  Berkhamstead Girls

  4,234

  Berkhamsted

  5,299

  Birkenhead

  3,033

  Birkenhead High GPDST

  3,189

  Bishop's Stortford College

  7,030

  Blackheath High GPDST

  3,609

  Bloxham, Banbury

  6,454

  Bolton School Boys

  3,855

  Bolton School Girls

  3,855

  Bootham, York

  5,292

  Bradfield College

  8,324

  Bradford Girls Grammar

  3,506

  Bradford Grammar School

  3,411

  Brentwood School

  4,388

  Brighton College

  6,285

  Brighton/Hove High GPDST

  3,189

  Bristol Cathedral

  3,608

  614

  School name

  Average fee charged for assisted pupils in academic year 1992–93

  £

  Bristol Grammar

  3,423

  Bromley High GPDST

  3,609

  Bromsgrove

  5,076

  Bruton Girls

  3,099

  Burgess High Girls

  5,448

  Bury Grammar Boys

  3,000

  Bury Grammar Girls

  3,000

  Canford

  7,586

  Carmel College

  7,202

  Casterton

  4,624

  Caterham

  4,626

  Central Newcastle High GPDST

  3,189

  Charterhouse

  9,210

  Cheadle Hulme

  3,570

  Cheltenham Ladies College

  6,640

  Chigwell

  5,542

  Christ's Hospital

  6,264

  Churchers College

  4,440

  City of London

  5,090

  City of London Freemans

  5,138

  City of London Girls

  4,393

  Clifton College, Bristol

  5,064

  Clifton High, Bristol

  4,066

  Colfes

  3,982

  Colston's Girls

  3,165

  Colston's, Bristol

  3,165

  Coventry, Bablake

  3,099

  Coventry, King Henry VIII

  3,099

  Cranleigh

  4,500

  Croham Hurst

  3,742

  Croydon High GPDST

  3,609

  Culford

  5,377

  Dame Alice Harpur

  3,555

  Dame Allans Boys

  3,084

  Dame Allans Girls

  3,084

  Dauntseys

  5,604

  Denstone College

  6,160

  Derby High

  4,992

  Douai, Reading

  4,992

  Dover College

  5,970

  Downe House, Newbury

  6,774

  Dulwich College

  5,685

  Durham

  6,063

  Edgbaston College Girls

  3,774

  Edgehill College

  4,433

  Ellesmere College

  6,300

  Eltham College, London

  4,576

  Emanuel, London SW11

  4,110

  Epson College

  6,789

  Exeter

  3,529

  Farnborough Hill

  3,767

  Felixstowe College

  5,545

  Felsted, Dunmow

  7,935

  Forest School

  4,132

  Framlingham College

  5,502

  Francis Holland

  4,180

  Friends, Saffron Walden

  5,225

  Giggleswick, Settle

  5,061

  Godolphin and Latymer

  4,950

  Godolphin, Salisbury

  5,523

  Greshams

  7,296

  Guildford High Girls

  4,314

  Haberdashers Askes Boys

  4,794

  Haberdashers Askes Girls

  3,258

  Haileybury & ISC

  7,195

  Hampton

  3,967

  Harrogate College

  5,166

  Headington

  3,864

  Hereford Cathedral

  3,951

  Highgate

  5,815

  Hipperholme Grammar

  2,718

  Holy Child

  3,847

  Hulme Grammar Boys

  3,210

  615

  School name

  Average fee charged for assisted pupils in academic year 1992–93

  £

  Hulme Grammar Girls

  3,210

  Hurstpierpoint College

  8,160

  Hymers College

  3,048

  Ipswich

  4,322

  Ipswich High GPDST

  3,189

  James Allens Girls

  5,130

  John Lyons

  4,467

  Kent College

  5,484

  Kimbolton School

  4,356

  King Edward VI High

  3,538

  King Edward VI Norwich

  3,717

  King Edward VI Southampton

  3,900

  King Edward VII Lytham

  2,919

  King Edwards at Bath

  3,507

  King Edwards Birmingham

  3,919

  King Edwards Witley

  5,169

  Kings College Wimbledon

  5,400

  Kings High Girls, Warwick

  3,305

  Kings Bruton

  6,541

  Kings, Chester

  3,900

  Kings, Macclesfield

  3,725

  Kings, Rochester

  5,491

  Kings, Tynemouth

  3,097

  Kings, Worcester

  4,527

  Kingsley

  3,577

  Kingston Grammar

  4,166

  Kingswood School, Bath

  5,054

  Kirkham Grammar

  3,000

  La Sagesse Convent

  3,210

  Lady Eleanor Holles

  4,662

  Latymer Upper

  4,032

  Laxton

  4,224

  Leeds Girls High

  3,579

  Leeds Grammar

  3,546

  Leicester Grammar

  3,161

  Leighton Park

  7,450

  Leys, Cambridge

  7,411

  Liverpool College

  3,702

  Lord Wandsworth College

  6,240

  Loreto Convent Grammar

  2,604

  Loughborough Grammar

  3,658

  Loughborough High

  3,306

  Magdalen College

  4,026

  Malvern College

  7,680

  Manchester Grammar

  3,468

  Manchester High

  3,369

  Marist Convent Senior

  3,403

  Maynard

  3,435

  Merchant Taylors Girls

  3,204

  Merchant Taylors, Liverpool

  3,204

  Merchant Taylors, Northwood

  5,710

  Mill Hill

  6,414

  Monkton Combe

  5,178

  Mount Carmel, Cheshire

  2,790

  Mount St. Mary's College

  4,911

  Mount, York

  5,412

  Newcastle Under Lyme

  2,993

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Church High

  3,210

  North London Collegiate

  4,089

  Northampton High

  3,642

  Norwich High GPDST

  3,189

  Notting Hill/Ealing High GPDST

  3,609

  Nottingham Girls High GPDST

  3,189

  Nottingham High

  3,413

  Oakham

  5,565

  Old Palace, Croydon

  3,464

  Oxford High GPDST

  3,189

  Pangbourne College

  5,100

  Perse School for Boys

  3,948

  Perse School for Girls

  3,454

  Plymouth College

  3,736

  Pocklington

  4,122

  Polam Hall

  3,648

  616

  School name

  Average fee charged for assisted pupils in academic year 1992–93

  £

  Portsmouth Grammar

  3,594

  Portsmouth High GPDST

  3,189

  Prior Park College

  4,093

  Putney High School GPDST

  3,609

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Bristol

  3,519

  Queen Elizabeth, Blackburn

  3,371

  Queen Elizabeth, Wakefield

  3,400

  Queen Mary, Lytham

  2,919

  Queens College, London

  4,662

  Queens College, Taunton

  5,032

  Queens School, Chester

  3,075

  Ratcliffe College

  4,905

  Red Maids, Bristol

  3,420

  Redland High, Bristol

  3,341

  Reed's School, Cobham

  6,192

  Reigate Grammar

  3,922

  Rendcomb College

  6,120

  Repton

  5,190

  Rossall

  6,569

  Royal Grammar, Guildford

  5,016

  Royal Grammar, Newcastle

  3,113

  Royal Grammar, Worcester

  3,929

  Ryde School

  3,522

  Salesian College

  2,178

  Scarborough College

  4,426

  Sedbergh

  7,411

  Sevenoaks, Kent

  5,778

  Sheffield High GPDST

  3,189

  Shrewsbury High GPDST

  3,189

  Silcoates

  4,764

  Sir William Perkins

  3,364

  Solihull

  3,729

  South Hampstead High GPDST

  3,609

  St. Albans

  4,306

  St. Albans High Girls

  3,966

  St. Ambrose College

  2,817

  St. Anselms College

  2,787

  St. Bede's College

  3,438

  St. Bees

  6,180

  St. Benedict's

  4,466

  St. Catherine's

  5,082

  St. Dunstan's College

  3,980

  St. Edmund's College

  4,954

  St. Edward's College

  3,016

  St. Felix, Southwold

  5,142

  St. George's College

  5,550

  St. Helen and St. Katherine

  3,387

  St. Helen's, Northwood

  4,134

  St. John's College, Southsea

  3,091

  St. John's, Leatherhead

  6,030

  St. Joseph's College, Ipswich

  3,824

  St. Joseph's College, Stoke

  2,806

  St. Joseph's Convent, Reading

  3,465

  St. Lawrence College, Ramsgate

  6,210

  St. Margaret's, Bushey

  4,506

  St. Margaret's, Exeter

  3,261

  St. Mary and St. Anne

  6,344

  St. Mary's College, Crosby

  3,166

  St. Mary's Convent, Cambridge

  3,274

  St. Mary's Hall, Brighton

  5,139

  St. Maurs Convent, Weybridge

  3,705

  St. Paul's Girls, Hammersmith

  5,251

  St. Paul's, Barnes

  6,660

  St. Peter's, York

  5,595

  Stafford Grammar

  3,399

  Stamford

  3,546

  Stamford High

  3,549

  Stockport Grammar

  3,483

  Stoneyhurst College

  6,614

  Stowe

  7,518

  Streatham Hill/Clapham High

  3,609

  Surbiton High

  4,080

  Sutton High GPDST

  3,609

  617

  School name

  Average fee charged for assisted pupils in academic year 1992–93

  £

  Sutton Valence

  6,222

  Sydenham High GPDST

  3,609

  Talbot Heath

  3,759

  Taunton

  5,744

  Teesside High

  3,075

  Tonbridge

  7,404

  Tormead

  4,082

  Trent College

  5,269

  Trinity of John Whitgift

  4,533

  Truro

  3,810

  Truro High

  3,414

  University College School, London

  5,662

  Upton Hall Convent

  2,388

  Ursuline Convent, Kent

  4,338

  Ursuline High, Ilford

  3,700

  Wakefield High

  3,400

  Walthamstow Hall

  4,838

  Warwick

  3,864

  Wellingborough

  4,784

  Wellington College

  7,824

  Wellington, Somerset

  3,774

  Wells Cathedral

  4,635

  West Buckland

  4,176

  Westholme

  2,955

  Westminster

  5,013

  Whitgift, Croydon

  4,671

  William Hulme Grammar

  3,613

  Wimbledon High GPDST

  3,609

  Winchester College

  8,250

  Wisbech Grammar

  4,021

  Withington Girls

  3,150

  Wolverhampton Grammar

  3,882

  Woodbridge

  4,935

  Woodhouse Grove

  4,241

  Worksop

  5,460

  Wrekin College

  6,418

  Wycliffe College

  7,456

  Yarm

  4,005

  Sex Education
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will require schools to issue guidance to parents who withdraw their children from sex education;

  1992

  1993

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  1st 2quarter

  Persons subject to deportation action

  Supervised departures

  475

  339

  385

  367

  1,566

  1—

  Left voluntarily

  21

  9

  15

  36

  81

  1—

  Illegal entrants:

  Left voluntarily

  82

  75

  67

  66

  290

  68

  1Not yet available.

  2Provisional data.

  Doctors (Work Permits)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the criteria governing the issue of work permits to doctors from non-EC countries wishing to continue in training grade posts in the NHS after the expiry of their permit-free four-year period;618
  and if he will provide schools with a model of such guidance including information on HIV and AIDS and the responsibilities associated with them.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no powers to require schools to do so. We intend, however, to issue a circular of guidance which will encourage schools to offer support to those parents who do withdraw their children from all or part of sex education in deciding how best to provide their children with the information and guidance they will need.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has on the number of(a) full-time and (b) part-time staff employed by each campus union in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not available centrally.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons detained under Immigration Act powers applied to his Department to be allowed to depart voluntarily under(a) the supervised departure provisions and (b) the voluntary departure provisions of the immigration rules in each quarter since January 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The readily available information relates to persons subject to deportation action who were removed under the supervised departure procedures, or left voluntarily, and persons dealt with as illegal entrants who left voluntarily. This information is given in the table. Most of these persons will have been detained prior to departure. A number will have been subject to restrictions as an alternative to detention, but such cases could be separately identified only at disproportionate cost.

  (2) what consideration is given to extending permit-free training status beyond the maximum of four years for hospital training posts undertaken by doctors from non-EC countries.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Under the immigration rules there is no provision for a non-EC national doctor coming here for postgraduate training in a hospital to switch to work permit employment. Where a doctor requires longer than
  619
  four years to complete his or her postgraduate training, we are prepared to consider, exceptionally, granting further leave to remain on a permit-free basis for a limited period.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of abuse of anabolic steroids on the incidence of violent crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has recently completed a review of the misuse of anabolic steroids, including the available evidence on their behaviourial side effects and the possible link with violent crime. We are currently considering the council's conclusions and recommendations, together with other ministerial colleagues.

  Young Runaways
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has of the number of young people aged under 17 years who have run away from home within each police force area in Wales in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures are not available centrally. Limited information on missing persons is contained in the four Welsh forces' chief constables' annual reports.

  Bank Customers (Political Views)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will institute an inquiry on the keeping of records regarding the party political views of bank customers; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether the Data Protection Registrar has sufficient funds and staff to initiate a full inquiry into the keeping of records on individuals' party political views by commercial organisations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is for the Data Protection Registrar to determine whether a breach of the Data Protection Act has occurred in any particular case. I understand that the registrar is making some preliminary inquiries in the banking sector, following the stories which have appeared about the holding of data on political affiliations. He will consider whether further inquiries are appropriate, and what the resource implications of these may be.

  Sheehy Report
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many copies of the Sheehy committee report on the police have been distributed free of charge to the police officers and other interested parties; and how much expenditure has been incurred.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A total of 875 copies of the report of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards were produced for distribution by the inquiry to interested parties. The chief officer of each police force in the United Kingdom received two copies, as did the clerk to each police authority. Copies were also circulated to each organisation and individual who gave oral evidence to the inquiry. The cost of distribution was £20,000.
  620

  Prisons (Racial Discrimination)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many official complaints have been made by prison inmates in England and Wales of racial discrimination being shown or used against them during each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 26 July 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent question about the number of complaints of racial discrimination recorded over the last three years.
  Information is not held in the form requested. The request and complaints system does not record racial discrimination as a separate category, nor does it separate out requests from complaints.
  Governors are required to record all racial incidents and report them quarterly to Area Managers, and annually in aggregated statistical form. However, the definition of a racial incident goes wider than complaints of racial discrimination and includes, for example, incidents between prisoners and between staff. It is not therefore possible to separate out complaints of racial discrimination from the information available.

  Fines (Non-payment)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and women were imprisoned for non-payment of fines for(a) not having television licences and (b) other offences involving fines in the last two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is for 1991. A total of 258 males and 136 females were received into prison service establishments in England and Wales for defaulting on a fine after conviction for operating a television without a licence; and 17,740 males and 840 females were received for fine default following other offences.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposal he has to grant full British citizenship to members of non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong who will be without a right of abode elsewhere after 1997; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans for new legislation to provide British citizenship for this group. All British members of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong will be entitled to retain or acquire an appropriate form of British nationality after 1997 and will be assured of full British consular protection. They are guaranteed the right of abode in Hong Kong, and the Government have given an assurance, repeated on many occasions, that if, against all expectations, members of this group came under pressure to leave Hong Kong and had nowhere else to go, the Government of the day would be expected to consider with considerable and particular sympathy their case for admission to the United Kingdom.
  621

  Mr. Mark Jarvis
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report of the Winsom Green prison security department on the suitability of Mark Jarvis for home leave.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Ms Lynne Jones, dated 26 July 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the publication of the report on the suitability of Mr. Mark Jarvis for home leave.
  In considering applications for home leave, the home leave board will receive reports from a number of sources, including staff responsible for security. In the case of Mr. Jarvis, the home leave board considered these reports which, with the exception of the security report, indicated that his recent behaviour was much improved and that he had shown a marked change since arriving at Birmingham in 1991. In view of his history, the board decided that the decision should be deferred and further reports commissioned about the suitability of the place he intended to stay. His good behaviour continued over the next two months and the board was advised that his home leave address was suitable. The social services were also consulted, and his home leave was approved.
  The report from the security department at Birmingham had referred to his criminal record, his failure on temporary release the year before and his having been refused four applications for parole. The report was compiled by a prison officer and expressed the view that Mr. Jarvis was not suitable for home leave at the time, but having taken that report into

  Table A

  Persons found guilty or cautioned under the Licensing Act 1964 by police force area in Wales 1989–91

  Police force area

  Year

  Found guilty

  Cautioned

  Found guilty or cautioned

  Persons under 18 buying intoxicating liquor1

  Dyfed—Powys

  1989

  —

  23

  23

  1990

  3

  27

  30

  1991

  —

  10

  10

  Gwent

  1989

  8

  53

  61

  1990

  37

  54

  91

  1991

  1

  46

  47

  North Wales

  1989

  32

  60

  92

  1990

  15

  78

  93

  1991

  5

  31

  36

  South Wales

  1989

  8

  52

  60

  1990

  6

  76

  82

  1991

  —

  21

  21

  Wales

  1989

  48

  188

  236

  1990

  61

  235

  296

  1991

  6

  108

  114

  Selling intoxicating liquor to persons under 182

  Dyfed—Powys

  1989

  4

  16

  20

  1990

  7

  7

  14

  1991

  —

  4

  4

  Gwent

  1989

  16

  41

  57

  1990

  29

  22

  51

  1991

  6

  12

  18

  North Wales

  1989

  12

  14

  26

  1990

  11

  3

  14

  1991

  1

  10

  11

  622
  consideration, alongside other reports of a more positive nature, the home leave board decided he should be released.

  I am very concerned about any temporary release failure. The procedures were changed in October last year to improve the effectiveness of risk assessment. A further review is currently in progress. I have also written recently to all Governors to remind them of the need for great care before releasing a prisoner for home leave and reminding them to exercise caution in favour of public safety. It is right to refuse any application where there is doubt about a prisoner's likely behaviour while at liberty. Good behaviour in prison is a factor to be taken into account when considering a request for home leave, but the protection of the public has to be the overriding factor.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons under the age of 18 years were found guilty or cautioned for buying intoxicating liquor within each police force area in Wales in each of the last three years; and how many licensees were found guilty or cautioned for selling intoxicating liquor to persons aged under 18 years;

  (2) how many children and young people under the age of 18 years have been found guilty or cautioned for offences of drunkenness within each police force area in Wales in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the tables. Data for 1992 will not be available until the autumn.
  623

  Police force area

  Year

  Found guilty

  Cautioned

  Found guilty or cautioned

  South Wales

  1989

  16

  11

  27

  1990

  19

  15

  34

  1991

  14

  8

  22

  Wales

  1989

  48

  82

  130

  1990

  66

  47

  113

  1991

  21

  34

  55

  1Section 169(2) Licensing Act 1964.

  2Section 169(1) Licensing Act 1964.

  Table B

  Persons found guilty or cautioned for offences of drunkenness by age and police force area in Wales 1989–1991

  Police force area

  Year

  Found guilty

  Cautioned

  Found guilty or cautioned

  Aged 10 to under 14 years

  Dyfed—Powys

  1989

  —

  1

  1

  1990

  —

  1

  1

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  1989

  —

  4

  4

  1990

  —

  7

  7

  1991

  —

  1

  1

  North Wales

  1989

  1

  —

  1

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  —

  2

  2

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  1989

  1

  5

  6

  1990

  —

  10

  10

  1991

  —

  1

  1

  Aged 14 to under 18 years

  Dyfed—Powys

  1989

  8

  12

  20

  1990

  12

  13

  25

  1991

  8

  11

  19

  Gwent

  1989

  72

  77

  149

  1990

  69

  59

  128

  1991

  29

  38

  67

  North Wales

  1989

  29

  9

  38

  1990

  36

  15

  51

  1991

  26

  15

  41

  South Wales

  1989

  114

  68

  182

  1990

  89

  52

  141

  1991

  69

  29

  98

  Wales

  1989

  223

  166

  389

  1990

  206

  139

  345

  1991

  132

  93

  225

  Aged 10 to under 18 years

  Dyfed—Powys

  1989

  8

  13

  21

  1990

  12

  14

  26

  1991

  8

  11

  19

  Gwent

  1989

  72

  81

  153

  1990

  69

  66

  135

  1991

  29

  39

  68

  North Wales

  1989

  30

  9

  39

  1990

  36

  15

  51

  1991

  26

  15

  41

  South Wales

  1989

  114

  68

  182

  1990

  89

  54

  143

  624 625

  Police force area

  Year

  Found guilty

  Cautioned

  Found guilty or cautioned

  1991

  69

  29

  98

  Wales

  1989

  224

  171

  395

  1990

  206

  149

  355

  1991

  132

  94

  226

  Blind and Partially Sighted People
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy on which information produced by his Department is published in alternative media to standard print such as Braille, tape or large print.

  Mr. Howard
  Our criteria are to target publicity material in alternative media, according to need, within available funding. My Department currently makes available the following:"Fire Safety Advice for Disabled People" in 18 pt bold type.
  "Fire Safety in the Home" audio cassette.
  "Practical Ways to Crack Crime—Family Version" audio cassette.

  We have not produced any material in Braille.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements his Department makes to ensure that blind and partially sighted people have access to information produced by his Department where it has not been published in alternative media such as Braille, large print or tape.

  Mr. Howard
  Publicity material produced by the Home Office is available, free of charge, to the public from relevant local services such as police forces and fire brigades. Blind and partially-sighted people can obtain such material by contacting those services.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all those services or functions contracted out in his Department and agencies, since November 1991, in which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were not applied.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Whether or not the regulations apply in any particular case will depend on the nature of the work awarded and the contractors' own proposals for carrying it out. The replies of 9 March at column 476 and 18 June at column 753 listed the areas of the Home Office which have been contracted out. The regulations did not apply to the following:

  Management of Wolds prison

  Management of Blakenhurst prison

  Court escort and custody services in Humberside and the east midlands

  Catering services (Downview, Belmarsh, Bullingdon, Holme House, Woodhill, Highdown and Lancaster Farms)

  Forensic Science Service waste disposal

  Information concerning whether the regulations applied to any other Home Office services for which contracts have been awarded since November 1991 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  626

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the building projects and their cost now being undertaken at Wandsworth prison as of 16 July.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 26 July 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the building projects, and their cost, now being undertaken at Wandsworth prison.
  After completion of the modernisation of D Wing in March 1993, at a cost of £5·5 million, enabling works are under way to allow the modernisation of C Wing. The enabling works (including the removal of asbestos and electrical wiring) will be completed in September 1993, at an estimated cost of £175,000. Work on the 15 month refurbishment of C Wing will then commence in September 1993, at an estimated cost of £7·15 million.

  Jason Georgiou
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of custody for Jason Georgiou; for what period he was held in custody; and if he will list the prosecution witnesses.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 26 July 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the costs of holding Jason Georgiou in custody and the period for which he was held.
  Jason Georgiou was held at Belmarsh Prison from 27 October 1992 until 30 April 1993 when he was transferred to Brixton Prison where he remained until his release on 12 July 1993.
  We do not collect costs of individual prisoners, but the average cost of holding a person in custody for this period in local and remand prisons would have been £17,197 at 93/4 prices.
  I regret that we are unable to furnish you with details of the prosecution witnesses in the case since the Lord Chancellors Department have advised that none of them were called to give evidence and therefore their details are not a matter of public record.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against

  627
  the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government continue to help small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  During the past 12 months my Department has substantially increased the resources it devotes to taking forward the Government's deregulation initiative and has taken a number of steps to help small businesses. We have proposed legislation which aims to clarify the law on Sunday trading; we have withdrawn draft fire regulations which representatives of some small businesses feared would be unduly burdensome and we are preparing new regulations which take account of these concerns; we have undertaken consultation exercises on greyhound racing and liquor licensing; and we have set in hand a full review of all regulations affecting business for which the Home Office has responsibility. We propose to remove the restrictions on weekday shop opening hours in England and Wales (and throughout the week in Scotland) as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  The main deregulatory achievements in 1991 were in betting and gaming. The greyhound industry was given greater flexibility to set deductions according to market forces by increasing from 17·5 per cent. to 29 per cent. the maximum permitted amount which may be retained by the operators of a totalisator on a dog racecourse. Gaming clubs were allowed to increase from one to two the number of multiple bingo games that can be played on a Saturday.

  The target is to complete the current review of H ome Office regulations by April 1994. Targets have also been set for other work such as consultative exercises and developing proposals for legislation. In addition the Home Office will contribute to the Department of Trade and Industry's central record of Government regulations against which progress on deregulation is being monitored.

  The work on deregulation complements continuing efforts to assist firms who wish to bid for Home Office business. Over the last 12 months we have again revised and reissued a booklet entitled "Selling to the Home Office" which details the Home Office's purchasing needs and gives specific contact points for initial approaches. A central contact point for general enquiries is also available. It is Home Office policy to give encouragement and assistance to small businesses wherever possible. The Home Office does not hold statistical information regarding the volume of business placed with small firms.

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug addicts in Wales notified to his Department are aged under 21 years; and how many of them are(a) female and (b) male.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is contained in tables A9 and A10 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of drug addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1992" (area tables), a copy of which is in the Library.
  628

  Ethnic Minorities (Employment)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 June,Official Report, columns 178–80, how many letters of representation regarding proposed cuts in funding under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 he has received from, or on behalf of, (a) school governing bodies, (b) schools, (c) other educational institutions and(d) parents and other individuals.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The numbers are:(a) 119; (b) 192; (c) 10; (d)

  Computer Consultancies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the computer consultancies employed by his Department and agencies, since November 1991, the tasks for which they were engaged, and the total cost to his Department.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office has committed approximately £4·5 million to 186 computer consultancy contracts let since 1 November 1991. During this period the statistical database has been automated and the tasks are not recorded in a manner which enables a general description to be provided without incurring disproportionate cost. The suppliers of the consultancies are as follows (figures in brackets indicate the number of contracts to that company if more than one):

  Supplier

  Admiral (× 3)

  Aims systems (× 3)

  Axis Consultants Ltd. (× 2)

  Bristol Transputer Centre

  Bull Information Systems (× 2)

  CCTA (× 7)

  Civil Service College

  CMG Information Services

  Computer Capacity Management

  Computer People North

  Concorde Services

  Coopers Lybrand and Deloitte (× 2)

  CSC (× 2)

  CSS Trident (× 4)

  Data Sciences UK

  Database Management

  Daton Systems

  Daymount Computing

  DBI Associates Limited (× 5)

  DEC (× 2)

  Dell Computer Corporation (× 3)

  Doric Computer Systems

  Easams

  Edinburgh Parallel

  EDS Scicon Defence

  Ernst and Young (× 2)

  Express Computer Consultants

  Ferranti International

  Grafton (× 4)

  Hans Grefte (× 3)

  Harvey Consultants

  HDX

  Hedra (× 2)

  Holdene Group Plc (× 2)

  Hoskyns Group Plc (× 7)

  Hunterskil (× 7)

  IBIS

  ICL (× 4)

  ITA

  Kermon (× 9)

  Keyford Precision

  KGB Micros

  Kode

  629

  Lancare (× 2)

  LBMS (× 2)

  Liverpool Polytechnic Service

  Logica (× 3)

  Logical Systems International

  Lorien Group Plc

  Mancos Computers

  Marketing Generics

  Metier

  Microprism (UK) Limited

  MSG Business Systems

  Myriad Computer Services (× 3)

  National Transputer

  Ofice (× 2)

  Oracle Corporation UK

  Origin IQ

  PA Consulting Group (× 12)

  Paradis Consultants (× 3)

  P-E International

  Price Waterhouse (× 2)

  Recognition Research (× 2)

  Retix

  Riverside Training (× 3)

  Robin Verney Associates (× 3)

  S-Com (× 2)

  Sanderson Insight

  Sema Group (× 4)

  Siemens Nixdorf (× 9)

  Smith Associates (× 2)

  Software AG (× 2)

  Span Contracts (× 3)

  Strategy and Vision Research

  TABS Limited (× 2)

  Touche Ross (× 2)

  VNG Nationwide (× 4)

  Winway Systems Limited

  World Quality Systems (× 5)

  Uninsured Vehicles
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were prosecuted for driving an uninsured vehicle in 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  A total of 364,035 proceedings were taken in England and Wales in 1991 for the offence of "using a motor vehicle vehicle uninsured against third party risks".

  The number involved is likely to be less because some may have been proceeded against for more than one of these offences.

  Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Police Computer System
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the designated computer system for the police national criminal intelligence service will be ready.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The interim computer system which is currently used by the National Criminal Intelligence Service is expected to be replaced early in 1995.

  Traffic Offences and Burglaries
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) traffic offences and (b) burglaries were recorded in (i) 1980 and (ii) 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures for the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police are published annually in the Home Office Bulletin "Notifiable Offences, England 630
  and Wales". They include offences of burglary, causing death by reckless driving and (from April 1992) causing death by aggravated vehicle-taking. All other traffic offences are not notifiable. However, statistics giving the action taken for offences relating to motor vehicles (written warnings, vehicle defect rectification scheme notices, fixed penalty notices and court proceedings) are published annually in Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Motor Offences, England and Wales", although 1992 figures have not yet been published. Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the amount of police time that is spent on traffic control compared with burglary prevention and investigation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations from hon. Members and from the public in the last 12 months about the time spent by the police on traffic control as opposed to dealing with other crime matters. The police have a key role in the enforcement of traffic legislation. The deployment of police officers to meet the various duties undertaken by the police is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police.

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in his Department and agencies in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. Howard
  The information is as follows:

  Grade

  Number

  Administrative assistant

  83

  Administrative officer

  79

  Executive officer

  202

  Higher executive officer

  176

  Higher professional and technology officer

  1

  Senior executive officer

  94

  Total

  635

  Prison Population
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures for the total prison population; and what those figures were in 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. Jim Callaghan, dated 26 July 1993:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to write to you directly in reply to your Parliamentary Question about the latest figures for the total prison population and what those figures were in 1990, 1991 and 1992.
  The prison population was 44,901 on 23 July. The figures for 30 June each year between 1990 and 1993 are shown in the attached table.
  631

  Prison population, England and Wales: 1990–1993

  Date

  Number of persons2

  30 Jun 1990

  45,466

  30 Jun 1991

  45,626

  30 Jun 1992

  46,832

  30 June 19931

  44,225

  1 Provisional figure.

  2 Includes prisoners held in police cells (943 in 1990, 872 in 1991, 1,346 in 1992 and none in 1993).

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes now exist in England and Wales.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  According to the latest information available, there were over 115,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales at the end of December 1992. These schemes covered some 5 million households.

  Police, Newham
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons for the reduction in numbers of police officers in the London borough of Newham in the last year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Deployment of personnel within the Metropolitan police is a matter for the commissioner, but I understand that the reduction is due to civilianisation of some posts, employment of the manpower allocation formula at area level affecting manpower available to divisions, and the transfer of responsibility for court staff, and Whitehall security staff, from division to area or headquarters.

  Road Tax Evasion
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were prosecuted for road tax evasion offences in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following table shows the number of proceedings taken in England and Wales in the years 1989 to 1991 for the offence of "motor vehicle licence—failing to pay appropriate duty":

  Number

  1989

  166,575

  1990

  160,731

  1991

  174,828

  The number of people involved is likely to be less because some of them may have been prosecuted against for more than one of these offences.

  Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Victim Support Schemes
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many victim support schemes now operate in England and Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand there are some 360 local victim support schemes and branches in England and 632
  Wales. In addition there are 36 schemes operating in the Crown court as the Crown court witness service of Victim Support.

  Traffic Offences and Burglaries
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he collects about the priorities exercised by each police constabulary in allocating resources to(a) traffic offences and (b) burglary.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Fatal Stabbings
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fatal stabbings have been recorded by each police constabulary in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The table shows the number of offences currently recorded as homicide involving the use of a sharp instrument in England and Wales for the years 1987 to 1991:

  Offences currently recorded as homicide involving the use of a sharp instrument

  England and Wales Police force area

  Number of offences

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Avon and Somerset

  9

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Bedfordshire

  4

  3

  2

  2

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  2

  1

  1

  2

  Cheshire

  1

  2

  2

  3

  2

  Cleveland

  —

  3

  6

  3

  3

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  2

  4

  2

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  4

  6

  1

  3

  3

  Dorset

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Durham

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Essex

  3

  6

  5

  1

  7

  Gloucestershire

  —

  1

  3

  1

  3

  Greater Manchester

  14

  12

  6

  4

  7

  Hampshire

  4

  1

  2

  6

  3

  Hertfordshire

  —

  7

  2

  1

  5

  Humberside

  3

  4

  2

  3

  2

  Kent

  4

  6

  2

  4

  2

  Lancashire

  9

  5

  5

  6

  3

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  1

  5

  3

  Lincolnshire

  2

  —

  2

  —

  2

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  3

  7

  4

  6

  11

  Metropolitan Police District

  70

  57

  59

  52

  73

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  1

  7

  8

  Northamptonshire

  5

  4

  1

  1

  —

  Northumbria

  5

  3

  6

  6

  5

  North Yorkshire

  2

  1

  4

  2

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  1

  —

  4

  5

  South Yorkshire

  4

  7

  3

  5

  8

  Staffordshire

  2

  3

  2

  3

  3

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  4

  2

  2

  Surrey

  3

  2

  2

  1

  2

  Sussex

  1

  2

  4

  4

  3

  Thames Valley

  2

  6

  7

  5

  7

  Warwickshire

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  West Mercia

  1

  1

  —

  2

  1

  West Midlands

  15

  9

  10

  8

  12

  West Yorkshire

  10

  7

  13

  10

  15

  Wiltshire

  2

  1

  4

  1

  3

  Dyfed-Powys

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  Gwent

  2

  3

  1

  —

  —

  North Wales

  1

  4

  —

  —

  2

  South Wales

  3

  6

  6

  11

  1

  England and Wales

  201

  190

  182

  184

  223

  633

  Secured by Design Initiative
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to promote the Secured by Design initiative.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Secured by Design is a police initiative which has had the Government's full support since its inception, and we publish publicity material promoting its merits. The initiative will be further promoted in forthcoming guidance to local planning authorities on crime prevention to be issued by the Department of the Environment in consultation with the Home Office.

  Dog Breeders
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria local authorities must use when considering applications or renewal of licences for dog breeders.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Applications for licences for dog breeders are considered against the criteria set out in Section 1(4) of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973.

  Number of offenders convicted of offences of possession of of knives 1987 to 1991

  England and Wales

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or excuse1 (found guilty)

  5,896

  5,793

  5,097

  4,281

  3,907

  Carrying article with blade or point in public place2 (found guilty)

  3—

  130

  1,544

  1,578

  1,737

  1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953, section 1. May include a small number of offences involving truncheons etc.

  2 Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 139.

  3 Not available.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under the Criminal Justice Acts provisions banning the public carrying of knives.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is given in the table. 1992 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Number of prosecutions for the offence of carrying an article with blade or point under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 19881.

  1988–1991

  Year

  Prosecutions

  1988

  150

  1989

  2,018

  1990

  2,146

  1991

  2,397

  1Came into force in October 1988.

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bail hostels, and how many bail hostel places, are situated in each police authority area in England and Wales; and how many additional places the Government aims to provide by 1995 in each police authority area.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are bail hostels in 20 police authority areas as listed:
  634

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to curb the increase in violent crimes.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on 7 June 1993 at column 76.

  Knives
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were convicted for possession of a knife in public without good reason in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information available centrally, which is given in the table, relating to the number of persons found guilty for possession of knives under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 section 1, and the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 139 for the years 1987 to 1991. Information for 1992 is not yet available.

  Bail Hostels in England and Wales in 1993

  Police Authority

  Hostel

  Beds

  Cheshire

  Bunbury House

  22

  Cheshire

  Linden Bank

  22

  Cleveland

  South Bank

  24

  Devon and Cornwall

  Dudley Centre

  22

  Greater Manchester

  Chorlton Hostel

  27

  Gloucestershire

  Ryecroft

  16

  Hampshire

  Dickson House

  28

  Hampshire

  Southampton

  22

  Kent

  Dover Bail

  18

  Lancashire

  Blackburn

  18

  Leicestershire

  Howard House

  20

  Merseyside

  Merseybank

  28

  Metropolitan

  Canadian Avenue

  23

  Metropolitan

  Corfton Road

  20

  Metropolitan

  Kelley House

  28

  Metropolitan

  Kew

  14

  Metropolitan

  Tulse Hill

  27

  North Wales

  Ty Newydd

  12

  Northumbria

  Cuthbert House

  22

  Northumbria

  Pennywell

  22

  Oxfordshire

  Clarks House

  27

  South Wales

  Emroch House

  15

  Staffordshire

  Lichfield Road

  20

  West Midlands

  Marshall House

  22

  West Midlands

  Stonnall Road

  12

  West Midlands

  Sycamore Lodge

  32

  West Midlands

  Welford

  26

  South Yorkshire

  Town Moor

  25

  West Yorkshire

  Howden House

  27

  West Yorkshire

  Walmer Villas

  18

  Beds

  659

  Hostels

  30

  635
  There are approved probation/bail hostels in 36 police authority areas as listed:

  Probation/Bail Hostels in England and Wales 1993

  Police Authority

  Hostel

  Beds

  Avon and Somerset

  Ashley House

  20

  Avon and Somerset

  Bridge House

  15

  Avon and Somerset

  Brigstocke Road

  29

  Avon and Somerset

  Glogan House

  16

  Bedfordshire

  Bedford

  25

  Bedfordshire

  Napier Road

  23

  Cambridgeshire

  Peterborough

  26

  Cheshire

  Bewsey Street

  20

  Cleveland

  The Crescent

  25

  Cumbria

  Bowling Green

  24

  Derbyshire

  Burdett Lodge

  25

  Devon and Cornwall

  Lawson House

  20

  Devon and Cornwall

  Meneghy House

  18

  Dorset

  Bournemouth

  25

  Dorset

  Weston

  27

  Durham

  Fir Tree Grange

  28

  Essex

  Basildon

  32

  Essex

  Windyridge

  30

  Greater Manchester

  Ascot House

  22

  Greater Manchester

  Bradshaw

  27

  Greater Manchester

  Hopwood

  18

  Greater Manchester

  St. Josephs

  29

  Greater Manchester

  Wilton Place

  29

  Greater Manchester

  Withington Road

  37

  Hampshire

  The Grange

  18

  West Mercia

  Braley House

  23

  Herts

  St. Albans

  26

  Humberside

  Queens Road

  19

  Kent

  Fleming House

  23

  Kent

  Hollywood Manor

  30

  Lancashire

  Highfield House

  18

  Lancashire

  Hoole House

  24

  Leicestershire

  Charnwood Lodge

  18

  Leicestershire

  Kirk Lodge

  35

  Lincolnshire

  Wordsworth House

  28

  Merseyside

  Adelaide House

  22

  Merseyside

  Canning House

  27

  Merseyside

  Southwood

  23

  Metropolitan

  Beckenham Road

  20

  Metropolitan

  Bedford/Shenley

  30

  Metropolitan

  Camden House

  29

  Metropolitan

  Ellison House

  25

  Metropolitan

  KPH

  19

  Metropolitan

  Seafield Lodge

  14

  Metropolitan

  St. Edmunds

  25

  Metropolitan

  St. Mungo

  25

  Metropolitan

  St. Vincents

  24

  Metropolitan

  West Park

  22

  Metropolitan

  Westbourne House

  40

  North Wales

  Plas-y-wern

  12

  Norfolk

  John Boag House

  29

  Northamptonshire

  Bridgewood

  23

  Northamptonshire

  Stone House

  24

  Northumbria

  Ozanam House

  27

  Northumbria

  St. Christophers

  22

  Nottinghamshire

  Astral Grove

  15

  Nottinghamshire

  Southwell House

  16

  Nottinghamshire

  Trent House

  22

  South Wales

  Mandeville House

  26

  Staffordshire

  Wenger House

  42

  Suffolk

  Lightfoot House

  22

  Suffolk

  The Cottage

  18

  Surrey

  St. Catherines

  19

  Sussex

  Brighton

  15

  Thames Valley

  Abingdon Road

  22

  Thames Valley

  Elizabeth Fry

  20

  Thames Valley

  Manor Lodge

  27

  Thames Valley

  Milton Keynes

  16

  Thames Valley

  St. Leonards

  23

  Thames Valley

  Wellesley House

  18

  West Midlands

  Bilston

  15

  West Midlands

  Carpenter House

  16

  West Midlands

  Crowley House

  18

  West Midlands

  Stoke Green

  22

  636

  Police Authority

  Hostel

  Beds

  Warwickshire

  Kenilworth Road

  18

  Warwickshire

  McIntyre House

  18

  South Yorkshire

  Centre 45

  36

  South Yorkshire

  Norfolk Park

  49

  South Yorkshire

  Rookwood

  37

  West Yorkshire

  Albion Street

  24

  West Yorkshire

  Cardigan House

  23

  West Yorkshire

  Elm Bank

  17

  West Yorkshire

  Ripon House

  17

  West Yorkshire

  St. Johns House

  28

  Beds

  1,993

  Hostels

  84

  The approved hostel expansion programme aims to provide 1,365 additional places between April 1988 and March 1996. Of these, 914 are already on stream and are included in the tables. The remaining places have been provisionally allocated but until the appropriate properties or sites are identified the precise numbers cannot be determined.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the bail hostels and combined probation and bail hostels in England and Wales currently operated by voluntary organisations; and what target he has set for increasing this number by 1995.

  Mr. Maclean
  The approved hostels that are currently operated by voluntary managing committees are as listed:

  Approved bail hostels in England and Wales managed by voluntary managing committees.

  Probation area

  Hostel

  Location

  Beds

  London Inner

  Kelley House

  London

  28

  Probation and bail hostels in England and Wales managed by voluntary managing committees.

  Probation area

  Hostel

  Location

  Beds

  Avon

  Ashley House

  Bristol

  20

  Berkshire

  Elizabeth Fry

  Reading

  20

  Essex

  Windyridge

  Nayland

  30

  Kent

  Hollywood Manor

  Sevenoaks

  30

  London Inner

  KPH

  London

  19

  London Inner

  St. Edmunds

  London

  25

  London Inner

  St. Mungo

  London

  25

  London Inner

  St. Vincents

  London

  24

  Merseyside

  Adelaide House

  Liverpool

  22

  Northants

  Stone House

  Northampton

  24

  Northumbria

  Ozanam House

  Newcastle/Tyne

  25

  Northumbria

  St. Christophers

  Newcastle/Tyne

  22

  Warwickshire

  McIntyre House

  Nuneaton

  18

  Yorkshire West

  Cardigan House

  Leeds

  23

  Yorkshire West

  Ripon House

  Leeds

  17

  Yorkshire West

  St. Johns House

  Leeds

  28

  The approved hostel expansion programme aims to provide 1,365 additional places between April 1988 and March 1996. Of these 914 are already on stream. The remaining places have been provisionally allocated but until appropriate properties or sites are identified the precise numbers cannot be determined. Within the overall programme there is no specific target for expansion by voluntary hostels.
  637

  Prison Ships
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what companies his Department has been in contact with regarding the proposal to moor prison ships in Birkenhead and Barrow;

  (2) what timetable he is considering for the possible establishment of floating prisons;

  (3) what is the estimated cost of hiring staffing and maintaining prison ships in the Wallasey or Birkenhead docks.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Ms Angela Eagle, dated 26 July 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about prison ships.
  Maritime detention facilities are one of the options being considered as part of a Prison Service contingency planning exercise. This exercise is intended to identify options for coping with levels of prisoner population that exceed the available accommodation. A number of sites with the necessary docking facilities are being reviewed, but no decision has been taken on the feasibility of this option.
  As consideration of the option is at such an early stage, it is not possible to give the details of costs. Nor have there been any decisions on which companies could supply the accommodation.
  As the contacts so far have been of a very preliminary nature and any decision to proceed with this option might involve a competitive tender, details of individual companies interested could not properly be revealed at this stage.

  Fines
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was levied in fines after convictions under the criminal law for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; what amounts were actually collected in fines paid for each year; and in aid of which vote fines collected for breaches of the criminal law are appropriated.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the amount of fines imposed at all courts following conviction under criminal law for the years 1986, 1989, 1990 and 1991 is given in the table. Comparable data for years prior to 1986 and for 1987 and 1988 are unavailable. It is not possible to identify fines separately from other similar receipts such as confiscation orders, forfeit bail sureties or magistrates' courts fees. All monies collected from magistrates' courts are surrendered direct to the Consolidated Fund and are not appropriated in aid of any vote.

  Percentage of cases resolved within months

  Financial year

  Applications made

  Compensation paid

  Administration costs

  Total costs

  Administration as percentage

  3

  6

  9

  12

  Over 12

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1988–89

  43,385

  69·381

  7·481

  76·86

  9·7

  1·0

  2·1

  4·8

  19·0

  73·1

  1989–90

  53,655

  72·722

  9·064

  81·79

  11·1

  0·5

  1·5

  3·8

  13·9

  80·3

  1990–91

  50,820

  109·330

  10·293

  119·62

  8·6

  0·7

  2·6

  5·9

  16·3

  74·5

  1991–92

  61,400

  143·660

  13·102

  156·76

  8·4

  2·6

  8·4

  15·8

  22·0

  51·2

  1992–93

  65,977

  152·490

  14·249

  166·74

  8·5

  2·0

  8·9

  19·7

  26·3

  43·1

  Note: The percentage relating to cases resolved do not necessarily relate to claims received in that year. The figures for 1992–93 are provisional at this stage.
  638

  Amount of fines imposed at all courts for all offences under criminal law, 1986, 1989, 1990 and 1991

  England and Wales

  Millions

  1986

  £118·7

  1989

  £140·8

  1990

  £150·9

  1991

  £141·5

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by(a) location and (b) region, the empty homes in the ownership of his Department which are (i) vacant for security reasons, (ii) vacant awaiting redevelopment, (iii) vacant for demolition and (iv) surplus.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of vacant residential properties owned by the Department as at 1 April 1993 was as follows:

  Number

  (a) Retained for redevelopment or security reasons

  70

  (b) Retained for essential reallocation

  86

  (c) To be demolished

  50

  (d) Surplus and on the open market for sale

  86

  Total

  292

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

  Listing by locations is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the cost of administering the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for each of the last five years; and what was the ratio of these costs to the amount paid out in claims;

  (2) what was the total number of claims made to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each of the last five years; and what proportion were paid out within (a) three, (b) six, (c) nine, (d) 12 and (e) over 12 months.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is summarised in the table. Fuller details can be found in the published annual reports of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Copies are held in the Library of the House.
  639

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve community care assessment arrangements for drug misusing prisoners remanded in custody or sentenced.

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

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. Tim Rathbone, dated 26 July 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent question about plans to improve community care assessment arrangements for drug misusing prisoners remanded in custody or sentenced.
  The arrangements for assessment for community care for people in contact with the Criminal Justice System were published recently in Home Office Circular 29/1993. A copy of this Circular is enclosed, it is also available in the library. We are currently undertaking a review of services provided for drug misusers in prison with the aim of producing a comprehensive strategy to address drug misuse. Preparation for discharge and aftercare arrangements will be included in this review.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking in his review of electoral registration procedures to address the difficulties experienced by homeless people in registering to vote.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As part of our post-election review, the electoral registration working group recently met representatives of the Church of England, the Salvation Army, Shelter and CHAR—the campaign for the homeless and rootless—to discuss the difficulties experienced by homeless people in registering as electors. We intend to hold further discussions later in the year.

  Football Pools
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Vernons Pools about the sale of pools coupons through retail outlets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The managing director of Vernons Pools wrote to me earlier this month about the timing of the commencement of clause 56 of the National Lottery Etc., Bill which will remove the prohibition on the use of premises for the delivery of football pools coupons and stakes. In order to ensure that the national lottery is not disadvantaged, we intend to defer the commencement of clause 56—and indeed of the other provisions of part IV of the Bill—until the launch of the lottery.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Wind Power
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to commence a tendering process to construct a demonstration offshore wind farm.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have no plans to construct a demonstration offshore wind farm.
  640
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to allow community-based wind power schemes to advertise for local investment; and if he will seek to place a statutory duty on local authorities to identify suitable sites for such developments.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am not aware of any impediment to community-based wind power schemes advertising for local investment.Planning Policy Guidance Note 22: Renewable Energy advises local authorities to include renewables in their development plan and provides guidance on how this should be done. It includes an annex on wind power.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make an announcement of when wind power developers can next apply for contracts under the non-fossil fuel obligation; and if he will make a statement concerning the procedure for the award of such contracts.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 21 July to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss),Official Report, column 339.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy that the next tranche of wind power contracts should be for not less than 700 MW.

  Mr. Eggar
  I currently expect to make the third renewable energy order under the non-fossil fuel obligation for approximately 300 to 400 MW of new capacity in total but will review this in light of the quality and cost of proposals received. I am considering a separate band for wind power within that total.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what amount of money was allocated to Government sponsored research and development for renewable energy which is non-nuclear and does not involve the production of energy through waste incineration in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amount of Government expenditure on research and development for renewable energy, not involving the production of energy through waste incineration, in each year since 1987 is as follows:

  Year

  Spend

  (£ millions)

  1987–88

  16·2

  1988–89

  15·8

  1989–90

  17·7

  1990–91

  20·5

  1991–92

  23·1

  1992–93

  23·6

  The allocation for 1993–94 is estimated at £22·6 million.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to ensure that all contracts for renewable energy under the non-fossil fuel obligation are for a minimum of 10 years beginning from the date of commissioning the projects.

  Mr. Eggar
  My intention is that the third renewables order will run for 15 to 20 years as from November 1994. This will allow the public electricity suppliers to offer generators contracts for a similar period.
  641

  Energy from Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of non-nuclear contracts granted under the non-fossil fuel obligation have been given to companies involved in the generation of energy through waste incineration in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the 1990 Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation Renewables Order, seven out of 75 renewables contracts went to waste incineration projects. Under the 1991 order 14 out of 122 contracts went to waste incineration projects.

  Generator name

  Location

  Capacity (MW DNC)

  1990 projects

  Isle of Wight county council

  Newport

  2

  Energy Supplies Ltd.

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3

  North London Waste Authority

  Edmonton/London

  27

  Coventry City council

  Coventry

  8

  Elm Energy UK

  Wolverhampton

  20

  Fibropower Ltd.

  Diss, Suffolk

  13

  Fibropower Ltd.

  Scunthorpe, Humberside

  13

  1991 projects

  Babcock Power Investments Ltd.

  Portsmouth

  33

  British Coal

  Nottingham

  7

  Cory Environmental Ltd.

  Belvedere, Kent

  103

  Derbyshire county council

  Raynesway

  7

  Energy Supplies Ltd.

  Pebsham, East Sussex

  4

  National Power

  Northfleet, Kent

  44

  SELCHP Ltd.

  London

  25

  Southampton Geothermal Heating

  Southampton

  5

  Wessex Waste Management

  Avonmouth, Bristol

  23

  Yorkshire Renewable Energy Ltd.

  Knotstrop, Leeds

  21

  Adams Integrated Waste Ltd.

  Wolverhampton

  8

  Agrigen Ltd.

  Northampton

  8

  Northumbrian Services Ltd.

  Gateshead, Tyne and Wear

  1

  Slough Estates

  Slough

  13

  (c): The contract prices awarded to projects under the 1990 order varied, and are commercially confidential. Under the 1991 order, waste incineration projects in the "Municipal and General Industrial Waste" band receive a premium of 6·55 p/kWh; while those in the "Other" band receive a premium of 5·9 p/kWh.

  (d): The amount of electricity generated by all projects is commercially confidential.

  Biogas and Hydroelectric Schemes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what efforts are currently undertaken by his Department to encourage the development of biogas schemes and smaller hydroelectric schemes.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department's renewable energy programme aims to stimulate the development of renewable sources of energy which have prospects of being economically competitive and environmentally acceptable. The non-fossil fuel obligation is stimulating an initial market. Biogas and small scale hydro are being supported under both the research programme and the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Regional Electricity Companies
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when the details of the contracts for the non-fossil fuel obligations of the regional electricity companies will be announced;

  (2) what will be the intended length of contracts under the new contracts for the non-fossil fuel obligations of the regional electricity companies.
  642
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the companies which have been given moneys under the non-fossil fuel obligation for the generation of energy through waste incineration in each year since 1990 indicating(a) the name of the company, (b) the location of the incinerators, (c) the amount of money awarded for each project and (d) the amount of electricity in megawatts generated by each project.

  Mr. Eggar
  (a) and (b): The names, locations and capacities of waste incineration projects which received contracts under the 1990 and 1991 non-fossil fuel obligation renewables orders are as follows:

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the document which I placed in the Libraries of both Houses giving details of the proposed arrangements of the third renewables order under the non-fossil fuel obligation, to which I referred in my reply of 21 July to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss)Official Report, column 339. My intention is that the third order will run for 15 to 20 years as from November 1994, which will allow the public electricity suppliers to offer generators contracts for a similar period.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger),Official Report, 20 July, column 126, what were the dates over which the vitrified high-level waste was delivered to Japan, the mode of transport used, the quantity involved and the location to which it was sent in Japan.

  Mr. Eggar
  The operational details are a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc and its customer in Japan.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made of Russian technical capacity to process nuclear waste.
  643
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 July 1993]: British Nuclear Fuels plc is in discussion with the Russian Ministry of Atomic Power on the management of that country's nuclear waste. I understand that the parties have identified a number of areas in which collaboration between them can usefully take place and that they have agreed to meet on a regular basis.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in conducting a study with BNFL on financial consequences of abandoning THORP, including the alternative use of already committed capital investment for the interim storage of contracted foreign spent fuel, as recommended in the First report of the Environment Committee of Session 1985–86, HC 191, on radioactive waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government did not accept the recommendation in question.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assurances overseas customers using the thermal oxide reprocessing plant have given that they will accept returns of high-level waste in accordance with the substitution principle; if Government approval of the principle will be conditional on such assurances; and what assessment he has made of the extent of facilities in recipient countries to provide adequate storage for such waste.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 23 July 1993]: The Government's consideration of the proposal by British Nuclear Fuels plc to return nuclear waste by substitution has not yet been completed. Should substitution be approved, it would be for the company to negotiate appropriate arrangements with its customers within guidelines set by the Government. Customers who did not wish to accept substitution on a basis acceptable to the United Kingdom would be required to take delivery of all three waste streams—high, intermediate and low-level waste.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has about the comparative costs of transporting intermediate-level waste arising from the reprocessing of foreign spent nuclear fuel at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant back to customer countries against storing the intermediate-level waste in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 23 July 1993]: This is a commercial matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc and its overseas customers.

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in meeting his target to ensure the first phase of work on options for the future of the AEA is completed by late autumn.

  Mr. Eggar
  The consultancy study I announced on 1 April,Official Report, column 407, is progressing to schedule. An announcement will be made in due course, once I have had an opportunity to consider the consultants' report and the AEA's own views.
  644

  Nuclear Safety (CIS)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress made in establishing a training seminar for nuclear safeguards experts from the Commonwealth of Independent States republics.

  Mr. Eggar
  In collaboration with BNFL and AEA my Department has to date arranged and funded three safeguards seminars for experts from the CIS Republics. Two of these were attended by personnel from the Russian Federation and concentrated on safeguards approaches for reprocessing plants, the third dealt with safeguards for fuel fabrication plants and fast reactors and included participants from the Republic of Kazakhstan in addition to the Russian Federation. A further two seminars are planned for the autumn.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 July,Official Report, column 13, on what occasions in regard to what nuclear materials the European Commission has granted a derogation under article 22 of EC Regulation 3227/76 for nuclear exports from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  Derogation from reporting has been granted to the Science museum, South Kensington, London for uranium and thorium specimens.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates he has of the surpluses expected to be generated by Nuclear Electric, Scottish Nuclear and British Nuclear Fuel's operations from 1993 to 1998; and what restrictions he intends to place on their use.

  Mr. Eggar
  The profitability of Nuclear Electric, Scottish Nuclear and BNFL over the period 1993–98 will depend on a number of factors, many of which are inevitably uncertain. In their role as shareholder, the Government undertake appropriate monitoring of the companies' expenditure plans.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the increase in liabilities would be for British Nuclear Fuels, Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric if discounting is not applied to nuclear provisions.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are matters for the companies concerned.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research has been undertaken to verify that the two per cent. discount rate applied to nuclear liabilities by United Kingdom nuclear companies correctly balances the risks and benefits between current and future generations.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the nuclear companies.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress in making his target in implementation of extended reporting of nuclear materials and equipment by August 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  The submission of confidential returns has begun.
  645

  Nuclear Emergencies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in his target to develop by August a strategy for use of the radioactive incident monitoring network in a United Kingdom emergency through integration into the existing nuclear emergency briefing room procedures.

  Mr. Eggar
  Radioactive incident monitoring network equipment has been installed within the nuclear emergency briefing room and Department of Trade and Industry staff have participated in testing and demonstration of the system. Agreement has been reached in general terms on how it will be integrated into nuclear emergency briefing room procedures when the radioactive incident monitoring network phase 2 comes on stream towards the end of this year.

  Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor Fuel
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions his Department has had with(a) British Nuclear Fuels Limited, (b) Costain Engineering or (c) Nuclear Electric regarding plans on construction of a dry store for spent advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department discusses a range of topics with these companies.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has made to the letter sent to the Minister for Energy on 5 July by the chairman of the Consumers Union of Japan relating to THORP.

  Mr. Eggar
  The letter arrived on 19 July. I shall be replying in due course.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects THORP to be commissioned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Before commissioning its thermal oxide reprocessing plant, British Nuclear Fuels plc will need such consents and authorisations as may be required by law. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 28 June,Official Report, column 392, there is to be a further round of consultation. This is expected to start shortly and to last for two months. Final decisions will be taken following this further period of consultation.

  Uranium
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the price per tonne of uranium in 1977, adjusted to 1993 prices; what was the projected price for 1993 given in the Windscale inquiry report; what is the current cost per tonne of uranium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Euratom Supply Agency's report for 1992 shows that the average price of natural uranium deliveries made during the year under multiannual contracts to the electricity utilities of the European Community or their procurement organisations was 49·50 ecu per kilogramme of uranium. The agency's 1977 646
  report did not provide a comparable figure for that year because of uncertain conditions in the market. Illustrative prices for uranium were mentioned in chapter 9 of the Windscale inquiry report.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much uranium separated by reprocessing at Sellafield over the last 40 years has been used in reactors(a) by weight and (b) as percentage of total uranium produced.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 20 July 1993,Official Report, columns 127–28.

  Environmentally Friendly Fuel Technology
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken following the representations the former Department of Energy received from the Director General of Electricity Supply about the inclusion of environmentally friendly technologies, including such as combined heat and power, in the non-fossil fuel obligation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that the then Secretary of State for Energy took full account of his consultations with the Director General of Electricity Supply when making the 1990 and 1991 renewables orders under the non-fossil fuel obligation. Both orders are supporting projects with the potential for combined heat and power. On 21 July I announced a third renewables order under the non-fossil fuel obligation. I would expect projects with the potential for combined heat and power to bid into this order also.

  Oil Exploration
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how the environmental interests of the coast are safeguarded during the oil exploration licensing procedure.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department of Trade and Industry consults other Government Departments, the joint Nature Conservation Committee and local advisory groups before offering any blocks for licensing. The JNCC in turn consults English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

  Blocks that are offered for licensing in sensitive areas such as those close to the coast are subject to special conditions to protect wildlife and the environment. These conditions are agreed with relevant Government Departments and the JNCC.

  The conditions include consultation with JNCC and other environmental organisations before the licensee undertakes operations; seasonal restrictions to protect wildlife; a ban on drilling within three miles of the coast; the use of zero-discharge rigs and water-based drilling muds; and to agree with the advisory bodies and local authorities plans to be put into effect in case of an oil spill.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to which foreign defence industries the British nuclear industry supplies depleted uranium.
  647
  Mr. Eggar
  All shipments of depleted uranium are made in accordance with the provisions of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992. It has been the policy of successive Administrations not to make public the details of specific export licence applications. In assessing all such applications the Government take into account the United Kingdom's obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what publicly financed grants are available to scientists and entrepreneurs for research into and development of renewable energy technology.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department operates a research and development programme on renewable energy. Financial assistance may be available to appropriate projects. Interested parties should contact:

  Enquiry Bureau

  Energy Technology Support

  Harwell Laboratory

  Oxfordshire

  OX11 ORA

  Pharmaceuticals
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the volume and value of exports of anthrax vaccine in each year since 1985

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is not available from official sources because the United Kingdom trade classification does not separately identify anthrax vaccines. The manufacturers of anthrax vaccines in the United Kingdom report no exports during the last five years. Information prior to that could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  KONVER Programme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), of 14 June,Official Report, columns 409–10, which bodies have been consulted for their views on the draft United Kingdom programme for the KONVER scheme; and what is the planned size of the draft United Kingdom programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answwer 23 July 1993]: The United Kingdom KONVER programme will request 20·12 million ecu, which is the full amount allocated to the United Kingdom for 1993.

  Consultation on the draft programme will proceed during August, and will include the training and enterprise councils, the local enterprise companies, the local authority associations, and the Rural Development Commission.

  Blind and Partially Sighted People
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what arrangements his Department makes to ensure that blind and partially sighted people have access to information produced by his Department where it has not been published in alternative media such as Braille, large print or tape;
  648
  (2) what is his Department's policy on which information produced by his Department is published in alternative media to standard print such as Braille, tape or large print.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department's information materials are freely available. We are not aware of widespread demand for them to be separately prepared for blind and partially sighted people, but the need for such provision is kept under review.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all those services or functions contracted out in his Department and agencies, since November 1991, in which the Transfer or Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were not applied.

  Mr. Eggar
  In my Department no services or functions have been contracted out where the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations were relevant. Collection of information on all contracts where TUPE was not applicable would incur disproportionate costs.

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in his Department and agencies in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department and its agencies employ the following staff in the automatic data processing functional specialism:

  Number

  Senior Executive Officer

  61

  Higher Executive Officer

  136

  Executive Officer

  156

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the computer consultancies employed by his Department and agencies, since November 1991, the tasks for which they were engaged, and the total cost to his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department does not classify consultancies in terms of their activity and collection of this information would incur disproportionate costs.

  Zinc
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what recent representations he has received concerning distortions in the world trade in zinc ash and residue, zinc dross, unwrought zinc, and zinc waste and scrap; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has concerning the tariffs, duties, taxes and other barriers to imports faced by those attempting to import zinc ash and residue, zinc dross, unwrought zinc, and zinc waste and scrap to and from India; and what representations he has made to the Indian

  649
  Government, to the European Community, or through the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiating process about those barriers;

  (3) what steps he is taking to bring about free and fair trade in zinc ash and residue, zinc dross, unwrought zinc, and zinc waste and scrap;

  (4) what information he has concerning the net balance of trade in terms of volume and value between the United Kingdom and India in zinc ash and residue, zinc dross, unwrought zinc, and zinc waste and scrap.

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

  Defence Industry (Reduction)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that assistance from the European Community can be targeted to those communities which have suffered directly the greatest impact of reduced demand in the level of defence procurement regardless of whether or not they have assisted area status or are suffering overall regional or industrial decline;

  (2) if he will make a statement providing details of the European Community KONVER programme for assistance to areas affected by reduced demand in the defence industries; whether assistance through this programme is available only to projects in locations with assisted area status or is more widely available; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the north west of England benefits from this programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answers 13 July 1993]: Those areas which are within an objective 2 area will be eligible for assistance for activities supported by the European regional development fund within the KONVER scheme.

  Moreover the conclusions reached at the Foreign Affairs Council on 2 and 3 July on the regulations on the future of European structural funds, confirmed by the Council on 19 and 20 July, enable member states to make available to areas not designated for objective 1, 2 or 5b a limited part of the European regional development fund contribution to KONVER. The Government intend to make use of this new flexibility in the United Kingdom's 1993 KONVER programme.

  All areas affected by the reduction in defence expenditure will be eligible for support under the European social fund part of the scheme.

  Eligibility for the structural funds is not affected by assisted area status.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how the value and cost of plutonium owned by United Kingdom nuclear companies is treated for accounting purposes.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what use he intends to make of consultants in the forthcoming nuclear review; and what safeguards he intends to institute in respect of auditors of companies in 650
  the nuclear industry who tender for consultancy contracts associated with the review to ensure no conflict of interest occurs.

  Mr. Eggar
  No decisions have yet been taken on the scope, timing and format of the nuclear review, or on whether consultants will be employed. A further announcement will be made in due course.

WALES

  Unemployment
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to assist areas with rising unemployment, in particular areas of high concentrations of defence-related industry; what special programmes are available for such areas; and what plans he has to increase such assistance.

  Mr. Redwood
  The assisted area review took into account future rundowns, including those arising from reductions in defence expenditure. As a result the Haverfordwest and Fishguard travel-to-work areas have been upgraded to development area status to assist further in the work taken forward through the west Wales task force.

  Youth Organisations
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the national voluntary youth organisations within Wales currently in receipt of funding from his Department, indicating when each organisation was informed of their grant levels for the current year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are 15 youth organisations currently in receipt of grant, namely the Boys Brigade, Baptist Youth Ministry, Church in Wales, Guides Cymru, Gwerin y Coed (Woodcraft Folk), the Order of St. John, Phab (Wales), United Nations Association International Youth Services, United Reform Church, Urdd Gobaith Cymru, Wales Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs, Welsh Association of Youth Clubs, Welsh Federation of Boys' and Girls' Groups, Welsh Scout Council, and the Young Men's Christian Association of Wales.

  All organisations were informed of their grant levels for 1993–94 on 8 April, except the Welsh Association of Youth Clubs, which was informed on 26 May as its application was handled separately.

  Wales Youth Agency
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the training materials produced to date by the Wales Youth Agency aimed at(a) young people and (b) those employed in the youth service since the establishment of the agency;

  (2) if he will list the publicity leaflets aimed at young people produced by the Wales Youth Agency since its establishment;

  (3) how many consultation exercises have been undertaken to date by the Wales Youth Agency with organisations of young people; and if he will list (a) the subject of each consultation and (b) the organisations which were consulted.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.
  651
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to investigate staffing decisions undertaken by the Wales Youth Agency in relation to former employees of the Welsh Youth Forum.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. The Department has been kept informed of the agency's staffing decisions relating to former employees of the Wales Youth Forum.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what representations have been received by his Department from the Wales Youth Agency since its establishment concerning(a) the participation of young people in decision making and (b) the future of the youth service agency;

  (2) if he will list the written representation received by his Department from the Wales Youth Agency since its establishment on policy issues affecting young people.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Wales Youth Agency has made representations on the future of the Welsh youth card, information needs of young people, young people's membership of the management board: youth service funding, innovatory grants scheme in Wales, and the validation of training for youth workers in Wales.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the meetings held to date between members of his Department and members of the Wales Youth Agency, indicating the date and purpose of each meeting.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since its establishment in April 1992, the Department has met the chairman, vice-chairman and other members of the Wales Youth Agency's management board on three occasions.

  Date

  Purpose

  8 April 1992

  Introductory meeting with chairman and vice-chairman and vice-chairman

  2 June 1992

  Agency's role and activities

  25 May 1993

  Funding of the youth service

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the members on the management group of the Wales Youth Agency, indicating their names and representative organisations; and which members are aged 25 years or under.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The management board's membership is:

  Name

  Representative body

  Mr. Gerald Davies (Chairman)

  Personal capacity

  Dr. Howard Williamson

  Personal capacity

  Ms Sara Edwards

  Personal capacity

  Ms Michelle Herbert1

  Personal capacity

  Mrs. Beverly Martin

  Personal capacity

  Mr. Brian Thirsk

  Wales Association of Full-time Youth and Community Workers

  Mr. Bert Jones

  North-East Wales Institute of Higher Education

  652

  Name

  Representative body

  Mrs. Amber Hughes1

  Wales Youth Forum

  Mr. Peter Williams

  Further Education and Youth Service Association of Wales

  Mr. Dewi Jones

  Welsh Joint Education Committee

  Mr. David Allen

  Council for Wales of Voluntary Youth Services

  1 Denotes members aged 25 or less.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce a statutory youth service in Wales and to develop a formula for funding local youth service provision.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. Local education authorities already have a statutory duty to secure provision for their areas of adequate facilities for further education, and for recreation, social and physical training for those of school age. These provisions cover the youth service.

  The resources made available to Welsh local authorities through the annual local authority revenue settlement are not attributed to particular services. Youth service funding at the local level is a matter for individual authorities to determine in the light of local needs and priorities.

  European Environmental Agency
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make representations to the European Community advocating Wales as a location for the new European Environmental Agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him on this issue on 24 February at column 634.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the estimated level of primary aggregates production in Wales by county(a) for the 1992–96 period and (b) between 2006–11; and what the 2006–11 production levels will be and the percentage of the 1992–96 levels in each instance.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government do not provide guidance on primary aggregates production on a county basis. Details of the regional position based on the proposals in the draft revision of minerals planning guidance note 6, published in January, are available in the Library of the House.

  Housing
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the Welsh housing authorities making non-statutory rate fund contributions to their housing revenue account in 1992–93, giving the amounts in each case.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Council housing authorities can make contributions to the housing revenue account only in accordance with schedule 4 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 as amended by the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
  653

  Homelessness
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many bed-and-breakfast establishments are currently used by each local authority in Wales to house homeless people; and how many establishments have no(a) kitchen and (b) bathroom facilities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available centrally.

  Youth Training
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list for each training and enterprise council in Wales their youth training performance in 1992–93 showing(a) the cost per output point and (b) the number of national vocational qualifications per 100 leavers, together with the latest information he has for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list for each training and enterprise council in Wales their employment training performance in 1992–93 showing (a) the cost per output point, (b) the number of national vocational qualifications per 100 leavers and (c) the number of positive outcomes per 100 leavers, together with the latest information he has for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the performance of TECs in Wales in these areas is used for management purposes by my officials in their discussions with TECs. My approach to performance measurement is being refined and I will consider publishing comparative information in due course.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the total land mass of Wales is made of publicly-owned woodland and forests.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The publicly-owned forests and woodlands managed by the Forestry Commission cover about 6 per cent. of the total land area of Wales. Information on the area of woodland owned by other public bodies is not readily available but it is not thought that it would be significant as a percentage of the total land area.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to ensure the Welsh public will continue to have access to publicly-owned woodland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Forestry Commission encourages people to enjoy the publicly-owned forests in its care through a "freedom to roam" policy. It also provides a range of visitor facilities, and caters for many outdoor activities and sports. The Commission will be continuing to implement these policies in its management of forests in the future.

  Arrangements for securing continued public access to Forestry Commission woodlands sold under the disposals programme, by means of prior agreements entered into between the commission and local authorities, were introduced in October 1991. These arrangements will be reviewed this year in consultation with the countryside agencies and the local authority associations.
  654
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many acres of woodland in Wales are open for public access; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Forestry Commission manages 127,000 hectares (about 315,000 acres) of woodland in Wales and encourages public access through a "freedom to roam" policy. Public access is also often permitted in woodlands under the management of local authorities and bodies such as the Woodland Trust, but figures for these and the areas of privately owned woodlands open to the public are not readily available.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken in Wales to help those people graduating from TECs to find employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  All TEC training programmes are focused on obtaining employment through improved skills and qualifications. Trainees are provided with job search advice and support and TEC training providers maintain close contact with local employers. In addition the Employment Service provides a range of advisory and guidance services through its network of local offices.

  The latest information available for 1992–93 indicates that following their period of training with TECs, 3,466 adult trainees and 5,309 youth trainees in Wales secured employment or progressed into further education or training.

  Child Sex Abuse
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of funding has been granted by his Department to local authorities in Wales towards the development of specialist therapeutic and support services for sexually abused childen and their families in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local authority social services expenditure is funded through the annual local authority revenue and capital settlements. It is for individual authorities to decide how to apportion those resources between and within services in accordance with their statutory obligations and their own priorities.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pupils attended each of the secondary schools in Wales in the school year 1992–93.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of pupils on the roll of each secondary school in Wales at January 1993 is as follows:

  Clwyd

  School Name

  Number on roll

  Hawarden High School

  1,052

  Rhyl High School

  1,084

  Mold Alun School

  1,460

  Elfed High School

  720

  Holywell High School

  1,010

  St. Davids High School

  588

  Prestatyn High School

  1,387

  The Maelor School

  505

  655

  School Name

  Number on roll

  Castell Alun High School

  1,096

  Ysgol Maes Garmon

  671

  Summers High School

  460

  Ysgol Glan Clwyd

  777

  Flint High School

  604

  Connah's Quay High School

  627

  Ysgol Bryn Elian

  707

  Ysgol Emrys Ap Iwan

  1,088

  Eirias High School

  1,049

  Denbigh High School

  806

  Ysgol Dinas Bran

  780

  Ysgol-y-Grango

  725

  Brynhyfryd School

  903

  Ysgol Morgan Llwyd

  490

  Ysgol Bryn Alyn

  724

  Darland School

  690

  St. David's School

  1,102

  Ysgol Bryn Offa

  1,033

  Ysgol Uwchradd Argoed

  492

  Ysgol Rhiwabon

  608

  The Groves High School

  774

  St. Richard Gwyn High School

  1,098

  Blessed Edward Jones

  608

  St. Joseph's R.C. High School

  456

  Dyfed

  School name

  Number on roll

  Ysgol Pantycelyn

  375

  Ysgol Gyfun Tregib

  795

  Amman Valley Comprehensive School

  1,287

  Fishguard County Secondary School

  742

  Ysgol Dewi Sant

  343

  Greenhill Comprehensive School

  1,346

  Pembroke Comprehensive School

  1,426

  Lampeter County Secondary School

  583

  Aberaeron Comprehensive School

  878

  Cardigan County Secondary School

  744

  Ysgol Uwchradd Tregaron

  285

  Penglais Comprehensive School

  1,010

  Ysgol Gyfun Penweddig

  593

  Coedcae Comprehensive School

  853

  Graig Comprehensive School

  685

  Ysgol Gyfun y Strade

  661

  Glan-y-Mor Comprehensive School

  672

  Bryngwyn Comprehensive School

  1,031

  Sir Thomas Picton Comprehensive School

  1,103

  Ysgol Gyfun Bro Myrddin

  634

  Queen Elizabeth Cambria

  817

  Queen Elizabeth Maridun

  772

  Ysgol Gyfun Dyffryn Teifi

  593

  Ysgol Gyfun Emlyn

  584

  Ysgol Gyfun Maes Yr Yrfa

  660

  Gwendraeth Valley Comprehensive School

  627

  Milford Haven Comprehensive School

  1,235

  Ysgol Gyfun Ddwyieithog y Preseli

  547

  Tasker Milward V.C. Comprehensive School

  1,175

  Ysgol Gyfun Dyffryn Taf

  852

  St. John Lloyd R.C. Comprehensive School

  381

  Gwent

  School name

  Number on roll

  St. Julians Comprehensive School

  1,231

  Duffryn Comprehensive School

  1,057

  Hartridge Comprehensive School

  943

  Bettws Comprehensive School

  1,112

  Lliswerry Comprehensive School

  1,201

  Bassaleg Comprehensive School

  1,320

  Newbridge Comprehensive School

  664

  Pontllanfraith Comprehensive School

  754

  Glyncoed Junior Comprehensive School

  408

  656

  School name

  Number on roll

  Blackwood Comprehensive School

  805

  Llantarnam Comprehensive School

  1,104

  Croesyceiliog Comprehensive School

  1,359

  Oakdale Comprehensive School

  814

  Glanyrafon Junior Comprehensive School

  386

  Caerleon Comprehensive School

  1,364

  Monmouth Comprehensive School

  1,341

  Tredegar Comprehensive School

  938

  Fairwater Comprehensive School

  1,196

  King Henry VIII Comprehensive School

  1,242

  Chepstow Comprehensive School

  1,063

  Caldicot Comprehensive School

  1,291

  Ebbw Vale Senior Comprehensive School

  690

  Risca Comprehensive School

  657

  Abersychan Comprehensive School

  780

  Trevethin Comprehensive School

  519

  West Monmouth Comprehensive School

  944

  Nantyglo Comprehensive School

  675

  Abertillery Comprehensive School

  815

  Ysgol Gyfun Gwynllyn

  365

  St. Joseph's Comprehensive School

  1,017

  St. Alban's R.C. Comprehensive School

  572

  Cwmcarn Grant Maintained School

  333

  Brynmawr School

  480

  Gwynedd

  School name

  Number on roll

  Ysgol Dyffryn Ogwen

  392

  Ysgol Botwnnog

  425

  Ysgol Brynrefail

  551

  Ysgol Dyffryn Nantlle

  422

  Ysgol Eifionydd

  583

  Ysgol John Bright

  1,021

  Ysgol Aberconwy

  678

  Ysgol Syr Thomas Jones

  901

  Ysgol Uwchradd Caergybi

  1,095

  Ysgol Gyfun Llangefni

  818

  Ysgol David Hughes

  1,259

  Ysgol Uwchradd Bodedern

  686

  Ysgol y Gader

  337

  Ysgol y Moelwyn

  444

  Ysgol Uwchradd Tywyn

  359

  Ysgol y Berwyn

  448

  Ysgol Ardudwy

  553

  Ysgol Dyffryn Conwy

  740

  Ysgol Friars

  896

  Ysgol Tryfan

  402

  Ysgol y Creuddyn

  638

  Ysgol Syr Hugh Owen

  1,098

  Ysgol Glan y Mor

  699

  Mid Glamorgan

  School name

  Number on roll

  Afon Taf High School

  1,203

  Pen-y-dre High School

  1,041

  Cyfarthfa High School

  1,008

  Vaynor and Penderyn School

  362

  Bryn Celynnog Comprehensive School

  1,336

  Coedylan Comprehensive School

  1,080

  Hawthorn High School

  940

  Mountain Ash Comprehensive School

  1,122

  Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen

  983

  Blaengwawr Comprehensive School

  655

  Tonyrefail Comprehensive School

  1,091

  Cynffig Comprehensive School

  822

  St. Cenydd Comprehensive School

  870

  St. Ilan Comprehensive School

  820

  Bryntirion Comprehensive School

  979

  St. Martin Comprehensive School

  720

  Maesteg Comprehensive School

  1,287

  657

  School name

  Number on roll

  Heolddu Comprehensive School

  801

  Ynysawdre Comprehensive School

  906

  Lewis Boys' Comprehensive School

  857

  Pencoed Comprehensive School

  1,114

  Lewis Girls' Comprehensive School

  973

  Brynteg Comprehensive School

  1,727

  Porthcawl Comprehensive School

  1,048

  Treorchy Comprehensive School

  1,235

  Ferndale Comprehensive School

  931

  Ogmore Comprehensive School

  645

  Porth Comprehensive School

  1,166

  Ysgol Gyfun Llanhari

  1,186

  Rhymney Comprehensive School

  693

  Bedwas Comprehensive School

  730

  Tonypandy Comprehensive School

  1,021

  Y Pant Comprehensive School

  691

  Ysgol Gyfun y Cymer

  487

  Aberdare Boys' Comprehensive School

  742

  Aberdare Girls' Comprehensive School

  633

  Bedwellty Comprehensive School

  515

  Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhymni

  828

  Bishop Hedley High School

  618

  Archbishop Mcgrath School

  419

  Cardinal Newman R.C. Comprehensive School

  697

  St. John Baptist C.I.W. School

  761

  Powys

  School name

  Number on roll

  Caereinion High School

  437

  Llanfyllin High School

  543

  Llanidloes High School

  485

  Ysgol Bro Ddyfi

  381

  Newtown High School

  1,071

  Welshpool High School

  713

  John Beddoes County Secondary School

  507

  Llandrindod High School

  754

  Builth Wells High School

  484

  Maesydderwen Comprehensive School

  630

  Brecon High School

  816

  Gwernyfed High School

  501

  Crickhowell High School

  626

  South Glamorgan

  School name

  Number on roll

  Rumney High School

  1,050

  Glyn Derw High School

  329

  Cardiff High School

  1,168

  Glan Ely High School

  807

  Willows High School

  713

  Fitzalan High School

  1,297

  Llanedeyrn High School

  866

  Cantonian High School

  1,012

  Whitchurch High School

  1,860

  Llanishen High School

  1,440

  Llanrumney High School

  764

  Cathays High School

  884

  Llanilltud Fawr Comprehensive School

  985

  Barry Boys' Comprehensive School

  1,335

  Bryn Hafren Comprehensive School

  1,406

  Stanwell Comprehensive School

  1,002

  St. Cyres Comprehensive School

  1,372

  Cowbridge Comprehensive School

  1,134

  Radyr Comprehensive School

  1,208

  Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Glantaf

  1,099

  St. Illtyds R.C. High School

  682

  Mary Immaculate R.C. High School

  597

  The Bishop of Llandaff High School

  1,125

  St. Teilo's C.I.W. High School

  1,007

  658

  School name

  Number on roll

  Corpus Christi R.C. High School

  989

  St. Richard Gwyn R.C. High School

  451

  West Glamorgan

  School Name

  Number on roll

  Mynyddbach County Secondary School

  615

  Penlan County Secondary (Boys) School

  601

  Cefn Hengoed Comprehensive School

  945

  Olchfa Comprehensive School

  1,766

  Morriston Comprehensive School

  1,104

  Dynevor Comprehensive School

  456

  Pentrehafod Comprehensive School

  1,069

  Bishop Gore Comprehensive School

  1,354

  Cymer Afan Comprehensive School

  426

  Glan Afan Comprehensive School

  590

  Sandfields Comprehensive School

  734

  Dyffryn Comprehensive School

  788

  Ysgol Gyfun Ystalyfera

  766

  Penyrheol Comprehensive School

  931

  Gowerton Comprehensive School

  1,145

  Cefn Saeson Comprehensive School

  890

  Cwmtawe Comprehensive School

  970

  Llangatwg Comprehensive School

  960

  Dwr y Felin Comprehensive School

  1,271

  Cwrt Sart Comprehensive School

  614

  Bishopston Comprehensive School

  968

  Dillwyn Llewelyn Comprehensive School

  558

  Pontarddulais Comprehensive School

  675

  Ysgol Gyfun Gwyr

  535

  Birchgrove Comprehensive School

  842

  St. Joseph's R.C. Comprehensive School

  757

  Bishop Vaughan Catholic Comprehensive School

  933

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the number of pupil exclusions in(a) the primary sector and (b) the secondary school sector within each local education authority in Wales in each year since 1987; and what has been the percentage of excluded pupils within the general school population in each area in each year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Computer Consultancies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the computer consultancies employed by his Department and agencies, since November 1991, the tasks for which they were engaged, and the total cost to his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  The computer consultancies employed by my Department and its agencies since November 1991 are listed as follows. The total cost to the Department was £453,508.
  659

  Contractor

  Task

  The Government Centre for Information Systems (CCTA)

  Post implementation review of the Department's computerised financial systems.

  The Government Centre for Information Systems (CCTA)

  Post implementation review of the Department's in-house bureau mainframe computer system.

  The Government Centre for Information Systems (CCTA)

  Post implementation review of the Department's Welsh highways information system.

  The Government Centre for Information Systems (CCTA)

  Post implementation review of the Department's site monitoring system (new roads).

  The Government Centre for Information Systems (CCTA)

  Post implementation review of the Department's personnel management system.

  DBI Associates

  Production of an information systems strategy for the Welsh Office Education Department.

  NCC Consultancy

  Review of the document logging and diary facilities in the ministerial private office.

  KPMG Management Consulting

  Study of the future of the in-house bureau mainframe system.

  Computer Management Consultants

  Study of the Department's future office automation requirements.

  Axsis

  Welsh Office communications study: Part 1.

  Axsis

  Welsh Office communications study: Part 2.

  Admiral Management Services

  Review of security of the Department's computerised finance systems.

  IPL

  Post implementation review of the transport and highways payment monitoring system.

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd.

  Evaluation of the need for a computerised record of manufacturing plants in Wales.

  Ernst and Young

  To advise on end of financial year procedures in relation to the Department's financial systems.

  Net funding per pupil on books and equipment in primary schools at constant prices1

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Clwyd

  29·5

  26·1

  23·1

  22·6

  37·4

  32·1

  Dyfed

  27·2

  31·6

  29·7

  33·1

  43·5

  42·9

  Gwent

  29·5

  31·7

  33·6

  35·9

  40·4

  66·9

  Gwynedd

  30·7

  31·1

  30·2

  52·0

  64·1

  60·3

  Mid-Glamorgan

  29·6

  30·0

  31·7

  40·7

  32·1

  74·7

  Powys

  36·5

  39·6

  33·4

  25·0

  24·2

  30·4

  South Glamorgan

  29·6

  31·1

  30·9

  32·7

  35·3

  51·1

  West Glamorgan

  41·8

  37·8

  36·8

  36·4

  38·0

  47·1

  1 From 1987–88 includes nursery schools. Prices at March 1993.

  Net funding per pupil on books and equipment in secondary schools at constant prices1

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Clwyd

  70·2

  58·6

  54·9

  39·6

  104·2

  112·8

  Dyfed

  64·3

  91·3

  74·6

  76·3

  88·9

  74·0

  Gwent

  79·6

  79·6

  92·9

  89·2

  86·9

  97·6

  Gwynedd

  91·6

  85·6

  74·9

  114·3

  104·0

  112·6

  Mid-Glamorgan

  84·8

  76·5

  94·9

  117·9

  131·7

  161·5

  Powys

  79·5

  77·3

  76·0

  56·6

  59·5

  52·6

  South Glamorgan

  81·4

  69·8

  73·8

  75·0

  104·0

  95·2

  West Glamorgan

  87·8

  81·0

  79·2

  64·7

  85·5

  90·1

  1 Prices at March 1993.

  660

  Contractor

  Task

  Safetynet PLC

  To advise on the upgrade of the computer suite housing the Department's financial systems.

  Praxis PLC

  Feasibility study regarding the development of a central information database for HM School Inspectors in Wales.

  Praxis PLC

  Preparation of a project initiation document and operational requirement for an information database for HM School Inspectors in Wales.

  Price Waterhouse

  Scoping study for the market test of Welsh Office information technology services.

  Gower Business Systems

  Study of the possible uses of desk top publishing.

  Mouncey and Partners

  To advise on the implementation of computer systems in valuation tribunal offices.

  MVA Systematica

  To advise on the migration of the Department's road accident system from the in-house bureau mainframe computer.

  Esams Ltd.

  Scoping study for the valuation tribunal integrated appeals system.

  School Books
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the expenditure per pupil on school books in each of the local education authorities in Wales in(a) the primary sector and (b) the secondary sector in each year since 1986 at constant prices.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The following tables give expenditure per pupil at constant prices on text and library books, and educational equipment, for the years requested.
  661

  Psychiatric Admissions
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many psychiatric admissions of children of 16 years or under have occurred within each health authority area in Wales in each of the last three years; and how many were diagnosed under conduct disorder in each instance.

  1988

  1989

  1990

  All admissions

  Admissions for disorders1

  All Admissions

  Admissions for disorders1

  All admissions

  Admissions for disorders1

  Clwyd

  49

  44

  42

  37

  41

  38

  East Dyfed

  6

  4

  10

  5

  5

  3

  Gwent

  9

  5

  8

  5

  14

  13

  Gwynedd

  2

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  11

  7

  8

  2

  10

  2

  Powys

  6

  3

  1

  1

  2

  1

  South Glamorgan

  44

  32

  49

  38

  54

  48

  West Glamorgan

  6

  3

  11

  6

  8

  5

  Total

  133

  100

  130

  95

  136

  111

  1Includes neurotic, personality and other non-psychotic mental disorders.

  Note: There are no Mental Illness Hospitals or units in Pembrokeshire.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each fund-holding general medical practitioner's practice in Wales the per capita allocations for the purchase of hospital services in 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It would be inappropriate to publish per capita allocations for each fund-holding practice in Wales. Allocations reflect the individual nature and extent of these services with which patients in each practice have been provided over previous years. The per capita allocations to fund holders for the purchase of hospital services in 1993–94 on average amount to £71 per patient, and range from £44 to £128.

  Programme for the valleys expenditure

  £ million

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 estimated outturn

  Urban Programme

  11·950

  16·000

  19·400

  23·600

  21·000

  Urban Development/UIG1

  2·600

  7·200

  6·000

  4·500

  5·000

  RIG1

  28·875

  16·100

  14·500

  16·140

  15·350

  WDA

  Factories

  20·730

  20·950

  23·100

  18·500

  15·500

  Land Reclamation

  11·900

  15·500

  14·700

  15·000

  18·500

  Environmental

  0·780

  0·600

  0·600

  1·500

  1·500

  Urban Renewal Unit

  0·700

  1·570

  3·260

  5·381

  10·000

  Investment

  1·325

  1·750

  2·730

  0·535

  0·250

  Business Development

  0·720

  0·720

  1·000

  0·940

  1·30

  Corporate Planning/Research

  0·100

  0·100

  0·050

  0·040

  0·050

  Roads

  11·100

  7·200

  15·270

  36·807

  40·840

  Employment Department

  48·600

  49·670

  48·200

  48·000

  48·000

  1These programmes are demand-led.

  662
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information given in the following table relates to children aged 16 or under admitted to mental illness hospitals and units in each health authority area.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average wage of the lowest paid decile of the population in Wales in 1991(a) at 1991 prices and (b) at 1979 prices.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is not statistical custom to calculate average earnings within the lowest or highest deciles. The New Earnings Survey estimates that, in 1991, 10 per cent. of full-time adult employees in Wales earned below £128·70 per week. At constant 1979 prices, the figure was £52·50 per week.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a breakdown of expenditure at constant prices for each year from 1988–89 to 1992–93 for each sub-programme of the valleys initiative programme.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  663

  Welshpool Bypass
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many accidents have occurred on the Welshpool bypass since its opening on 16 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am advised that up to 21 July, four accidents have been recorded by Dyfed/Powys police on the bypass or at its junctions. From an initial examination, it does not appear that the design of the new road has contributed to the incidents. The situation will be kept under close review.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will instruct his highways department to re-design the Sarnybryncaled junctions on the Welshpool bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This junction has been designed in accordance with national standards. As is usual in the period after the opening of a new stretch of trunk road, use of the bypass will be closely monitored and any necessary improvements identified at Sarnybryncaled or elsewhere will be introduced.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the total tonnage of hazardous waste transported through each port in Wales in 1990–91 and 1991–92; and if he will publish a breakdown of the types of waste transported.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested was published in issues of the Environmental Digest for Wales, available in the Library of the House. 1990–91 figures appeared in table 1.49 of volume 6 and 1991–92 figures in table 1.53 of volume 7, subject to the following revisions:

  Waste imported (tonnes)

  Holyhead, 1991–92

  Chlorinated solvents

  21·7

  Miscellaneous redundant waste

  16·2

  Total

  385·5

  Newport, 1991–92

  Hexachlorobenzene

  199·8

  Source: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution

  Temporary Accommodation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many households in temporary accommodation in Wales were living in(a) bed-and-breakfast accommodation, (b) hostels, including women's refuges, and (c) short-life housing in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information for the years 1987 to 1991 has been published in Table 7.9 of Welsh Housing Statistics No. 12 1992, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. On 31 December 1992 there were 248 households temporarily accommodated in bed and breakfast, 394 in hostels and women's refuges and 89 in short-life dwellings.
  664

  Beaches (Pollution)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what monitoring is conducted by his Department on local authority compliance with its advice concerning the public display of the results of National Rivers Authority testing of water quality of Welsh European Community designated beaches.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As in previous years, Welsh Office officials wrote to all coastal local authorities at the beginning of the bathing season encouraging them to participate in the bathing water quality poster scheme. It is for each local authority to decide whether it wishes to participate in the scheme.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many complaints have been received by the Commission for Local Administration in Wales from and on behalf of children and young people in care in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The hon. Gentleman will need to seek this information by writing to the commissioner for local administration in Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the average amount of leaving care grant given by each local authority to children and young people formerly in care in Wales in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not available centrally.

  Heavy Metal Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing(a) the tonnage totals permitted to be deposited in each river estuary in Wales and (b) the actual tonnage deposited for (i) zinc, (ii) cadmium, (iii) lead, (iv) copper, (v) mercury and (vi) chromium in (1) 1991 (2) 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The following levels of dredged material were licensed for disposal at sites in Welsh estuaries in 1991. 1992 figures are not yet available.

  Thousand Tonnes

  Cardiff Grounds

  3,178

  Newport

  3,500

  Uskmouth

  120

  Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  There are no specific amounts licensed for individual contaminants but prior to licensing the concentrations of each contaminant in the dredged material are measured to ensure that those amounts are acceptable for disposal at sea.

  The amounts of the contaminants deposited at each of these sites in 1991 was published in table 2.24 of the Environmental Digest for Wales, No. 7, available in the Library of the House. Figures for 1992 are not yet available.
  665
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the tonnage of(a) cadmium, (b) zinc, (c) lead, (d) copper, (e) mercury and (f) chromium disposed of off the coasts of Wales in (i) 1991 and (ii) 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested for 1991 was published in table 2.23 of the Environmental Digest for Wales, No. 7, available in the Library of the House. Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what monitoring has been undertaken by his Department on the provision of accommodation for 16 and 17-year-old people designated as in need by local authorities in Wales as a result of the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local authorities were asked through the Welsh Office circular 26/91 to report on inter-agency collaboration under the Children Act 1989 on a wide range of issues, including provision of accommodation for children in need. Most authorities have now reported and the remainder of the responses are expected shortly.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many complaints have been received to date by each social services department from children under section 26 of the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Paragraph 3.53 of the Children Act Report 1992 recorded the latest available information. Eleven complaints in total had been received from or on behalf of children by local authorities in Wales in the first nine months following the implementation of the Children Act on 14 October 1991. Details are:

  Number

  Clwyd

  Nil

  Dyfed

  1

  Gwent

  2

  Gwynedd

  4

  Mid Glamorgan

  2

  Powys

  Nil

  South Glamorgan

  1

  West Glamorgan

  1

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which local authorities in Wales have not developed policy statements or related practice guidelines and procedures regarding children leaving care.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am not aware of a local authority in Wales which has not developed any policy statements or related practice guidelines and procedures on children leaving care.

  Urban Waste Water Directive
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made by his Department in drawing up plans for the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive requires member states to establish an implementation programme by the end of this year.666
  Relevant Government Departments, including the Welsh Office, are working with the National Rivers Authority and the water industry in drawing up this programme.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secreetary of State for Wales if he will list the independent schools in Wales which currently have fewer than 50 pupils; and which of those schools have registered as children's homes under the Children Act 1989.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Under the Children Act 1989, independent schools which provide accommodation for 50 or fewer children are required to be registered as children's homes unless they are approved to take children with statements of special educational needs under Section 11(3)(a) of the Education Act 1981. A list of such schools in Wales is set out as follows:

  Independent schools providing accommodation for 50 or fewer pupils and which are not approved under section 11(3)(a) of the Education Act 1981

  The Cathedral School, Cardiff

  Howells School, Cardiff

  Emmanuel School, Swansea

  Netherwood School, Saundersfoot, Dyfed

  St. Clare's Convent School, Porthcawl

  St. John's School, Porthcawl

  St. David's Ursuline Convent School, Brecon
  (to re-open as St. Davids School from I September 1993)

  Their registration as children's homes is a matter for local authority social services departments.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the reported incidents of oil pollution around the coast of Wales in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992; and which incidents resulted in a spillage extending for one mile or more.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Summary information on incidents around the Welsh coast in 1991 was published in table 2.30 of the Environment Digest for Wales, No. 7, available in the Library of the House. Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  School Pupils
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list showing the number of permanent pupils excluded from(a) primary and (b) secondary schools according to each local education authority in Wales in each of the last three years; and how many pupils issued with statements have been included in each area.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Cardigan Bay (Nature Reserve)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to designate Cardigan bay as a marine nature reserve; and if he will establish the posts of marine conservation wardens for the area.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend is responsible for designating marine nature reserves in Wales following an application from the Countryside Council for Wales. There are no such applications currently before the Department.
  667
  Responsibility for the management of such reserves rests with the Countryside Council for Wales.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, how many employment training or training for work trainees have employment status; what was the position a year earlier; and how this number has been estimated;

  (2) for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, separately for male and female, how many people have entered employment action and how many were participating in employment action in each month since January; and what detailed information he has about the destination of those participants who have left employment action; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will publish tables showing the latest available results from the employment training leavers' survey for each training and enterprise council area in England and Wales and each local enterprise company area in Scotland broken down to show the number and proportion of employment training leavers who were (a) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (b) in a full-time job with another employer, (c) employed in their own business, (d) in a part-time job, (e) in voluntary work, (f) on another Government training programme, (g) on a full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) in a job club and (k) doing something else;

  (4) if he will publish tables showing the latest available results from the youth training leavers survey for each training and enterprise council area in England and Wales and each local enterprise company in Scotland broken down to show the number and proportion of youth training leavers who were (a) in full-time work with the same employer, (b) in full-time work with a different employer, (c) in part-time work, (d) on a full-time course at a college or training centre, (e) on another youth training scheme, (f) doing something else, (g) who were unemployed, (h) who had obtained a vocational qualification, (i) the number of questionnaires issued, (j) the usable percentage response rate and (k) the percentage of respondents who were early leavers;

  (5) if he will show for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, for all trainees and separately for male and female, for the latest available period, the wages earned by employment training trainees who three months after leaving were (a) in a full-time job, (b) in a part-time job and (c) self-employed;

  (6) if he will list for each region and for Great Britain as a whole the latest available information he has on the characteristics of those who have entered employment training showing (a) the number of entrants covered, (b) whether male or female, (c) duration of unemployment, (d) ethnic origin and (e) if they have a disability;

  (7) how many people were participating in (a) employment training, (b) employment action, (c) the enterprise allowance scheme/business start-up allowance and (d).youth training in each month since December 1992 for each region and for Great Britain as a whole; and if he will make a statement;
  668
  (8) how many youth training credits have been issued in the pilot areas to young people; how many young people have taken them up; what other information he has on the take up of credits in those areas; and if he will make a statement;

  (9) what are the latest results for each region, and for Great Britain as a whole, of the YTS/YT leavers' survey, showing for all trainees, for male and female trainees and for each separate ethnic group and for those with a disability (a) those in full-time work with the same employer, (b) those in full-time work with a different employer, (c) those in part-time work, (d) those on a full-time course at a college or training centre, (e) those on another youth training scheme, (f) those doing something else, (g) those who were unemployed, (h) those who had obtained a vocational qualification, (i) the number of questionnaires issued, (j) the usable percentage response rate and (k) the percentage of respondents who were early leavers;

  (10) if he will show for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, for the latest available period, for all leavers and separately for male and female, for each ethnic group, and for those with a disability or health problem, the number and proportion of employment training trainees who three months after leaving were (a) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (b) in a full-time job with another employer, (c) employed in their own business, (d) in a part-time job, (e) in voluntary work, (f) on another Government training programme, (g) on a full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) in a job club and (k) doing something else;

  (11) if he will show for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, for the latest available period, for all leavers and separately for male and female, for each ethnic group, and for those with a disability or health problem, the number and proportion of employment training leavers who (a) had been entered for a vocational qualification, (b) had obtained a vocational qualification, (c) had failed to obtain a vocational qualification and (d) were awaiting results; and how many of the employment training leavers in the relevant period had completed the training agreed in their initial action plan;

  (12) how many people were receiving the business start-up allowance formerly the enterprise allowance in each London training and enterprise council in each quarter since December 1992; and what was the amount of expenditure on the business start-up allowance in the areas covered by each London TEC in 1991–92 and the budgets agreed for business start-up allowance with each London TEC in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement;

  (13) what has been the average length of participation that trainees have spent on employment training in 1991–92 and 1992–93 for each region and for Great Britain as a whole;

  (14) if he will publish tables showing the latest available results from the employment training leavers' survey for each training and enterprise council area in England and Wales and each local enterprise company area in Scotland broken down to show the number and proportion of employment training leavers who had (a) been entered for a vocational qualification, (b) obtained a vocational qualification, (c) had failed to obtain a vocational qualification and (d) were awaiting their results; and how

  669
  many of the employment training leavers in the relevant period had completed the training agreed in their initial action plan.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As the information is contained in a considerable number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list for each training and enterprise council in England their youth training performance in 1992–93 showing(a) the cost per output point and (b) the number of national vocational qualifications per 100 leavers, together with the latest information he has for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list for each training and enterprise council in England their employment training performance in 1992–93 showing (a) the cost per output point, (b) the number of national vocational qualifications per 100 leavers and (c) the number of positive outcomes per 100 leavers, together with the latest information he has for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We intend to publish inter-TEC comparisons for 1992–93 as soon as the final figures have been agreed. A copy will be placed in the Library. We intend to publish full year comparisons for 1993–94 next summer. We do not plan to publish in-year tables because uneven flows of information during the year can distort comparisons of performance.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what sums of money have been contributed from the European social fund towards(a) youth training and (b) employment training in 1992; what percentage contribution to the total costs of youth training and employment training this represents; what other Department of Employment training and employment programmes have been financially supported by the ESF; how much financial support has been given in 1992; what proportion of the total cost this contribution represented; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested about programmes which have received European social fund support in 1992 is provided in the table. This data relate to ESF support for programmes in England and Wales:

  ESF support1 (£ million)

  ESF support as a percentage of expenditure

  Employment training

  140·25

  16·88

  Youth training

  14·54

  2·53

  Enterprise allowance scheme

  12·31

  16·59

  1 Applications totals.

  TEC Challenge
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria he used in selecting the winners of TEC challenge; and if he will place copies of the successful bids in the Library.
  670
  Miss Widdecombe
  The advisory panel chaired by the permanent secretary of the Employment Department appraised the bids on eight criteria, based upon those set out in the training and enterprise council challenge prospectus published in April, a copy of which is in the Library. I made my decisions after receiving advice from the advisory panel. The TEC challenge bids are commercial-in-confidence; however, I have placed a list showing brief descriptions of the winning bids in the Library.

  Job Clubs
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in each region and Great Britain as a whole since April 1992 have joined job clubs, how many have left, how many leavers got jobs and how many entered another positive outcome; and if he will break down the information by the ethnic origin and sex of participants.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job clubs were operational for each region and for Great Britain as a whole at the latest available date; and how many of them in each region catered for groups with special needs.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the employment service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 26 July 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 him about performance information about the Jobclub programme. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Table "A" attached shows for each region and for Great Britain the numbers who have joined Jobclubs between 30 March 1992 and 25 June 1993 together with information during the same period of those members leaving. Leavers who are shown as going into other positive outcomes have gone on to either training, full-time education or self-employment.
  As I indicated in my letter to you of 28 October 1992, information on the ethnic background and male/female characteristics of Jobclub leavers is now collected on annual sample survey basis. The information was collected for the month of March 1993, and the results of the count are in tables "B". Tables "B" show the performance between I March 1993 and 26 March 1993 for male and female Jobclub members and by ethnic origin on a regional basis and for Great Britain as a whole.
  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 placea a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.
  671

  Table A

  Jobclub entrants and leavers information 30 March 1992 to 25 June 1993

  Region

  Jobclub entrants

  Jobclub leavers

  Leavers into jobs

  Leavers into jobs per cent.

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Leavers into positive outcomes per cent.

  Northern

  17,699

  17,766

  7,087

  40

  1,841

  50

  Yorks and Humberside

  23,755

  23,233

  11,024

  47

  3,348

  62

  East Midlands

  25,174

  24,459

  11,990

  49

  3,597

  64

  London and South East

  83,281

  80,755

  33,521

  42

  11,585

  56

  South West

  20,121

  19,717

  9,573

  49

  2,821

  63

  Wales

  15,972

  15,320

  8,199

  54

  2,099

  67

  West Midlands

  26,014

  26,258

  11,872

  45

  4,268

  61

  North West

  39,939

  39,855

  17,808

  45

  4,690

  56

  Scotland

  26,266

  26,104

  12,974

  50

  3,247

  62

  Nationally

  278,221

  273,467

  124,048

  45

  37,496

  59

  Jobclub: Ethnic origin and Sex of participants

  March 1993

  National

  Leavers into Jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total Leavers

  White

  7,790

  1,813

  16,374

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  345

  121

  803

  Indian/Pakistani Bangladesh/ Sri Lanken

  417

  169

  1,034

  None of the above

  80

  33

  223

  Preferred not to say

  40

  20

  123

  Total

  8,672

  2,156

  18,557

  Male

  6,740

  1,654

  14,755

  Female

  1,932

  502

  3,802

  Totals

  8,672

  2,156

  18,557

  Jobclub: Ethnic origin and Sex of participants

  March 3

  Northern

  Leavers into Jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total Leavers

  White

  478

  91

  1,155

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  2

  1

  4

  Indian/Pakistani Bangladesh/Sri Lanken

  4

  4

  10

  None of the above

  0

  0

  8

  Preferred not to say

  0

  0

  4

  Total

  484

  96

  1,181

  Male

  398

  81

  988

  Female

  86

  15

  193

  Totals

  484

  96

  1,181

  Jobclub: Ethnic origin and Sex of participants

  March 1993

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Leavers into Jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total Leavers

  White

  794

  180

  1,588

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  11

  2

  27

  Indian/Pakistani Bangladesh/ Sri Lanken

  37

  19

  90

  None of the above

  4

  5

  14

  Preferred not to say

  3

  0

  4

  Total

  849

  206

  1,723

  Male

  659

  165

  1,383

  Female

  190

  41

  340

  Totals

  849

  206

  1,723

  672

  Jobclub: Ethnic origin and Sex of participants

  March 1993

  East Midlands and Eastern

  Leavers into Jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total Leavers

  White

  812

  198

  1,599

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  9

  5

  22

  Indian/Pakistani Bangladesh/Sri Lanken

  33

  9

  69

  None of the above

  6

  1

  10

  Preferred not to say

  0

  0

  6

  Total

  860

  213

  1,706

  Male

  681

  168

  1,381

  Female

  179

  45

  325

  Totals

  860

  213

  1,706

  Jobclub: Ethnic origin and Sex of participants

  March 1993

  London and South East

  Leavers into Jobs

  Leavers inlo other positive outcomes

  Total Leavers

  White

  1,771

  499

  3,954

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  270

  95

  634

  Indian/Pakistani Bangladesh/Sri Lanken

  214

  75

  569

  None of the above

  57

  20

  153

  Preferred not to say

  31

  19

  86

  Total

  2,343

  708

  5,396

  Male

  1,723

  507

  4,066

  Female

  620

  201

  1,330

  Totals

  2,343

  708

  5,396

  Jobclub: Ethnic origin and Sex of participants

  March 1993

  South West

  Leavers into Jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total Leavers

  White

  584

  142

  1,231

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  8

  2

  12

  Indian/Pakistani Bangladesh/ Sri Lanken

  11

  2

  15

  None of the above

  2

  3

  6

  Preferred not to say

  0

  0

  2

  Total

  605

  149

  1,266

  Male

  469

  116

  1,008

  Female

  136

  33

  258

  Totals

  605

  149

  1,266

  673

  Jobclub: Ethnic origin and Sex of participants March 1993

  Wales

  Leavers into Jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total Leavers

  White

  526

  112

  1,024

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  3

  2

  8

  Indian/Pakistani Bangladesh/ Sri Lanken

  1

  2

  9

  None of the above

  3

  0

  6

  Preferred not to say

  1

  0

  3

  Total

  534

  116

  1,050

  Male

  438

  89

  860

  Female

  96

  27

  190

  Totals

  534

  116

  1,050

  Jobclub: Ethnic origin and Sex of participants March 1993

  West Midlands

  Leavers into Jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total Leavers

  White

  712

  186

  1,348

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  31

  12

  67

  Indian/Pakistani Bangladesh/ Sri Lanken

  89

  48

  199

  None of the above

  4

  1

  9

  Preferred not to say

  2

  0

  5

  Total

  838

  247

  1,628

  Male

  654

  190

  1,280

  Female

  184

  57

  348

  Totals

  838

  247

  1,628

  Jobclub: Ethnic origin and Sex of participants 1 April 1991 to 27 March 1992

  North West

  Leavers into Jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total Leavers

  White

  1,269

  244

  2,684

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  9

  2

  27

  Indian/Pakistani Bangladesh/ Sri Lanken

  26

  8

  68

  None of the above

  2

  2

  11

  Preferred not to say

  1

  1

  7

  Total

  1,307

  257

  2,797

  Male

  1,019

  208

  2,272

  Female

  288

  49

  525

  Totals

  1,307

  257

  2,797

  Job interview guarantee scheme

  Numbers of clients assisted and placed in jobs

  Number of clients assisted 1992–93

  Number of clients placed 1992–93

  Number of clients assisted April-June 1993

  Number of clients placed April-June 1993

  Northern Region

  9,342

  3,110

  4,940

  1,490

  Yorks and Humberside Region

  13,851

  4,920

  14,107

  3,806

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  12,978

  5,123

  4,954

  2,090

  London and South East Region

  64,673

  23,811

  26,184

  10,421

  South West Region

  26,994

  8,162

  7,434

  3,367

  Office for Wales

  14,249

  5,365

  5,884

  2,613

  West Midlands Region

  19,177

  7,718

  5,156

  2,688

  North West Region

  18,715

  8,112

  11,254

  4,874

  Office for Scotland

  16,081

  10,380

  6,058

  4,672

  National

  196,060

  76,701

  85,971

  36,021

  674

  Jobclub: Ethnic origin and Sex of participants March 1993

  Scotland

  Leavers into Jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total Leavers

  White

  844

  161

  1,791

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  2

  0

  2

  Indian/Pakistani Bangladesh/ Sri Lanken

  2

  2

  5

  None of the above

  2

  1

  6

  Preferred not to say

  2

  0

  6

  Total

  852

  164

  1,810

  Male

  699

  130

  1,517

  Female

  152

  34

  293

  Totals

  852

  164

  1,810

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people have taken part in the job interview guarantee scheme in each region in 1992–93 and in the first quarter of 1993–94; and how many participants have secured full-time or part-time employment with their sponsoring employer.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 26 July 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 him about the Job Interview Guarantee (JIG). This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  You asked how many unemployed people have taken part in the Job Interview Guarantee (JIG) Scheme in each region in 1992–93 and in the first quarter of 1993–94 and how many participants have secured full or part-time employment with the sponsoring employer. The information is set out by region in the attached table.
  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.
  675

  Child Care
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action has been taken by his Department to implement the 1992 European Community recommendation on child care.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government welcome the recommendation, which is in tune with our policy of encouraging measures which allow parents to balance their work and family responsibilities. Since the recommendation was adopted in March 1992, we have introduced a major £45 million initiative to provide 50,000 extra out-of-school child care places for the over-fives. Shortly before the recommendation was adopted, we published the booklet, "The Best of Both Worlds" which illustrates with case studies a variety of flexible employment practices which can benefit working parents and employers alike. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, in his previous post as the Secretary of State for Wales, launched the Chwarae Teg or "Fair Play" initiative which brings together a partnership of the public, private and voluntary sectors to promote new child care provision and flexible working as part of a strategy to increase opportunities for women in the work force. We will continue to look for opportunities to promote a more family-friendly working environment.

  Actively-seeking-work Test
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many claimants in each quarter since April 1992 for each region and for Great Britain as a whole have(a) been issued with warning letters for not actively seeking work, (b) had their claim referred to an adjudication officer for not actively seeking work, (c) had their claims allowed or disallowed for not actively seeking work, (d) had their claim referred to an adjudication

  Warning letters issued by region and nationally for each quarter since April 1992

  April to June 1992

  July to September 1992

  October to December 1992

  January to March 1993

  Northern

  300

  290

  163

  185

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  282

  292

  166

  163

  East Midlands and Eastern

  203

  202

  78

  98

  London and South Eastern

  2,126

  2,250

  1,758

  1,515

  South Western

  406

  388

  271

  349

  Wales

  233

  183

  71

  72

  West Midlands

  619

  486

  235

  190

  North Western

  1,678

  2,006

  1,510

  1,057

  Scotland

  887

  612

  337

  363

  National

  6,734

  6,709

  4,589

  3,992

  Work Trials
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work trial agreements have been made with employers in 1992–93 and in the first quarter of 1993–94, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole; how many unemployed people have taken part in work trials in each region; how many participants have secured full-time or part-time employment with their sponsoring
  676
  officer for refusing suitable employment and (e) how many of those in (d) have had their benefit disqualified or not disqualified.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 26 July 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 him about the number of claimants who have been issued with warning letters for not actively seeking work; had their claim referred to an adjudication officer for not actively seeking work; had their claims allowed or disallowed for not actively seeking work; had their claim referred to an adjudication officer for refusing suitable employment; and how many of those have had their benefit disqualified or not disqualified in each quarter since April 1992 for each region and for Great Britain as a whole. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The publication "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions", includes the statistics you asked for on actively seeking work and refusal of employment, for each quarter since April 1992 to March 1993, for each standard region and for Great Britain as a whole, and copies are held in the Library of the House.
  A change introduced in the Social Security Act 1989 removed the requirement that employment offered had to be suitable for the person concerned; instead the client now has to show that they have good cause for refusing any job which is offered to them.
  I enclose a table showing by Region, and Nationally, the number of warning letters issued to clients whose worksearch activity was not considered to be adequate.
  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.

  employer; what is the best information he has on the wages they receive; how long those jobs have lasted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 26 July 1993:

  677
  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 him about Work Trials. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Figures showing the numbers of unemployed people participating in Work Trials, and the numbers placed into work as a result are attached. Details of the number of Work Trial agreements made with employers, the wages of Work Trial participants and the length of these jobs is not collected.
  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.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Annex A

  Work Trial participants and platings for April 1992 to March 1993 are as follows:

  Region

  Participants

  Placings

  Northern

  196

  125

  Yorks and Humberside

  102

  67

  East Midlands

  147

  87

  London and South East

  260

  136

  South West

  89

  41

  Wales

  158

  83

  West Midlands

  132

  65

  North West

  236

  119

  Scotland

  384

  227

  Total

  1,704

  950

  Annex B

  Work Trial participants and placings for the quarter April 1993 to June 1993 are as follows:

  Region

  Participants

  Placings

  Northern

  74

  39

  Yorks and Humberside

  107

  56

  East Midlands

  207

  132

  London and South East

  480

  205

  South West

  119

  62

  Wales

  165

  93

  West Midlands

  189

  116

  North West

  399

  265

  Scotland

  420

  229

  Total

  2,160

  1,197

  Restart
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in each region and Great Britain as a whole how many people attended a Restart interview in 1992–93 and in the first quarter of 1993–94; and what were the results of those interviews broken down in the same way as the reply given on 18 December 1990,Official Report, column 148.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 26 July 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 Questions to him about how many people, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, attended a Restart interview in 1992–93 and in the first
  678
  quarter of 1993–94; and what were the results of those interviews broken down in the same way as the reply given in the Official Report, column 148, on 18 December 1990. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Restart interview programme provides a framework within which the Employment Service provides help for long-term unemployed people. It provides a gateway to the range of employment and training opportunities available as well as being a means of ensuring that claimants remain available for and are actively seeking work.
  During the 1992–93 operational year 2·8 million interviews were conducted and from these interviews 33,300 started work, 78,200 began training under Employment Training, 106,000 started in Jobclub, 112,100 started a Restart course and 6,900 started the Enterprise Allowance Scheme.
  The Employment Service has changed its performance monitoring at a national level for 1993–94 and the information for this year cannot be given in exactly the same format as that previously provided. Information is not yet available for the first quarter of this operational year, the figures quoted are for the first two months. During the first two months of 1993–94 54,500 interviews were conducted and from these interviews 5,800 people started work and 95,600 started an Employment Department programme, such as Jobclub, Restart Course, Jobplan Workshop and Training For Work.
  These figures reflect only the direct results of Restart. We do not know how many people subsequently take up a job or a place on an employment or training programme as a result of the guidance given to them at their interview.
  An indication of the scale of that effect is provided by the report "The Restart Effect" which was recently published by the independent Policy Studies Institute. It is based on an analysis of the largest survey of unemployed people in the United Kingdom since 1980. This showed conclusively that the programme had a major effect in reducing the time it takes people to leave unemployment, to get a job and to enter Employment Training, particularly for those people who were at a disadvantage within the labour market.
  I hope that 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.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise council chairmen have left each TEC board since its launch; and how many TEC directors have resigned since the launch of their TEC.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A total of 34 training and enterprise council chairmen have left TEC boards since their launch.

  Two Chairmen have left the following TECs:

  SOLOTEC;

  South Thames.

  One Chairman has left the following TECs:

  AZTEC;

  Bedfordshire;

  Calderdale/Kirklees;

  CAMBSTEC (Central & South Cambridgeshire);

  Coventry & Warwickshire;

  Devon & Cornwall;

  Dorset;

  Greater Nottingham;

  Gwent;

  Hampshire;

  HAWTEC (Hereford & Worcester);

  Humberside;

  Leeds;

  London East;

  Manchester;

  679

  METROTEC (Wigan);

  North Derbyshire;

  Northumberland;

  North London;

  North Nottinghamshire;

  QUALITEC (St. Helens) Ltd.;

  Rochdale;

  Rotherham;

  Sheffield;

  Shropshire;

  Southern Derbyshire;

  South Glamorgan;

  Stockport/High Peak;

  Surrey;

  TARGED North West Wales;

  Teesside;

  Wearside;

  West Wales;

  Wight Enterprise;

  Wolverhampton.

  A total of 328 TEC directors have left TEC boards since the launch of their TEC. This is principally due to changes in their business commitments, and reflects similar levels of turnover in the private sector as a whole.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest available information on the number of male and female directors of training and enterprise councils; how many are from(a) ethnic minority backgrounds and (b) the private sector; what is the best information he has about which industrial sectors they come from; and how many of the non-private sector directors are from (i) local authorities, (ii) local education authorities, (iii) other educational organisations, (iv) trade unions, (v) voluntary organisations, (iv) ethnic minority organisations, (vii) employers' associations and (viii) others.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are currently 942 male and 127 female directors of training and enterprise councils in England. Of these, 757 come from the private sector.

  Of the non-private sector directors:

  (i) 98 are from local directors;

  (ii)43 from local education authorities;

  (iii)31 from other education organisations;

  (iv)52 from trade unions;

  (v)37 from voluntary organisations;

  (vi)2 from ethnic minority organisations;

  (vii)12 from employers' associations;

  (viii)37 others.

  Information on the ethnic origin of TEC board members is provided voluntarily. The most up-to-date figures are from 1992 and cover only 44 TECs. Twenty board members are quoted as being of ethnic minority origin.

  The Department does not maintain statistics on the industrial sector origins of private sector TEC directors.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will direct training and enterprise councils to publish annual statements of accounts for public inspection; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils are required to publish an annual report and audited statement of accounts within four months after the relevant financial year.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements apply to the payment of salaries and other expenses of officers of local authorities who serve on boards of training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.
  680
  Miss Widdecombe
  Directors serving on boards of training and enterprise councils are refunded expenses reasonably incurred in connection with their duties on behalf of TECs. They are not renummerated.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will arrange for training and enterprise councils to provide information on individual local projects, including costs, on request by a member of the public or a district council; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils are required to publish a summary of their corporate and business plans and annual reports. This is available to the public on request. TECs' corporate plans must also be made available for inspection by the public.

  TECs are private companies. It is for them to determine what information they publish about the funding of specific projects.

  Parental and Family Leave
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to support European Community directives on parental and family leave for employees.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Methyl Bromide
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make representations to the European Community advocating the adoption of measures to protect workers from exposure to methyl bromide.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A proposal for an EC directive on the protection of workers from chemical agents, such as methyl bromide, has recently been published. A comprehensive set of legislation already exists in the United Kingdom to protect workers from hazardous substances, including methyl bromide. The United Kingdom will press for the principles of this legislation to be incorporated in any corresponding Community measure.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance is issued by his Department regarding protection of workers handling methyl bromide.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1991, the Health and Safety Executive published guidance note CS 12: "Fumigation using methyl bromide (bromomethane)".

  Additional guidance is available in the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988—COSHH—and the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. This includes an approved code of practice which gives practical guidance on the requirements of COSHH in relation to fumigation operations.

  St. Helena (Work Permits)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work permits have been issued to citizens of St. Helena for each of the last 15 years; and what proposals he has for numbers in future years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of work permits issued to citizens of St. Helena for each of the years for which figures are available is as follows:
  681

  Number

  1986

  20

  1987

  30

  1988

  28

  1989

  51

  1990

  53

  1991

  30

  1992

  34

  There is no specific number of work permits planned to be issued to St. Helenians in future years. However, the maximum number of permits available to St. Helenians under the special dependent territories quota scheme is 35 in 1993 and 30 in 1994, when the scheme ends.

  Applications for work permits for St. Helenians outside these arrangements will continue to be considered against the normal work permit scheme criteria.

  ES Guide 39
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when ES guide 39 was issued; what it replaced; whether the letters in appendix V4 and appendix V3 were in the previous guide; and whether the note of guidance in clauses V 16 and V17 was in the previous guide.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. John Spellar, dated 26 July 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 him about ES Guide 39. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief executive of the Agency.
  ES Guide 39 was issued in January 1993 and replaced the New Client Adviser Guide and the Claimant Adviser Handbook. The guidance contained in Section V paragraphs V16 and V17, and the letters in Appendices V3 and V4, have been taken directly from the Claimant Adviser Handbook. I enclose copies of the guidance previously contained in the Claimant Adviser Handbook and that in ES Guide 39 for your information.
  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.

  Employment Service I

  Claimant Adviser Handbook

  Current claim—no medical evidence

  I16 If the claimant has an established claim to benefit and states during the interview that they:

  a have recently been disallowed sickness or invalidity benefit, and

  b wish to appeal against the DSS AO's disallowance, and

  c their doctor is not issuing sickness certificates, and

  d their medical condition has significantly deteriorated since they last visited their doctor; or

  682

  e are not capable of undertaking work; and

  f have not seen their doctor;

  the claimant should be asked to seek their doctor's advice about their capacity to work. The following action should then be taken.

  I17 if the claimant agrees to see their doctor the claimant adviser should complete and give them a copy of the letter in Appendix I3. A copy of this letter should be sent with a letter to the doctor(Appendix I4) to explain the reason for the claimant's visit This procedure should prevent confusion between the claimant, the doctor and the claimant adviser about why the claimant is seeking their doctor's advice about their capacity for work. It must be made clear to the claimant that they are seeking their doctor's advice on their own behalf and not on behalf of the claimant adviser or the Employment Service.

  I

  Employment Service

  Appendix 14

  Claimant Adviser Handbook

  (Para I 17)

  Letter to GP Explaining Advice that has been given to Claimant by Claimant Adviser

  Claimant Adviser Service

  The Employment Service

  Employment Department

  Date

  I am the claimant Adviser at……… benefit office; part of the Employment Service. I give advice to unemployed people to help them find suitable work and provide information about the benefits which they may receive. I also have to ensure that people satisfy the conditions of entitlement for receiving Unemployment Benefit, Income Support and/or credits of NI. One of the main conditions laid down in the Social Security Act 1975 is that the client must be capable of taking up suitable work.

  When I interviewed your patient on………*he/she informed me that they had health problems that prevents them undertaking any employment. In these circumstances I have had to suggest that *he/she should seek your advice about their fitness for employment.

  If in your opinion *he/she is incapable of all work then you will no doubt advise your patient in accordance with your own clinical judgement.

  Should you advise your patient that *he/she is capable of work then it will be necessary for them to see me again to reconsider their claim to unemployment benefit, income support and/or credits of NI.

  Claimant Adviser

  *Cross out if it does not apply.

  I

  Employment Service

  Appendix 13

  Claimant Adviser Handbook

  (Para I17)
  683
  Letter to Claimant Suggesting Claimant Seeks Doctor's Advice

  Claimant Adviser Service

  The Employment Service

  Employment Department

  Date

  When I saw you on………about your claim for unemployment benefit, you told me that you had a health problem which prevented you doing any work. This means that you do not seem to be capable of and available for work, which is one of the main rules for payment of unemployment benefit (Social Security Act 1975).

  In these circumstances I had to suggest that you seek your doctor's advice about your fitness to work. Please take this letter with you if you decide to go to see your doctor.

  *I would like to see you again on………

  at………

  Claimant Adviser

  *Cross out if it does not apply.

  Annex 1

  ES Guide 39

  V

  Appendix V4

  (para V17)

  Letter to GP Explaining Advice Given to Client by Client Adviser
  684
  The Employment Service

  Employment Department

  Date

  I am the Client Adviser at………benefit office; part of the Employment Service. I give advice to unemployed people to help them find suitable work and provide information about the benefits which they may receive. I also have to ensure that people satisfy the conditions of entitlement for receiving Unemployment Benefit, Income Support and/or credits of NI. One of the main conditions laid down in the Social Security Act 1975 is that the client must be capable of taking up suitable work.

  When I interviewed your patient on………*he/she informed me that they had health problems that prevents them undertaking any employment. In these circumstances I have had to suggest that ∗he/she should seek your advice about their fitness for employment.

  If in your opinion *he/she is incapable of all work then you will no doubt advise your patient in accordance with your own clinical judgement.

  Should you advise your patient that *he/she is capable of work then it will be necessary for them to see me again to reconsider their claim to unemployment benefit, income support and/or credits of NI.

  Client Adviser

  *Cross out the one which does not apply.
  685
  Annex 2

  ES Guide 39

  V

  Appendix V3

  (para V17)

  Letter to Client Suggesting they Seek GPs Advice

  The Employment Service

  Employment Department

  Date

  When I saw you on……… about your claim for unemployment benefit, you told me that you had a health problem which prevented you doing any work. This means that you do not seem to be capable of and available for work, which is one of the main rules for payment of unemployment benefit (Social Security Act 1975).

  In these circumstances I had to suggest that you seek your doctor's advice about your fitness to work. Please take this letter with you if you decide to go to see your doctor.

  *I would like to see you again on………

  at………

  Client Adviser

  *Cross out if it does not apply.

  Annex 3

  V

  ES Guide 39

  Current claim—no medical evidence

  V16 If the client has an established claim to benefit and states during an interview that they:

  a have recently been disallowed Sickness or Invalidity Benefit, and

  b wish to appeal against the DSS AO's disallowance, and

  c their doctor is not issuing sickness certificates, and

  d their medical condition has significantly deteriorated since they last visited their doctor or

  e are not capable of undertaking work; and

  f have not seen their doctor;

  ask them to seek their doctor's advice about their capacity to work.

  V17 If the client agrees to see their doctor, complete and give them a copy of the letter in Appendix V3. Write to the GP using the letter in Appendix V4 explaining the reason for the client's visit, enclosing a copy of the letter issued to the client to avoid confusion between the client and the doctor as to why medical advice is being sought about their capacity for work. Make sure the client knows they are seeking medical advice on their own behalf, not on behalf of you or the ES.
  686

  Right to Strike
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what legislative and other action the Government intend to take to lessen the right to strike for public sector workers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government have no immediate plans for legislation beyond the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act, which received Royal Assent on 1 July. We continue to keep all aspects of industrial relations law under review.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the change in income of the lowest paid 10 per cent. of those in full-time employment in England in real terms from May 1979 to April 1992.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The required information on earnings is published in table 116 of part E of the new earnings survey for 1979 and 1992. The April 1992 and April 1979 retail prices index required to adjust these for inflation can be found in table 6.4 of the Employment Gazette for July 1993 and in table 26 of the annual supplement to "Economic Trends 1979". Copies of these are in the Library.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the wage level at the latest date for which figures are available for the lowest paid 10 per cent.in full-time employment in(a) England as a whole and (b) in each region in England.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is published in table X5.3 of part A of the 1992 new earnings survey, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes he plans to make to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations following the Government's deregulation review.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As part of the Government's deregulation initiative, I have invited the Health and Safety Commission to review the costs and benefits of health and safety legislation. The review will include the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations. The commission has established seven industrial task groups to assist in this work, and plans to report on its review in April 1994. It is therefore far too early to know what the HSC will propose.

  London East TEC
  Mr. Ron Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the work of London East TEC in the London borough of Newham.

  Miss Widdecombe
  London East Training and Enterprise Council—LETEC—in common with all training and enterprise councils, is providing a wide range of services and initiatives in education, enterprise and training which it considers to be appropriate for the needs of its local area. The London borough of Newham benefits from many of LETEC's area wide programmes, as well as
  687
  specific local programmes. It also has the advantage of Stratford city challenge resources contributing to the development of its most deprived area.

  Careers Service
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give estimates for(a) expenditure already incurred and (b) expenditure envisaged in implementing those provisions of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 relating to the careers service.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In preparing for the new careers service arrangements, a small amount of administrative and other costs have so far been incurred by the Employment Department. It is estimated that in a full year, additional running costs will be about £0·5 million in England. The provision of careers services in Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. The Government's expenditure plans for 1994–95 and beyond will be settled later this year in the current public expenditure survey. Sufficient funds will be provided to fulfil the statutory duty of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Incomes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a table showing the number and percentage of the adult population in each region with less than the average annual national income level in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available information, the proportions of full-time employees in the new earnings survey sample with average gross weekly earnings below the level of average earnings, is provided in the table:

  Full time employees—pay unaffected by absence

  Proportion earning below the level of average gross weekly earnings: At April

  Pern cent

  Greater London

  South East

  East Anglia

  South West

  1979

  49·2

  53·4

  65·1

  64·4

  1980

  48·3

  53·4

  63·4

  65·5

  1981

  48·2

  53·7

  64·0

  64·3

  1982

  47·1

  52·9

  63·9

  65·4

  1983

  46·9

  52·9

  65·1

  65·0

  1984

  46·4

  52·7

  66·3

  65·1

  1985

  46·7

  52·8

  64·1

  67·6

  1986

  46·0

  52·8

  65·0

  64·6

  1987

  46·1

  52·4

  65·9

  64·9

  1988

  45·9

  52·0

  66·0

  65·5

  1989

  45·2

  51·7

  64·6

  65·4

  1990

  44·5

  51·4

  65·2

  64·7

  1991

  44·6

  51·5

  65·7

  65·2

  1992

  44·6

  51·8

  65·4

  65·9

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  Yorkshire/ Humberside

  North West

  1979

  58·6

  60·1

  58·7

  59·7

  1980

  61·9

  62·5

  62·0

  61·5

  1981

  64·1

  63·4

  62·6

  62·5

  1982

  64·0

  64·4

  62·7

  62·7

  1983

  64·8

  65·0

  62·8

  63·8

  1984

  64·4

  65·7

  63·7

  62·8

  1985

  64·5

  65·9

  63·0

  62·9

  1986

  65·0

  65·6

  63·7

  62·8

  1987

  65·7

  66·8

  65·0

  63·8

  688

  1988

  66·2

  67·5

  65·5

  64·6

  1989

  66·3

  67·8

  66·0

  65·1

  1990

  66·5

  66·6

  66·5

  65·4

  1991

  67·3

  67·2

  67·2

  64·8

  1992

  66·8

  67·5

  66·9

  64·8

  North

  Scotland

  Wales

  1979

  58·2

  60·7

  57·6

  1980

  60·0

  63·0

  61·6

  1981

  61·6

  62·4

  62·4

  1982

  62·0

  62·3

  61·7

  1983

  63·4

  62·7

  63·8

  1984

  63·8

  62·0

  64·3

  1985

  64·0

  62·5

  63·4

  1986

  63·7

  64·1

  65·1

  1987

  65·4

  64·7

  65·1

  1988

  66·6

  66·0

  66·9

  1989

  67·3

  66·1

  67·3

  1990

  66·9

  65·9

  68·3

  1991

  67·0

  65·3

  68·9

  1992

  65·5

  65·8

  68·0

  Holiday Pay and Unpaid Wages
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 99, what has been the cost of (a) holiday pay and (b) unpaid wages owed to employees whose employer becomes insolvent or is otherwise unable to pay in each year since 1987–88.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may make payment from the national insurance fund for holiday pay and unpaid wages to employees whose employer becomes insolvent. The cost of such payments for each year since 1987–88 is as follows:

  Holiday pay £ million

  Unpaid wages £ million

  1987–88

  12·8

  11·2

  1988–89

  10·2

  10·1

  1989–90

  11·2

  11·9

  1990–91

  23·3

  24·3

  1991–92

  41·7

  47·3

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a table showing the number of vacancies in jobcentres that were(a) temporary and (b) permanent in each quarter from April 1987 in each region.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 26 July 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 him asking about the number of vacancies notified to Jobcentres since April 1987. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Providing historical vacancy information from 1987 will take some time to collate. I will write to you shortly with the complete information you requested.

  689
  In the meantime, I enclose a table showing the information you requested for the past three quarters.
  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written

  Details of permanent and temporary vacancies notified in the last three quarters

  Region

  5 October 1992 to 8 January 1993

  11 January 1993 to 2 April 1993

  5 April 1993 to 2 July 1993

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  West Midlands

  28,113

  6,421

  30,816

  4,781

  34,234

  7,003

  East Midlands

  33,762

  10,402

  35,206

  7,720

  40,484

  12,212

  London

  43,171

  12,900

  43,422

  10,541

  48,655

  11,782

  South East

  53,624

  13,971

  57,171

  10,789

  66,118

  13,641

  Scotland

  44,669

  14,212

  48,053

  11,961

  53,278

  14,781

  Wales

  20,419

  10,077

  22,000

  7,497

  26,532

  10,129

  North West

  51,670

  18,115

  53,792

  13,674

  64,203

  19,902

  South West

  26,009

  6,915

  31,449

  6,397

  36,680

  10,304

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  27,666

  5,555

  29,782

  4,785

  34,516

  6,878

  Northern

  15,620

  4,760

  16,433

  3,631

  17,956

  4,444

  Total

  344,723

  103,328

  368,124

  81,776

  422,656

  111,076

  Fraud
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are his Department's current estimates for unemployment benefit fraud; and how the figures are arrived at.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. John Battle, dated 26 July 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 him about the current estimates for unemployment benefit fraud; and how the figures are arrived at. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  We do not know how many people claiming unemployment benefits are doing so fraudulently and we do not make approximations. However, you may be interested to know that in the last financial year my fraud inspectors saved the taxpayer £44·71 million net as a result of over 61,000 people withdrawing their claims to benefit following investigation.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Paliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many officers have been employed investigating unemployment benefit fraud(a) in local offices and (b) in regional teams for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. John Battle, dated 26 July 1993:
  690
  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.
  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 him about how many officers have been employed investigating unemployment benefit fraud, in local offices and regional teams, for each year since 1979. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The ES fraud investigation organisation was restructured in 1984 and, unfortunately, comparative figures for earlier years are not available.

  The number of ES Inspectors employed are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1984–85

  450

  1985–86

  650

  1986–87

  720

  1987–88

  785

  1988–89

  820

  1989–90

  820

  1990–91

  820

  1991–92

  780

  1992–93

  780

  ES inspectors are of Executive Officer grade and are supported by clerical and managerial staff.
  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.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what intentions his Department has to introduce measures on child care and employment rights to reflect the change in the number of women in the work force.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government have made clear their intention to enable women to fulfil their full potential in the world of work. In April 1993 we introduced the out-of-school child care grant, an initiative delivered by training and enterprise councils, and local enterprise companies in Scotland. A total of £45 million has been allocated and we hope to create 50,000 new child care places for the over-fives. The Trade Union Reform and
  691
  Employment Rights Act 1993 gives working women significant new maternity rights including a new right to 14 weeks maternity leave and comprehensive protection against dismissal on grounds of pregnancy, regardless of length of service or hours of work. The Act also includes a right to complain to an industrial tribunal against discriminatory terms in collective agreements, and a power for industrial tribunals to impose restrictions on reporting the identities of the parties in cases involving allegations of sexual harassment.

  Complaints (Young People)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many complaints have been received in each year since 1987 by the Equal Opportunities Commission from and on behalf of children and young people aged 18 years or under; and what proportion related to schooling matters in each year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Equal Opportunities Commission does not collect this information in the form requested. However, the EOC's annual reports contain information on overall numbers of inquiries relating to education and training.

  Travel-to-work Expenses
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has taken to repeal the salary ceiling for eligibility to travel-to-work expense claims

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 21 July 1993]: The travel to interview scheme is currently under review and the eligibility conditions are being looked at to see whether the resources available can be better targeted. The possibility of removing the salary limit is included in the review. Any changes to the rules are subject to Treasury approval. Subject to that approval, our intention is to implement any changes as quickly as possible.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the level of assistance available under the special employment schemes on the level of employment of blind people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 23 July 1993]: Such an assessment is contained in the consultative document "Evaluation of Special Schemes for people with disabilities: Summary Paper", November 1990. A copy of this is available in the Library.

  The range of help currently available to the blind and partially sighted will continue, and be enhanced, under access to work from April 1994.

ENVIRONMENT

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to establish minimum room size standards for bed-and-breakfast accommodation used to house homeless people.

  Sir George Young
  The homelessness code of guidance for local authorities—Third edition—advises that bed-and-breakfast accommodation should be used only as a692
  last resort, and that care should be taken in ensuring that all forms of temporary accommodation meet acceptable standards. The number of homeless households placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has reduced significantly over the last 12 months, and now accounts for only a small proportion of those placed in temporary accommodation.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what analysis he has made of the impact of the introduction of the council tax on pensioners in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 July 1993, Official Report, column 264.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the subject of waste recycling.

  Mr. Yeo
  My colleagues and I have regular discussions with our European counterparts. The subject of recycling has arisen frequently in recent discussions, with a particular focus on the proposed EC packaging directive, and the effects of the German packaging ordinance on recycling in other member states.

  These issues were debated at the most recent Environment Council meeting on 29 June. All other member states shared the United Kingdom's concern about the impact of the German ordinance.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government have taken towards improving the proportion of household waste recycled.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government are taking a number of measures to encourage recycling. These are set out in "This Common Inheritance, The Second Year Report" (Cm 2068). In particular:we have allocated £15 million in supplementary credit approvals to local authorities to encourage provision of facilities for recycling in 1993–94;
  we have announced our intention to increase recycling credits from 1 April 1994, so that they reflect the full economic costs of disposal;
  we are holding discussions with a range of industries, with a view to establishing how they might contribute to the achievement of the 25 per cent. target.

  Minerals Planning Guidance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to amend minerals planning guidance note No. 6 to include(a) references for the need for the adoption of demand management policies in regional planning guidance, structure and local plans and (b) references to the need to encourage consideration of aggregates use in the environmental apraisal of plan options.

  Mr. Baldry
  These matters are being considered in the light of the responses to the draft guidelines issued for public consultation in January. The revised guidelines will be published later this year.
  693

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest position with regard to the sale of county hall.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will a statement on the future of county hall, London.

  Mr. Baldry
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), on 20 July 1993,Official Report, column 105.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the estimated total cost of county hall, London, since(a) the abolition of the Greater London council and (b) the abolition of the Inner London education authority, in terms of (i) maintenance and repairs, (ii) security, (iii) heat, light and other costs and (iv) loss of rental income from unlet vacant offices.

  Mr. Gummer
  The total cost of maintaining the county hall complex since the abolition of the GLC and ILEA during the period whilst it was still substantially occupied is not known. Since it was fully vacated in 1990, the annual cost of maintenance and repairs has been in the region of £980,000, of security £510,000 and of heat, light and similar costs £152,000. It would not be appropriate to seek to estimate the loss of rental income since the London residuary body has never sought to let vacant parts of the complex as this would inhibit its disposal for refurbishment or development.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the unconditional sale of the riverside building county hall, London, was completed; to whom; and what was the total consideration.

  Mr. Gummer
  An unconditional contract exists for the sale of the riverside building of county hall to the Shirayama Corporation of Japan and is due to be completed in October. The amount of the consideration is a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are currently being undertaken by his Department to secure a reduction in the demand for aggregates in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  Draft guidelines and a policy issues paper on aggregate extraction were issued in January. The responses received are now being reviewed. The future level of demand for aggregates is central to that review.

  Minerals Act 1981
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of the Minerals Act 1981.

  Mr. Baldry
  We consulted last year on options for change. I hope to be able to issue a further consultation paper on detailed proposals later this year.
  694

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the relative effectiveness in minimising exposure to radiation according to the as low as reasonably achievable principle of(a) dry storage of spent advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel followed by direct disposal of (b) reprocessing spent fuel followed by deep disposal of high-level and intermediate-level waste.

  Mr. Yeo
  One of the objectives of the Government's policy for radioactive waste management is that the exposure to ionising radiation shall be reduced to levels which are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), social and economic factors being taken into account. It is for the owners of the spent fuel or their agents to put forward their proposals for dealing with it, and to demonstrate to Government regulatory agencies that the ALARA principle is being met.

  Architects
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that unqualified persons in other EC countries who cannot use the title architect in those countries are precluded from using the title within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  No, but people from EC member states who do not have qualifications satisfying the architects directive will not be recognised by the United Kingdom competent authority as professionally qualified.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those services or functions contracted out in his Department, since November 1991, in which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were not applied.

  Mr. Baldry
  Whether or not the 1981 regulations apply in any particular case will depend on the nature of the work awarded and the contractors' own proposals for carrying it out.

  Since publication of the White Paper "Competing for Quality, Buying Better Public Services" the Secretary of State's market-testing programme has included the activities listed below which have been contracted out under contractual arrangements which did not need to incorporate the 1981 regulations:

  —procurement of professional property services, provided previously by the Property Services Agency;

  —increased use of contract inspectors by the Planning Inspectorate agency;

  —information technology project management within the Planning Inspectorate agency; and

  —research and research services—first tranche.

  Information relating to services or functions which are not on the Department's market-testing programme but which have been contracted out since November 1991 cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those services or functions contracted out in Ordnance Survey since November 1991, in which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were not applied.
  695
  Mr. Baldry
  Since November 1991 Ordnance Survey has not contracted out any function involving the transfer of its staff.

  Private Rented Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to revive the private rented sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  We are keen to revive the private rented sector. The deregulation measures in the Housing Act 1988, which introduced assured and assured shorthold tenancies at market rents for most new lettings, was designed to encourage landlords to bring their property onto the market.

  We have also launched a number of specific initiatives including the "Rent-a-Room" scheme, under which householders no longer have to pay tax on rent from a lodger in their home if the gross annual amount of the rent is no more than £3,250; the flats over shops scheme, under which £25 million is being made available through local authorities over three years to bring flats over shops back into residential use; and the housing associations as managing agents scheme, which allows housing associations to act as an intermediary between potential private landlords and tenants in order to encourage more empty property to be let.

  I am exploring other measures to build on what has been achieved so far.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses are empty(a) in total and (b) in the north-west region; and how many of them (i) are fit for occupancy, (ii) need minor repairs and (iii) need more extensive renovation.

  Sir George Young
  Local authorities report the numbers of their own dwellings that are empty in their housing investment programme (HIPI) returns.

  The latest available figures for England and the north-west, which are at 1 April 1992, appear in columns A198, total vacant; A191, available for letting; A192, awaiting minor repairs; and A193 and A194, awaiting major works, of the "1992 HIP1—Regional Grossing", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Local Government Commission
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue revised guidelines for the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no immediate plans to do so, but we are keeping the guidance under review.

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Local Government Commission has correctly interpreted the guidance given to it with regard to(a) cost effectiveness, (b) community identity and (c) the case for unitary authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  These are matters which we shall be looking at as we receive the Local Government Commission's final recommendations for each review area.
  696
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the interpretation by the Local Government Commission of the guidance given to it by his Department with regard to size and joint arrangements affecting any new arrangements for local government.

  Mr. Baldry
  These are matters which we shall be looking at as we receive the Local Government Commission's final recommendations for each review area.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the local authority associations on revision of the Local Government Commission's policy guidance.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils have given us their views and we are considering them.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the Local Government Commission so far published.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission has made final recommendations on the Isle of Wight only, and we are currently considering the Government's response.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assent he has made of the way in which the Local Government Commission has implemented the policy guidance issued by his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter which we shall be looking at as we receive the Local Government Commission's final recommendations for each review area.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what weight he expects the Local Government Commission to give to responses received from local people during stage 3 of the review in each first phase area.

  Mr. Baldry
  Section 15 of the Local Government Act 1992 places a duty on the Local Government Commission to take into consideration all relevant representations made to it.

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in Ordnance Survey in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. Baldry
  Ordnance Survey employs 141 staff—one unified grade 6, five unified grade 7, 16 SEO, 46 HEO, 62 EO, nine AO and two AA—in its information and computer services functions.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in his Department in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. Gummer
  My department—excluding Ordnance Survey—currently employs 186 staff—detailed by grade below—in the automatic data processing functional specialism:
  697

  Number

  SEO

  35

  HEO

  71

  EO

  47

  AO

  14

  AA

  19

  UV-B Monitoring
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether current monitoring has established a relationship between stratospheric ozone depletion and UV-B measurements at ground level; and what research is being undertaken to validate scientific models linking ozone depletion and ground level UV-B;

  (2) what facilities exist in the United Kingdom for monitoring of UV-B radiation at ground level; to what extent results are affected by low-level ozone pollution in the areas surrounding the monitoring sites; and how successfully these results can be used to predict UV-B levels in other less polluted areas;

  (3) what plans he has (a) in the short term and (b) in future years should UV-B levels rise further as a result of ozone depletion, to make UV-B monitoring data available to the public on a daily basis;

  (4) what plans he has to upgrade or extend the network of UV-B monitoring stations in the United Kingdom; and if he will outline the work to be done and the timetable.

  Mr. Yeo
  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), on behalf of the Department of Health, has operated since 1988 three monitoring sites for surface ultra-violet radiation at Chilton, Oxfordshire, Leeds, and Glasgow. The board plans to add three further sites by the end of the year at Camborne, Cornwall, Kinloss, and Lerwick. My Department supports research at Reading university which is playing a leading role in international programmes for determining standards for improved UV-B monitoring networks. I have asked the Department's stratospheric ozone review group (SORG) to assess possibilities for an improved network in its next report this autumn.

  Air pollution, including low-level ozone, will have some influence on UV-B radiation reaching the ground, although much less than natural conditions such as cloudiness. The exisiting NRPB sites cover a range of situations from rural to outer urban and are believed to give a good indication of the maximum UV-B levels experienced throughout the United Kingdom. The additional sites planned for the end of this year will provide a further check on this.

  Results from the NRPB network are published annually. I understand a scheme to release weekly bulletins is imminent. The Department's stratospheric ozone review group will review ground level UV-B irradiation in its report this autumn. So far, no increase in UV-B has been detected in the United Kingdom against the background of natural variability. The frequency of reporting will be reviewed should this position change.

  Monitoring UV-B cannot of itself establish the link between ozone layer depletion and UV-B at ground level, but is essential to validating mathematical models. Current models agree well with monitoring data under the "worst-case" clear sky conditions. They are limited by the
  698
  availability of precise data on pollution levels, aerosols and clouds, which act to further reduce ground level UV-B.

  Homelessness
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement of policy on the homeless outside London, including the young homeless and the discharged mentally ill.

  Sir George Young
  The aim of reducing homelessness underlies all the Government's housing policies. We have taken steps to increase the supply of low cost housing where it is needed. The public resources available to housing associations, the main providers of new social housing, increased from £935 million in 1989–90 to £1·8 billion in 1993–94, making some 54,500 new homes available this year. The housing market package announced in the autumn statement last year has been a considerable success, providing an extra 18,000 housing association homes in 1992–93, as well as releasing local authority and housing association houses for reletting by enabling their present tenants to become home owners. In addition, the temporary relaxation of the rules governing local authority receipts, for the period November 1992 to December 1993, gives local authorities greatly increased spending power.

  Under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, local authorities have a duty to assess the housing needs of their area and, in their role as enablers, can use their housing and planning powers to stimulate activity by housing associations and the private sector to meet those needs. In the latest guidance to local authorities on the housing investment programme (HIP) round, greater emphasis is also being placed on the development of a strategic housing role by authorities, to encompass all the housing needs and resources of the area. It is for individual local authorities to decide whether schemes to help young homeless people are appropriate to the needs of their area and, in the light of their resources and commitments, the priority to attach to such schemes.

  My Department also gives grants under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to voluntary sector organisations which help single homeless people. This financial year we have made available £6·45 million to 170 projects—130 outside London—that provide direct, practical help to single homeless people. Seventy nine of these projects help young people secure accommodation, and provide advice, training and continuing support.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of Health is, through the single homeless young people initiative, funding 14 projects specifically designed to help young people outside London who are homeless, or in danger of becoming so.

  Health authorities have an obligation to ensure that appropriate arrangements are made for any necessary continuing care, including drawing up an individual care programme, before mentally ill people are discharged. The evidence we have is that homeless mentally ill people sleeping rough are not those who have been recently discharged from long-stay psychiatric hospitals.
  699

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that the area grant adjustment methodology within standard spending assessments reflects accurately the actual level of wage costs to all local authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The general aim of SSAs is not to reflect actual expenditure but to measure each authority's relative need to spend in order to provide a standard level of service. As far as the area cost adjustment is concerned, we are examining the methodology as part of our review of SSAs for 1994–95. We will be announcing our proposals later in the year.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the outcome of his review of standard spending assessments will be published; in what form; and how long a period there will be for consultation before final decisions by Ministers are made.

  Mr. Gummer
  I shall discuss the report on the review of standard spending assessments, to be prepared by the SSA sub-group to the settlement working group, with representatives of the local authority associations at the October meeting of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.

  We shall announce our proposals for the revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95, including SSAs, in the late autumn, and then consult in the usual way.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the representations which he has received in respect of his review of standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Gummer
  I shall arrange for copies of the representations received so far from local authorities on the review of standard spending assessments to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the annual change in the total standard spending assessments for all English local authorities from 1990–91 to 1993–94; and what were the annual increases in the element for the area cost adjustment over the same period.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total of standard spending assessments for all local authorities in England for 1993–94 was £36,622 million, of which £1,332 million—3·6 per cent. of the total—was allocated on the basis of the area cost adjustment. The annual percentage changes since 1990–91 have been as follows:

  Percentage changes

  Year

  Total SSA

  Amount allocated on area cost adjustment

  1990–91 to 1991–92

  19·4

  37·7

  1991–92 to 1992–93

  6·8

  14·1

  1992–93 to 1993–94

  2·9

  7·4

  Note: For the purposes of comparison with 1993–94, the 1992–93 figures have been adjusted to allow for the transfer of certain local authority responsibilities, most notably for further education.
  700

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the opencast mining applications in the north-west since January 1990 indicating where approval(a) has been given to original or revised application without appeal and (b) has been given following appeal and those applications rejected indicating where such rejection has been determined following an appeal.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide details from the maintenance and servicing record of the quantity and type of ozone-destroying chemicals used annually in his Department's refrigeration and air conditioning equipment for servicing and in leakages; and what proportion is removed for recycling.

  Mr. Yeo
  Tollgate house, Bristol is the only building occupied by my Department where refrigeration plant within the air conditioning system contains ozone depleting substances. It is estimated that consumption of R22 per annum is:

  150 kg utilised

  15 kg reclaimed

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many refrigeration and air conditioning systems in the Department are equipped with automatic leak detection systems.

  Mr. Yeo
  Tollgate house, Bristol is the only building occupied by my Department where refrigeration plant within the air conditioning system contains ozone-depleting substances. There are no automatic leak detection facilities but an exercise is under way to consider the removal of these substances. The installation of automatic leak detectors will be considered in the light of the consultants' report.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how his departmental green Minister has promoted protection of the ozone layer with specific policy measures; which possible measures have been considered and rejected; and on what grounds.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department's green housekeeping policy statement states the measures we are taking to protect the ozone layer. These are: (1) to continue to eliminate products containing halons, chlorofluorocarbons, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1—trichloroethan and other ozone-depleting substances well in advance of the Government's responses to international agreements and EC regulations; (2) to extend the leakage prevention programme through regular servicing of all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment containing ozone-depleting substances in compliance with professional codes of practice. No measures for promoting protection of the ozone layer have been considered but rejected.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of public appointments for which he is responsible.
  701
  Mr. Gummer
  I am responsible for 528 appointments to 43 public bodies. In addition, I appoint the rent assessment panel.

  Blind and Partially Sighted People
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy on which information produced by his Department is published in alternative media to standard print such as Braille, tape or large print.

  Mr. Gummer
  The decision to provide a publication in media suitable for blind and partially sighted people is taken in the light of the available publicity budgets and the likely number of such people among the target audience.

  Recent examples of publications which have been produced in such media include leaflets on the community charge and the council tax.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements his Department makes to ensure that blind and partially sighted people have access to information produced by his Department where it has not been published in alternative media such as Braille, large print or tape.

  Mr. Gummer
  All the publicity material published by my Department is distributed to a very wide range of media outlets, including broadcasters, for them to report on. Information is also made available to the general public through the offices of such organisations as voluntary groups, citizens advice bureaux and local authorities.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average waiting time for the approval of planning applications by(a) Harrogate borough council and (b) all other authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  On Tuesday 20 July 1993, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning launched the planning performance checklists, copies of which have been placed in the House Library. The checklists show the relative performance of local planning authorities against the Government's target that 80 per cent. of applications for planning permission should be decided within eight weeks. In the year to 31 March 1993, Harrogate district council decided 51·3 per cent. of applications within eight weeks. Nationally, during the same period, local planning authorities decided 63 per cent. of applications within eight weeks.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received all the evidence he requires to make a judgment in relation to the THORP review.

  Mr. Yeo
  A final decision will be taken after the further consultation announced by my right hon. Friend in his answer on 28 June, to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson)Official Report, column 392
  702

  Housing (Disabled People)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report which his Department has prepared on housing services for disabled people.

  Sir George Young
  The report will be published in August.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the management and disposal arising from the United Kingdom nuclear power programme of(a) the stockpile of plutonium, (b) vitrified high-level waste from spent fuel reprocessing, (c) intermediate-level waste from reprocessing and (d) spent fuel that is not reprocessed but placed in temporary storage.

  Mr. Yeo
  The policy for vitrified high-level waste from spent fuel reprocessing is to store it for at least 50 years before disposal. The arrangements for disposal have not yet been determined.

  UK Nirex Ltd. is the nuclear industry body charged with the responsibility of developing new disposal facilities for low and intermediate-level wastes, including reprocessing waste. The work of Nirex to develop such facilities continues, and it will have to satisfy the planning and regulatory authorities that its proposals are acceptable. The relevant wastes will be stored until the facilities become available.

  Plutonium and irradiated nuclear fuel are of potential value. It is for the owners to consider what they wish to do with such material and to satisfy the relevant authorities that their proposals are acceptable.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been carried out into the environmental and health implications of storing intermediate-level wastes arising from the reprocessing of foreign spent nuclear fuel in the thermal oxide reprocessing plant; and if he will give an estimate of the plutonium content of this waste per tonne of spent fuel reprocessed.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 14 July 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for the storage of intermediate-level wastes arising from reprocessing rests with British Nuclear Fuels plc as operators of the Sellafield site, subject to meeting the statutory requirements of the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate. The precise plutonium content of the waste will depend upon the operational performance of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  Local Authority Management
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet representatives of the local authority associations to discuss the report on the internal management of local authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has regular two-monthly informal meetings with the chairmen of the three local authority associations at which a wide range of issues are discussed. The next meeting is planned to take place in September.
  703

  Council Rent Arrears
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by local authority the rent arrears owed by local authority tenants for the last year for which figures are available and the total rent owing.

  Sir George Young
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) on 20 July 1993,Official Report, columns 104–105

  Regulated Tenancies (Rents)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the figures for the increase in rent for regulated tenancies over each of the last five years; what percentage of tenants of regulated tenancies qualify for housing benefit; and what have been the comparable figures over each of the last five years.

  Sir George Young
  Regulated tenancies may or may not have a fair rent registered by the rent officer. The mean percentage increase on re-registration of fair rents in England for each of the last five years is as follows:

  Per cent.

  1988

  18

  1989

  19

  1990

  22

  1991

  25

  1992

  25

  Rents may be re-registered every second year: these increases therefore cover a period of at least two years. Comparable figures on rent increases for regulated tenancies without a registered rent are not available.

  We do not have statistics showing the proportion of regulated tenants who qualified for housing benefit over each of the last five years. The private renters survey 1990, however, estimated that 52 per cent. of regulated tenants with a registered rent and 35 per cent. of those without a registered rent were eligible for housing benefit. In comparison, the 1988 private renters survey found that 56 per cent. and 39 per cent. respectively would qualify.

  Fire Regulations
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish England and Wales Approved Document B (Building Regulations, Fire) and if he will make a statement on the operation and effectiveness of the regulations in England and Wales since they came into force on 1 June 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  The current edition of Approved Document B was published in December 1991, replacing an earlier version of 1985. The new approved document has been well received and appears to be operating effectively.

  Oil Spills
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many oil spills of over 100 gallons from offshore installations there were in United Kingdom waters in(a) 1980 and (b)

  Mr. Yeo
  (a) 52; (b)
  704

  European Coastal Strategy
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he supports the principle of a European coastal strategy; and what action he will take to urge other member state Governments to support the European Commission's attempt to establish one.

  Mr. Yeo
  At present, the Commission has not published a proposed directive on a European coastal strategy.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department is taking to ensure that the incremental benefits of constantly increasing drinking water standards justify the cost to consumers of their implementation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Changes to domestic requirements on drinking water are subject to consideration of cost and benefits as a matter of course.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further proposals he expects to bring forward within the EC and by the Government directly to improve further drinking water quality; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are considering the implications of the revised guidelines which are shortly to be published by the World Health Organisation, and will be playing our part in any negotiations initiated by the European Commission on the drinking water directive.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the measures introduced by the Government(a) directly and (b) because of EC directives, to improve drinking water standards since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  The legislative and administrative measures introduced by the Government to improve drinking water standards in England and Wales since 1979 result largely from the implementation of EC directive 80/778/EEC—the drinking water directive. They are as follows:

  Department of the Environment circular 20/82, dated 19 August 1982;

  The Water Act 1989 as consolidated by the Water Industry Act 1991;

  The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 [SI No. 1147], as amended by the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Amendment) Regulations 1989 and 1991 [SI Nos. 1384 and 1837 respectively]; and,

  The Private Supplies Regulations 1991 [SI No. 2790].

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are used to determine the time scales set for implementation of new drinking water quality standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The time scales for implementation of any new drinking water quality standards proposed by the European Commission would be negotiated by member states in the Environment Council. Any changes to domestic standards, including dates of implementation, would take into account all relevant factors including the implications for water consumers.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the cost to
  705
  each water company of the implementation of each of the EC and United Kingdom measures for improving drinking water standards since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  The total capital cost of improving drinking water quality in England and Wales in the period 1989–90 is estimated to be £2 billion, excluding the cost of improvements resulting from renovation of the distribution system. Comparable estimates for the period before 1989 are not available.

  Housing (Tower Hamlets)
  Mr. Peter Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the allocation to the London borough of Tower Hamlets under the housing investment programme in 1992; what is the estimate for 1993; and what have been the allocations in every year since 1979, in current and constant prices.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures for 1990–91 and subsequent years are not directly comparable with those for earlier years because of the revisions to the capital finance system introduced in April 1990.

  Housing Investment Programme (HIP) allocations by Tower Hamlets Borough Council and capital expenditure, 1979–80 to 1993–94

  £ thousand

  HIP allocations1

  Housing capital expenditure

  Cash

  1993–94 prices2

  Cash

  1993–94 prices2

  1979–80

  13,635

  33,516

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  12,584

  26,140

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  5,318

  10,074

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  10,542

  18,642

  6,684

  11,820

  1983–84

  12,000

  20,282

  9,856

  16,658

  1984–85

  12,311

  19,803

  11,321

  18,210

  1985–86

  11,644

  17,760

  12,011

  18,320

  1986–87

  17,397

  25,708

  27,618

  40,812

  1987–88

  19,587

  27,437

  29,150

  40,832

  1988–89

  22,985

  30,011

  34,353

  44,854

  1989–90

  20,448

  25,052

  121,378

  148,707

  New capital finance system3

  1990–91

  25,244

  28,635

  42,808

  48,558

  1991–92

  21,439

  22,800

  435,505

  437,758

  1992–93

  23,046

  23,680

  553,133

  554,594

  1993–94

  23,982

  23,982

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Allocations for the years up to and including 1989–90 are final allocations, i.e. the initial allocation plus any increases to the initial allocation made in-year. The allocations figures for 1990–91 and subsequent years are the HIP allocations—housing annual capital guidelines plus specified capital grants—issued prior to the start of the financial year. These figures do not include any supplementary credit approvals issued during the year.

  2 Cash figures have been converted to 1993–94 price levels by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the GDP market prices deflator.

  3 From 1990–91, under the new capital finance system, the HIP allocation is an assessment of relative need for housing capital expenditure rather than a direct borrowing approval. Borrowing approval is now conveyed by the single, all service, basic credit approval.

  4 Provisional.

  5 Estimated.

  Mr. Peter Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many families were accepted as 706
  homeless in the London borough of Tower Hamlets in 1992 or the latest available date; and how many were similarly accepted as homeless in each year since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  Local authorities report the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure permanent accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the housing acts in their quarterly P 1(E) returns.

  The figures for acceptances reported by Tower Hamlets in the years 1979 to 1992 were as follows:

  Year

  Reported acceptances

  1979

  687

  1980

  334

  1981

  332

  1982

  808

  1983

  189 (1)

  1984

  985

  1985

  1—

  1986

  1—

  1987

  654 (2)

  1988

  1,069

  1989

  884

  1990

  1,142

  1991

  542 (2)

  1992

  851

  1 Not available.

  The figures exclude households found to be intenationally homeless from the second quarter of 1991. The figures for 1983, 1987 and 1991 are partial; the figures in brackets indicate the number of quarters for which information was reported.

  City Grant (Bradford)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present position of the application for city grant by 3Ds Ltd. for the west end scheme in Bradford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has made a formal offer of a city grant of £3·4 million to 3D Bradford Ltd. to aid the construction of a £11·7 million office development on a derelict site in the west end of Bradford and we are waiting to hear whether the company is prepared to go ahead.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue the consultation document on the implementation of the EC directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government are considering the best means of implementing the requirements of the EC habitats directive. Our proposals will be published shortly.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment when his Department expects to publish its consultation document on implementation of the habitats directive.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 22 July 1993]: The Government are considering the best means of implementing the requirements of the EC habitats directive. Our proposals will be published shortly.
  707
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether measures will be included in the consultation document on the implementation of the EC directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the United Kingdom to address the incidental capture and killing of small cetaceans in fishing nets as required under article 12(4); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government's proposals for implementation of the EC habitats directive paper will address the United Kingdom's obligations. Action is already being taken to deal with the conservation of small cetaceans and I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 11 June 1993 to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger)Official Report, column 358

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures will be included in the biodiversity action plan to improve the conservation status of small cetaceans in United Kingdom waters arid, in particular, to address the incidental capture and killing of marine mammals in fishing nets.

  Mr Yeo
  The biodiversity action plan will address the United Kingdom's obligations at a strategic level. Action is already being taken to deal with the conservation of small cetaceans and I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 11 June 1993 to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger),Official Report, column 358

  Waste Management
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment (1) pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell),Official Report, columns 101–2, if he will make a statement on the new waste management licensing system;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to proceed with the introduction of economic instruments relating to waste management before finalising the regulations implementing the EC framework directive on waste.

  Mr. Yeo
  On the waste management licensing system, I refer to the answer I gave on 6 July,Official Report, column 80.

  It is the Government's policy to use economic instruments in preference to regulation to achieve environmental goals. We have already introduced credits for recycling and we are actively considering whether to develop economic instruments to promote the reduction and recycling of waste and, if so, which instruments are likely to be most effective. There is no reason why these considerations should delay the introduction of the waste management licensing system.

  Sellafield
  Sir Giles Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) of 28 June 1993,Official Report, column 392, whether he has received the information he requested from British Nuclear Fuels plc; when the second period of public consultation into the proposed new discharge authorisation for BNFL's Sellafield site will begin; when it will end; what other information, additional to the material provided by BNFL, he will be making available during the public
  708
  consultation; who will assess the responses arising from the consultation process; and when he expects to be in a position to take a final decision on this issue.

  Mr. Yeo
  BNFL has provided the further information mentioned in my right hon. Friend's answer of 28 June to the hon. Member for Norwich, North,Official Report, column 392. The other material referred to in that answer will also be made available for public consultation which is exptected to start shortly and to last for two months. A final decision will be taken following this consultation.

  Housing Association
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further plans he has for financing housing associations following the second report from the Environment Committee of Session 1992–93, HC 466, on the Housing Corporation.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) on 15 July,Official Report, column 591

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings have been held by Ministers with hon. Members to discuss the review of local government in England; and if he will list these meetings giving dates and the numbers of hon. Members present on each occasion.

  Mr. Gummer
  I and my ministerial colleagues frequently discuss with hon. Members a wide range of issues, including the local government review, and we welcome the opportunity to do so, whether formally in the Department or informally elsewhere. We keep no list of such discussions.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in the course of his review of the standard spending assessment system concerning reform of the area cost adjustment formula.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received representations from a large number of authorities about the area cost adjustment. These representations will be considered carefully as part of our review of standard spending assessments.

  New Towns (Property Sales)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average amount paid to the Commission for New Towns for the sale of freehold properties to(a) private developers and (b) leaseholders in each year since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  This information is not readily available but will be placed in the Library of the House shortly.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes have been sold by the Commission for New Towns, and for what total sum, in each year since 1979.
  709
  Sir George Young
  This information will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for completing the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide programme.

  Mr. Gummer
  In the first half of this year we initiated a wide-ranging debate on the United Kingdom's CO2 programme. Issues discussed included the type of measures that the Government should take as part of the programme and the role of other organisations and groups outside government.

  Our view has been that an effective and efficient national CO2 programme requires a partnership approach. In the light of the positive response to the consultation exercise, we have concluded that the United Kingdom can create such a partnership.

  The Government's role is to provide the right fiscal, regulatory and financial framework for the programme and to help disseminate advice and information on the many actions that can be taken to achieve savings. But it is decision makers in households and businesses throughout the country who will take the actions that will lead to lower emissions. The Government are looking to business groups, trade associations and voluntary and consumer groups to act as channels of information and encouragement to these decision makers. The energy industries have an important part to play in promoting the efficient use of energy and in ensuring that energy is produced in economically and environmentally sound ways.

  Several measures have already been announced. These include those announced in the March Budget to increase the price of energy in the domestic and transport sectors, the establishment of the energy saving trust to provide financial incentives to energy efficiency, and an increase in the objective for renewable energy. These measures together are expected to stimulate savings amounting to two thirds of the target.

  On Wednesday last week, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy announced his proposals for further renewable energy orders under the non-fossil fuel obligation, in pursuit of the new objective for renewable energy.

  Today I am able to announce a step forward in the trial of local energy advice centres being conducted by the energy saving trust with finance from the Energy Efficiency Office. The first franchises to run these centres are now being offered to successful applicants, and the centres will be operational by October.

  We have considered what additional measures should be taken to complete the programme. We have concluded that we should take further action to help business to make energy savings. We will strengthen the Energy Efficiency Office's programmes of advice and information aimed at business and will be discussing with business groups how to obtain the maximum response. We expect that significant additional savings can be achieved in this sector.

  We recognise that public sector bodies should provide a lead. We will be setting further targets for the Government estate which should take energy use by central Government down to well below 80 per cent. of
  710
  1990 levels by the year 2000. The Government are looking to other public sector bodies to adopt similarly stringent targets.

  We will also continue to provide information and encouragement to households to use energy efficiently. We will increase the resources devoted to this, working with the energy saving trust, to reinforce the impact of the trust.

  Concern was expressed during consultations about the prospect of rising transport emissions. We believe that, taking account of the views expressed during consultation, it would be reasonable to work towards further savings from transport by the year 2000 over and above the 1·5 MtC expected to be saved as a result of the fuel duty increases announced in the March Budget. We will be discussing with interested parties how such savings can best be realised.

  The Government also take the view that energy should be produced and delivered in a way that keeps CO2 emissions at the lowest cost-effective level consistent with other environmental goals. This is primarily the responsibility of the energy industries. We will be working towards the achievement of 5,000 MW of combined heat and power capacity by the year 2000, an increase of 1,000 MW on the previous target.

  The framework for the United Kingdom's CO2, programme is now in place. Many organisations have indicated their willingness to participate in the programme. We will be discussing with those organisations the contribution they can make in the light of the further Government action announced today, in order for the full programme to be published at the end of the year.

  Urban Priority Areas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his review of urban priority areas will be completed.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 July 1993]: Consultation is continuing on the outcome of our contractors' work to assess urban conditions in the light of the 1991 census. The contractors are carrying out further analytical work. This consultation and further work should be completed by the autumn.

  Local Government Associations
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet the chairmen of the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 July 1993]: My right hon. Friend plans to meet the chairmen again in September, at the next of their regular two-monthly meetings.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.
  711
  Mr. Gummer
  The Government continue to help small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  My Department's Energy Efficiency Office launched the energy management assistance scheme in April 1992 to help smaller businesses reduce their energy costs. The scheme provides grants towards consultants' costs in identifying energy savings and helping in their achievement. Over the last 12 months, more than 1,500 grants, averaging about £400 each, have been paid to small manufacturing and commercial enterprises.

  In partnership with the Department of Trade and Industry, my Department is funding a programme to raise awareness of environmental issues among small firms to help them improve their environmental performance. This follows a recommendation made by the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment. We are jointly supporting 10 local initiatives, which bring together the private sector, the community and local authorities. My Department is supporting projects in Sheffield and Blackburn; a further three will be announced in due course. The programme will also focus on specific industrial sectors, working with trade associations to develop a programme of help and guidance for small businesses.

  We continue to review the impact of the integrated pollution control and local authority air pollution control systems on small businesses. This has resulted in the laying of new regulations, the publication of a consultation paper reviewing the scope of the controls, and the issue of guidance to local authorities on exempting certain small industrial processes. Further proposed deregulatory initiatives in relation to the operation of both systems will be of benefit to small businesses.

  In November 1992, my Department published planning policy guidance note No. 4, "Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms". This includes a section on how local planning authorities can help small firms through the planning system.

  The Planning Inspectorate executive agency continues successfully to work to performance targets for prompt handling of planning appeals, including those for small businesses.

  For small firms in the construction industry, we ask for information on a sampling basis to minimise the burden of form filling. We give feedback to small firms on the use of raw data provided to us to indicate the cyclical nature of the construction industry. On research, we encourage better dissemination of results on the construction industry to make it user friendly for smaller firms.

  We continue to tackle bureaucracy in the main inner-city programmes. City challenge has been simplified and grant regimes reduced from seven to three. The application form for derelict land grant has been simplified and we have taken through the legislation to set up the urban regeneration agency which will integrate three separate programmes in to a single grant regime.

  My Department monitors all its programmes and publishes details of a wide range of outputs and targets in its annual report.
  712

  Computer Consultancies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the computer consultancies employed by Ordnance Survey, since November 1991, the tasks for which they were engaged, and the total cost to his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  The chief executive will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from D. Rhind to Mr. John McAlIion, dated 26 January 1993:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Ordnance Survey expenditure on computer consultancy contracts since November 1991.
  The total expenditure on such contracts was £463,000. I attach a list of the contracts awarded showing the name of the contractor and the subject of the consultancy assignment.
  A copy of this letter and enclosure will be deposited in the House of Commons Library and the Public Information Office.

  List of Consultancies—Computer based—November 1991 to date

  Firm

  Purpose

  Data Dictionary Systems

  Systems Architecture Plus Support

  Roger Hipperson

  Agents Plotting System

  Oracle

  Validation of AAP Database scheme

  Mera Business Systems

  Enhancements to Mera

  London Business

  Commercial Exploitation of OS Data

  Roger Hipperson

  Gui Developments

  Mera Business Systems

  Tuning of Mera

  Mera Business Systems

  Night Cover for Year End Procedures

  Thew Consulting

  PMC System Configuration

  Thew Consulting

  Training for PMC Package

  Mera Business

  Improving Service Levels

  Roger Hipperson

  Superplan Plotting System

  Know Edge Ltd.

  GIS Support

  Documedia

  Transfer of Smart Data Base Records to Calm System

  Grosvenor Consultancy Services

  Market Testing of Computer Operations

  Roger Hipperson

  Graphic Application Development

  Logica Defence

  Spatial Database Development

  Dr. DeRoure

  WAN Consultancy

  Smallworld Systems Ltd.

  GIS Consultancy

  Mera Business

  Modification of Software

  Systems

  Purpose

  Compass

  P.C. Based output system for Customer Supply

  Oracle

  Database design review

  Oracle

  Support for Purchase and Payables System

  Mera

  Enhancements to Mera System

  CSC Europe

  Configuration Management Investigation

  ESRI

  Software development Project 1993

  C and G College of Higher Education

  Use of SDM Methodology for in-house Oracle Programme

  Mera

  Enhancement to Mera System

  713

  Systems

  Purpose

  GID

  Validation of NTF Version 2·0

  MVA Systematica

  OSCAR Database Project

  Oracle

  Addresspoint Database Configuration

  CSL

  Market Testing—Preparation of Bid for Computer Operations

  Mera

  Enhancement to Mera System

  Dr. DeRoure

  Use of UNIX Daemons

  Oracle

  Addresspoint Database Health Check

  Digital

  DEC System Ultrix Performance Assessment

  Mera

  Enhancements to Mera System

  Admiral

  Feasibility study for ICS function for registration under BS575O

  Alprange

  Development of Electronic Mail System

  Mera

  Development of Mera

  AIM

  Consultancy for trial to meter use of OS Data

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the regulations governing entitlement to housing benefit in the cases of those claimants whose savings exceed the prescribed limit only by virtue of delayed back-payment of other allowances by the Benefits Agency; and what action he has taken in the case of the couple in Forest Hill, London SE23, raised with him by the London borough of Lewisham.

  Mr. Burt
  All of the income-related benefits treat back payments of these allowances in the same way. We have no plans at present to change these arrangements. In the case of the couple in Forest Hill, an interim reply was sent to the London borough of Lewisham on 23 July 1993. I will write to the hon. Member with further details shortly.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has received about the administration of housing benefit; and what plans he has to improve the speed and standard of service.

  Mr. Burt
  The day-to-day administration of housing benefit is the responsibility of local authorities. The Department routinely collects statistical information from authorities about housing benefit and council tax benefit including information about the way that the benefits are administered. Evidence shows that in 1991–92, around 75 per cent. of all housing benefit claims were processed within 14 days of receipt of all the necessary information.

  The Department has also received a number of reports, including "Remote Control and Benefits Administration—a Management Handbook" from the Audit Commission and "Managing Housing Benefit" from the Accounts Commission. Both commissions have emphasised that authorities can do much by improved organisation and by setting and monitoring standards to improve the way they deliver housing benefit.
  714

  Households Below Average Income
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average disposable income at(a) actual and (b) April 1993 prices per adult, distinguishing those under and those over the pensionable ages, and per child applying the appropriate equivalence scale according to age, for the two lowest decile groups in the latest households below average income analysis for 1979, 1988–89 and 1990–91, before and after housing costs.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables.

  The results do not show what has happened to the income of the groups over time. They reflect changes in composition of the bottom and second deciles (see note 2).

  Median net equivalised household income in the two lowest whole population deciles for pensioners adults, non-pensioner adults and children, 1979, 1988–89 and 1990–91 in actual prices1 and in April 1993 prices Pensioner adult (equivalised £ per week)

  Decile

  1979

  1988–89

  1990–91

  Actual prices

  Bottom

  BHC

  35

  72

  82

  AHC

  32

  57

  63

  Second

  BHC

  42

  89

  104

  AHC

  38

  74

  82

  April 1993 prices

  Bottom

  BHC

  89

  92

  90

  AHC

  76

  73

  71

  Second

  BHC

  106

  114

  115

  AHC

  91

  94

  92

  1 Actual prices for 1979, 1988–89 and 1990–91 refer to the middle of the period covered; that is June 1979, January 1989 and January 1991 respectively.

  Non-pensioner adult (equivalised £ per week)

  Decile

  1979

  1988–89

  1990–91

  Actual prices

  Bottom

  BHC

  32

  66

  72

  AHC

  29

  51

  51

  Second

  BHC

  43

  89

  103

  AHC

  39

  73

  81

  April 1993 prices

  Bottom

  BHC

  82

  83

  79

  AHC

  68

  65

  58

  Second

  BHC

  108

  113

  113

  AHC

  93

  93

  91

  Dependent child (equivalised £ per week)

  Decile

  1979

  1988–89

  1990–91

  Actual prices

  Bottom

  BHC

  33

  69

  77

  AHC

  30

  54

  59

  Second

  BHC

  43

  89

  102

  AHC

  39

  73

  81

  April 1993 prices

  Bottom

  BHC

  84

  88

  84

  AHC

  70

  69

  66

  Second

  BHC

  109

  113

  112

  AHC

  92

  93

  91

  Notes:

  1. The estimates have been calculated by taking the median income

  715
  of pensioners, non-pensioners and children in each of the two bottom deciles of the total Households Below Average Income distribution.

  2 The HBAI publication does not present results in the form requested here. The results in the form requested cannot be interpreted as indicating the incomes of these groups have gone up or down over the period. Any income changes will reflect shifts of the number of people in each group—pensioners/nonpensioners/children—from one decile group to another. For example, if pensioners incomes remained unchanged but there was a shift of pensioners from the top of the bottom docile into the second decile, the median income of the pensioners in the bottom decile in these tables would show a fall. Conversely, if pensioners incomes again remain the same, but there was a shift of pensioners from the second decile into the bottom decile, the median income of the pensioners in the bottom decile in these tables would show a rise. But in both these examples the real incomes amongst pensioners did not change. For information on changes in income of low-income pensioners and non-pensioners see Table A5 of HBAI 1979–1990–91.

  3 All estimates are subject to sampling error which may affect the validity of comparisons between groups at a point in time and over time. More information about sampling errors can be found in appendix 5 of "Households Below Average Income", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the equivalent monetary value in pound per week at April 1993 prices, following table A2 of the latest HBAI report, in 1979, 1988–89 and 1990–91, before and after housing costs, of the decile medians of the two poorest decile groups, the poorest quintile and the total population mean of(a) a single adult, (b) a couple with no children, (c) a couple with one child aged three, (d) a couple with one child aged 16, (e) a couple with two children aged three and eight, (f) a couple with three children aged three, eight and 11, (g) a couple with three children aged 11, 16 and 17 years, (h) a single adult with children, (i) all households with children equivalised and (j) all households equivalised.

  Mr. Burt
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  The estimates follow table A2 of Households Below Average Income (HBAI) 1979–1990–91. It is not possible to give equivalent monetary values for the requested groups (h),(i) and (j) as the calculation of these figures is dependent on the number and age of children in each household. The money values for the bottom quintiles for family groups is provided in table A5 of HBAI.

  The information that can be provided is subject to the same qualifications as HBAI 1979–1990–91, in particular paragraph 1.4 which points out that the results do not track what happens to a particular set of individuals and are as likely to be influenced by changes in the mix of groups as changes in income levels within each group.

  Disability Benefits
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the changes made since 1979 in benefits for disabled people; for each case where there are savings, how much has been saved to date; and how much is projected to be saved up to(a) 2000 and (b)

  Mr. Scott
  A list of 65 changes made since 1979 to incapacity benefits and benefits for disabled people has been placed in the Library. Of the 65 changes, 14 relate to savings measures and are identified with an asterisk, 46 incurred costs and one change involved a transfer of expenditure. An estimate of the savings in each case to date 716
  and projected as requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is not possible to provide projections as far ahead as 2025 since they would depend on a large number of factors which cannot be accurately forecast.

  Caring
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for changes to the benefits system in recognition of the costs incurred in caring.

  Mr. Scott
  Invalid care allowance, the main benefit for carers, has been uprated consistently in line with the retail prices index. The weekly earnings limit has been increased in each of the past four years and is currently £50, net of allowable expenses. In addition carers who receive either income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit are entitled to the carer premium. The earnings disregard for carers in receipt of any of those benefits was increased to £15 from April this year.

  Some 195,000 carers benefit at a current cost in 1992–93 of £366 million. We have no plans to make further changes to the benefits.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will acknowledge the letter of Ms J. J. Lowmass of 28 April to the head of section, disability allowance, Blackpool—his reference JE 553986C Sherwood—together with subsequent correspondence, including a letter to himself from Ms J. J. Lowmass and Mr. E. M. Sherwood dated 23 June; and when he expects his Department to be able to deal with the matter.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, dated 23 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking if he will acknowledge the letter of Ms J. J. Lowmass of 28th April to the Head of Section, Disability Allowance, Blackpool (his reference JE 553986C Sherwood) together with subsequent correspondence, including a letter to himself from Ms J. J. Lowmass and Mr. E. M. Sherwood dated 23rd June; and when he expects his Department to be able to deal with the matter.
  Ms Lowmass wrote to the Attendance Allowance Unit (AAU) on the 17 November 1992 asking for confirmation that her letter of 1 September 1992, which detailed a change in Stephen's circumstances, had been received.
  The AAU which was dealing with Stephen's claim at the time (Attendance Allowance (AA) for customers under the age of 65 became DLA from 6 April 1992, but no conversion had taken place at that time on Stephen's case) wrote to Mrs. Lowmass stating that they had no record of receiving this letter. A copy of this letter was then provided by Ms Lowmass in November 1992.
  You will be aware of the delays that have resulted due to the backlog of work on DLA. Unfortunately, because of these delays it was March 1993 before the file was referred to an Adjudication Officer who decided that Stephen was not entitled to the care component of DLA, and advised Stephen's parents accordingly.

  717
  Further correspondence was received from Ms Lowmass and Mr Sherwood on the 28 April and 28 June respectively. The letter of 28 April is now being treated as a request for a review.
  The present situation is that a review claim pack was issued to Ms Lowmass by first class Post on 15 July 1993. Ms Lowmass was given the opportunity to complete the pack by phone but declined. When the pack is returned it will be dealt with as a matter of priority.
  This case has clearly not been handled with the efficiency I would expect. Please convey my sincere apologies to Ms Lowmass and Mr. Sherwood for the delays they have suffered and for any distress or inconvenience caused.
  I am pleased to say that the overall situation at the DLA Unit is much improved and 80 per cent. of new cases are now being cleared inside 30 days.
  I thank you for bringing this matter to my attention and for giving me the opportunity to explain the situation. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Hospital Patients (Pensions)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many state pensioners in York have had their pensions suspended in the last 12 months because of a long stay as a hospital in-patient.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 26 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many State pensioners in York have had their pensions suspended in the last twelve months because of a long stay as a hospital in-patient.
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, I can inform you that on 30 September 1992, the latest date for which information is held, a total of 47,170 pensioners (0·51 per cent. of the national pensioner population) had their Retirement Pension reduced because they were receiving treatment as hospital in-patients.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the assumptions made in his Department's estimates of the cost of disability working allowance in the years 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 and 2000–01; and on what grounds his Department no longer expects to make savings as a result of the introduction of this benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimates of the gross cost of disability working allowance in each year are based on a projection of the increase in the case load. There will be savings in other benefits to off-set the gross cost but until further analysis has been done it is not possible to quantify these. The further analysis cannot be completed until we have the results of research which the Policy Studies Institute has been commissioned to conduct.
  718

  Income Support
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16 and 17-year-olds for each month since January 1992 have made applications for income support on grounds of extreme hardship by region and for Great Britain as a whole, shown separately for male and female; how many have been granted or refused; what information he has about the grounds on which applications were turned down; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to her on 21 May 1992 at columns 238–9 and on 30 October 1992 at columns 923–4. Such information as is available about claims after September 1992 is in the tables. Some people will have made more than one claim.

  Scotland

  Total

  Successful

  Refused

  1992

  October

  2,083

  1,631

  452

  November

  2,004

  1,547

  457

  December

  1,618

  1,234

  384

  1993

  January

  2,459

  2,037

  422

  February

  2,343

  1,870

  473

  March

  2,687

  2,172

  515

  April

  2,957

  2,491

  466

  May

  2,531

  2,140

  391

  June

  2,490

  2,095

  395

  North Eastern

  Total

  Successful

  Refused

  1992

  October

  1,468

  1,133

  335

  November

  1,306

  993

  313

  December

  1,137

  907

  230

  1993

  January

  1,944

  1,638

  306

  February

  1,731

  1,408

  323

  March

  2,064

  1,709

  355

  April

  1,894

  1,622

  272

  May

  1,838

  1,576

  262

  June

  1,876

  1,626

  250

  North Western

  Total

  Successful

  Refused

  1992

  October

  1,272

  1,018

  254

  November

  1,214

  943

  271

  December

  1,102

  874

  228

  1993

  January

  1,800

  1,536

  264

  February

  1,740

  1,403

  337

  March

  1,948

  1,632

  316

  April

  1,859

  1,593

  266

  May

  1,893

  1,605

  288

  June

  1,902

  1,633

  269

  Midlands

  Total

  Successful

  Refused

  1992

  October

  1,180

  961

  219

  November

  1,167

  905

  262

  719

  Total

  Successful

  Refused

  December

  926

  727

  199

  1993

  January

  1,800

  1,503

  297

  February

  1,512

  1,207

  305

  March

  1,701

  1,416

  285

  April

  1,605

  1,393

  212

  May

  1,553

  1,310

  243

  June

  1,627

  1,404

  223

  Wales and South Western

  Total

  Successful

  Refused

  1992

  October

  1,104

  930

  174

  November

  1,006

  805

  201

  December

  852

  688

  164

  1993

  January

  1,657

  1,443

  214

  February

  1,384

  1,145

  239

  March

  1,642

  1,372

  270

  April

  1,498

  1,282

  216

  May

  1,406

  1,216

  190

  June

  1,409

  1,211

  198

  London North

  Total

  Successful

  Refused

  1992

  October

  1,091

  895

  196

  November

  998

  813

  185

  December

  745

  621

  124

  1993

  January

  1,498

  1,326

  172

  February

  1,247

  1,049

  198

  March

  1,469

  1,282

  187

  April

  1,332

  1,169

  163

  May

  1,294

  1,114

  180

  June

  1,293

  1,130

  163

  London South

  Total

  Successful

  Refused

  1992

  October

  1,056

  848

  208

  November

  972

  776

  196

  December

  800

  662

  138

  1993

  January

  1,483

  1,310

  173

  February

  1,348

  1,120

  228

  March

  1,474

  1,257

  217

  April

  1,376

  1,209

  167

  May

  1,330

  1,140

  190

  June

  1,336

  1,139

  197

  Great Britain

  Total

  Successful

  Refused

  1992

  October

  9,256

  7,418

  1,838

  November

  8,668

  6,783

  1,885

  December

  7,183

  5,716

  1,467

  1993

  January

  12,647

  10,797

  1,850

  February

  11,305

  9,202

  2,103

  720

  Total

  Successful

  Refused

  March

  12,985

  10,840

  2,145

  April

  12,521

  10,759

  1,762

  May

  11,845

  10,101

  1,744

  June

  11,933

  10,238

  1,695

  Source: Severe Handship Claims Unit Database

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of state for social Security how many recipients of income support who have deductions for voluntary unemployment are also subject to other deductions; and what is the average amount per person of these deductions.

  Mr. Burt
  There are 1,000 recipients of income support whose benefit is reduced because of voluntary unemployment who also have other deductions. The average amount of these other deductions is £5·15 (£19·86 including the voluntary unemployment deduction).

  Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry, May 1992.

  Notes: Average amounts are correct to the nearest penny.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many overpayments of income support have been caused by a failure to report a reduction in interest rates.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount spent by local authorities in Wales on housing benefit in the last three available financial years.

  Mr. Burt
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 July 1993, c. 73]: I am advised that the reply contained incorrect information. The correct information is:

  £ million

  1990–91

  242

  1991–92

  306

  1992–93

  340

  (excludes expenditure on community charge benefit).

  Source: 1993 Departmental Report date.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants who receive the lower rate of income support for persons aged under 25 years and are living away from home also have deductions; and what is the average amount per person of these deductions.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support had reductions in their benefit(a) including and (b) excluding deductions for voluntary unemployment, but excluding payments of current mortgage interest in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Burt
  The information available is in the table.
  721

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  (a) Including voluntary unemployment reduction

  629,000

  613,000

  715,000

  1,000,000

  (b) Excluding voluntary unemployment reduction

  600,000

  581,000

  678,000

  975,000

  Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries, May 1989–1992.

  Note:

  1. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. The figures exclude cases with deductions solely for payment of current. mortgage interest and arrears.

  3. Recipients with deductions for mortgage interest payments are included in the figures if they also have other deductions.

  4. Recipients with the voluntary unemployment reduction may be included in (b) if they have other deductions.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants who receive the lower rate of income support for person aged under 25 years also have deductions; and what is the average amount per person of these deductions.

  Mr. Burt
  There are 85,000 recipients receiving the lower rate of income support for a person aged less than 25 years who have deductions from benefit. The average amount of the deductions is £4·85. The corresponding figures where benefit is also reduced because of voluntary unemployment are 98,000 and £6·13.

  Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry, May 1992.

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand, average amounts are correct to the nearest penny.

  2. Recipients with the lower rate of income support for those aged under 25 have been identified on the basis that they are under 25, single and without dependants, and do not therefore qualify for the higher rate of benefit.

  Severe Hardship, Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims have been made for severe hardship in Wales in each year from 1989–90; and if he will indicate(a) total requests, (b) claims accepted, (c) claims refused and (d) the percentage of successful claims.

  Mr. Burt
  Such information as is available is in the table. Information prior to January 1991 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Awarded

  Refused

  Total

  Percentage successful

  1991

  1,876

  433

  2,309

  81

  1992

  3,696

  813

  4,509

  82

  11993

  2,641

  506

  3,147

  84

  1 January-June.

  Source: Severe hardship claims unit database.

  Incomes
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the percentage change in income during the period 1979 to 1987, both before and after housing costs, of each percentile group in the population.

  Mr. Burt
  The information for each decile median is in the tables. Greater disaggregation would not provide statistically reliable results.
  722

  Percentage changes in real income by decile group 1979–1987

  Decile group medians

  Income before housing costs

  Income after housing costs

  Decile 1

  5

  –4

  Decile 2

  4

  0

  Decile 3

  5

  2

  Decile 4

  9

  7

  Decile 5

  12

  11

  Decile 6

  14

  14

  Decile 7

  16

  17

  Decile 8

  19

  20

  Decile 9

  24

  25

  Decile 10

  35

  38

  Note: All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 16 July 1992, Official Report, columns 946–47, what was the average equivalised income at April 1993 prices of the poorest 20 per cent. and richest 20 per cent. before and after housing costs for 1979, 1981, 1987, 1988–89 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Burt
  Average median net equivalised income in April 1993 prices (in pounds per week) for the bottom and top 20 per cent. of the income distribution.

  Before housing costs

  Bottom 20 per cent.

  Top 20 per cent.

  1979

  98

  294

  1981

  96

  303

  1987

  102

  382

  1988–89

  102

  408

  1990–91

  101

  437

  After housing costs

  Bottom 20 per cent.

  Top 20 per cent.

  1979

  84

  260

  1981

  80

  270

  1987

  83

  338

  1988–89

  83

  366

  1990–91

  81

  390

  Notes:

  1. The information in the tables, before and after housing costs, for the years 1979, 1981, 1987, 1988–89 and 1990–91 (latest years available).

  2. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the total expenditure in 1993–94 on housing benefit broken down between(a) council tenants, (b) housing association tenants and (c) private tenants; and what these figures would have been if

  723
  the uprating of the applicable amount for each type of household had been 1 per cent. below the retail prices index.

  Mr. Burt
  It is not currently possible to disaggregate expenditure of rent allowance between housing association and private sector tenants. Estimates for 1993–94, are that housing benefit expenditure will be £4,920 million in respect of council tenants in the form of rent rebates and £3,250 million in respect of housing associations tenants in the form of rent allowances.

  If the 1993–94 uprating had been 1 per cent less than the RPI, the figures would be £4,885 million and £3,240 million respectively.

  Source: 1989–90–91 Family Expenditure Surveys modelled at 1993–94 prices and benefit levels.

  All figures rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Uprating Costs
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of total expenditure in 1993–94 on(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit; and what these figures would have been if the uprating of the applicable amount for each type of applicant had been 1 per cent. less than the retail prices index.

  Mr. Burt
  It is estimated that total expenditure on income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit for 1993–94 will be £16,485 million, £8,170 million and £1,630 million respectively.

  The estimated expenditure, if income-related benefit rates had been uprated in 1993–94 by 1 per cent. less than the RPI, would be £16,390 million, £8,125 million and £1,615 million respectively.

  Notes:

  Source: 1989–90–91 Family Expenditure Surveys and the 1991 Annual Statistical Enquiry modelled at 1993–94 prices and benefit levels.

  All figures rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Hague
  The Government continue to help small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  Measures operated by the Department to assist small business include:
  Production of a self-employed starter pack "Working for Yourself". This assists the newly self-employed in understanding their National Insurance liability.
  Introduction, from April 1993, of a quarterly billing system for self-employed National Insurance contributions.
  Other measures aimed at business in general, which should help small businesses, include:
  For national insurance contributions (NIC) changes made from April 1993 to align the treatment of certain expenses with PAYE rules.
  Setting up of a working group, on which small businesses are represented, to consider further options for reducing the
  724
  administrative burden caused by the operation of different rules for PAYE and NIC purposes in defining earnings and expenses.
  Establishing a working group of employers' organisations, which includes representatives of small business, to examine the scope for removing or easing the administrative burdens imposed by the statutory sick pay scheme.

  The Department has a system to monitor proposals which impact on business, to ensure that the needs and costs to small businesses are taken into account, although there are no performance indicators specifically for monitoring achievements in this area. However, we attach particular importance to action taken to help small businesses and will continue to explore further ways of doing so.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all those services or functions contracted out in his Department and agencies, since November 1991, in which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were not applied.

  Mr. Hague
  Whether or not TUPE applies in any particular case will depend on the nature of the work awarded and the contractor's proposals for carrying the work out.

  The following services have been contracted out since November 1991 without application of the TUPE regulations:

  Business information

  Catering

  Casual hire

  Child care

  Cleaning/window cleaning

  Communications audit

  Conference

  Consultancy

  Courier/parcel services

  Closed circuit television

  Estates maintenance

  Facilities management

  Gas purchases

  Invalid car parts distributors

  Medical

  Messenger

  Porterage

  Postal

  Removals/relocation

  Secretarial

  Security

  Training

  Travel

  Blind and Partially Sighted People
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his Department's policy on which information produced by his Department is published in alternative media to standard print such as Braille, tape or large print;

  (2) what arrangements his Department makes to ensure that blind and partially sighted people have access to information produced by his Department where it has not been published in alternative media such as Braille, large print or tape.

  Mr. Scott
  Decisions to publish material in forms other than standard print are taken on a case by case basis. Currently the Department has the following number of publications available nationally in leaflets, tapes and Braille.
  725

  Four benefits audio tapes

  Two benefits large-print leaflets—individual requests or information obtainable from the benefit inquiry line

  Nineteen general social security leaflets

  One child Support Agency leaflet in Braille

  One child Support Agency tape

  Two disability working allowance booklets

  One disability working allowance audio tape

  One disability working allowance brochure in large print

  Two family credit leaflet tapes

  Blind and partially sighted people and their representatives can ring the Department's range of telephone advice services. In particular, the benefits inquiry line gives free confidential advice and information for all social security benefits for people with disabilities. Callers then receive Braille or large print as required. The benefits inquiry line also completes forms over the telephone and sends Braille copies to the caller for signing.

  Blind and partially sighted people can also ring or visit their local office for a personal interview. Home visits can be arranged if needed.

  The Department's advertising campaigns are supported by tape or Braille publications.

  The advertising campaign to publicise the new disability benefits in 1992 was the first such campaign to be signed for deaf people.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his most recent estimate of the number of one-parent families; and what percentage of the heads of lone-parent families are aged(a) under 20, (b) 20 to 25, (c) over 25 years and (d) female.

  Mr. Burt
  The number of lone parent families with dependent children in Great Britain is provisionally estimated from the 1991 census of population to be 1·27 million.

  Information on the age and sex of lone parents is not yet available from 1991 census of population but is scheduled to be published next year in the Household and Family Composition Volume, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  However, data from the General Household Survey for the years 1989 to 1991 give the following estimates for the percentages of lone parent families in Great Britain with the stated characteristics.

  Per cent.

  Aged under 20

  2

  Aged 20 to 25 inclusive

  11

  Aged over 25

  88

  Female

  92

  Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents there are in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; and how many and what proportion of income support claimants are lone parents in each area.

  Mr. Burt
  Provisional estimates of the number of lone parent families with dependent children in 1991 are as follows:(a) Inverclyde 3,200, (b) Strathclyde, 69,400, and (c) Scotland 132,0001.

  Data on the number of lone parent families in receipt of income support in individual locations are not available.
  726
  However, the total number of lone parents receiving income support in Scotland in 1992 was 106,0002, representing 20 per cent. of all income support claimants in Scotland.

  1 1991 population census, provisional estimate.

  2 1992 Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry. The definition of lone parents used excludes those temporarily separated.

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in his Department and agencies in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:

  Grade

  Numbers

  SEO

  326

  HEO

  937

  EO

  1,285

  AO

  596

  AA

  821

  Total

  3,965

  Notes:

  The figures show those staff entitled to receive an automatic data processing (ADP) pay allowance as at 22 July 1993. They may:

  (a) include some staff who have transferred to other duties but retain the ADP pay allowance on a mark-time basis* and

  (b) exclude some staff in executive grades who have not completed the qualifying period of receipt of the ADP pay allowance.

  Spending
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which other EC countries have reduced social security spending in the last year; and what information he has on the changes they have introduced.

  Mr. Scott
  Measures to contain the growth in social security spending have recently been announced in a number of EC countries, including France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Information on the changes in EC countries is regularly collected by the Department.

  Disabled Voluntary Workers
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to allow disabled voluntary workers to continue to carry out unpaid work without loss of welfare benefits; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Disabled voluntary workers can carry out unpaid work without loss of social security benefits as long as they continue to satisfy the entitlement conditions. We are currently reviewing the benefit system and will be looking at benefits for disabled people in that context. No decisions have been taken.

  Benefits
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of (i) taxpayers and (ii) tax-paying households in receipt of(a) family credit, (b) housing benefit, (c) community charge benefit, (d) retirement pension, (e) unemployment benefit and income support to an unemployed claimant, (f) statutory sick

  727
  pay, (g) widows' benefits, (h) industrial death benefit, (i) invalid care allowance, (j) invalidity allowance paid with a retirement pension, (k) statutory maternity pay and (l) at least one of those benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Private Pensions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many contracted-out rebates to private pension plans are currently outstanding; how many are due to inadequate or inaccurate information supplied by employers or insurance companies; how many are due to the application forms APPI being misplaced; and when he expects the backlog of rebates will now be paid.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not available. the Contributions Agency pays rebates outstanding as soon as it is able to establish entitlement. We are actively pursuing a satisfactory solution to the problem of misplaced APPIs with the Association of British Insurers (ABI).

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how Her Majesty's Government administers the payment of social benefit entitlements to recipients living in Yugoslavia, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolution 724; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how his Department administers the obligations of United Nations Security Council resolution 757 on payment of social benefits to civilians living in Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether foreign pensions, child and other social benefit entitlement held by persons resident in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have been frozen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The United Nation Security Council Committee, established pursuant to resolution 724, ruled that it was up to individual Governments to decide whether to pay social benefits to people in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). In cases where Governments decide to make such payments, it was up to the Government concerned to devise a mechanism for doing so without contravening the mandatory sanctions established by the Security Council under resolution 757. In accordance with this ruling, Her Majesty's Government informed the committee that on humanitarian grounds the United Kingdom would continue to pay social security benefits to beneficiaries in the federal republic. United Kingdom benefit entitlement is not, therefore, frozen. We are continuing to send payable orders to the federal republic by post.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for support have been made to the Independent Living (1993) Fund; how many offers of support have been made by the trustees; how many awards are now in payment; and how many cases there have been where the trustees of the fund have 728
  been unable to reach agreement on the sharing of responsibility with local authority social services departments.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the director of the Independent Living (1993) Fund that as of 19 July 1993, 260 applications for support had been received by the fund. Of these 67 were rejected because they did not meet the basic eligibility criteria for help from the fund. The remainder are at various stages in the application process, and 14 offers of help have been made. There are four awards that have been accepted and put into payment. There has been one case where an applicant gained the initial support of a local authority which then failed to agree a care package with the fund.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out in detail how accountability is to be made to Parliament for the use of public funds provided to the trustees of the Independent Living (1993) Fund and the Independent Living (Extension) Fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The published Government accounting rules and procedures, as set out in "Government Accounting—A guide on accounting and financial procedures for the use of Government Departments", apply to both the Department and the funds in accounting to Parliament for this use of public money.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assurances he has received from statutory and charitable services that they will be able to fill the gap created by the decision of the trustees of the Independent Living (1993) Fund to exclude seriously disabled people who are terminally ill from eligibility for support from the fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The aim of the Independent Living (1993) Fund is to provide long-term support for severely disabled people who wish to live independently.

  It is the statutory responsibility of health authorities and local social service departments to make provision for people who are terminally ill. Support for such people is also provided by charitable and voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he is satisfied that care of severely disabled people who are terminally ill will now normally be provided on a cost-effective basis following the decision of the trustees of the Independent Living (1993) Fund to exclude the terminally ill from the scope of the fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The action of the trustees of the Independent Living (1993) Fund in no way detracts from the responsibility of health authorities and local social services departments to provide care and support for terminally ill people in a cost-effective way.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many asylum seekers who receive income support also have deductions; and what was the average amount per person of these deductions.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available.
  729

  Earnings
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much income net of tax, national insurance and benefit reductions, is retained out of each £.1 per week increase in gross earnings by(a) a single adult aged 26 years earning £132 per week, (b) a lone parent with one child aged nine years earning £136 per week and (c) two adults with two children aged 12 and 14 years earning £196 per week, on the assumption that each is paying rent of £48 per week and council tax of £10 per week.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table. Marginal deduction rates in excess of 90 pence in the pound are estimated to affect less than half of 1 per cent. of the working population.

  Single adult age 26

  Lone parent with 9-year-old child

  Two adults with children aged 12 and 14

  £

  £

  £

  Gross earnings

  132·00

  136·00

  196·00

  Tax

  14·03

  7·33

  21·76

  National insurance

  7·96

  8·32

  13·72

  Take-home pay

  110·01

  120·35

  160·52

  Child benefit

  0·00

  16·05

  18·10

  Family credit

  0·00

  17·31

  14·14

  Rent

  48·00

  48·00

  48·00

  Rent rebate

  8·35

  16·12

  9·13

  Council tax

  10·00

  10·00

  10·00

  Council tax benefit

  0·00

  0·19

  0·00

  Total net income

  118·35

  170·01

  201·88

  Net income after R and CT

  60·35

  112·01

  143·88

  Marginal increase rate

  0·23

  0·03

  0·07

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Criminal Offences
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criminal offences she has introduced in the last five years under delegated legislation.

  Mr. Jack
  The powers to introduce criminal offences in statutory instruments are provided for in primary

  Bread-large white sliced loaf

  Average price

  Percentage change from previous year

  (pence/loaf)

  (actual)

  (in real terms)1

  1990

  50

  +4·7

  -4·4

  1991

  53

  +6·1

  +0·3

  1992

  54

  +1·3

  -2·4

  1 Deflated by All Items RPI.

  Breakmaking wheat

  Average price

  Percentage change from previous year

  (£/tonne ex-farm)

  (actual)

  (in real terms)1

  1990

  118·27

  +3·7

  -5·2

  1991

  132·28

  +11·8

  +5·6

  1992

  135·01

  +2·1

  -1·6

  1 Deflated by All Items RPI.

  730
  legislation. It is estimated that in the last five years the Department has been responsible for 55 statutory instruments introducing criminal offences which still exist.

  Wheat
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average on-farm selling price of wheat in the United Kingdom for each of the years from 1979 to 1993 at actual and also at constant prices, showing the 1979 price as 100.

  Mr. Jack
  Information for Great Britain is set out in the table. Comparable information for the United Kingdom is not available.

  Great Britain on-farm selling price of wheat

  £ per tonne

  Harvest years

  Actual price

  Constant price

  Relative constant price

  RPI 1979 = 100

  1979–80

  98·13

  100·00

  100·00

  100·00

  1980–81

  104·98

  106·98

  90·67

  117·99

  1981–82

  112·38

  114·52

  86·81

  131·92

  1982–83

  119·08

  121·35

  84·74

  143·21

  1983–84

  124·33

  126·70

  84·62

  149·74

  1984–85

  111·26

  113·38

  72·07

  157·32

  1985–86

  112·20

  114·34

  68·53

  166·84

  1986–87

  112·67

  114·82

  66·57

  172·49

  1987–88

  111·20

  113·32

  63·05

  179·72

  1988–89

  114·19

  116·37

  61·72

  188·54

  1989–90

  112·23

  114·37

  56·29

  203·17

  1990–91

  119·56

  121·84

  54·78

  222·40

  1991–92

  122·31

  124·64

  52·94

  235·45

  1992–93

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  244·27

  Notes:

  1979–80 to 1985–86 are August to July years.

  1986–87 to 1992–93 are July to June years.

  RPI are calendar years.

  N/A = not available.

  Source of actual price data: Home-Grown Cereals Authority.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the price of(a) bread and (b) wheat in each year since 1988, with the annual increases in actual terms and real terms.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average on-farm selling price of wheat in the United Kingdom for 1961, 1973 and each year since 1990 in cash terms and at 1979 prices.
  731
  Mr. Jack
  Information for Great Britain is set out in the table. Comparable information for the United Kingdom is not available.

  Great Britain On-Farm selling price of wheat

  £ per tonne

  Harvest years

  Actual price

  Relative price

  Relative constant price

  RPI 1979 = 100

  Constant 1979 Prices

  1961

  20·26

  20·65

  90·89

  22·72

  89·19

  1973–74

  58·39

  59·50

  142·29

  41·82

  139·63

  1989–90

  112·23

  114·37

  56·29

  203·17

  55·24

  1990–91

  119·56

  121·84

  54·78

  222·40

  53·76

  1991–92

  122·31

  124·64

  52·94

  235·45

  51·95

  1992–93

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  244·27

  n.a.

  Notes: 1961 is a calendar year.

  1973–74 is an August/July year.

  1989–90–1992–93 are July/June years.

  RPI are calendar years.

  1961 and 1973–74 are for England and Wales only.

  n.a. = not available.

  Source of Actual Price Data: Home-Grown Cereals Authority.

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in her Department and agencies in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of automatic data processing functional specialists employed in the Department and agencies, by grade is as follows:

  Officers

  Numbers

  Executive Officers

  132

  Higher Executive Officers

  140

  Senior Executive Officers

  78

  Total

  350

  Fishing By-catches
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reports of by-caught marine mammals have been received by his Department under the voluntary reporting scheme since its introduction; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Since the scheme for voluntary reporting was introduced on 1 January 1992, there has been only one report for England and Wales which recorded the incidental catch of three common porpoises. Officials are at present considering how to encourage fishermen to report as many incidents as possible under this scheme.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what measures her Department will be taking to monitor the incidental capture and killing of small cetaceans in fisheries and to ensure that this capture does not have a significant negative impact on the species, as required under the EC directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

  (2) what measures are being taken to fulfil the commitment made under the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas to reduce by-catches of small cetaceans in fisheries and to prevent fishing gear being lost or discarded at sea.
  732
  (3) what measures her Department will be taking to meet the requirements of the resolution on harbour porpoises in the north Atlantic and Baltic seas, which was co-sponsored by the United Kingdom Government and adopted at the recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission, to (a) collect data on the by-catch mortality level of harbour porpoises and (b) to give high priority to reducing by-catches of harbour porpoises.

  Mr. Jack
  On 1 January 1992, United Kingdom fisheries departments introduced a reporting scheme seeking information from fishermen on incidental by-catches of marine mammals including the gear involved. The information from this scheme together with data from the 1994 project funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment, other North sea states and the EC to assess small cetacean populations in the Baltic sea, North sea and channel will help to enable us to make an informed judgment of the extent of fisheries by-catches of small cetaceans and the impact they might have on the species.

  MAFF and DOE are also funding work into the use of sonar reflectors to warn cetaceans away from fishing nets. Discarding of fishing gear at sea is an offence unless undertaken in accordance with a licence under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  Blind and Partially Sighted People
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her Department's policy on which information produced by her Department is published in alternative media to standard print such as Braille, tape or large print.

  Mr. Jack
  MAFF aims to publish as much information as possible in formats which are readily accessible to a wide variety of users. The Department has recently responded to the needs of blind and partially sighted people by publishing one of its "Food Sense" information booklets in Braille, large print and audio-cassette versions. This was done in close co-operation with the Royal National Institute for the Blind, and we hope it will be the forerunner of similar ventures in the future.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will publish the evidence she has on whether the number of cows affected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy is falling.

  Mr. Soames
  The detailed epidemiological evidence of the effects of the ruminant feed ban on the number of suspected cases of BSE being reported was published in the progress report which was placed in the Library of the House in my reply of 27 May,Official Report, column 689, and updated in my reply of 14 July, Official Report, columns 544–45.

  I have arranged for a graph to be placed in the Library of the House which brings up to date the information presented in figure 1 of this report.

  Equine Viral Arteritis
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of equine viral arteritis have been reported to date in the current year within each member state of the European Community.
  733
  Mr. Soames
  We have no comprehensive or reliable information on the number of outbreaks of equine viral arteritis (EVA) in other member states.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which European Community member states currently designate equine viral arteritis as a notifiable disease; and what plans she has to embark on such a classification in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  There is no requirement in EC law for equine viral arteritis (EVA) to be made notifiable, but I am informed that the disease is notifiable in Italy.

  The Government have decided that, for the following reasons, EVA should not be made notifiable. First, there is no EC requirement to do so. Secondly, movement restrictions would have to be applied to horses on infected premises and could not be removed from those animals that were permanent carriers. This would cause financial hardship out of all proportion to the severity of the disease.

  The United Kingdom thoroughbred industry has for some time operated a voluntary code of practice for the prevention and control of EVA, which includes guidance on the appropriate measures to prevent the introduction and spread of the disease. The code is considered to be an effective means for stud owners and others to protect their animal health status, and its use is commended to all sectors of the equine industry.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list each occasion on which her Department was issued with warnings of inadequate testing arrangements in Poland by the Animal Health Trust prior to the recent outbreak of equine viral arteritis in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  On two occasions, the Animal Health Trust has drawn to the Department's attention seropositive test results for equine viral arteritis virus in imported horses accompanied by Polish certification. However, on neither occasion has there been any conclusive evidence of inadequate testing arangements in Poland.

  Hens
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what rules or guidance her Department provides on the transportation for slaughter of spent hens; and if it is permissible for injured hens with broken limbs to be transported before slaughter;

  (2) whether consignments of hens transported from the United Kingdom to other member states within the European Community require a veterinary check before transit; and whether they must be free from serious injury for such a journey to be permissible;

  (3) what is her Department's policy on the transportation of spent hens via ferry to Holland for slaughter; and if she will make a statement;

  (4) what guidelines are given by her Department to battery egg producers on how to dispose of spent hens which have sustained serious injury during their productive life.

  Mr. Soames
  Harmonised EC animal health rules governing the intra-Community trade in poultry require,734
  inter alia, that consignments be examined for clinical signs or suspicions of disease shortly before export by an official veterinarian. In addition, the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992 makes it an offence to cause or permit animals—including poultry—to be transported in a way which causes or is likely to cause injury or unnecessary suffering. The order, which implements European Community directive requirements, also makes it unlawful to transport diseased, ill or injured poultry and imposes a limit of 12 hours on the period which poultry may be transported without being fed and watered. Further provisions set standards for the carriage of poultry, including transport in road vehicles on board ship.

  The joint industry welfare guide to the handling of spent hens—published by the National Farmers Union and the British Poultry Meat Federation—recommends that visibly unfit or injured birds must not be loaded but should be slaughtered on the farm as quickly and humanely as possible. The Ministry's code of recommendations for the welfare of domestic fowls—applicable to all on-farm, egg-laying hens—states that ailing birds and birds suffering from injury such as open wounds or fractures, or from prolapse of the vent should be segregated and treated or, if necessary, be humanely killed without delay. The law requires that any bird arriving at the slaughterhouse which is found to be suffering must be slaughtered immediately.

  Food Prices
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average price to the consumer of(a) a pint of milk, (b) a 21b loaf of bread and (c) a pint of beer in 1970, 1980 and each year since 1990.

  Mr. Jack
  The annual averages of the prices used for calculating the retail prices index are given in the table.

  Annual average price (£)

  Bread—800g white sliced loaf

  1990

  0·50

  1991

  0·53

  1992

  0·54

  Milk—1 pint pasteurised

  1990

  0·31

  1991

  0·32

  1992

  0·34

  Beer—1 pint draught bitter

  1990

  1·09

  1991

  1·24

  1992

  1·31

  Botswana (Beef)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the consequences for beef prices in Botswana of the proposed agreement at the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

  Mr. Jack
  The proposed GATT agreement includes a commitment to reduce both the volume of and expenditure on subsidised exports of beef. This should help to produce a firming of prices for beef on world markets, which would benefit Botswana.
  735
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the benefits the Botswana beef industry gains from Lome IV and of how this will be affected by the present GATT talks.

  Mr. Jack
  Under the terms of protocol seven of Lome IV on beef and veal, Botswana benefits from a 90 per cent. reduction in the variable levy on beef and veal for an annual quantity of 18,916 tonnes of boneless meat. This would not be affected by the proposals in the draft Uruguay round agreement on agriculture.

  Self-Sufficiency
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of United Kingdom self-sufficiency in all agricultural products in 1979, 1985 and each year since 1990.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the tables in section 5 of the publication "Agriculture in the United Kingdom, 1992" copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Wool Sales (Penalties)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she has to bring forward legislation to increase the maximum penalty which the British Wool Marketing Board may impose on members who sell wool to independent merchants; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Any amendment to the British wool marketing scheme would be initiated by the board and then, following consultation with producers, submitted to Ministers for consideration. None on this matter has been received.

  Northmoor
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total cost of the proposal to replace the diesel pumps at Northmoor pumping station with electric pumps; what is the expected amount of grant that would be paid by the Ministry towards the replacement of the pumps; and what proportion of residual costs after grant aid would fall upon the Somerset county council as a levy-paying authority to the National Rivers Authority and Northmoor district drainage board.

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated cost of the proposed electric pumps at Northmoor pumping station in the Somerset levels is £415,334 at current prices. If approved, MAFF grant aid would be available at 45 per cent. of eligible costs, with the remainder funded by the National Rivers Authority (NRA) from levies on Somerset county council. The NRA proposals do not envisage any contribution from Northmoor internal drainage board.

  Slaughter of Animals
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps Her Majesty's Government will now take to ensure that EC colleagues adopt the proposed EC directive on the welfare of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.

  Mr. Soames
  We initiated discussion on this proposal during the United Kingdom presidency. We have been at 736
  the forefront of member states seeking agreement on it. We shall continue to press for adoption during the Belgian presidency.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions have been held with EC colleagues on imposing an eight-hour limit on slaughter journeys for live farm animals.

  Mr. Soames
  On 1 January a new directive came into operation setting Community standards for the welfare of all animals during transport. We have been pressing the Commission strongly to submit proposals for the additional rules which are needed on key issues such as maximum journey times for certain types of animal.

  I am pleased to say that the Commission announced on 13 July that the proposals were now ready and would be submitted to the Council. We hope that the negotiations in the Council will start shortly. The United Kingdom will be pressing for Community rules which reflect the high standards which we are applying in this country.

  Surplus Food
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements will be made in the United Kingdom for 1993–94 under the EC surplus food scheme.

  Mr. Jack
  The United Kingdom's full share of EC funding 1993–94 for the Community's surplus food scheme will be used for the distribution of beef. In previous years, butter has also been distributed but successful reductions of intervention stocks has meant that butter cannot now be made available under the scheme.

  Some 6,200 tonnes of beef are being released from intervention stocks to be canned for allocation to designated organisations. Further quantities of beef may be made available early next year.

  In addition to asking existing designated organisations to confirm that they still wish to participate in the scheme during 1993–94, agriculture Departments will also be inviting new applications from appropriate charitable and other non-profit-making organisations who wish to be designated.

  Fishing Vessels (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the names, the port of registry and the length or tonnage of British registered fishing vessels that have been successfully prosecuted under the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967, listing the particular offence they were found guilty of and the penalty imposed.

  Mr. Jack
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Fishing Vessels (Licences)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food (1) if she will make it her policy to revoke fishing licences on British-registered vessels if sufficient evidence is presented of extensive breaches of regulations from investigations carried out in other states;

  (2) how many fishing vessels on the British register have had their licences revoked because of breaches of regulations which resulted in successful prosecutions in the United Kingdom;
  737
  (3) in what circumstances fishing vessel licences are revoked for breaches of regulations following successful prosecution in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 23 July 1993]: Powers to revoke or suspend fishing licences following breaches of licence conditions are set out in section 4(9)(b) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, as amended, but have not yet been exercised.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when she will be raising with the European Commission and the Spanish Government the subject of undersize fish caught in the British quota and landed in Spanish ports;

  (2) what action she intends to take to protect and conserve undersize fish in British waters from British registered vessels that land their catch in Spanish ports.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 23 July 1993]: Any vessel retaining on board or landing undersize fish is breaching the rules of the common fisheries policy. I am raising this matter with the EC Fisheries Commissioner, Mr. Y. Paleokrassas and will be sending him a copy of the video tape of the recent "Cook Report" programme highlighting the problem of illegal fishing activity.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the names of current British-flagged fishing vessels which were formerly Spanish registered or owned by Spanish individuals or companies prior to their British registry; and when they were entered on the British register, their port of registration and their tonnage, length and horsepower.

  Mr. Steven Norris
  I am sending relevant extracts from the register of fishing vessels to the hon. Member and will place copies in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Single-role Minehunters
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made in preparing tenders for a further batch of Sandown single-role minehunters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We expect to make an announcement on the next batch of single-role minehunters shortly.

  Sennybridge Range
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each type of ammunition which has been(a) tested or (b) stored at the Sennybridge range since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  Army units using the Sennybridge training range bring their own ammunition with them. Sennybridge is an Army training range, it is not used in a testing/proofing role. About 150 different types of conventional ammunition have been stored. These are as follows:

  Pellet air gun ·177 inch

  Round ·22 inch ball Mk 2

  Round ·22 inch ball high velocity Mk 3

  Round ·303 inch ball bandolier Mk 7

  Round ·303 inch ball carton Mk 7

  738

  Cartridge blank ·303 inch carton L1OA1

  Round ·50 inch 4B/IT belted M33 [K] M17 belts of 100

  Cartridge shotgun 12 bore No. 6 shot

  Cartridge shotgun 12 bore SG shot

  Cartridge shotgun 12 bore LG shot

  Cartridge shotgun 12 bore solid shot (Brenneke)

  Round 5·56 mm ball carton M193

  Cartridge blank 5·56 mm carton

  Round 5·56 mm ball carton L2A1 (SA80)

  Round 5·56 mm ball bandolier L2A1 (SA80)

  Round 5·56 mm tracer carton LIA1 (SA80)

  Round 5·56 mm tracer carton LA71 (SA80)

  Cartridge blank 5·56 mm carton LIA1 (SA80)

  Round 7·62 mm ball bandolier L2A2

  Round 7·62 mm ball bandolier L2A2 (sniper)

  Round 7·62 mm ball carton L2A2

  Round 7·62 mm tracer carton L5A1 (obsolete)

  Round 7·62 mm 4B/IT belted L2A2/L5A3 or M62

  Round 7·62 mm IB/1T belted L2A2/L5A3 or M62

  Round 7·62 mm ball belted L2A2

  Cartridge blank 7·62 mm carton L13A1

  Cartridge blank 7·62 mm belted L13A1

  Round 7·65 mm x 17 mm ball carton DM11

  Round 9 mm ball carton Mk 2Z

  Round 9 mm plastic blank carton L2A1

  Round 9 mm ball carton M39 (FFV) (pistol)

  Cartridge signal 1 inch red Mk 13T

  Rocket hand fired illuminating parachute L5A4

  Signal kit pyrotechnic pistol 16 mm No. 1 Mk 3 (white)

  Signal kit pyrotechnic pistol 16 mm No. 1 Mk 3 (green)

  Signal kit pyrotechnic pistol 16 mm No. 1 Mk 3 (red)

  Cartridge illuminating 38 mm L30A1

  Flare tripwire Mk/2/2

  Flare ground indicating No. 1 yellow Mk 3

  Thunderflash Mk 8

  Portfire friction Mk 2

  Generator smoke L1Al

  Simulator atomic explosion 5·5 inch

  Grenade hand No. 83 smoke red Mk ¾

  Grenade hand No. 83 smoke blue Mk ¾

  Grenade hand No. 83 smoke green Mk ¾

  Grenade hand No. 83 smoke yellow Mk 3/2

  Grenade hand signal smoke yellow L38A1

  Grenade hand signal smoke blue L35A2

  Grenade hand signal smoke blue L52A1

  Grenade hand signal smoke green L52A1

  Grenade hand signal smoke red L54A1

  Grenade hand signal smoke orange L55A1–3

  Grenade hand signal smoke green L64A1

  Grenade hand signal smoke orange L65A1

  Grenade hand signal smoke red L66A1

  Grenade hand signal smoke blue L67A1

  Round 40mm practice M407A1/M781C

  Grenade rifle 40mm AA/heat L74A1

  Grenade hand HE L2A1 with fuze L25A4

  Grenade hand practice L56A1

  Rocket 66mm HE anti-tank L1A1 pinned

  Rocket 21mm sub-calibre L1A1

  Mortar bomb 2in HE Mk 1 fuzed 161

  Mortar bomb 2in smoke emission Mk 2 50 GR cart/steel tail

  Mortar bomb 2in illuminating Mk 2/2

  Mortar bomb 2in practice Mk 1/1 with cart

  Mortar bomb 51mm HE L1A1 fuzed L98A1

  Mortar bomb 51mm illuminating L3A2

  Mortar bomb 51 mm smoke screening L2A1

  Mortar bomb 81mm HE L15A3 fuzed No. 162

  Mortar bomb 81mm illuminating para L28A2 fuzed FH81B

  Mortar bomb 81mm practice L22A1 fuzed L67

  Round 84mm heat L40A3 British fuzed L42

  Round 84mm practice L41A3

  Round 6·5mm L11A1 (indoor)

  Round 6·5mm L1OA1 (outdoor)

  Rocket system 94mm heat L1Al

  Round 9mm spotter tracer L3A1

  Simulator rocket fire 94mm L23A1

  Fuze grade percussion practice L134A1

  Cartridge 2in mortar primary 50 gr Mk 1/1

  Cartridge 81mm mortar primary L33A1

  Cartridge 81mm primary L35A1

  Cartridge 81mm mortar augmenting L36A1 sets

  739

  Round 7·62mm tracer (Argentinian)

  Round ·30 inch 4B/IT nelted Mk 4z/Mk 1Z

  Cartridge blank ·30 inch belted LIOAI

  Round ·50 inch observing L11A2 belts of 98 rounds

  Simulator gunfire AFV flash and sound L16A1

  Cartridge blank 25pr 4oz GP L1A1 W/Prim No 11 Mk 4/3

  Cartridge blank 25pr 8oz GP Mk 2 W/Prim No 11 Mk 4/3

  Cartridge signal 1·5in white smoke puff Mk 4T

  Actuating charge L1A1

  Simulator projectile airburst liquid L1A2

  Cartridge 1·5 inch irritant CS anti-riot L2A2

  Grenade hand irritant CS anti-riot L13A1

  Grenade hand practice anti-riot LI6A1

  Generator irritant CS hand held L1A1

  Irritant kit smoke respirator testing L1A1

  Cartridge and irritant powder dispenser

  Powder dispenser and support assembly

  Simulator small arms fire L19A1

  Simulator small arms strike L21A1

  Simulator small arms Ricochet L22A1

  CNSTR IRRT CS PRSZD hand held LIA4

  CNSTR PRSZD practice self/protect L5A4

  Grenade discharger practice anti-riot L14A1 long range

  Generator training irritant CS Mk 1

  Fuze safety L1A2 (metric)

  Fuze instantaneous L1Al (metric)

  Cord detonating L1A1 (metric)

  Detonator demolition electric L2A1

  Detonator demolition L1AI

  Igniter safety fuze electric

  Firing device kit demolition grip

  Match fuzee

  Firing device kit demolition combination L26A1

  Injector kit ammunition EOD L46A1 (pigstick)

  Cartridge ·50in electric EOD propelling XLIE1

  Sound unit EOD electric L1A1

  Sound unit EOD electric L2A1

  Charge linear cutting 25gm type B XL1E1

  Charge linear cutting 40gm type B XL2E1

  Charge linear cutting 100gm type B XL3E1

  Charge linear cutting 180gm type B XL4E1

  Charge linear cutting 80gm type B XL5E1

  Charge linear cutting 120gm type B XL7E1

  Charge demolition 4oz cartridge nobels 808 plastic

  Charge demolition 8oz cartridge nobels 852 plastic

  Charge demolition explosive sheet explosive No. 2

  Charge demolition No. 1 6 inch Mk 3

  Charge demolition necklace L1A1

  Charge demolition No. 11 30 LB Mk 1B

  Charge demolition L3A1

  Bangalore torpedo sets 1·5 inch 6 feet Mk 2

  Mine anti-personnel practice C4A1

  Charge spotting mine C3 (smoke refill)

  Mine anti-personnel M 18A1

  Refill kit practice mine anti-tank L31A2

  Mine anti-tank Mk 7/1 with TDP

  Mine anti-tank practice L2A1

  Smoke unit anti-tank mine L1A2

  Mine anti-tank HE blast L9A1 without fuze

  Explosive kit cratering rapid L25A1

  Initiator flash L3A2

  Coupler kit demolition

  Clip demolition spring steel

  Dems box

  7·62 ball NATO 9 BIT

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 709, what was the source of data on pyrophoric qualities of depleted uranium to which he refers; and if he will arrange for copies of the relevant information to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Aitken
  The data from United States sources referred to in my answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 709, is classified. However, the office of the United States Assistant Secretary of Defence (Public Affairs)
  740
  recently issued an unclassified fact sheet on "Health effects of depleted uranium" which was placed in the Library in response to a question from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 29 June, Official Report, column 491.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last visited the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston; what was the purpose of his visit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence last visited AWE Aldermaston in June. The purpose of his visit was a briefing on the role and work of AWE.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the fire which occurred in a glove box in the A area of AWE Aldermaston on 15 June.

  Mr. Aitken
  There was no such incident on 15 June 1993.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by year for the last five years, the cost of running the Aldermaston atomic weapons establishment.

  Mr. Aitken
  The costs of the defence nuclear programme, including the costs of AWE, are classified, in accordance with the practice of successive Governments.

  Hunting
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances stewards employed by hunts are allowed on to Ministry of Defence land where the hunt that employs them has a licence to hunt on Ministry of Defence land.

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

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the total receipts in 1991–92 from licences for hunting on Ministry of Defence land, from all hunts that held a licence.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) gave him on 29 March at column 11.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist for beagle hunts to hunt or have access to Ministry of Defence land other than those licensed to do so.

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

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many licences to hunt on Ministry of Defence land are not subject to an annual fee.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.
  741

  Shooting Clubs
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many licences his Department issued to shooting clubs allowing them to shoot birds and mammals on Ministry of Defence land in(a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c) 1993 to date.

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

  Northumberland National Park
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to intensify or increase infantry training at Otterburn in the Northumberland national park; and what plans he has to acquire additional land for military training in the national park.

  Mr. Hanley
  The concentration of infantry recruit training at Catterick will mean an increase in man training days at Otterburn training area. Some additional land may be required. This will be subject to the outcome of an independent environmental impact assessment study and further discussions with the National Park Authority.

  Land Purchases
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much land in the United Kingdom his Department purchased over each of the past five years.

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

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of providing security for empty Ministry of Defence married quarters over the past year.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 16 July,Official Reply, column 723. The cost of caretaking covers security.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards residence by widows of late service personnel with children in Ministry of Defence married quarters not required for use.

  Mr. Hanley
  All widows of late service personnel are allowed to remain in a married quarter for up to six months after the death of their husband. Procedures vary slightly within individual services, but all widows continue to pay the standard accommodation charge during this period. Accommodation may sometimes be available in surplus married quarters and widows may be allowed to remain there beyond the six-month period until they have found alternative accommodation, so long as there are no pressing service requirements for the property.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many discount sales of Ministry of Defence married quarters have been made in the past year to service personnel leaving the forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  Further to the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 20 July 1993,Official Report, column 165, during 1992–93, 346 sales were completed through the services discount scheme.
  742

  Data Processing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers of staff by grade that are employed in his Department and agencies in the automatic data processing functional specialism.

  Mr. Aitken
  Numbers of staff by grade that are employed in the automatic data processing functional specialism as at 22 July 1993 are as follows:

  Number

  Executive officer

  1,254

  Higher executive officer

  711

  Senior executive officer

  229

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Aitken
  Further to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 15 July 1992,Official Report, column 817, I can inform him that our new suppliers service has given marketing advice to about 2,000 companies over the past 12 months. Also, in November 1992 the MOD reissued its advisory booklet on selling to the MOD. The publication is intended to be of particular value to small companies.

  Details of payments made to small firms during 1992–93 are not yet available, but during 1991–92, some 6,300 small companies secured contracts valued at approximately £1·16 billion. A significant number of these orders went to companies with less than 50 employees. In the same period Ministry of Defence establishments awarded 276,000 local purchase orders valued at about £222 million, a large number of which went to small firms.

  Land Sales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by Welsh local authority the extent of the land held by his Department indicating in each area the amount of land to be sold by the end of 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is provided by county. A breakdown by local authority could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  County (Wales)

  Area (hectares) totals of freehold and leasehold interests

  Area (hectares) land it is proposed to sell by the end of 1993

  Clwyd

  383

  0

  Dyfed

  6,716

  2·727

  Gwent

  670

  0·291

  Gwynedd

  798

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  8

  0

  Powys

  12,059

  0

  South Glamorgan

  402

  0

  West Glamorgan

  1

  0

  Totals

  21,037

  3·018

  743

  Military Hospitals
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) service personnel and (b) civilians were treated at (i) Royal Navy hospital Stonehouse, (ii) RAF hospital Ely and (iii) RAF hospital Halton in each of the last three years for which figures are available;

  (2) how many beds were provided at (a) Royal Navy hospital Stonehouse, (b) RAF hospital Ely and (c) RAF hospital Halton in each of the last three years for which figures are available;

  (3) what discussions his Department has had with local health authorities regarding the closure of military hospitals.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested in respect of patients treated and bed numbers is as follows:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Royal Navy hospital Plymouth (Stonehouse)

  Service patients

  14,861

  13,418

  11,224

  Civilian patients

  38,025

  38,135

  31,453

  Available beds

  89

  86

  100

  The Princess of Wales' Royal Air Force hospital Ely1

  Service patients

  13,175

  10,899

  7,278

  Civilian patients

  37,121

  12,599

  5,578

  Available beds

  137

  82

  81

  Princess Mary's Royal Air Force hospital Halton

  Service patients

  12,378

  11,231

  15,455

  Civilian patients

  25,875

  21,404

  23,835

  Available beds

  141

  127

  158

  1 The Princess of Wales' Royal Air Force hospital Ely ceased patient care on 31 July 1992.

  My Department has sought the views of all local health bodies affected by our proposals for the reorganisation of the armed forces' secondary medical care in the United Kingdom under which a number of military hospitals have been proposed for closure. Our discussions with the NHS continue.

  Mine Hunters
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 458, to the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) what progress he is making in issuing invitations to tender for a further batch of Sandown class mine hunters before the House rises for the summer recess.

  Mr. Aitken
  We expect to make an announcement on the next batch of single role minehunters shortly, but I regret this will not be before the House rises.

  Anthrax Vaccine
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has facilities for the manufacture or storage of anthrax vaccine.

  Mr. Hanley
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document and I have asked the chief executive to reply.

  Letter from Mr. G. Pearson to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 26 July 1993:
  744
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him if his Department has facilities for the manufacture or storage of anthrax vaccine (Question 3, Order Paper 20 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work research is carried out into medical countermeasures including vaccines against the chemical and biological warfare agents that might be used against the UK Armed Forces.

  3. There are no facilities for the manufacture of anthrax vaccine in the Ministry of Defence. However, storage facilities for a wide range of medical products used by the Armed Forces including vaccines are available in the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the expenditure on the purchase of anthrax vaccine in each of the last three financial years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details relating to all vaccines giving protection against biological warfare agents are classified.

  Military Training Overseas
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make it his practice to give details of the cost of the military training provided by Her Majesty's Government to individual overseas countries.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no plans to change the current practice of not divulging such information as it is a confidential matter between the Governments concerned.

  Near-collision (Irish Sea)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his American counterpart concerning the near-collision which occurred between a United States nuclear submarine and the MFV Lupina C in the Irish sea on 16 September 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had no such discussions. Officials have, however, discussed the incident with the United States authorities and the latter have now completed an investigation into the incident and have recently passed a copy of their report to us. A press statement has also been issued by the United States authorities. The marine accident investigation branch is now conducting an investigation of the incident.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British arms sales to Israel.

  Mr. Aitken
  The sale of defence equipment to Israel has been restricted since 1982 in direct response to Israel's invasion of southern Lebanon.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British arms sales to the middle east.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is our policy to support the sale of British defence equipment overseas wherever this is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests, and does not conflict with our international obligations.
  745
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Finchley of 28 June,Official Report, column 345, on United Kingdom arms sales in 1992, if he will place similar information for each year from 1979 in the Library.

  Mr. Aitken
  The 1992 United Nations register return was the first such return made. Information relating to earlier defence exports is contained in "UK Defence Statistics". A copy of the 1993 edition has recently been placed in the Library of the House.

  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy on arms sales to countries in the Indian sub-continent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  All exports of arms require an export licence. Each application is carefully considered on a case by case basis taking into account a range of factors including international and national security and regional stability. In particular, no arms are allowed to be exported when they are judged likely to be used for internal repression or terrorist activities. This system of control applies to all destinations, including the countries of the Indian sub-continent.

  Army (Training Needs)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, columns 377–78, on training land, whether he intends to publish the results of the work his Department is conducting in the assessment of the Army's training needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department's proposals for the future organisation of the Army's individual training organisation were set out in the answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) gave my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on 16 December 1992 at columns 335–36 and the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) on 22 July at column 351–52. These, together with the Army's requirements for unit and formation training, will form the basis of the Army's training needs. Any requirement for training land to meet that requirement will be subject to rigorous scrutiny before any final decisions are taken.

  I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of a summary of the Army's collective training strategy.

  Nimrod
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the RAF bases at which Nimrod aircraft are still based; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Royal Air Force Nimrod aircraft are based at RAF Kinloss and RAF Wyton.

  Overseas Land
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the land overseas which is owned by the Government, which has a defence role, giving the number of hectares; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence owns 15 married quarters in the United States of America, five in 746
  north-west Europe, 17 in Gibraltar and two in the Bahamas for the use of serving personnel. In the Falkland Islands the Ministry of Defence owns eight aerial/radar sites. All other facilities overseas are either leased or made available under various intergovernmental agreements.

  RAF St. Mawgan
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to develop a listening device out to sea from the joint maritime communications centre at RAF St. Mawgan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 28 June at column 379.

  Trident
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what cost savings he estimates would be made in each of the next four years if one Trident was mothballed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Government remain committed to a four boat Trident force. Estimates of the possible savings which could accrue from mothballing any of the Vanguard class submarines are not, therefore, available.

  RAF Training Ranges
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many practice bombs have been dropped at the Wiley Sike range in each year since 1977; and if he will list the permitted types of weaponry at the Wiley Sike range;

  (2) if he will list the locations of each of the remote threat emitter sites at RAF Spadeadam, the date on which each became operational and the number of days on which each has been active in each year since becoming operational;

  (3) if he will list the amounts spent on capital investment in buildings and equipment at RAF Spadeadam in each year since 1977; and if he will specify what amounts were paid from (a) United Kingdom funds, (b) United States air force funds and (c) NATO funds;

  (4) within what radius of RAF Spadeadam the dropping of chaff is permitted; and what are the restrictions on the amount of chaff dropped by each aircraft;

  (5) how many electronic training runs were carried out by aircraft at RAF Spadeadam in each year since 1977;

  (6) what communications he has received from telecommunications operators and customers concerning interference caused by electronic emissions from RAF Spadeadam;

  (7) how many Skyguard radars are in service at RAF Spadeadam; what are the roles of each; and if he will specify the circumstances in which these radars are deployed beyond the boundaries of the RAF Spadeadam range;

  (8) if he will list the radio frequency ranges on which RAF Spadeadam is permitted to transmit; what changes have taken place in these permitted ranges since 1985; and what plans he has for further changes;

  (9) if he will list the number of occasions on which RAF Spadeadam has been activated later than 6 pm in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member.
  747
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the purchase of equipment to provide simulation of non-Soviet threats at RAF Spadeadam.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has no such plans at present.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for alterations to the boundaries of the tactical training areas.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no plans to alter the boundaries of the tactical training areas used for operational low flying. From October however, we intend to dispense with the administrative separation of the Borders tactical training area into east and west sections. This will simplify the management of the low-flying system and will mean that statistics on movements in the Borders tactical training area will be directly comparable with those for the northern Scotland and central Wales tactical training areas. At present the division of the Borders area can lead to a single sortie generating more than one movement in central records.

  Airwork Ltd.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD contracts Airwork Ltd. currently has; what is their approximate total value; and when the last contract currently held by Airwork Ltd. was last awarded.

  Mr. Aitken
  Further to my answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 27 April 1993 at column 394, the position at the end of June was that Airwork Ltd. held 51 contracts from my Department. The original value of these was just over £95 million, but the value of work still to be carried out was approximately £28·3 million. The most recent of these contracts was placed on 28 April.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies tendered for the 134 F3 Tornado 25 fatigue index modification contract awarded to Airwork Ltd. in September 1992.

  Mr. Aitken
  Four companies submitted tenders for the 25 FI modification programme:

  Airwork Ltd.

  Lovaux Ltd.

  BAe Warton

  BAe Hamble

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department's assurance periodic surveillance reports on the quality of performance by Airwork Ltd on the F3 Tornado modification contract by RAF St. Athan from September 1992 to March 1993 identified the problems leading to the cancellation of the contract on 25 May.

  Mr. Aitken
  In view of our pending claim, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the contents of the surveillance reports by the MOD quality assurance staff.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the estimated turn-round time per aircraft for the modification programme for RAF F3 Tornados to be carried out by Airwork Ltd. pursuant to its September 1992 contract; and in what way its quality assurance procedures and surveillance work differed from those agreed with British Aerospace on the preceding contract.
  748
  Mr. Aitken
  The Airwork contract required a turnround time of 45 working days for each aircraft, though 60 days were allowed for the first aircraft off each production line. The same quality assurance procedures applied to both the Airwork and BAe contracts for Tornado F3 fatigue modifications.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the flight safety risk of the damage done by Airwork Ltd. in the course of the F3 Tornado modification programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  : The damage, if unrepaired, would have reduced the aircraft's safe fatigue life and could have posed a flight safety risk. The detailed investigation now underway will assess the extent to which the damage to each aircraft affects its structural integrity and determine the most appropriate repair scheme.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with Deutsche Aerospace in relation to inspection of fasteners and fastener holes with respect to the manufacturer's guarantee on the centre fuselage section of F3 Tornados damaged by Airwork Ltd in the course of the modification programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  The investigation by the aircraft design authorities into the precise extent of the damage to each aircraft is not yet complete and we have still to receive their assessment.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date and at which RAF station the structural damage to F3 Tornados was first discovered, which led to the cancellation of the Airwork modification contract.

  Mr. Aitken
  Damage to one aircraft was discovered on 29 March at RAF St. Athan where Airwork was carrying out the embodiment of the modifications. However, this was not sufficiently serious to justify termination of the contract. More serious damage was discovered subsequently.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date Airwork secured AQAP4 registration; when that registration was last reviewed and checked; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Airwork Ltd. has held AQAP1 registration (a higher level which embraces AQAP4) for a number of years. The registration was last reviewed in August 1992, when the company was reassessed against the new ISO 9001 requirement and certificated for a further three years.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Airwork remains on the defence contractors list; and when its ownership and financial standing and level of performance indemnity assurance was last reviewed.

  Mr. Aitken
  Airwork Ltd. remains on the defence contractors list, a position which is subject to regular review. In making decisions on the award of contracts, we take account of contractors' past performance.

  The ownership and financial standing of Airwork were last reviewed by my officials on 17 May. My Department holds a performance guarantee from Airwork Ltd's holding company, supported by guarantees from the holding company's shareholders; these are not limited in value and are still current.
  749
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average cost of the 25 fatigue index modification programme carried out on the F3 Tornado RAF aircraft at RAF St. Athan by British Aerospace; what the quality assurance procedures and surveillance were; and what the average turn-round times per aircraft.

  Mr. Aitken
  Contract prices are commercially confidential. The normal MOD quality assurance arrangements applied to both the BAe and Airwork contracts. Under these a contractor with the appropriate QA registration is responsible for the quality of his work in accordance with the contractual quality plan; there is some limited MOD QA surveillance. The average turnround time on the BAe contract was 63 days. However, the two contracts called for different turnround times and hence different shift and resource patterns.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those air-to-ground weapons ranges in the United Kingdom at which the practice firing of depleted uranium shells by United States Air Force aircraft has been permitted.

  Mr. Aitken
  None.

  RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the titles and names of contractors for all externally commissioned research work on behalf of the Royal Air Force Institute of Aviation Medicine since 1985.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Royal Air Force Institute of Aviation Medicine has commissioned only one such contract since 1985. This contract, placed with a British university, was ended in 1991. It is not the practice of my Department to release the names of contractors undertaking work on its behalf.

  NATO Standardisation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the NATO standardisation agreement 3531 was implemented in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hanley
  NATO standardisation agreement 3531 was implemented in the United Kingdom in April 1992.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current requirements for operational low flying by Royal Navy Sea Harrier aircraft.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Sea Harrier is required to conduct low level operational flying as part of its air to ground role. The aircrew have to train regularly at low level over land to maintain this expertise.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown, for each type of Royal Navy aircraft, of the number of(a) hours and (b) sorties flown at low level in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  Records are not held centrally in the form requested, so the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  750

  Harrier
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated total cost of the rectification programme for the Harrier GR5/GR7 fleet following the series of electrical faults during 1991.

  Mr. Aitken
  The estimated total cost to my Department is £8·4 million.

  Researchers (Attacks)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 July,Official Report, column 174, if he will list the incidents reported to his Department in which academic researchers assigned to Ministry of Defence contracts have been physically attacked as a result of their work.

  Mr. Aitken
  I will write to the hon. Member on the specific point raised in his question. In the meantime, I can tell him that at a recent meeting with my officials the research councils strongly endorsed my Department's policy that universities should decide whether or not to disclose their receipt of funds from the Ministry of Defence for research contracts.

  Uranium Enrichment
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made in arrangements for the enrichment of uranium for defence purposes since the announcement by his predecessor of 23 June 1982,Official Report, columns 128–29, following the closure of enrichment plants in the United States of America.

  Mr. Aitken
  There have been no changes in the arrangements for the enrichment of uranium for defence purposes announced by the then Defence Secretary in 1982.

  Porton Down (Animal Experiments)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the papers which have been published since 1984 on the experiments that have taken place on animals at Porton Down.

  Mr. Hanley
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document and I have asked the chief executive to reply.

  Letter from Mr. G. Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 26 July 1993:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him if he will place in the Library the papers which have been published since 1984 on the experiments that have taken place on animals at Porton Down (Question 40, Order Paper 23 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. Although as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment I am keen to provide as much information as possible on the work of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, I have to do so with due regard to the security and safety of the staff at the Establishment. I regret that the activities of animal rights activists, who placed a bomb under the car of a member of my staff from which she was lucky to escape with her life, necessitate that I should not provide this particular kind of information relating to animal experiments. I therefore regret that I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.
  751

  Army Air Corps Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown for each type of Army Air Corps aircraft, of the number of(a) hours and (b) sorties flown at low level in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  Army records, which are kept for a period of three years, show only the flights booked at low level rather than the actual number of flights. These are manual records and the information requested for the past three years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tritium
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made in arrangements for procurement of tritium for defence purposes in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Aitken
  There have been no changes in the arrangements for procuring tritium for defence purposes in the last 10 years.
  752

  Refits
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Swan Hunter can compete for future Royal Navy refits.

  Mr. Aitken
  Swan Hunter in Receivership will be eligible to compete for unallocated RN refits subject to the usual requirements in respect of financial status, facilities, resources and qualifications.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now arrange for the refit of a destroyer or frigate to be put out to competitive tender.

  Mr. Aitken
  We plan to invite tenders for the refit of HMS Birmingham, a type 42 destroyer, in the near future

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the public bodies for which he is responsible hold meetings in public; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of London.

Publicly Appointed Bodies: Financial Mismanagement
The Lord Dean of Beswick The Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to introduce any further safeguards against financial mismanagement by publicly appointed bodies.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, government departments provide a great deal of guidance which is designed to ensure that financial mismanagement does not take place. New guidance is issued as the need arises.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, following the events in the Welsh Development Agency, the Wessex Regional Health Authority and the West Midlands Regional Health Authority, is it not clear, when one looks at the scale of the money that has gone astray, that those guidelines and advice are not sufficient to protect the public purse?
Will the Government seriously consider introducing new measures based on the code of conduct which governs people elected to local authorities? Does the Minister understand that I find it strange that we are talking of over £100 million in total, yet no appointed person has been brought to book? Will the Minister give us a copper-bottomed guarantee that no Secretary of State is indemnifying against prosecution people who have been involved in wrongdoing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord will be aware of the difference between a local authority, which is an elected body responsible to the electorate, and an appointed body. However, let me make it absolutely clear that, whether it is a local authority or an appointed body, the Government cannot tolerate any form of financial mismanagement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while we all recognise the gravity of the reports of the Public Accounts Committee of another place, does the noble Earl agree that the Welsh Development Agency has an excellent record of service to Wales, especially to those areas which have high unemployment? In view of the allegations made in the report, can he say whether the Government propose to take any further action?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is being considered at the moment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, has the Minister seen the report on the NHS supplies authority which was
950
published recently? It shows that over £100 million of taxpayers' money has been lost, and refers to inefficient management techniques and 'muddled contracts. Is that not an enormous sum at a time when the National Health Service is clearly under grave pressure?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the National Health Service has been better funded by this Government than by any other government. Notwithstanding that point, any financial mismanagement is a serious offence and is taken seriously by all departments.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to the press today, at the moment Astra Training Services—a government. agency which has been taken over (if one can use that phrase) by civil servants—has company debts of £10 million? When the Minister replied today he told us that all the appointed people were capable businessmen. I suggest that he would do much better to get people from car boot sales involved.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we look only for the best people. I take into account what the noble Baroness suggested.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister confirm some figures? Is it right that in 1978–79 quangos spent £14 billion; yet by 1990–91, the figure was no less than £41.7 billion? Is the Minister aware that he paused before he completed his answer to my noble friend Lord Dean? He said that my noble friend would be aware that local authorities are different, that they are accountable to their electorate, but that appointed bodies are not. He then moved sharply on to something else. Does he realise that that is precisely the point? In relation to the quangos, there is a distinct feeling in the country that they are non-accountable, out of control and ought to be made more accountable.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will be delighted to know that the number of executive NDPBs has declined since 1979 from 492 to 369 13 years later. Of course, the figure which he quoted of about £42 billion takes into account expenditure by training and enterprise councils which are non-profit-making, private sector bodies and health bodies which are part of central government. So I do not think that his figure is quite accurate.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in spite of the fact that in Wales we are deeply grateful for the work that has been done under the Welsh Development Agency, there was great unease over the recently published report? Will the Government be making any further statements on the matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, this matter is being further considered. If there is more to say, of course the Government will say it.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, the figures for quangos quoted by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition are not accurate. Can the Minister give us the accurate figures for quangos?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not have the exact figure with me. I seem to recall that it was a very different figure. It was a figure that I gave the noble Lord on the last occasion. He then queried the figure, and said that it was £42 billion. That is why I had a statistical answer for him, because I thought that he would ask the question again.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his Answer to my first supplementary question the Minister referred, as my noble friend Lord Richard said, to the comparisons between local authorities and quangos. Is the Minister aware that some people wear two hats: they are leading councillors or leaders of councils and also chairmen or appointed members of quangos? Is it not strange that, in guarding one sector of the public purse, they are very quickly open to prosecution; whereas in the other case it seems to be within the gift of the Secretary of State, if anything is found to be wrong, whether they are proceeded against or given a knighthood and a golden handshake, and moved on?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the principle is exactly the same. We cannot tolerate any form of financial mismanagement, whether by local authorities or by NDPBs.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend think that the experience of Lambeth suggests that applying public control methods to the quangos would have any greater success?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that all of us in this House are fully aware of some of the antics that Lambeth Council got up to. My noble friend is right to draw the matter to your Lordships' attention.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister is aware that, in relation to Lambeth, the district auditor looked at it, as he is bound to under the Act, and came up with his report, which has led to action. Is that likely to happen with a quango?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is looking at that specific point with regard to the Welsh Development Agency. Action will be taken where appropriate.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the Government's intolerance will lead to prosecutions in the health service, particularly in Wessex and in the West Midlands?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, where there is a case, I am sure that appropriate action will be taken.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while the noble Earl seems to concentrate from time to time on Lambeth, will he allow his mind to roam a cog further along the wheel and refer to Westminster?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my mind was drawn to the question of Lambeth as opposed to it being raised at my instigation.

Youth Training: Income Support
2.45 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider conferring the automatic right to severe hardship payments of income support to 16 and 17 year-olds who have registered for youth training but have not been found a place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, we have no plans to change our policy. To alter the arrangements in the manner suggested would provide a disincentive to young people seeking work, which would clearly be in no one's best interests.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble kinsman for that reply. Can he explain to the House how he reconciles it with the Written Answer given by his honourable friend Miss Widdecombe on 19th July, which showed that in England alone 3,034 people registered for youth training were without a place after eight weeks? Does he accept that the parents of these young people cannot be legally compelled to maintain them? Can he tell me how starvation acts as an incentive to work when one is no longer fit to do it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome the fact that the figure has dropped to 3,000 from the 4,000 that it was a month before. That represents a decline of some 25 per cent. and is the 10th successive month that the figure has so declined. I have to say to my noble kinsman that we simply do not believe that it is in the best interests of 16 and 17 year-olds to have an automatic entitlement to benefit. We believe that it is in their best interests that they are in education, in training or in work. If they are waiting for a YT place and wait longer than eight weeks for that place, there will be entitlement for income support only if there is a risk of severe hardship. Quite frankly I have to say that if they are living at home and if their parents are above benefit levels, I do not see a case for their seeking income support.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to consider that if the non-payment related to the young people who did not bother and were not interested in registering for employment, that would be understandable? But in the case of those who are keen to earn a living and find themselves in desperate circumstances, ought not the Government to be prepared to give them a bit of help financially?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's first point. But as regards the second group of people: namely, those who are registered for work, if there is a risk of severe hardship —I must repeat that it only has to be a risk of severe hardship; something in the order of 85 per cent. of claims for severe hardship do succeed—then they will be entitled to income support.

953
But if they are living at home with perfectly well-off parents, I see no case for their seeking entitlement to benefit.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that 16 to 17 year-olds usually need more food, clothing and shoes than older people, because very often they are still growing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is another question. We have explained on many occasions why we consider that there should be lower rates for the different age bands; namely, lower rates for 16 to 17 year-olds than for the 18 to 24 year-olds. I do not intend to repeat those explanations today. I repeat what I said in earlier Answers. If there is a risk of severe hardship, arid if that child has to live away from home, then there would be entitlement to income support at the higher rates. If they have to live at home and there is the risk of severe hardship, the rate of benefit would be at the lower rate.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of the children sleeping rough are children without homes who have been in children's homes and have no background? Under those circumstances can special consideration be given to their finding a job, or going on a youth training course? Is he aware that many of those young people told me that they have been unable to get on a course, although they have made an application to do so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if my noble friend can give me details of any particular cases that she would like to draw to my attention, I should certainly be prepared to look at them. I can assure her that there are special arrangements for children coming out of care in that there will be an automatic entitlement to income support for eight weeks while they are looking for their YT place.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are some young people for whom placement is difficult? I think particularly of those who have emotional problems and who are disabled but not disabled enough to be on the register. Could he say whether any special consideration is given to those young people?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if they are not in a position to work and are sufficiently disabled, obviously they would be entitled to income support. I cannot comment on any particular case, as the noble Countess seemed to indicate. Certainly officers within the Benefits Agency will try to give whatever help they can as regards benefit. Certainly any application in respect of severe hardship would be looked at sympathetically. Again, it must be a matter for the TECs themselves when it comes to finding the appropriate placement for a particular individual to try to find the appropriate package to suit that person.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, if the figure last spring from Youth Aid of 95,000 young people not in education, not in work, not in training and therefore without any income is correct—and that figure comes from the
954
Labour Force survey conducted on behalf of the Department of Employment—it reveals a very high degree of hardship among young people? However, instead of that, if the Minister's DSS figure of 3,000 or so is correct, does he further agree that it means that the cost of meeting that hardship is relatively modest?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I can accept the figure that the noble Baroness quoted from Youth Aid. I believe my noble friend Lord Goschen dealt with this matter in debate on an earlier occasion. The noble Baroness went on to say that if our figure is correct of 3,000 waiting longer than eight weeks, it would not cost much to give the concession asked for by the noble Lord. I cannot give any estimate as to the cost of making the changes that the noble Lord and for that matter, I imagine, the noble Baroness, suggest. But I can say that it would very much risk increasing the culture of dependency. There would be very real long-term costs associated with such an increase in the culture of dependency.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Minister argues that such people should depend on their parents, will he introduce legislation to compel their parents to maintain them? If he will not do so, will he recognise that being without visible means of support is in itself prima facie evidence of severe hardship?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have no intention of introducing legislation as suggested. Most people agree that it is the generally accepted duty of parents to look after their children. I do not see a case for further increasing the disincentive to children to work. If there is severe hardship and the parents cannot support their child, there will be an entitlement to income support.

Fisheries Policy: Marine Ecosystem
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will ensure that fisheries policy takes account of the needs of the marine ecosystem as required by EC Fisheries Policy Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20th December 1992.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government were instrumental during the United Kingdom presidency of the EC last year in securing the obligation to which the Question of the noble Baroness refers. I can assure her that the Government will seek to influence the development of the common fisheries policy in ways which take proper account of that obligation.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. My concern is with the quality of the information on which the Government base their decisions. Can he say what research is currently done by MAFF and the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department which would enable sustainable thresholds to be understood? That is a vital point in the discussion. Does he agree that the sea fisheries

955
committees could play an important role in safeguarding marine habitats? Will he say, for example, whether their membership could be improved to include people with expertise who could advise on the ecosystem?
Earl Howe: My Lords, for many years the fisheries departments have undertaken stock assessments of the most important species of fish. The material from that work and from comparable work by other countries contributes to the scientific assessments available to the EC Commission. That information, which includes an estimate of the amount of fish that can be prudently taken, provides the background against which the annual total allowable catches for each member state of the Community are calculated. With regard to sea fisheries committees, as the noble Baroness will know, they were originally established some 105 years ago around the coast in England and Wales. Therefore they have unparalleled knowledge and experience of coastal fisheries and marine environmental issues. Because of their specialist experience, we consider them the most appropriate bodies to be given additional powers to regulate fisheries for wider conservation reasons.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an update on the designation of marine nature reserves? To some of us, certainly to myself, they seem to be extremely slow in coming into being. Will he accept that the most recent information that I have is that some two out of eight proposed by the former Nature Conservancy Council have been designated in the course of 12 years?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the noble Lord just said, two marine nature reserves have been designated in England and Wales under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Those are Lundy (in 1986) and Skomer (in 1990). The Countryside Council for Wales is currently undertaking public consultation on a proposed marine nature reserve for the Menai Straits. We consider that marine nature reserves should be established only after full consultation. Before designation every effort should be made to secure the agreement of those with legitimate interests in the area. That process can take longer than we ideally would wish. But we remain of the view that the time spent in gaining local support is time well spent.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, on a reading of the regulation to which the Question refers and which comprises some four preambles and 22 recitals, it is most difficult to obtain from Article 2 anything more than a very general idea of the scope for the eco-marine activity to which my noble friend referred? Will the Minister be a little more precise in indicating how the Government intend to proceed, particularly in the light of Article 5 and the appendix showing the various areas of influence and fishing over which it appears that very few people have any control?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have already indicated to the noble Baroness the way in which we see the sea
956
fisheries committees developing. The Government will continue to seek to protect the marine environment and the fish in it from the effects of pollution and other adverse influences. Our approach will continue to be that of retaining a balance between conservation, management and exploitation of fish as a renewable resource while also addressing environmental aspects which go far wider than fishing methods.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the EC regulation mentioned in the Question says that:
"provision should be made for the adoption of emergency measures in the event of serious upheaval"?
What action are the Government taking to deal with potential damage to our fisheries and ecosystem resulting from the activities of the French, Spanish and other boats which are now fishing in our waters, having denuded their own?
Earl Howe: My Lords, one of the ways in which we can respond to threats of that kind is through the Commission. As the noble Lord may know, at the Fisheries Council in June political agreement was reached on a new control regulation which will strengthen the Commission's power to audit the enforcement procedures operated by individual member states. It will also generally tighten and extend existing control procedures to increase the effectiveness of enforcement and ensure that Community rules are implemented to an even standard by all member states. We very much welcome that.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the Minister say whether birds and birds' eggs on cliffs form part of the marine ecosystem as defined in the regulation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, while the common fisheries policy does not extend to sea birds or their eggs, we are aware that sea birds are predators of fish and therefore are dependent for their survival on a healthy marine ecosystem. I shall be delighted if the noble Baroness will allow me to write to her on that detailed point.

Newport Docks
2.59 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton The Earl of Stockton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can confirm that, in the event of compensation being paid to Newport Docks as a result of the M.4 relief road, any such payments (either directly to Newport Docks, or through the Welsh Development Agency) will be made public and will not include an element intended to fund the reconstruction of the principal entrance lock to Newport Docks.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, any compensation so arising would be paid strictly in accordance with the appropriate statutory provisions. However, it is not normal practice to make public the sums of money involved.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he assure the House that the

957
terms of the contract for the Usk river crossing will be strictly drawn up and rigorously adhered to? The taxpayer will thus not be asked to fund the highest road bridge—61 metres—facilitating navigation in the UK or be offered a spurious cheaper alternative which will allow the lock reconstruction to be funded at nominal cost.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, it would be quite improper for a government department to inflate the level of compensation, whatever the circumstances.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity afforded by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, to ask the Minister to ensure—this is extremely important— that a level playing field is maintained between port activities on both sides of the Severn. Can he assure us that, while the figures may not he published, there will be a strict adherence to what the Minister said?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I can assure the House that there is a level playing field between the two ports which the Question involves. An article in the Western Mail at the end of last week showed a major customer removing business from Newport to Bristol.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, perhaps the Minister could use a self-denying ordinance not to use the phrase "lever playing field". Can I remind the House that Lords and Headingley are by no means level?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I will take due regard of what the noble Lord says.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, can the House be assured that the Welsh Office will have regard to the anxieties of all interested parties? Is he fully aware of the depth of the anxieties of the environmental organisations—including the CPRW and the RSPB —and the villages along the three possible routes regarding the irreparable damage which may be caused to the environment by the relief road?
While there is considerable support for the concept of the relief road, can the Minister confirm whether or not the construction of the relief road will involve an environmental cost? In view of those concerns, is the noble Viscount able to confirm that an environmental impact study is being or will be undertaken in order to measure and assess the damage? If so, who will undertake it? Will there be an opportunity for all interested parties to offer evidence to the study? Finally, when will the study be completed?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the relief road proposals are at a preliminary stage. Two of the three routes currently the subject of public consultation cross Newport Docks. All three could affect navigation capability within the docks and within the River Usk. No decision on a possible route corridor will be undertaken until the outcome of the current public consultation is known. I believe—if I am in error I shall write to the noble Lord—that environmental impact studies will be made in
958
accordance with normal practice and that it is normal practice in all such undertakings to prepare such reports.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, in view of that reassuring answer, can my noble friend explain why any compensation should be paid to the beneficiaries of such a major infrastructure advantage? People will gain direct motorway access from the dock gate.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, compensation is likely to be payable to the Newport Docks Authority, the company owned by Associated British Ports plc, under various statutory provisions. They are primarily the compensation Acts of 1961 and 1973, the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The level of compensation will depend on the route chosen.

Petition: Income Support
3.4 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from the Nottingham Young People's Benefit Campaign and the Scottish Association for Youth Care and Justice which prays that this House will restore the right to income support to 16 and 17 year-olds who cannot find work or a suitable youth training place, and that it will abolish age-related benefits for under 25 year-olds who are living independently and give them instead the same benefits as those aged 25 or over. This Petition bears 11,000 signatures.
Petition presented.

Allied Irish Banks Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, in relation to this Bill and the other two Bills in my name on the Order Paper, I am sure that the House will wish to record its gratitude to the two Law Commissions for their work, and also to the Joint Committee on. Consolidation and to the parliamentary draftsman.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I can raise a point which may be of interest to the House on the Third Reading of this consolidation Bill. I do so because, if I am wrong, it will be useful that it be recorded that I am wrong in regard to procedures that may take place in the future. If I am right, it may be of some value that I have brought the matter to the attention of the House and to the noble and learned Lord to whom I gave brief notice that I intended to raise this point.
In Clause 2 of the Bill we seek to repeal a repeal. In other words, in regard to a statute passed in the reign of George III, we are saying that, 15 years after its

959
repeal, we undo that repeal. It may be of interest to the House that the normal procedure expected when seeking to repeal a repeal by an earlier statute is a re-enactment of the statute and not a cancellation of the repeal. I acknowledge at once that that may not be so when a mistake has been made in the repeal. In that case we record in the repeal enactment that a mistake was made and therefore the repeal of the repeal takes place.
In the Long Title of the Bill there is a recital that the repeal in Clause 2 is to correct a mistake in the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1978. However, when one comes to the clause there is no statement that there is a mistake and that that is why the repeal takes place. If my point is a valid one, then it ought to be placed on record —no more than that—that in future legislation of this kind, where a repeal is repealed, it can only be done where a mistake has occurred and the clause repealing it so says.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Clause 2 of the Bill deems the Act of George III never to have been repealed. As the noble Lord said, it explains in the Long Title that that repeal was a mistake in the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1978. The effect of re-enacting, without more, would be to put the old statute hack on the statute book from the date of the re-enactment, whereas the formula used as recommended by the Law Commissions is a formula which seeks to recover the whole ground right back to 1978, subject to provisos in subsection (2) of Clause 2, with which perhaps we need not deal.
Of course, all Bills are intended to be read as a whole and the reader of Clause 2 will have read the Long Title before he or she reaches Clause 2 and so will know that the reason for the form adopted in Clause 2 was that a mistake was made in 1978. The statute in question is a fairly recondite one to which reference is not frequently made. The desire to have it corrected and put back on the statute book came from the trustees of a certain common which was affected by this matter and whose interest apparently had been overlooked in 1978.
I think that the position is reasonably clear, reasonably secure and reasonably appropriate for the state of matters which the Law Commissions encountered. The proposal is in accord with their recommendations and appears to have satisfied the joint committee.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may in one sentence merely ask him to confirm that this procedure as followed in the Bill will not be sufficient to repeal a repeal unless the original repeal was a mistake.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think it highly unlikely that one would want to go along this road except in the situation in which there was a mistake. It is always difficult to envisage all possible circumstances and therefore I am unwilling to say "never". But I think it highly unlikely that this procedure would be appropriate except in similar circumstances which I must fondly hope may not recur.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mishcon for raising a point which may be recondite, not to say surreal. My major purpose in standing is to reaffirm what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about the quality and the value of the work which is done by the Law Commission on these occasions, for which we are extremely grateful.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Pension Schemes Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Highland Regional Council (Wester Bridge) Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Education Bill
3.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments to Lords amendments and Commons amendments in lieu be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments to Lords amendments and Commons amendments in lieu be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (72) as first printed by the Lords]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Before Clause 145, insert the following new clause:
Economy and efficiency of grant-maintained schools
(". The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the purpose of securing that an examination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness at grant-maintained schools shall be held on a regular basis.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu—
1A Before Clause 145, insert the following new clause: Value-for-money studies of grant-maintained schools
'—(1) Each funding authority shall make arrangements for carrying out such value-for-money studies of grant-maintained schools in England or, as the case may be, Wales as in their opinion are required or as the Secretary of State may direct.
(2) The authority shall, in particular—

961

(a) in forming an opinion as to whether any value-for-money study is required to he carried out in pursuance of this section, have regard to the desirability of value-for-money studies being carried out at regular intervals, and

(b) in determining the scope of any value-formoney study to be carried out in pursuance of this section otherwise than on the direction of the Secretary of State, have regard to the scope of any value-for-money study which is being or has recently been carried out.

(3) In this section "value-for-money study", in relation to any grant-maintained school, means—

(a) any examination into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the governing body of the school have, in discharging their functions, used grant made by the authority, and

(b) any study designed to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the management or operations of the school.'

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof.
Although they have not been scheduled together, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 12A, 16 and 16A. That does not preclude, when we reach those amendments, other Members of the House speaking to them.
Amendment No. 1, noble Lords will recall, was introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, at Third Reading. I am sorry that he is not able to be with us today, but I am pleased to hear that he is recuperating apace. I am sure that we all wish him well.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in his absence I should like to put on record my thanks for his perspicacity on this issue of value-for-money studies, and indeed that of my noble friend Lord Peyton, who is also not in his seat, and for the effectiveness with which they have pressed their points.
When we discussed this matter at Third Reading, I promised to draw my right honourable friend's attention to the desirability of including in the Bill an explicit requirement for value-for-money studies of grant-maintained schools to be undertaken on a regular basis. In the meantime I accepted Amendment No. 1, though I made clear that I had been advised that its regulation-making power would cause difficulties.
The effect of Amendment No. 1 A would be to substitute a requirement on the new Funding Agency for Schools, and on its Welsh counterpart, to undertake value-for-money studies of grant-maintained schools, and to do so such that there are regular studies. It was the regular studies which I know was of concern to both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. The Government put forward this alternative approach for several reasons. First, as I indicated previously, there is a very real difficulty about a requirement to make regulations which could be regarded as biting on the independent role of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
962
Secondly, in keeping with other aspects of the Bill, it seems appropriate for the balance of operational responsibility to rest with the Funding Agency for Schools rather than the Secretary of State— though with a backstop power of direction for the latter. Thirdly, there would have been a procedural difficulty in introducing a new duty on the Secretary of State as that would have required a further money resolution in the other place, which was impracticable at this stage of the Bill's progress.
Amendment No. 1A would of course be in addition to the extra clause on the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General which is shown as Amendment No. II on today's Marshalled List. When I introduced that at Third Reading I made clear that I believed it inconceivable that that clause would not lead to a significant and regular programme of value-formoney studies at grant-maintained schools. In combination with the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 1A there can be no doubt that the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the rapidly growing number of self-governing schools will be scrutinised both thoroughly and regularly.
I am pleased to report that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, agrees with this view. He has written thanking me for taking his amendment on board, saying that the Government have dealt with it appropriately and apologising that he is riot able to be here today to say so. I trust that other noble Lords will take a similar view.
The other amendments I mentioned—Amendments Nos. 12A and 16A—are minor definitional provisions: they insert the full title of the Audit Commission into Amendments Nos. 11 and 16, and thereby remove the need for Amendment No. 12.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Cornmons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my only demur is as to subsections (2) and (3) of the Commons amendment in lieu. Subsection (3) defines "value-formoney". I should not have thought that anyone would have the smallest difficulty in knowing what value-for-money means or imagine that it would mean anything other than as defined. As to subsection (2), what it does is to particularise something that is in subsection (1) already and therefore does not need particularisation. But the matter goes further because your Lordships will see at the end of subsection (1) that,
"the Secretary of State may direct",
various matters to be considered. So there would be no difficulty in his directing that attention should be given to the matters in subsection (2) without cluttering up the statute book with unnecessary matter.
In 1975 the Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation remarked on the prolixity and unnecessary verbosity and volume of the statute book . At that time it consisted of three volumes annually on public and general Acts and Church measures. Ten years later, in 1985, the statute book consisted of five volumes. Not only did it consist of that number of

963
volumes, but those five volumes contained fewer statutes than the three volumes of 1975. In other words, the inflation of verbosity had continued unchecked and undisturbed by what the Renton Committee had said. I do not move formally to leave out the two subsections because a difference of opinion between the Houses at this stage would mean the loss of the Bill.
I believe that your Lordships would wish to mark the increasing volume of the statute book. We are considering a massive statute of itself. It does not stand alone because as the scrutiny committee pointed out, it gives rise to over 100 delegated legislation-making powers. So even this vast statutory mass that one sees is only a small part of the legislation which would ensue.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as always, I listened with great interest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am in entire agreement with everything he said about prolixity. But subsection (3) of Amendment No. 1A actually introduces a significant change of policy. We are used to value-for-money clauses. For example, we had a long debate on one in the Education Reform Act 1988 which demanded efficiency and economy. I then tabled an amendment to draw attention to the fact that it said nothing about the quality of education. As regards the Water Bill, there was a clause about efficiency and economy. My noble friends tabled an amendment to draw attention to the fact that it said nothing about the quality of water. We have here a third word added. The reference is to, "Economy, efficiency and effectiveness". To me that is a very welcome change and shows an acceptance of the points which have been made many times in this Chamber. I would like to thank the Minister for it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for finding it a little difficult to respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, without sounding ungenerous to the House. Our attention has been drawn to the point about which I believe the noble and learned Lord is right—that is to say, the superfluous words on the face of the Bill. They are there to satisfy this House. At Second Reading, Committee, Report stages and at Third Reading, it was clear that this House was not satisfied unless it were made explicit on the face of the Bill that there would not only be value-for-money studies (which were implicit anyway in the Bill originally) but that they should be concerned with economy, effectiveness and efficiency. It was also necessary that those studies should take place regularly.
It is because of that that I kept bringing forward forms of words—as did my colleagues in another place —to have these extra words on the face of the Bill. I take the point which the noble and learned Lord is making, but I believe that it is in response to the will of this House that it should be absolutely beyond doubt that regular audit will be made in the grant-maintained sector and that it will be concerned with effectiveness as well as efficiency and economy.
964
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 146, page 88, line 38, at end insert:
("() in relation to the planning of special educational provision as provided in section 151 or")
3 Clause 151, page 91, line 21, after ("shall") insert ("plan and")
3ZA Page 91, line 22 leave out ("by them").
4 Page 91, line 22, at end insert ("and the arrangements made for school premises to be made accessible to children requiring special educational provision within the area of the local education authority.")
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, to which the Commons have disagreed. I shall also be speaking to Lords Amendments Nos. 5 to 10 and the Commons amendments in lieu; namely, Amendments Nos. 10A and 10B.
Special education has always been a matter of particular concern to this House. For over a year now it has been a major focus of public and parliamentary debate. The process began last summer with the Private Peer's Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway; the publication of the work of the Audit Commission and HMI; and the production of the government's proposals for change in the consultation paper, Access to the System, and the White Paper, Choice and Diversity. That debate has continued with undiminished vigour since the introduction of the Bill which we are considering today.
Throughout the debate, which has been conducted very constructively on all sides, the Government have been listening carefully to the views of all concerned. We received and analysed over 300 responses to Access to the System. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and I have held many meetings with voluntary bodies and others. In particular, we have given close consideration to the many issues raised by the Special Educational Consortium. I should take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the consortium. It has been most helpful and very constructive throughout the process. Led by its able chairman, Paul Ennals, it has conducted an effective campaign, presenting a reasoned case and practical propositions.
The outcome of that long process of deliberation and debate has been the Bill as it is before us today. It is now clear, and I hope beyond all doubt, that the Government are concerned with all children with special educational needs, both those with statements and those without. The amendments we introduced to ensure that the code of practice applied to schools and to ensure that all schools reported on their special educational needs policies are testimony to that commitment. The Bill also ensures that LEAs will be fully able to monitor the provision specified in statements through regular annual reviews conducted in concert with schools and through access to schools at reasonable times. Moreover, the Bill directly promotes co-operation between all agencies concerned with children with special educational needs

965
—that is to say, the district health authorities, social services departments and local education authorities. When these developments are seen alongside the original provisions of the legislation—the creation of the code of practice, the extension of parental rights and the establishment of the SEN tribunal—it is clear that this Bill represents a significant advance for special education. This House has played a major part in securing that result.
We listened too when many Members of this House expressed concern about the planning and coordination of special educational provision. That concern was embodied in a substantial group of amendments carried at Report stage. The Government took the view that many of those amendments went far too far, while others were unnecessary. Those amendments which dealt with planning gave a continuing strategic role to the local education authority. That role was inconsistent with the new regime embodied in the Bill as a whole and inconsistent in particular with the autonomy of schools, especially those which have opted to leave their LEAs and become self-governing. The amendments have been considered, by another place, together with two amendments tabled by the Government. The other place accepted these government amendments in lieu of those passed by your Lordships.
However, in tabling the amendments in lieu, the Government recognised the strength of feeling expressed in this House and in another place. The amendments accepted by the other place, before us as Amendments Nos. 10A and 10B, are designed to address those concerns. The first, Amendment No. 10A, would require the local education authority to consult the funding agency and the governing bodies of any maintained schools—LEA or GM; mainstream or special—for the purpose of co-ordinating special educational provision. That duty would be part of the LEA's duty to keep the arrangements they make under review.
The second, Amendment No. 10B, puts a similar duty on governors of maintained schools. They would be required to consult other governors, the LEA and the funding agency for the purpose of co-ordinating special educational provision for their pupils. The LEA would have a similar duty in respect of nursery schools.
The amendments therefore directly address the question of co-ordination. Local education authorities' reviews of the arrangements they make would be informed by the views of the funding agency and schools in the area. At the same time, all schools would discuss with each other and the appropriate authorities the steps they take to meet pupils' special educational needs. In each case, the explicit aim is to promote full consultation and co-ordination.
These amendments embody the Government's determination to listen to the views of all concerned and to react positively and constructively. Our commitment to consultation will not end with the passage of this Bill. In the autumn we shall begin the process of implementing Part III. We aim to do so in partnership with the special education world. We shall
966
issue a draft code of practice and draft regulations for consultation. That consultation will be full and thorough. We aim to talk, in detail, to local education authorities, other agencies, schools and the full range of voluntary bodies. We shall consider very carefully what they have to say. In due course, we shall lay regulations and a draft code before Parliament. Both during the consultation process and through the parliamentary procedure your Lordships will, therefore, have every opportunity to contribute to these important changes. We all, on all sides of this House, attach the utmost importance to the task before us. We must work in partnership to ensure its success. It is worth reminding the House at this stage that the code of practice will come forward under the affirmative procedure not only for its introduction, but also for any amendments that are made to it subsequently, however minor.
These issues have been well debated here and in another place. I therefore ask the House not to insist on Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Moved, that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Blatch.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before we go too far into our deliberations this afternoon, I hope that it will be in order if I take this opportunity, on behalf of all of us on this side of the House, to wish the Minister well with her considerable responsibilities in temporarily taking over the Department for Education as a whole during the indisposition of the Secretary of State. It has been a long and exacting summer and, if I may dare to say so, even the noble Baroness is human. I hope that she will still be able to have the holiday that she certainly needs. Perhaps I may ask her to convey to the Secretary of State our deep concern about his illness together with our very best good wishes for a speedy recovery. We hope that he, too, will have a well-earned holiday.
We are disappointed that the Government have sought to overturn the amendments that were made to Clause 151 on Report. It is important that local education authorities have the lead role in keeping under review all special educational needs provision within their areas. We remain keen to strengthen the review function of the local education authorities. However, we acknowledge that there has been at least some movement in that direction from the Government. It seems that our amendments on the review provisions of Clause 151 led to the Government making some improvements on their original wording. We still believe that a review of access arrangements should have been put on the face of the Bill. Ministerial comments have not fully addressed the issue.
I am aware that the Minister has received representations on access audits from the National Union of Teachers and the Spastics Society on the basis of the Coopers & Lybrand study, Within Reach—The School Survey. I should like to quote briefly from what Anthony Hewson, the chairman of the Spastics Society, said about that report. He said:

967
"Within Reach—The School Survey has highlighted some alarming statistics about the lack of access to mainstream education especially for library, playground and toilet facilities.
According to the survey in primary schools, 22 per cent. of libraries had no access: 65 per cent. had no suitably adapted toilet facilities at all.
The findings for secondary schools have important implications for disabled pupils' access to the National Curriculum:
41 per cent. of libraries were totally inaccessible;
30 per cent of science, art and music rooms were inaccessible;
55 per cent. had no suitable toilet facilities".
The Minister's colleague, Eric Forth, has written separately to a Back-Bench colleague giving a broad welcome to the two Within Reach reports. Indeed, he spoke favourably of the work at a reception held last week to promote the findings of Within Reach. As I understand it, Ministers have feared that a specific requirement for access audits will provide what they have described as,
"a raft of bureaucratic legislation",
and would become a "bureaucratic exercise" for local authorities. Instead, the Government are relying on new measures to encourage grant-maintained schools to apply for capital grants to facilitate access for the disabled. As far as they go, such measures are certainly to be welcomed. However, a full review of access arrangements would lead to an increased awareness of access problems and a clearer idea of the action that might be taken to remedy those problems.
Under the terms of Clause 151, the local education authority is to keep under review special educational provision in consultation with the funding authority and grant-maintained schools. In his letter of 16th July, Eric Forth said:
"the Funding Agency for Schools will, when established, be able increasingly to take a strategic overview of where provision for the disabled is most needed".
In that context, access audits do not themselves force the local education authority or the funding agency to spend money on making schools more accessible. Access audits paint the local and national picture for a value assessment to be made on access to schools. Such a value assessment would enable the LEA, the funding agency and the schools themselves to take the "strategic overview" and allocate the funds to improve access accordingly.
Furthermore, Eric Forth has said that Clause 18 provides sufficient powers for an access audit, allowing the Secretary of State to require information and research specifically on special educational needs. Perhaps I may put a specific question to the Minister: will the Government use those provisions in Clause 18 and review the functions under Clause 151 to undertake a review of access? That would be a logical step for the Government.
Without the full information, it is impossible to know how much it would cost to make our schools physically suitable for disabled pupils. A requirement by the Secretary of State for access audits would provide that information to enable LEAs, the funding agency and schools to improve access with the most efficient use of limited resources.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise to speak only briefly. As the Minister may be in charge of the Department for Education for the foreseeable future, I take this opportunity of saying that I feel rather like somebody who is in the back of a taxi which is taking the long route to one's destination: one may not approve, but at least one knows that the driver is competent.
I cannot help feeling that if we had had these government amendments earlier, we might have been able to avoid discussing such provisions late at night because, although they are nowhere near as strong or as direct as we should have liked or as the amendments that we passed, they go at least some way towards addressing some of the problems of the overall view. Therefore, I thank the Government for moving at least some way towards our conclusions. The House can congratulate itself a little on having nudged the Government in that direction.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like to respond to the only issue which has been raised in relation to this raft of amendments. I refer to the question of access. Before doing so, however, I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Addington, for their kind remarks. I shall convey their generous comments to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who is recuperating from his illness. Perhaps I should advise the noble Lord, Lord Addington, not to have too much confidence in the driver of that taxi. My navigation skills are not all that they might be.
I should like to stress the Government's policies that are already in place in relation to ensuring access to buildings for disabled pupils.. They are aimed at securing what is, I believe, a completely uncontroversial objective: that for every area, but not necessarily the area of an LEA, there should be a mainstream school which is readily accessible and suitable for the needs of disabled pupils. It is obvious that such facilities not only promote integration, which is important, but also lead to greater parental choice.
We have done a great deal to encourage that general objective. Despite the tight constraints on public expenditure in recent years, capital spending per pupil in maintained schools increased by 19 per cent. in real terms.
We know that local authorities are considering seriously, as part of their bidding for capital projects, access to their buildings for the disabled. We have taken an important step forward within the past week. That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Self-governing schools have just received a letter strongly encouraging them to apply for capital grants to improve access for the disabled. I understand that that move has already been welcomed by the special needs organisations. I am sure that we shall receive an encouraging response from the ever-growing self-governing sector to ensure that, whatever it does, access for the disabled will be improved. Such schools have already demonstrated a strong commitment to special education provision. I am confident that that will continue.
The important point for the purpose of today's debate is whether the Secretary of State has powers,

969
contained within primary legislation, to require an audit of access for the disabled to be carried out. The answer is, as my honourable friend Mr. Forth said in another place, that Clause 18 provides that power. I cannot state specifically that my right honourable friend will require it. What I can say is that we shall do a great deal to encourage access for the disabled in all government buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned some buildings which are not directly the responsibility of education departments. We shall work with local government to ensure that the matter is taken seriously. We have had some constructive discussions about this issue with the teacher unions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
5 After Clause 151, insert the following new clause:
Strategic plan by local education authority
(".—(1) A local education authority shall submit to the Secretary of State for approval a strategic plan for the purposes of section 151 above and of the progressive development of educational provision including special needs within their areas.
(2) A local education authority, and the governing body of any school with duties under this Part, including a grant-maintained school, shall implement the terms of any plan approved by the Secretary of State under this section and shall bring forward as appropriate relevant proposals for this purpose.
(3) A strategic plan compiled under this section shall have effect for such period of not less than four years as the Secretary of State shall specify.
(4) The Secretary of State may approve any plan submitted to him under this section with such modifications as he considers appropriate having regard to the interests of pupils.
(5) Any proposals contained in any plan submitted under this section shall have regard to the need to promote the interests of children with special educational needs.
(6) A plan compiled under this section shall contain proposals on the following matters—

(a) a broad direction and development of nursery, primary and secondary education respectively within the authority concerned, having regard to the requirements of section 152 below;

(b) the number and size of mixed and single sex schools in the authority concerned;

(c) the number and size of comprehensive or, as the case may be, selective schools in the area, taking account of the requirements of section 152 below;

(d) the number of places available in all maintained and grant-maintained schools, and City Technology Colleges, together with targets for numbers of entry from their catchment areas;

(e) the range of goods and services to be provided by the authority under sections 154 and (where applicable) 265 below; and

(f) any other matter which the authority may consider appropriate or the Secretary of State may specify.

(7) Any local education authority shall consult any neighbouring local education authority, and such representatives of parents, headteachers, teaching and non-teaching staff and other community organisations as appear to it to be concerned before submitting any plan under this section.")
5A After Clause 151, insert the following new clause:
Local education authority guidance
(".—(1) A local education authority, after consultation with—

(a) the relevant funding authority,

970

(b) the governing bodies of all maintained schools in its area,

(c) any neighbouring local education authority, and

(d) such representatives of parents, headteachers, teaching and non-teaching staff and other community organisations as appear to it to be concerned,

may submit to the Secretary of State proposed guidance for the purposes of section 151 above and for the progressive development of educational provision including special educational provision within their area.
(2) Guidance compiled under this section may contain proposals on the development of nursery, primary and secondary education within the authority, the types and sizes of schools provided by the authority and any other matter the authority considers to be relevant.
(3) Any proposed guidance compiled under this section shall have regard to the need to promote the interests of children with special educational needs.
(4) The Secretary of State may approve, with or without modifications, any guidance submitted to him under subsection (1) above.
(5) Guidance approved by the Secretary of State under this section shall have effect for such period as the Secretary of State may specify.
(6) The governing body of any maintained school shall have regard to the terms of any guidance approved by the Secretary of State under this section in carrying out its duties under the Education Acts.")
Lord JuddMy Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose Amendment No. 5A in lieu thereof.
I must say that I have in this past week almost reached the point of despair. Even at the 11th hour-plus, the Government seem to have learnt very little. The cavalier, insensitive and arrogant way in which they have, from the time of the publication of their White Paper, dealt with all views or concerns other than their own, has yet again been crudely emphasised in the way that your Lordships' amendments to the Bill have been considered, or, to be more accurate, not considered.
This House, somewhat unhappily, sent a document containing over 580 amendments—no fewer—and mostly government amendments, to the other place. There the debate was limited to just one day, with the guillotine allowing an average of only 53 seconds per amendment. The Government's response to the groups of your Lordships' amendments now before us, as made during our Report stage more than a full four weeks previously on 14th June, was only published for the other place on Friday 16th July, the last working day before consideration took place. They were all unceremoniously rejected by the Government with, by my calculation, barely an hour and a half of debate, which was, even by the Government's lamentable standards, an amazingly dismissive approach to three such fundamental issues as nursery education, special needs, and the proper planning of our children's education—issues which had been repeatedly stressed as being of the greatest importance in all our deliberations from Second Reading though Committee stage to Report stage, and issues which had indeed received support from all quarters in this House.

971
But, of course, that has been the whole story of this sorry legislation, well evidenced at the beginning in the way the consultation period on the White Paper last year coincided with the school holidays. As the right reverend Prelate said on Third Reading:
"The Bill will have been put through within 12 months from White Paper to Royal Assent. There was no prior consultation."—[Official Report; 6/7/93; col. 1377.]
What a deplorable contrast to all the statesmanship of 1944, despite the immense pressures of the Second World War. Where is there any evidence whatever of any concession to the principle of consensus which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, so firmly reminded us is essential to sound, sustainable education policy? Making education legislation on the hoof is a shameful way to treat our children.
The Bill has been drafted so hastily that there can be no shadow of doubt that the Government will be compelled to return to the House again in the near future with yet another piece of legislation intended to deal with the mess generated by this one. Even at their sixteenth attempt the Government have still failed to get right their legislation on education.
That said, we have to face the realities of the situation in which we now find ourselves. The amendments we now put forward concentrate on two key issues which have received most consistent attention in the deliberations of this House. It is our fervent hope that even now the Government may feel able to accept them in their modified form. To do so would provide some basis for beginning to rebuild essential good will, confidence and consensus.
In Amendment No. 5A we find one of the issues which has most seriously concerned your Lordships' House: the danger of damaging muddle and confusion in the planning of local educational provision. Amendment No. 207B put that right by envisaging a clear lead planning role for LEAs across the public education system, including grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. That amendment was agreed on the second day of Lords' Report stage, without the Government's endorsement, but not resisted by them. It would have provided the framework that the original Bill lacked and given a clear future role for LEAs.
According to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, Mr. Eric Forth, it was subsequently rejected by the Government because its effect would have been:
"to impose a duty on LEAs to plan all arrangements for special educational needs. That would severely erode the right of schools that have opted to leave their LEAs to run their own affairs. The Government cannot accept that; it cuts across the whole philosophy of GM schools".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/93; col. 95.]
The amendment was nevertheless supported by a Conservative Member, Mr. Tim Rathbone, who said that he believed that giving the responsibility for strategic planning of education to local elected education authorities would
"help to plot the future for LEAs as enablers rather than providers".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/93; col. 101.]
The purpose of our new amendment would be to give the LEA an overall responsibility for overseeing education in its area, but rather than doing that
972
through a plan, which if approved by the Secretary of State would need to be enforced, the LEA would prepare guidance for the progressive development of educational provision, including special educational provision, within its area. That guidance would be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval, if necessary with modification. If the guidance were approved by the Secretary of State, then maintained schools, including grant-maintained schools, would have to have regard to that guidance. Clearly that arrangement is less prescriptive than the plan of Amendment No. 207B, but the approval of the Secretary of State would give the guidance of LEAs an important status. In fact, much of education legislation is put into practice through circulars of guidance; and, for example, the Education (Schools) Act 1992 included giving guidance to registered inspectors among the duties of the Chief Inspector for England.
The amendment would create the enabling authority of the future, recognising that local education authorities will continue to have a critical role in the schools system into the 21st century, with LEAs supporting all schools which do not opt out. It thus produces a workable framework within which the "mixed economy", run by the LEAs and the Funding Agency for Schools respectively, can operate. By giving LEAs the oversight of strategic planning for their areas, information can be gathered at one time and in one place which would have the useful by-product of enabling the FAS to start its work with a full information base. There would be orderly development of the system, and I suggest that it is one of the strengths of the amendment that the interest of the Secretary of State in securing such development across the system as a whole is recognised. There really is a need to ensure effective, well-informed overall local planning in the interests of our children. The amendment would help to secure it. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose Amendment No. 5A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Judd.)
Earl Russell: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for tabling this amendment, which we support. I sympathise with the noble Lord in his comments about the Commons rejecting all our amendments. When that happens the words which come into my mind are those of Macduff on realising that Macbeth had killed all his children. But since not even Shakespeare would make those words in order, I shall not repeat them.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, in introducing this group of amendments on Report, said that they were designed to cobble together a provision against the intestacies of individual school policies. Those are crucial words because we are concerned with the danger of the fragmentation of a public service. That has been one of our crucial concerns throughout the debates on the Bill and it has been one of the hardest issues on which to achieve any meeting of minds.
While I sympathises what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the time allotted to consideration of these amendments, in another place

973
this group was the only one which received an interesting debate. I am glad that I stayed up late last night to read it because a number of important points were made. In referring to them I shall be paraphrasing. Attention was drawn by Mr. Spearing to the danger of schools in a competitive environment letting their special needs provisions sink. That was one of the issues which made him believe that there was a need for some co-ordination. Having read those words, I was immediately reminded of what happens to local authority housing when only the most disadvantaged are unable to buy; that what remains in local authority ownership becomes a kind of sink. I do not believe that it is any part of the Government's purpose to let that happen to the schools which are run by local authorities. If the Bill inadvertently creates that danger. I hope that the Government will think about it.
From the Conservative Benches Sir John Hannam drew attention to the danger of a school which wants to improve its examination results perhaps running down its special needs provisions. An important brief from the Cheshire Dyslexia Association was discussed. It made a point which is of general implication. In Cheshire the local authority runs a general service across the county to teach the county's teachers how to handle dyslexia. As one with dyslexic pupils I should have been most grateful for that kind of service. But if the LEA's role as a co-ordinator is destroyed, who will perform such a service? If such a service is not performed, is it not likely that the overall standard of education will fall?
Last night I was thinking of why we do not get across to each other on the theme of fragmentation. I believe that we—and I mean the whole crescent of the House which stretches from the Benches on which the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, sits to these Benches—think of a public service as something like a train. There must be a coupling between the carriages and they must move in a roughly co-ordinated way. The Government think much more in terms of a series of cars which may move in different directions, at different speeds and in different places. In that we have a major difference in philosophy and since for the time being the Government are still in power, one may see that they might insist on their view prevailing.
But there is a middle ground which was suggested in the interesting speech of Mr. Rathbone from the Conservative Benches on the role of the LEA as an enabling authority. If we accept the Government's view that they are all like cars, we do not necessarily have to say that they are all like dodgems. If we think that the authorities are like cars, we can have a system of rule of the road, of roundabouts, of traffic lights and of the Highway Code. Mr. Rathbone's arguments in favour of the enabling power of the LEA seemed to be very much in that line.
Whenever we ask another place to think for a second time, the question of legitimacy is always raised. I believe that the answer to that question is very simple. In the two Parliament Acts certain powers were taken away from us by another place and it left us with certain others which are explicitly spelt out. We enjoy those powers by grant of another place and,
974
therefore, have every right to exercise the powers that we have been given as long as it pleases another place not to take them away. The question is of the expediency of exercising those powers. It does not seem to me to be expedient to send to another place a signal that we shall always accept what it sends back to us. That would be an invitation to ignore whatever we say knowing that it could do so without further political penalty. We do not exercise the power very often but it is important that we should not allow it to atrophy.
There are certain conditions, at least one of which must be satisfied before we exercise the power. One is that the Bill be not workable if it is not changed. I fear that in relation to this Bill that may be the case. I am afraid of fragmentation and lack of co-ordination leading to a collapse of the whole service. A significant issue of principle should be another ground. I understand that one does not have to satisfy all the grounds but I think that that also exists in this case. Furthermore, it would be a sufficient ground to ask another place to think for a second time if what is being asked for is not simply a partisan matter. The most interesting speech of Mr. Rathbone encourages me to think that that is the case. For those reasons we on these Benches are happy to support the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may make a small point because my noble friend the Minister will feel constrained to do so and it may interfere with the flow of her argument. I would have made it earlier as an interruption to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, had I found the relevant paragraph in the Companion to the Standing Orders. Page 42 states:
"The content of a speech made in the House of Commons or a committee of that House in the current session may be summarised, but it is out of order to quote from such a speech unless it be the speech of a Minister in relation to Government policy".
The noble Lord did not commit a heinous offence but if it went unnoted it might become a precedent. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was plainly aware of that because he prefaced his remarks by stating that he would be paraphrasing.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, Amendment No. 5A, in common with Amendments Nos. 6A and 14B, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, raises a problem which could transcend the intrinsic merits of any of these amendments In one way or another they are all concerned with children with special educational needs. That is because none of the amendments can receive the consideration of another place until the spillover period.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, dealt with the timetable as between 15th June and 22nd July, and that requires no repetition. On 22nd July I was informed that there would be a delay before consideration could be given by another place to an amendment of which I had given notice as long ago as 7th July that I would move if no accommodation could be made. I make no personal complaint at all. I have no personal grouse or grievance. But what has happened is that the pressure of business has pre-empted a constitutional entitlement of this House.

975
The train which carries our procedures to and fro between the two Houses has simply run into the buffers and cannot raise steam until October.
If any of the amendments are acceptable on their merits, the question arises whether a delayed Royal Assent would be so prejudicial as to induce your Lordships to refrain from the exercise of a constitutional entitlement. The way in which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has put the matter may well commend itself to your Lordships.
As to the merits of the amendment, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, it could appear that such further guidance to the LEAs as is proposed by Amendment No. 5A really should not appear on the face of the Bill. It tends to overload the Bill in a manner to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, takes traditional and right exception, relying on the Renton Report.
It overloads it with a somewhat complex statutory duty as regards matters of guidance which, if your Lordships look at subsection (4), lie within the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State. Therefore, that is a curious substance to seek to incorporate in primary legislation. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, Amendment No. 10A does not go so far as some of us would wish but it seems to take on board in another form the concept of strategic planning. As at present advised, on its merits, I am not able to support Amendment No. 5A.
4 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has taken the line that he has. It seems to me that we have a right to ask the other House to think again when that is possible and it has the time to listen. As the noble Lord says, we have been rushed into this because the other House did not look at our amendments as soon as they could have done. There was a delay between 6th July and 19th July, which is nearly a fortnight, and again, we have waited for a week to look at what the other place thinks on these amendments which were hastily and inadequately considered. Therefore, it seems to me that there is the spillover in which the other place can think again about anything that we send back and in those circumstances we are totally within our rights to ask it to look again at the amendment.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said everything that I would wish to say on the merits of the amendments and I shall not bore the House by repeating that. I believe that it is not out of order for me to quote the Minister, Mr. Eric Forth, when he said of the original amendment:
"That would severely erode the right of schools that have opted to leave their LEAs to run their own affairs".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/93; col. 95.]
I do not believe that the amendment would have done that. Those schools could perfectly well run their own affairs. The point that we were trying to make—and this applies also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 3ZA—was that the planning ability should be given to the LEA. It seems to me that one authority should have an overall strategic view. Amendment No. 5A does not go so far as it did originally but it gives LEAs that
976
right, with the Secretary of State having the overall power. Therefore, I hope that this House will support Amendment No. 5A.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I believe that she has misunderstood me and it is important that I should correct her. I did not say that we should not ask another place to think again—I accepted much of what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd—but I said that I could not accept the amendment on its merits. That is all.
Baroness David: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if I misunderstood him.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to make two points. Of course the House is entitled to ask another place to think again. There is no point in having a long argument about that. The question at issue is not whether or not we should ask it to do so but whether, on the merits of the case, we should do so.
I believe that the Government have listened to a great deal of what has been said in this House and in another place and have attempted to meet our anxieties. The Minister has moved a long way in attempting to satisfy the House on this issue which is concerned with co-ordination and full consultation. It seems to me that Amendment No. 10A achieves that and for that reason I shall support it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is an important debate. I remind the House that we have had extensive debates on the sensible planning for children with special educational needs and I welcome this opportunity to continue the debate on that important issue. I do not say as regards any of the amendments to be discussed today that there should be no delay, because this is an opportunity for the House to give proper consideration to what the other place has said to us and to take a view about that. I accept that that view should be either registered in another place or for that to be the end of the matter. I wish to discuss the amendments on their merits.
I welcome, and indeed endorse, such an approach as that which lies behind Amendment No. 5A. It recognises the new organisational arrangements for schools under the Bill. It further recognises both the autonomy of schools within the system as a whole and the need for making arrangements for proper consultation and co-operation between the parties in order to ensure sensible co-ordination when making provision for children with special educational needs in an area.
It is just that kind of approach that the Government have envisaged and which we have reflected in our own proposals in the Bill: both those that have been there from the outset and the amendments which were passed by those in another place in lieu of the relevant amendments agreed to by your Lordships at Report stage.
I have in previous debates explained in some detail the system which the Bill would establish. That system

977
starts with the school. It is at the school where children with special needs and their parents have the first and the most direct contact with those who can help them.
Perhaps I may address the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about dyslexia. We have discussed that before. I was asked who would perform that service. The Bill is quite clear on the way in which the system will work, whether it is at the early stage of identifying the problem or at the stage of recognising problems of co-ordination and reading and writing. There are five stages in the process, but three stages are all within the school. If the problems become so acute and in need of other agency involvement, the school moves to stages four and five which involve the local education authority; and the statementing in process is triggered.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. However, the question was about who trains the teachers to deal with the dyslexia.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that has absolutely nothing to do with the amendments. Training for teachers dealing with children with special educational needs is very much on the agenda. The reason that we provide grants for educational support and training is to allow teachers to be trained in different specialisms which include working with children with special educational needs. However, that is not part of the amendments today.
I have explained in some detail the system which the Bill establishes. It starts with the school; and I have explained the five-stage process. I believe that that is a very systematic way of early identification and ensuring that young people's needs are addressed as early as possible and, we hope, more effectively than they have been hitherto. That is why we have made the code of practice applicable to all schools and will stress the school's role in early identification and assessment of pupils who have special educational needs but who do not need statements.
That is why we have amended the Bill so that regulations governing annual reviews of statements may encompass the school's role. That is why we have proposed to put a requirement on schools to produce policies for educating all their pupils with special educational needs. Indeed, those policies would involve the expertise, or lack of expertise, of teachers who have to deal with children with special educational needs.
That is also why we have ensured that LEAs can continue to offer special educational needs support services to governors of all maintained schools within and outside their areas to enable them better to carry out those policies. That is why I have given commitments on the guidance to be issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State over proposals for the establishment or change of character of grant-maintained schools; namely, that consultation must take place with the local authority over special educational provision locally before those proposals are put forward.
That is why a government amendment was tabled in another place in lieu of the amendments passed by
978
your Lordships to require governors to consult the local education authority, the funding agency and other governing bodies where necessary for coordinating provision for children with special educational needs, and for governors to be similarly consulted by the LEA when it reviews its own arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd referred yet again to the 580 amendments which went from this House to another place. I remind the House that more than half of those amendments were technical. Many of the remainder were introduced in response to points raised from all parts of this House. I do not pretend that there was wholehearted agreement on every occasion. However, there was full discussion on most of those amendments and the House determined in favour of the amendments. On a smaller number of amendments, the House took a contrary view. Members in another place considered those amendments, and while not agreeing with all of them, nevertheless displayed an understanding for the underlying anxiety by producing amendments in lieu of those amendments.
I have referred to that formidable array of measures to ensure that schools can and will make proper provision for pupils with special educational needs. I have referred to the support services which they can draw on in order to do so. Schools will, of course, be reassured by the code of practice which will give guidance as to when the LEA should intervene in the case of an individual child.
For all of the reasons that I have given, I cannot agree to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I must ask the House to reject. Amendment No. 5A. In doing so, I assure your Lordships that I believe that the arrangement which we have proposed in the Bill, including the amendments passed in another place, provide for measures which directly address the proper and sensible planning of SEN provision in an area in keeping with the general thrust of co-operation and guidance underlying the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Those train carriages are properly coupled. We may agree to differ about the effectiveness of the coupling. But I believe that co-operation, consultation and effective working together is ensured within the Bill. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am naturally grateful to the Minister for her reply. Perhaps I may comment briefly on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I believe that he was right to emphasise the seriousness of the situation brought about by the shortage of time for proper consideration. There are many differing views. The role of this House within the total political life of the country is a big constitutional issue. However, we have a responsibility to consider legislation and to put the results of our consideration before another place so that it can take them fully into account. It is not satisfactory that only on the last working day before the other place convenes to

979
consider what we have said the Government should make available their observations. How can Members of the other place consult properly and fully in the country as a whole on their response to the Government's comments or observations?
We all know that it is not a satisfactory situation. We know that it has been all too characteristic of the work of this Government in many spheres but—I do not like having to say it—most especially of the Department for Education.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the substance of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. He suggested that the point could perhaps be met without actually putting it on the face of the Bill. That suggestion has to be taken seriously. I should be a good deal happier if in our prolonged deliberations together, with all her ability and articulate argument, the Minister had suggested that she sought a dynamic partnership with local authorities. I do not believe that anyone who had even casually attended most of our proceedings could have gone away with that interpretation. The position is quite the reverse. I believe that everyone who has been present, and many outside, have realised that there is a determination —I have said it on past occasions and I do not mind saying it again—by the Minister to ensure that local authorities do not have a key role to play in the planning of educational provision locally. Therefore there really are no grounds for accepting that even if the measure is not on the face of the Bill there will somehow be a commitment by the Government by other means to make it succeed.
That brings me to the last point. Obviously we cannot go over all the arguments again. I believe that we are all profoundly concerned—there was no time to debate it properly in the other place—about the misguided and dangerous over-centralisation of education in this country. The strategy spelt out in 1944 was of a dispersed system of education: a shared responsibility between the centre and local democracy.
We can argue about local democracy. I would be the last to suggest that everything is perfect in the condition of local democracy in this country. That is a different argument. The principal issue with which we are concerned is that the local community should have a key leading part to play in planning the provision of educational facilities for the children who are part of that community. However dedicated and committed public servants and Ministers may be at the centre, how can they possibly understand in detail the nuances and needs up and down the country, from the North West to the South West, or from the North East to the South East?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Perhaps the noble Lord will respond to this point. The greatest act of devolution of power to schools has been the grant-maintained movement. We have before us amendments in the House today which give operational autonomy to the unit of management, which is the school itself. The amendments were about
980
centralising that power and taking it back into the centre of local authorities. The noble Lord almost puts the argument on its head.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it is a very late hour to say this in our deliberations, but I enjoy debating with the Minister because I realise that I am debating with someone who holds genuine convictions. I have said before that I admire her strength of character and her conviction. However, I am terrified that she gets the situation so wrong. That is the issue at stake. I profoundly disagree with her. I put this point to her. Where will all those little schools with their overworked management committees find themselves in five or 10 years' time when seeking to grapple with the central administration? Indeed where were we on the preparation of budgets this year for all those individual schools?
We know that we are piling up trouble for the future with this degree of over-centralisation and that is why I am convinced that the Government will be back here in no time at all with still further legislation to try to sort it all out. This country needs a partnership. If there is to be successful education, we need education to be central to the community. Because that is so important and because there was by no stretch of the imagination any opportunity for Members of the other place to consider fully what we had said and its implications, I have no option but to ask the House to agree with us in our Amendment No. 5A.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose Amendment No. 5A in lieu thereof?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 146.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ennals, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Falkland, V.

Ardwick, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Banks, L.

Fitt, L.

Barnett, L.

Galpern, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Blackstone, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Blease, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gregson, L.

Bottomley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brain, L.

Hayter, L.

Brimelow, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carter, L.

Howell, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hughes, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hunt, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jay, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Desai, L.

Judd, L.

Diamond, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Donoughue, L.

Listowel, E.

981

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Richard, L.

Lockwood, B.

Rix, L.

Longford, E.

Rochester, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Russell, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McNair, L.

Serota, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shannon, E.

Mayhew, L.

Shepherd, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Stallard, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stedman, B.

Molloy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mulley, L.

Thurlow, L.

Nathan, L.

Tordoff, L.

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ogmore, L.

Warnock, B.

Peston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Goold, L.

Arran, E.

Goschen, V.

Astor, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Beloff, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bessborough, E.

Blatch, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Blyth, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Borthwick, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.

Brentford, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Brigstocke, B.

Holderness, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Hood, V.

Butterworth, L.

Howe, E.

Cadman, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Caithness, E.

Ilchester, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Carnock, L.

Killearn, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Kimball, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Chiver, L.

Leigh, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Long, V.

Coleraine, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cox, B.

Cranborne, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cross, V.

Mancroft, L.

Cullen of Ash bourne, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Merrivale, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V.

Morris, L.

Denham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Downshire, M.

Munster, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elibank, L.

Nelson, E.

Eller, B.

Norrie, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ferrers, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Finsberg, L.

Pender, L.

Flather, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pike, B.

Gainford, L.

Polwarth, L.

Geddes, L.

Porritt, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Quinton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

982

Reay, L.

Sudeley, L.

Rennell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Renton, L.

Terrington, L.

Renwick, L.

Teviot, L.

Romney, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trumpington. B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Seccombe, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Waverley, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Westbury, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wharton, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Windlesham, L.

Strange, B.

Wise, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wolfson, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.29 p.m.
LORDS AMENDMENT
6 After Clause 151, insert the following new clause:
Planning of nursery provision for pupils with special needs
(".—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 165 below, a local education authority shall plan and keep under review, and secure the provision of, nursery education in respect of any child to whom subsection (2) below applies.
(2) A child to whom this section applies is a child who is aged not less than three nor more than five years and who has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him.
(3) The Secretary of State shall within three years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act review and publish his conclusions on the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of provision under this section (including its impact on the education of pupils with special educational needs in schools which are not special schools) and the desirability or otherwise of the extension of the duty referred to in subsection (1) above to include the planning and review of, and the securing of the provision of, nursery education in respect of all pupils aged not less than three nor more than five years whose parents wish it.")
Lord Judd Lord Judd to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof.
6A After Clause 151, insert the following new clause:
Nursery education
(".—(1) Within three years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, a local education authority shall, secure the provision of nursery education in respect of any child to whom subsection (2) below applies.
(2) A child to whom this subsection applies is a child who is aged not less than three nor more than five years, who has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him, and whose parents wish that provision to be made through nursery education.
(3) The Secretary of State shall within five years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act review and publish his conclusions on the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of provision under this section (including its impact on the education of pupils with special needs in schools which are not special schools) and the desirability or otherwise of the extension of the duty referred to in subsection (1) above to include the planning and review of, and the securing of the provision of nursery education in respect, of all pupils aged not less than three nor more than five years whose parents wish it.")
Lord JuddMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do propose Amendment No. 6A in lieu thereof.
In the other place the Government rejected Amendment No. 207C which would have given LEAs the duty to ensure that nursery education was available for all children with special educational needs, not just those with statements, and would have required that within three years the Secretary of State should consider whether nursery education ought to be extended to all children whose parents wished it.
In rejecting the amendment the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Education, Mr. Forth, made no reference to nursery education. However, the amendment was supported from the Conservative Benches, with the entreaty that the Government should adopt a more generous attitude towards the provision of nursery schooling and with the strongly expressed conviction that there are few measures which the Government could adopt which would have a greater effect on a child's attitude to schooling and which would influence better the effect of that schooling on the rest of each child's life than the funding of nursery schooling.
One of the main arguments used by the Government in this House against the amendment was that it would be too expensive. As I read it, the Conservative Members in the other place who disagreed took the view that most LEAs prioritise nursery places to children with special educational needs. Therefore, for most LEAs the new duty would involve no increase in provision. It would make explicit what most LEAs already provide, and the few LEAs which do not follow that course would be directed to make such provision. Those observations came from the Conservative Benches in the other place.
While the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has calculated that universal provision of nursery education for those children whose parents wish it would cost some £470 million, the provision of nursery education for children with special educational needs whose parents wish it would increase the spending on nursery education by a relatively small amount since, as was pointed out from the Conservative Benches in the other place, many of those children are already receiving nursery education in any case.
The revised amendment takes into account the Government's anxiety about increased cost by allowing a period of three years for the introduction of nursery education for this group. It would then be for the Secretary of State to decide whether nursery
984
education should be extended to cover all children and, rather than a period of three years from the date of Royal Assent for consideration of such an extension, the new amendment would allow the Secretary of State up to five years in which to consider it.
The new amendment makes it absolutely clear that the initial requirement would be that, of the children covered, only those whose parents wish it would be given nursery education. That would help to resolve the issue which has been raised of identifying children with special educational needs. It would in effect be up to parents to propose to their LEA that their child has special educational needs. The LEA would then have the responsibility of assessing whether that were true.
There is widespread agreement that nursery education is highly beneficial. Even the Government, in opposing the amendment in the House of Lords, did not suggest that nursery education was not valuable, only that it was expensive. The amendment gives the Government an opportunity to introduce nursery education gradually and at relatively low cost.
However, in moving the amendment I must underline, as we underlined in our previous deliberations, that in our judgment, which was widely shared by noble Lords in many parts of this House, all the available evidence demonstrates that universal nursery education for all children whose parents want it would be both an excellent investment in enabling children to make the best use of subsequent educational opportunities and also at the same time a sound economic investment in that the benefits and consequences would pay for the costs in a very short period of time. There would be a more successful economy, more social and family stability and far less social delinquency. In our view, universal provision must therefore remain the ultimate objective. We suggest that to resist it is painfully to penalise the nation, both economically and socially.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do propose Amendment No. 6A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Judd.)
Earl Russell: My Lords, we on these Benches warmly support the noble Lord's amendment. Two points arise here. One is the demand for nursery education. Any of us who have looked at our postbags during the course of the Bill will know that that demand is widespread, strong and deeply felt. We hear a great deal from this Government about parental choice. There is widespread parental choice in favour of nursery education. We are asking the Government whether they will do a little more—and only a little more—to make it easier for that choice to be met.
Of course, the Government will make the point about expense, which must be considered. We have heard a great deal from the Government in recent times about the cost of single parents to the Department of Social Security. The vast majority of single parents would like to work. Because of the difficulties of childcare they find it extremely difficult to do so. Were more nursery education provided many of them would find it much easier to do so, at least part time. That would not only ease the budget of the

985
Department of Social Security but also bring some of them into the income tax bracket and reduce the public sector borrowing requirement by increasing revenue. Those, set together with parental choice, are not negligible points. I hope that they will carry weight.
The other point, which we have already touched on, is the planning role of the LEAs. The amendment addresses nursery provision for those with special educational needs, for whom it may often be particularly important, both for social integration and for overcoming learning difficulties. To foresee demand for nursery education for those with special educational needs one has to know the local community. It is no good being a funding authority in York. One does not know that five years ago in a particular village in Cornwall there was an outbreak of one particular birth defect. Such things happen in small waves in particular communities. Cases have been publicised recently in the newspapers. To deal with them one needs specialist medical knowledge. That is the sort of information which is likely to be accessible to a local education authority representing its community. I do not see how it would be accessible to the funding authority.
The noble Baroness said that she did not understand our arguments about centralisation. She said that this Bill was the greatest measure of devolution.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I meant the 1988 Bill. I meant that the establishment of grant-maintained schools provided autonomy at a level which was as close as possible to parents, teachers and children.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that correction. I apologise for misleading the House. However, it is still the same policy of the move towards grant-maintained schools, which she hails as a measure of devolution.
When devolution is imposed by the centre there is a paradox. It is the same paradox as was invoked by Rousseau who spoke of forcing people to be free. One might even mention what he said about freedom in England. He said that the country is free only on election day, and the use it then makes of it well justifies that it should be deprived of it.
There are certain paradoxes in the implication of freedom here. The enforcement of freedom in a form in which people do not want it may be taken as the imposition of excessive central authority. It is also the essence of our case that a great many of those functions simply cannot be devolved on to every individual school. No doubt the noble Baroness remembers the arguments about the adult education service of ILEA. We believe that some of those functions cannot be devolved all the way down and, therefore, if the local education authority does not do them, the centre must. That, we think, is excessive centralisation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I take on board everything that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the importance of nursery
986
education, as I am sure do all noble Lords. However, I find it difficult to accept the imposition of what appears to me to be a novel type of mandatory duty which involves substantial expenditure, so to speak, in escrow, even as regards children with learning difficulties who call for special educational provisions. I believe that it is a novel type of provision, but I may be wrong and am open to correction.
However, in view of what has been said in 'your Lordships' House in the course of the debate, there is no doubt that insufficient attention has been given to the importance of nursery schools. It is now equally apparent that in subsection (b) of Amendment No, 10B, the Government have gone some way towards making reasonable provision. For my part, I should prefer to see how that develops and, if necessary, introduce legislation if the situation is not satisfactory in three years' time. There is something about the delayed action provision, as drafted, which I find unacceptable. For that reason, I shall not support the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am in a great dilemma over the amendment. I profoundly believe in nursery education, particularly for children with special educational needs. I also believe in the, pre-school playgroup movement but parents should have the choice between the pre-school playgroup and nursery school.
I believe in nursery school education for all the reasons given at other times during the passage of the Bill. What worries me is the practicality of the situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and my noble friend have talked about the cost. I was a local government officer and chief officer and I am fearful that if we insist on nursery schools being introduced within the next three years there will be difficulty over the training of nursery school teachers. I am sure that other noble Lords must have received as many letters as I have from teachers all over the country complaining that there is a movement for people who are not fully trained to work in nursery schools. I believe that if teachers are to do good work in nursery schools which meets the needs of the children and the parents, they must be trained.
I know that one must look at the priorities, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, asked, must money really come into the matter? Of course, one would like to say no, but I cannot see that local authorities will be able to obtain good trained staff and run nursery schools within three years. I should have preferred a permissive power to be given to local authorities to run nursery schools with trained teachers and for the situation to be reviewed in three years' time, with a view then to making it obligatory.
I am in difficulty because I do not wish a law to be passed which cannot be implemented for lack of money and good, trained staff. My strongest point is the trained staff. If we implement the recommendation, staff who are not trained will be taken on and, once taken on, they will be there for good. That will be worrying, so I am in the great difficulty of wanting to support the amendment but, from a practical point

987
of view on trained staff, I prefer there to be a permissive power with a review taking place in three years' time.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has done us all a favour by returning to the fray on nursery education with a more modest bid for support for this particularly important early intervention in the interests of children with special educational needs. A partnership between parents and professionals is important during the early years, for discovering and addressing the problems of disability. I am sad that we have to debate again what I had hoped would be obvious.
I should mention that I have been in correspondence with the Minister and I am grateful to her and her colleagues for the distance which we have been able to move together. I am disappointed, however, that the Government have not been able to go the whole way to complete the journey.
The noble Lord's amendment targets specifically children identified as having a particular category of special needs and, within that group, those children whose parents want their special needs tackled through nursery education rather than through other approaches, which may be equally valid. Education in the early years offers much, not least to those with profound and multiple disabilities and complex needs. I am happy to speak up for them, even within a nursery education system which might initially be heavily geared to those with special needs and not others. It is difficult to make up in later years for the opportunities lost in early years, as thousands of parents—members of MENCAP—can vouchsafe. I very much hope that today the Minister will not slam the door shut which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, seeks to reopen wide enough to let in special children, in the interests of the future of the children, the parents and us.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I found the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, flawed in two respects. First, he quoted a figure for nursery education given to him by, I think, the AMA of over £400 million. He then said that if one confined it to a particular group of parents it was much less. It was significant that he did not give the figure and it is important that we should know what is the difference.
Secondly, in the present climate which has existed since the late Anthony Crosland was Secretary of State for Local Government, it is now necessary for this House and Parliament as a whole to think carefully before they commit extra public finance which will fall upon a local authority. It behoves the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and this Chamber, if it is to consider the matter, to say what would be cut in order to implement the proposal. It is clear that no extra finance can be available, so what would the noble Lord, Lord Judd, sacrifice in order to fit that in?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may make one or two comments on what was said about my noble friend's amendment. I begin with
988
expenditure. Of course, I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, said, that in making proposals for change we must be careful to consider the expenditure involved. Perhaps I may say to both him and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that we are talking merely about a relatively small number of additional nursery places. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, there are already many children with special needs in nursery education.
This amendment is about ensuring that all such children aged three and four, if their parents so wish (and not all parents will) should have access to the special care and education that a good nursery class or nursery school can provide. The additional expenditure that is involved is small. We are not talking about huge numbers of children; nor, I would have thought, a large amount of capital. It will be possible to accommodate many of those children within existing schools and classes.
There may have to be some capital expenditure, but the important point is that by making this provision available, we may well save on later spending in order to help those children catch up. We may make it less necessary to spend a great deal on one-to-one teaching, remedial classes, remedial groups, and so on. Some of their needs will have been identified early; they will have been given support early; and some of the problems that they have, while they may not necessarily be removed, will at least be limited by the very good provision that could be made available if this amendment were accepted.
I should also like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that I too am a former local education authority chief officer. I share some of her concerns. But she was a little inconsistent in what she said. On the one hand, she suggested that the pre-school play group movement is important in this area; on the other, she suggested that it is extremely important that the teachers of those young children should be trained. Many of the people who work in the pre-school play group movement are not trained. They can do an excellent job in many respects, but are not necessarily the right people to deal with children with special needs. I accept what the noble Baroness says about the need for training.
I was also very interested that the noble Baroness obviously disagrees with the Government's latest proposals for training teachers of young children in only one year. She is absolutely right to disagree with that. These proposals are scandalous. They are based on an assumption that young children need less highly trained people. The Minister shakes her head, and she may want to respond to the point afterwards. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, I have received many letters from head teachers and from many others in the education world arguing that this will be a very retrograde step. I accept that it will be.
I come back to the point that the noble Baroness made about how it would be better to leave the local authorities with permissive powers. Here I part company with her in that I believe that unless we put this on the statute book, local authorities, because they are so constrained in terms of the demands that

989
are made upon them in a variety of ways, will (at least, some of them) find it difficult to provide these additional places.
If we were to accept the amendment it would be necessary for the Government to provide a little additional funding. That follows from the legislation. But that is what we ought to be doing. We have all said that this is a highly desirable priority. I do not want at this particular moment to respond to the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Finsberg, about the savings that could be made in other areas, but I would be happy to provide the noble Lord with a list. There are plenty of areas where, for the relatively small sums that we are talking about, we could find some savings. I very much hope that the House will not reject this amendment on the grounds that we are talking about huge additional sums of money. We are not. We are talking about only a fairly small number of children who have very great needs and whom we ought to be helping. We certainly ought to be supporting their parents, as has already been said.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, with the leave of the House, I should like to make two points. One is that in the pre-school play group movement the mothers themselves look after the children and they choose to do so. But in regard to the nursery schools, I profoundly believe that nursery school teachers should be trained. It takes at least three years to get courses up and going so that one has the trained staff to take over. I believe so strongly in trained staff looking after nursery school children that I feel that, were we to defer that with a permissive power, with a view to coming back to Parliament in three years' time, we would be able to train the necessary teachers.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I accept that the teachers have to be trained. But again, we are not talking about huge numbers of additional teachers. It ought to be possible, over a period of three years, to start a process of recruiting a small number of additional students of nursery and infant education who can and will be trained and who will start coming on stream as soon as that period is over.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, not for three years.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has not read the amendment; or if she has read it, she has not understood it. The provision within the amendment is for a place in nursery education to be provided on demand for all children from three to five. It is divided into two phases. It starts after three years with children with special educational needs, and after five years, all children. There is no definition of a child with special educational needs. In order to know whether a three year-old has special learning difficulties, which lies behind this provision, there would have to be nationwide screening of all three year-olds to determine whether or not they had learning difficulties. It is not every parent who knows at that stage whether the child has learning difficulties. There is no definition of learning difficulties.
990
We are talking about children with special learning difficulties; namely, children whose parents believe that there is a problem and where social services and the local education authority believe that there is a problem. They come under the umbrella of the provisions of the Bill, and indeed of the 1981 Act, in that they are children who are able to be statemented from the age of two. If they are statemented there is an obligation to provide for their educational needs. So first, the children who are candidates for statements are cared for, catered for and provided for. For all other children with special educational needs, unless there is a screening process, it is not possible. This amendment goes on, two years later, to provide for all children, irrespective of special educational needs. That is not what the noble Baroness was talking about.
To reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull about the Pre-school Playgroups Association, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is wrong about that too. I had quite close associations within my authority with the Pre-school Playgroups Association both nationally and locally, and indeed at a very parochial level when I was chairman of my own local play group. Working in conjunction with social services, they frequently provide a very good educational service for children with special educational needs. Sometimes a. special educational need results because of a child's problem of socialising with other children. Special educational needs can sometimes be met in conjunction with pre-school play groups. My own department, together with the health department, is very concerned that the pre-school play groups (as indeed they already do) take training seriously, together with involving parents. It is my view that they do a very good job.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, suggested that this amendment could affect only a few children, which is simply not true. The point was made that it would involve just modest expenditure because we are talking about only a few children. That also is not true. I shall return to the costs in a moment.
I acknowledge, as I did when we recently spent some time debating these same issues, this House's real concern about provision for young children. The Government certainly agree that children under five can derive real benefits from the kind of experiences that such provision can give.
Over 90 per cent. of three and four year-olds now attend some form of group education or day care. Neither now nor in the foreseeable future would it make sense to discount nearly half of this provision —to suggest that just because it does not conform to a narrow definition of nursery education it should be scrapped and replaced with something that does. Surely the sensible course is to do what the Government have done: to see this high level of participation as an opportunity, not an obstacle, and to make the most of what exists by helping all those who work with the under-fives to provide as stimulating and enriching an environment as possible for them all.

991
At this point let me turn to the issue of under-fives with special educational needs. The Bill re-enacts the duty which local authorities have to identify and assess children with special needs from the age of two, and the power, given parental consent, to provide for children with recognised disabilities from birth.
We have always supported and encouraged early intervention by authorities. Prompt and early identification of special needs can be crucial for the child with disabilities or delayed development. But we have not gone so far as to prescribe the form of provision, and nursery provision may not always be absolutely essential. For example, Portage—the early intervention scheme whereby a specially trained worker makes weekly home visits to the child—may be a particularly useful alternative in co-ordinating the work of local education authorities, social services and health authorities in identifying the needs of the child. I have seen that scheme work at first hand. It is a very effective scheme too.
Furthermore, the code of practice will give criteria and guidance specifically on the form of assessment of children under five. It will recognise that special arrangements will need to be in place, bearing in mind that the home environment is of particular importance to young children, and the involvement of parents is especially vital. The code will cover the role of teachers, nursery schools, play groups or voluntary agencies that may be involved with the child. It will also give guidance for the child health services, including child development centres or teams which can provide a multi-professional view at a very early stage.
The code will stress that early intervention is particularly important in young children. It will address the difficulties that may occur in assessing children under five, where age and ability may limit the amount of educational information that can easily be provided, saying that evidence from other sources, such as the Portage checklist, should also be used in the assessment processes. The code will also address the content of statements for under-fives, and specific issues relating to children under two.
One of the great strengths of our provision for the under-fives is its diversity. The discretion given to local authorities in this field has enabled them to make provision in nursery schools and nursery classes for those children who stand to gain the greatest benefit while exploring the most efficient ways to allow all children access to a worthwhile group experience before they embark on their compulsory schooling. To substitute at immense cost to the public purse—not a minor cost, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—a uniform, state-provided structure would bring about the loss of a great deal of sound and effective play group provision, which has the added merit of helping to bring about the involvement of parents in their children's educational progress.
It is not good enough for the House to pretend that the expenditure issue is irrelevant. It is relevant now and will be just as relevant five years from now. Providing free education for all three and four year-olds would need an increase in annual spending
992
of more than half a billion pounds; and there would also be very substantial capital costs. Those hard facts have been all too readily ignored in today's debate. If the cake is not to be made larger, that half a billion pounds and the additional capital costs would have to come from existing expenditure.
I believe that we have spent far too much time criticising what we have got and far too little time celebrating it. In this country we have the lowest starting age for compulsory education in Europe. Fifty-three per cent. of our three and four year-olds are in school, which is a 33 per cent. increase on the figure for 1979. We have a flourishing play group movement which provides 680,000 places for the under-fives—again, I agree with my noble friend about that. My department is working with the Pre-School Playgroups Association to improve the training of play group leaders so as to make the most of the immense opportunities offered by the groups. Ninety per cent. of our three and four year-olds, as I said, attend some form of provision. Let us by all means build on these achievements. I would not wish to claim that there is no scope for further improvement in both quantity and quality. But let us not undervalue what we have and let us not ignore its worth.
Invidious comparisons are frequently made between the provision in this country and the provision of other countries in Europe. I have already said that we have the lowest statutory entry age into school in Europe. But also, the greater provision in France and Germany (with which we are constantly being compared) is by and large funded by a mix of private and state provision. We are asked today to consider, as a burden on the state and on the taxpayer, provision for all three and four year-olds within five years.
We continue to believe that the best way to ensure that as many young children as possible receive the benefits that early years' experience can provide within what the country can afford is to encourage continuing steady improvement, in both quantity and quality, within all types of provision for the under-fives. That is what we intend to do.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the fullness of her reply at this stage. But there are several points which have to be probed. Perhaps she will forgive my saying that she leaves me somewhat confused. The thrust of her argument is that the necessary provision is being made largely for those who in fact should have it. We suggest that there is a marginal addition which should be provided and that the cost of doing so would be a marginal additional cost.
I believe that the answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, is that the Government already have to give the details of what it costs to provide all that they claim to be providing. We can settle down and give a marginal figure for how much more it will cost—we genuinely believe that it will be marginal—to meet the comprehensive coverage for those parents who wish such education to be provided.
But another issue has been raised which we have to consider. Again, I hope that the Minister will forgive

993
me if my strictures are a little firm. I suggest that the difficulty is that sometimes in the strength of her convictions she does not hear what is said by others. What is important about our amendment is that we do not say that after five years there will have to be universal provision. We do not say that at all. We say that at the end of five years the Secretary of State must have addressed himself (or indeed herself) to the issue with sufficient seriousness to be able to give a comprehensive, convincing and authoritative commentary on the nature of the provision and how best that can in future be met. That is what the amendment proposes. It has gone a long way to meeting the anxieties expressed on the other side, not least by the Minister. We have done that despite our own conviction that we should move to universal nursery education straightaway. That brings me again to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg. He is absolutely right to say that if we will the ends, we must will the means and ask where the means are to come from.
I ask the noble Baroness to consider this point: at the moment all the research which has been conducted in this country under the leadership of the Home Office and the research conducted in the United States and elsewhere indicates that with universal or wider, more substantial provision of nursery education the savings become very rapid in other spheres of public expenditure because of a demonstrable fall in delinquency, because children make more of their education and go on to fend for themselves better in society, becoming less dependent upon the state, and because the economy is strengthened as a result of children having made better use of their educational opportunities. Savings automatically follow, and more so, because the research being done in the States —which we quoted at some length in our deliberations —demonstrates that the savings are considerably greater, several times over, than the expenditure invested in the universal or wider provision of nursery education.
Our contention is that, by a failure to move on this matter, as a nation we are cutting off our nose to spite our face. Yet we are accepting that the issue is so important that some movement is necessary. We have therefore gone a long way in our amendments to meet the anxieties as they were expressed, by talking about educational provision for children with special needs where their parents wish it and the responsibility of the Secretary of State to make a strategic contribution to the discussion on the future of nursery education within five years.
As the matter was not dealt with at all by Ministers in the other place when our amendments were being considered and, as we heard this afternoon, the case that we put forward, even in the wording of the amendment, has not been understood by the Minister —or the Minister chose not to understand it—I have no alternative but to press the amendment to a Division and ask the House to join with me on Amendment No. 6A.
5.12 p.m.
On Question, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose Amendment No. 6A in lieu thereof.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 140.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Judd, L.

Airedale, L.

Kennet, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brimelow, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mulley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nathan, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Diamond, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkender, B.

Richard, L.

Falkland, V.

Rix, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Geraint, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thurlow, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Varley, L.

Howell, L.

Warnock, B.

Hughes, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hunt, L.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Borthwick, L.

Aberdare, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Arran, E.

Butterworth, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Cadman, L.

Astor, V.

Caithness, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Auckland, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Beloff, L.

Carnock, L.

Bessborough, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Blatch, B.

Chilver, L.

Blyth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

995

Colwyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Milverton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Monson, L.

Cross, V.

Mountevans, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L.

Nelson, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Norrie, L.

Downshire, M.

O'Cathain, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elibank, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pike, B.

Finsberg, L.

Polwarth, L.

Flather, B.

Quinton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Rennell, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Renton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Goold, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Goschen, V.

Romney, E.

Grantchester, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Seccombe, B.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Sharples, B.

Harrowby, E.

Sherfield, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hives, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Holderness, L.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Hood, V.

Strange, B.

Hooper, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Sudeley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swansea, L.

Killearn, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kimball, L.

Teviot, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Layton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Leigh, L.

Vivian, L.

Long, V.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Waverley, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Westbury, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Windlesham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wolfson, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.20 p.m.
LORDS AMENDMENTS
7 Clause 153, page 91, line 46, after ("him") insert:
("() secure that, where a registered pupil with special educational needs is not the subject of a Statement of Special Educational Needs maintained by an education authority, there shall be a review of the provision made for the child within the period of twelve months beginning with the making of the provision, or as the case may be, with the previous review,")
8 Clause 154, page 92, line 35, at end insert:
("() The local education authority shall ensure the availability of goods and services to assist governing bodies in their duties under section 153(1) (a) of this Act.")
9 After Clause 156, insert the following new clause:.
Relationship of local education authority and grant-maintained special school
(".—(1) The funding authority shall consult any local education authority which has in the previous three years named in a statement a school which is or has become a grant-maintained special school.
(2) A grant-maintained special school shall assist the authority in any inspection and review carried out under section (Duty to direct governing body to make special educational provision) below.
(3) The funding authority and governing body of a grant-maintained special school shall consult any local education authority to which subsection (1) above applies on the range and type of provision at the school and of any proposals for a change of character.")
10 After Clause 162, insert the following new clause:
Duty to direct Governing Body to make special educational provision
(" .—(1) Where it has come to the attention of the local education authority that the governing body of a county, voluntary or grant-maintained school is not fulfilling its duties under section 153 of this Act in respect of a pupil for whom a statement of special educational needs is maintained under section 159 of this Act then the local education authority shall direct that the governing body make the special educational provision specified in the statement.
(2) In order to carry out its duty under this section, the local education authority shall have the power to inspect the special educational provision and require the governing body to supply such reports as the local education authority may require.
(3) After a period of two months after the making of a direction under subsection (1) above, the local education authority shall review the special educational provision made for the pupil for whom the direction was made and, where it appears that the provision has not been made, the Ideal education authority shall review the educational needs of the pupil under section 162 of this Act.
The Commons disagreed to Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 hut proposed the following amendments in lieu—
10A After Clause 162, page 91, line 22, at end insert 'and, in doing so, shall, to the extent that it appears necessary or desirable for the purpose of co-ordinating provision for children with speial educational needs, consult the funding authority and the governing bodies of county, voluntary, maintained special and grant-maintained schools in their area'.
10B After Clause 162, page 92, line 10, at end insert:
'() To the extent that it appears necessary or desirable for the purpose of co-ordinating provision for children with special educational needs—

997

(a) the governing bodies of county, voluntary and grant-maintained schools shall, in exercising functions relating to the provision for such children, consult the local education authority, the funding authority and the governing bodies of other such schools, and

(b) in relation to maintained nursery schools, the local education authority shall, in exercising those functions, consult the funding authority and the governing bodies of county, voluntary and grant-maintained schools.'

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 7 to 10, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10A and 10B in lieu thereof.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 7 to 10, to which the Commons have disagreed, arid do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10A and 10B in lieu thereof. —(Buroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENTS
11 After Clause 146, insert the following new clause:
Inspection of accounts and reports to Parliament
(".—(1) The accounts of the governing body of any grant-maintained school shall be open to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall, in each session of Parliament, report to the House of Commons—

(a) whether he has carried out under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 any examinations in respect of grant-maintained schools, and if he has,

(b) the results of such examinations.

(3) The first report under subsection (2) above shall cover a period beginning with the commencement of this section and each subsequent report shall cover a period beginning at the end of the period covered by the preceding report.
(4) In determining whether to carry out any examination under that section in respect of grant-maintained schools and, if he determines to do so, the nature of the examination, the Comptroller and Auditor General shall have regard to any relevant published report of any study promoted or undertaken by the Audit Commission under section 220 of the Education Reform Act 1988.")
12 Clause 147 page 88, line 43, at end insert:
The Commons disagreed to Amendment No. 12 but proposed the following amendment to Amendment No. 11 in lieu thereof—
12A Clause 147, line 19, after 'Commission' insert 'for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12A to Lords Amendment No. 11 in lieu thereof.
I spoke about value-for-money studies of grant-maintained schools when moving Amendment No. 1A. Amendment No. 12A is a minor technical provision. It puts the full title of the Audit Commission into Amendment No. 11 and thereby removes the need for Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
998
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12A to Lords Amendment No. 11 in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 149, Page 90, line 42, leave out from ("of") to end of line 43 and insert:
("() local education authorities, and such governing bodies, exercising functions under this Part of this Act,
() any other person exercising any function for the purpose of the discharge by local education authorities, and such governing bodies, of functions under this Part of this Act, and
() the Special Educational Needs Tribunal")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments—
13A Clause 149, line 3, at end add 'and'.
13B Clause 149, line 6, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 7.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13A and 13B to Lords Amendment No. 13.
Amendment No. 13 extends the code of practice to governing bodies of schools and to the tribunal. Amendment No. 13A is a technical consequential amendment. Amendment No. 13B is a technical consequential amendment on Amendment No. 14A. They are all technical paving amendments to Commons Amendment No. 14A, which we shall be debating shortly. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13A and 13B to Lords Amendment No. 13.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
14 Clause 149, page 90, line 44, at end insert:
("() In any proceedings before the Tribunal in which the due discharge of the functions referred to in subsection (2) above is challenged, departure from the provisions of the code may only be justified if it is established that the result of the actions taken was at least as beneficial as if action had been taken in accordance with the provisions of the code.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu—
14A Clause 149, page 90, line 44, at end insert:
"() On any appeal, the Tribunal shall have regard to any provision of the code which appears to the Tribunal to be relevant to any question arising on the appeal'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A in lieu thereof.
I hope noble Lords will be content if I also speak now to Amendment No. 14B in the names of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. All these amendments are

999
concerned with the code of practice to be issued under the Bill. My noble friend will no doubt present the amendment to the House in due course.
During the passage of the Bill your Lordships have been properly concerned that the code of practice should be a clear, thorough and helpful document. We have discussed that code in some detail. Your Lordships have recognised that the code, taken together with the primary provisions of the Bill itself and the regulations we shall make thereunder, will form the framework for special education in the future.
At Committee stage we amended the Bill to secure that the code would offer practical guidance to schools as well as to local education authorities in respect of their functions under Part III. At the same time we amended the Bill to make it clear that local education authorities, schools, other bodies assisting LEAs and schools in carrying out their functions and the special educational needs tribunal would be under a duty to have regard to the code. This House has therefore ensured that the code can address the identification and assessment of all children with special educational needs and can embody, as we intend it should, the staged assessment model originally envisaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. In short, the code will promote the continuum of special educational needs, to which the noble Baroness first drew our attention some 15 years ago. I hope and believe that the principles underlying the code and the full draft code we eventually produce will command the support of all sides of your Lordships' House.
Some concern has been expressed, notably by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and others, as to the legal status of the code. My noble friend and others have been keen to ensure that the code should have the greatest possible practical effect. I wholly share that concern. Nonetheless, at Report stage in this House, my noble friend persuaded your Lordships to carry an amendment—before us now as Amendment No. 14—which sought to give the code a degree of legal efficacy. It did so by creating a test against which the new special educational needs tribunal should judge local education authorities' actions in the light of the code.
The other place did not accept that amendment. Instead, it proposed the amendment in lieu, which is now before us as Amendment No. 14A. That amendment in lieu is designed to recognise your Lordships' concern by highlighting the fact that the tribunal will have regard to the code, where relevant, when considering appeals. It goes no further. In particular, it does not set out the test embodied in Amendment No. 14 and substantially repeated in Amendment No. 14B.
I have discussed these issues very fully with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and others on more than one occasion. I thank them for their courtesy and for their doggedness in pursuing what I know is a real concern to them. My officials and their legal advisers have also held meetings with my noble friend. I hope he will agree that we have approached those meetings in a constructive spirit. I readily
1000
recognise that he has adopted the same approach. I pay tribute now to the tenacity and eloquence with which he has presented his case. We have found much common ground. The Government have concluded, however, with the greatest reluctance, that, while the difference between us is narrow, the point at issue is of the greatest importance. I wish to explain, therefore, as clearly as I can, why the Government can go no further.
First, let me emphasise the common ground. The Government wholly understand and share my noble friend's concerns that the code of practice should have a demonstrable impact on the quality of special educational provision across the country. We understand also, as Amendment No. 14A shows, my noble friend's concern that the tribunal should have regard to the code when considering appeals.
It is our intention, and has been our intention all along, that the code should offer practical guidance to schools, local education authorities and others. It has never been our intention, as I believe my noble friend now accepts, that the code should impose duties or obligations. Such duties will be imposed through the primary legislation, which we have now debated fully, and through regulations, on which we shall consult fully. The code will range widely, offering guidance on matters which are the subject of legislation and covering other matters where no legislation applies. To be useful, the code must be crisp, clear and unambiguous, offering precise and thorough guidance to all concerned. The code is being drafted with those objectives in mind.
It is also our intention, and again has always been our intention, that the special educational needs tribunal should be a parent-friendly, informal forum. It will consider appeals on specific grounds set out on the face of the Bill. It has never been our intention that the tribunal should police the code of practice. The objective of the tribunal will always be to establish whether the decision taken by a local education authority on which the appeal rests was appropriate for the child concerned.
For the sake of complete clarity, let me repeat: the code will offer guidance which is clear and thorough. The tribunal will be an open, informal forum. I am deeply concerned that Amendment No. 14 would, wholly unintentionally, subvert those objectives. Instead of helping the tribunal and thus helping parents, it would severely complicate the tribunal's proceedings. Instead of delivering an effective code, it would lead to the production of a document which skirted round the vital issues.
I should enlarge on those concerns. The adoption of this amendment would mean that the attention of the tribunal would be focused on the code. The proceedings would focus on difficult, hypothetical questions. The objective of a parent-friendly forum would be lost. And lost too might be the consideration of the most important question, whether at the end of the day the decision taken by an LEA had been appropriate for the child concerned.
Similarly, the adoption of Amendment No. 14B would, I fear, result in a far less positive and effective code than many in this House hope and expect to see.

1001
In drafting the code we must consult and take account of the views of all those who will be most directly affected, including local education authorities. If LEAs understand that they will have to justify their actions before the tribunal so far as each and every sentence and each and every clause of the code is concerned, they will insist upon words which allow them escape routes at every turn. The straightforward language we want will become vague; the precise advice we want will become woolly and opaque. Throughout the passage of this Bill in this House and another place great importance has been attached to the code. Many hopes rest on that code. I fear that if today, at the very close of our proceedings, we accept this amendment, those hopes will be severely disappointed.
Part III of the Bill will be implemented through its primary provisions, through regulations and the code. Taken together—it is important to accept that they will be taken together—those elements must be effective. We are wholly at one with my noble friend and his colleagues in that respect. We shall consult fully in the autumn on the draft regulations and on the draft code. We shall lay both before the Houses of Parliament and, as noble Lords know, it will be under the affirmative resolution procedure. We recognise that it will be essential that their impact is evaluated.
I therefore wish to assure the House that your Lordships will have a continuing contribution to make to this work. Noble Lords will be able to contribute to the consultation process and scrutinise the drafts when they are laid before Parliament. Beyond that, my department will monitor the impact of the code. We shall do so through consultations with those most directly affected. At the same time, we shall analyse the impact of the regulations and the work of the tribunal. Where necessary, we shall propose changes to the regulations and the code in the light of that evaluation. Those changes will be, of course, subject to your Lordships' approval.
I hope that what I have said today will demonstrate our commitment to the effective implementation of the Bill. I hope too that what I have said will convince your Lordships that, while the very best of intentions lie behind Amendment No. 14B, that amendment would not assist the implementation of this legislation. It would complicate and thus jeopardise the work of the tribunal and the drafting of the code of practice. I must, very reluctantly, say to my noble friend that I ask your Lordships not to insist on Amendment No. 14 and to agree with Commons Amendment No. 14A. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Blatch.)
AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT 14A IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENT 14
14B Clause 149, as an amendment to Commons amendment 14A in lieu of Lords amendment 14 at end insert:
("() If in the opinion of the Tribunal substantial compliance with such provisions of the Code as may be adjudged to be relevant was reasonably practical in the circumstances departure from such provisions may be justified only if in the opinion of the Tribunal the action taken was at least as beneficial in the interest of the child as if there had been substantial compliance with such provision.")
5.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14B as an amendment to Amendment No. 14A.
At the outset perhaps I may introduce a personal note and return the expressions of courtesy given by my noble friend the Minister. I should like to say that it was a privilege and a pleasure to attend on her and her department to discuss these matters in amity and that, irrespective of the result of this debate, I shall continue so to do. I accept that up to a very large point those discussions were very constructive. The only point on which we stuck was Amendment No. 14. We saved hours and hours of debate in your Lordships' House by those discussions which we had at the department on an all-party basis. To be fair to the Government, they produced Amendment No. 14A which goes some way to meet one of the concerns of your Lordships.
I now turn to this amendment. On its merits it is supported by so many noble Lords, irrespective of where they sit in this House. It is not a political issue. My noble friend the Minister took over the Private Member's Bill and I continue to acknowledge the sincere debt of gratitude which I owe her. She and I both accept that the difference between us is narrow but of substance. She is not in a position to offer any accommodation. We must agree to differ, but we differ in amity, with respect for each other's integrity and purpose, knowing that this difference may be resolved only by your Lordships' House. Therefore, is it not reasonable to ask noble Lords who have received exhortation to vote one way or the other, if they might listen to both sides of the argument?
This amendment is concerned with the status of the code of practice before this new statutory tribunal is set up, which was suggested by me about two-and-a-half years ago in the Cavendish Papers, long before the Private Member's Bill, now subsumed by Part III of this Bill. That code of practice should serve as an important and essential factor in the implementing machinery of Part III of the Bill—together with the regulations and the primary provisions of the Bill —in enforcement proceedings before the tribunal.
On Report in your Lordships' House, Amendment No. 14 on the Marshalled List was carried in a Division. It is now qualified by Amendment No. 14B. It is offered in the light of Amendment No. 14A which is in lieu of Amendment No. 14.
Perhaps I may come at once and in plain English to the object of this amendment which is quite simple. It seeks to restore the special status of the code of practice, as acknowledged by my noble friend the Minister in Committee, but rejected by the Government on Report.

1003
It has an essential minimum safeguard for the interests and welfare of these disadvantaged children in proceedings before the tribunal. As your Lordships know, that has to be done in primary legislation. There is no way in which that object may be achieved by the regulations or the code of practice, which in any event will not be available until about Easter.
So much for the object. As to the essence of the argument, the Commons amendment which is offered in lieu—namely, Amendment No. 14A—is welcome as far as it goes as rendering relevant provisions of the code of practice admissible in appellate proceedings before the tribunal. But that amendment fails to implement the stated government intention at Committee stage in two respects. The first is that it fails to accord to the code,
"its own special legal status".
Secondly, it fails to ensure that,
"any departure from the code will, if challenged, require justification".—[Official Report, 29/4/93; col. 487.]
I must immediately refer your Lordships to the verbatim account of what was said about this because those 10 lines are crucial to this debate. Having dealt with the aims of the code at col. 486, which I shall summarise in due course, my noble friend the Minister referred to the status of the code, which is the substance of this amendment, saying:
"That said, the code will have its own special legal status. It will he laid before Parliament and carry parliamentary approval. Moreover and most importantly, those to whom it applies will have a duty to have regard to it. That is no light duty. By law, those who must have regard to the code cannot ignore it. If they do so, they will be in breach of a duty. They do not, however, have to follow the code to the letter and in every particular. But any departure from the code will, if challenged, require justification—to parents in the first instance and then, depending on the circumstances, to the Secretary of State if the matter at issue is the subject matter of a statutory complaint, or to the new special needs tribunal if the matter at issue is the subject of an appeal. In justifying their actions, those to whom the code applies will have to show that the alternative action they took produced results which were at least as beneficial as those which would have resulted from their following the code".—[Official Report, 29/4/93; col. 487.]
As your Lordships will see, it is that which is mirrored in the amendment to which I speak. It is the Government's own concept of the code's "own special legal status".
Before I turn to Report stage, perhaps I should say that the aims, which were dealt with by my noble friend the Minister immediately before the words that I have just quoted, are wholly implemented in this amendment which imposes no duties and no hard and fast rules, and which makes every reasonable allowance for the due exercise of judgment in the action taken for each child. However, the problem is that the Government changed their mind on Report. I refer to col. 1376, which reads:
"Guidance to those involved with the policy and drafting of statutory provisions relating to codes of practice … Ad hoc statutory provision as to the effect of failure is therefore neither necessary nor desirable".—[Official Report, 14/6/93; col. 1376.]
I shall not quote the whole passage because it is there on the record for anyone to see, but the effect of the advice in the department, which had clearly and apparently changed between Committee stage and
1004
Report, was, to put it in plain terms, that the code of practice was not to have its "own special legal status" as regards departures, as proposed in Committee or at all.
One of the problems about this is that, irrespective of whether the case that I was advocating was right or wrong, your Lordships acted on the Government's words in Committee which suggested that there should be a concept of justification and that the code should have its "own special legal status". Those are the Government's words, not mine. Amendments were either not moved or were withdrawn on that basis under what appears to have been an inevitable miasma of confusion. Other noble Lords may wish to speak to that point.
It is not proposed to lengthen this debate and to rehearse the "shall have regard to" argument, save to mention that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who is in his place; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who has given his mind to this matter and may be prepared to address your Lordships upon it; the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and other noble Lords have dealt with this each in their own way—and none of us considered that "shall have regard to" afforded any sufficient or valuable safeguard for the interests of these children under general administrative law as regards departures from the code. Other noble Lords, whom I see in their places, particularly the noble and learned Lords, may wish to return to this point.
Your Lordships may well think that Amendment No. 14B which, together with Amendment No. 14A, is offered in lieu, will serve as an incentive for observance at the first level and that it is only right and reasonable that the respondent before the tribunal should have to justify departures from the code as proposed by this amendment to show that, put simply, such a departure did not adversely affect the interests of the child. The drafting of the amendment is the mirror of what my noble friend the Minister said in terms at Committee stage. It is exactly the same concept. I have qualified it to some degree by referring to whether the action,
"was reasonably practical in the circumstances".
Essentially, however, it is the same concept as that which was advocated by my noble friend.
I turn now to some of the criticisms which my noble friend raised when dealing with Amendment No. 14 a moment ago. That amendment assuredly is not technical. It is in no way legalistic. It is in no way inconsistent with the proposed user-friendly atmosphere of proceedings before the tribunal. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could concentrate on what I am saying. I was about to suggest that on this aspect my noble friend the Minister knows perfectly well that I fully support the user-friendly atmosphere. We have had consultations about this in the department on which we were in total agreement. The amendment will not in any way affect the user-friendly atmosphere because the concept of justification is of evidential consequence and a matter for the tribunal. The anxiety which is expressed, that this amendment will introduce a legalistic element which could detract from the informal conduct of those proceedings, is wholly misconceived. As your

1005
Lordships can see, the provisions will affect only the approach of the chairman to the evidence for the purpose of making his formal decision after all the evidence has been given.
There can be no question, as has been suggested, of the chairman focusing upon adherence to the code to the detriment of the child, as Section 1 of the Children Act enjoins that such interests shall have paramount importance. There is no question, as I understand it, that the amendment would render the provisions of the code less effective. I believe that my noble friend the Minister described it as woolly and opaque. It is just not understood.
For the reasons given, the amendment does no more than afford the minimum measure of safeguard, in the interests of each child, if the code is to serve any worthwhile purpose. What it comes to is simply this: those advising my noble friend the Minister as to the status of the code have changed their mind and their advice between Committee stage and Report. As has been said before, our legitimate constitutional expectations have been pre-empted by the pressure of business. It is in those most unfortunate and unusual circumstances, in which your Lordships have acted under a plain misconception, that I beg to move.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I support the amendment which appears in my name as well as those of other noble Lords. I am no lawyer, but I know that there is an enormous difference as to where the burden of proof lies in a hearing where someone is appealing against a decision. I understand that the amendment will plainly put the burden on the chairman of the tribunal to try to find out the reasons for any departure from the code and to demand that the departure he justified. That is a simple point. We cannot talk in any detail about the code, because we do not know what will be in it. One of the most important aspects of the code will be to provide a set of criteria by which a child's needs will be assessed. It will not necessarily be the case that a statement of a child's needs will be issued by the local authority, but that his needs will be discovered and assessed, according to the criteria laid down, I hope and believe, clearly, in the code.
The code of practice is therefore a matter of immense importance. It is the only safeguard to ensure that children's needs are assessed to a clear and consistent standard. The purpose of the code is to lay down those standards. That affects children who have statements taken out for them and, in particular, those children who have no statements and who, perhaps, have parents who believe that their child's needs are not being met properly. Some of those parents will want to appeal against the non-issue of a statement, as it is now within their rights to do. They may, on the other hand, wish to appeal against the non-provision of what was promised them when the assessment was made.
The amendment goes to the heart of the matter of meeting special educational needs, in particular, those which are supposed to be met in ordinary schools and not special schools. It is therefore important that when an appeal is made before one of the tribunals, any departure from the criteria and standards which a
1006
code of practice will have set out is justified. The wording of the amendment is careful. First, it has to be shown that in the case coming before the tribunal the code of practice is relevant. If the code of practice is seen not to be relevant, the whole question of departing from it will not be raised. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, a proviso has been included: that adherence to the code is reasonably practical. That means that if adherence to the code will cost vast sums of money each year and that some good provision may be made which would not cost so much, a requirement to adhere: to the code would be ruled out. That is a safeguard.
I cannot understand the reasons for the Government not accepting that in an appeal the parents should have the assurance that the code will be adhered to unless the suggested provision for the child is as good as if the code had been adhered to. I cannot understand the Government's reasons for not accepting that proposal. As for suggesting that the amendment will somehow alter the nature of the code, that is fantastic. The code will not be set out with a view to determining how it will be implemented in any appeal that goes to a tribunal. Presumably the code will be set out in the best interests of children and in the interests of establishing standards and providing regular criteria for judging a child's needs.
I do not believe that the acceptance of the amendment would alter the details of the code or the purpose for which it will be introduced. We rely enormously upon the code of practice. We have to take it on trust because we cannot see it. We have been told, and we believe, that it will set out the standards and the criteria. In that belief, it is essential that we go as far as we can to ensure that the code has the special status that we were promised that it would have. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I too, strongly support the amendment to which my name is attached. It is deplorable that the Government should now be seeking to reinstate the provisions which your Lordships, after hearing argument, voted down on Report. The arguments prevailed completely. Your Lordships will not find that difficult to believe after hearing the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and my noble friend Lady Warnock. They, after all, irrespective of this issue, are the principal agents behind Part III of the Bill.
No one denies the importance of Part III in providing for singularly vulnerable persons in the community. No one denies the importance of the code of practice. It is hardly deniable that the code of practice is the trigger which sets off the provisions of Part III. Without the code of practice, there is nothing to activate Part III. In that respect, the words. "have regard to", however appropriate in other codes of practice, are inadequate here. On Report the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave an example which was not controverted, in which the words "having regard to" were in fact disregarded.
One reaches this curious position. In Committee I was left with the duty of moving the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In support I quoted from a letter written by the

1007
Minister, in which she stated that departure from the code must be justified. Notwithstanding her own words she would not accept the amendment. The matter then progressed to the Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, took the words which the Minister had used in Committee as the text for his amendment on Report. That was, however, controverted from the Treasury Bench.
The matter went to a Division. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that obviously the Government were incapable of understanding the argument—that was also my impression —and that he would test the opinion of the House. The opinion of the House was specific; 68 Members voted for his amendment and 42 voted against it. Of those 42 Members, 22 were what is opprobriously called "the payroll vote". Of the Ministers who voted, only the noble Baroness and the Whip on the Treasury Bench had heard the argument. All but one of the Cross-Bench Peers who voted did so in favour of the amendment. Two Conservative Peers voted for it, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, the only bishop present. Oscar Wilde described the fury of Caliban at seeing his own face in the glass. The noble Baroness seemed to have a fury being faced with her own words in an amendment. That really will not do.
As regards the parliamentary aspects, I fully endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. It is absolutely deplorable to have a wholesale turning down of the amendments which your Lordships have made. That used to happen on occasions when a socialist government was in power. That was rightly resented and it is equally to be resented now that we have a Conservative government. Secondly, I wish to comment on the Minister's position. She has done valiantly as regards academic freedom. She took her department by the scruff of the neck and we obtained a reasonable solution which protected academic freedom.
The Minister also took on her department when we discussed whether there should be an affirmative resolution to Schedule 3, paragraph 1(4), relating to notices given before grant-aided status. We know what advice the noble Baroness had because she inadvertently read out, "I am not impressed by the arguments in favour of the affirmative resolution". But we had not reached discussions on that clause and no argument had been advanced. However, we must pay a tribute to the Minister because once again she persuaded her department to change its mind. Evidently between the Committee and Report stages the department changed its mind on this issue. We hope that the Minister will get it to change its mind yet again. I put it that way but, in fact, the Minister is in charge of the Bill and at present in charge of the department. I hope that she will accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
6 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish to add my full support for the amendment; indeed, I regret our need to return to it. I shall not repeat what
1008
was said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but there appears to have been a volte-face on the part of the Government in relation to the legal status of the code. I echo what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale in hoping that the Minister will reinstate that status.
As the Minister said today, many hopes rest on the code. Many amendments were withdrawn following assurance that they would be incorporated in the code. In Committee I spoke to a five-pronged amendment aimed at the code of practice. It was originally intended as five separate amendments to the Bill. On Report I withdrew what were to me very important amendments on assessment, statementing and placements following firm and detailed assurances that they would be covered by the code. I too thank the Minister for making herself and her officials readily available on numerous occasions. We had very useful discussions. It is vital that the code has strength.
On Report the Minister said:
"The code of practice will be instrumental in achieving our aim; namely, that all children with special educational needs should receive the appropriate special educational provision to meet those needs".—[Official Report, 14/6/93; col. 1376.]
We are all agreed on that aim; the difference relates to how we achieve it. The intended code of practice will have many excellent attributes. As the Minister said today, it will be a clear, thorough and helpful document. There will be wide consultations on it beforehand; it will be widely circulated; it will be easily accessible and understandable; and it will be user friendly. But when it comes to a dispute, the code needs to be strong, and I too fail to see how the amendment will alter the nature of the code, as my noble friend Lady Warnock clearly stated.
While I welcome the fact that the other place has given us Amendment No. 14A, having disagreed to Amendment No. 14, Amendment No. 14B stands in the name of two noble Lords and one noble and learned Lord, who are expert in codes of practice and the law, and in the name of my noble friend Lady Warnock, who knows more about special educational needs than any other Member of this House. If, when they have heard more from the Minister, their combined wisdom says that Amendment No. 14B is necessary to ensure that the code of practice achieves our common aim, I shall certainly follow them into the Division Lobby without hesitation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I regret that I was not in the House at one o'clock in the morning on 15th June when my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway divided the House and the House agreed with him. I should have been here. Apparently many other noble Lords were not present but should have been. I for one apologise to the House.
Since then my noble friend Lady Blatch has met with my noble friend Lord Campbell—and he has acknowledged that—to discuss fully the problems which the amendment poses. Indeed, as with so many other aspects of the Bill, my noble friend Lady Blatch has come a long way to meet the express wish of the House on this matter. The Government have tabled a replacement amendment in another place which has been accepted and which is before us. I am sorry that

1009
my noble friend has nevertheless virtually retabled his original amendment. My noble friend Lady Young is also very sorry about that. She has had to leave the House due to an unavoidable engagement outside but she has told me her views and they accord with my own.
I read with great care the discussions on my noble friend's amendment on Report. The arguments were fully and clearly deployed. I know that my noble friend Lord Campbell has much legal experience and current knowledge of that particular area of the law. But as a lay person who, some time ago admittedly, had a lot of experience of actual decision-making in that area of activity in local government, I must say that I believe that vulnerable children with special needs will be better served by the Bill as amended in the Commons rather than by the Bill with this amendment.
I expect the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who is to speak from the Opposition Front Bench, to elaborate on that because I believe that the local government decision-making point of view is more important in this case than the lawyer's point of view. The noble Lord is a current councillor and I hope that he will enlarge upon that point. He is much more up to date than I am.
Decisions within local government about such a child's education must be, above all, informed constantly by what is best for the child. The necessity to have regard to a code of practice will be helpful on that. As the Minister said on Report, the code of practice will be a tool. It will be very helpful to have the existence of a tribunal to which parents can appeal as regards the appropriateness of a decision concerning their child. Reference to the code of practice can be made in the course of a tribunal hearing. It is quite normal to refer to a code of practice in that way and we all know that it works.
If officials and councillors have to make their decisions with one eye on legal requirements involving concepts such as "substantial compliance" with provisions of the code, with an eye on what is relevant and practical and what would be equivalent to "substantial compliance", the freedom to make sensitive, human judgments is likely to be, in my view, greatly diminished. The Minister made a related point, but not quite the same point.
The role of the tribunal is to consider whether the local authority has made the best decision for the child, having regard to the code. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said that it was very important to know where the burden of proof lies in a tribunal. I accept that. But in local government to give to a tribunal of appeal the unusual role of enforcing substantial compliance with the code, even with the provisos in the amendment, would greatly limit the ability of officials and councillors to do the right thing for the child, or so it seems to me. Local government people—and this is extremely important—must be and are very cautious and careful about keeping within the law. They almost always allow themselves a considerable margin of safety.
My noble friend Lord Campbell is second to none in his concern for children with special needs. I
1010
understand his aspiration and his desire to further the method which he used in his Private Member's Bill which was so useful to Parliament as a stepping stone towards the Bill which we are now discussing.
I believe my noble friend when he tells us that the, amendment is not legalistic. I should not have known it on the surface but I believe that. However, I am not sure that the gap between my noble friend Lord Campbell and the House of Commons is narrow. I beg my noble friend to accept that the amendment would in practice have a quite different effect on local. government decisions from that which he suggests. From the point of view of children and their parents —and they are the people for whom the clause exists —it would in my opinion be counter-productive Therefore, despite all the work that my noble friend has done on this, I hope that he will decide to withdraw the amendment. If he does not, I hope that the House will not accept it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to correct one matter. The Minister, my noble friend Lady Blatch, wrote to me on 16th July and I quote from memory the letter which said, "The gap between us is narrow but of substance. We must agree to differ". My noble friend is entitled to her own opinion but that is the position as between the Minister and myself.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am glad that my noble friend says that I am entitled to my opinion because that is my opinion. The Minister is extremely courteous and never expresses anything roughly. I do not doubt what she really thinks about the amendment, but it seems to me that the gap is important.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, t had not intended to speak on the amendment but if have had rather a curious experience about which should like to tell the House. When I saw the most distinguished list of names in support of the amendment, I started with a perfectly open mind but I expected to be persuaded by their arguments.
The awful effect of the experience that I have had is that having heard my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and the other speakers who have spoken in support of the amendment, they have convinced me that it is wrong. It is only a provisional opinion but I must give the House the benefit of my experience and the reason which I have had for it.
The expression "to have regard to", which is in the text of the Commons amendment which is being challenged and which was included, I assume, on the advice of the Government and their advisers, is very well known in statute law. It is rather difficult to interpret it because it is couched in ordinary language which is not in terms of art; that is, it is very difficult, indeed almost impossible, for either a lawyer or anybody else to predict exactly what the result of it will be in any given case.
But my noble friend's argument was based ultimately on a challenge which he put to the Minister

1011
to the effect that she had changed her mind between Committee and Report. My noble friend Lord Campbell quoted—I have no doubt with complete accuracy—the phrases upon which he depended to arrive at that conclusion. I do not believe that he has made out his case. The reason is that while it is extremely difficult to say what is meant in the statutes, of which there are a great number, when it says that in reaching a conclusion an appellate tribunal or a Minister "must have regard to" something, it is in general perfectly accurate to say that there is a burden of justification to be placed on the Minister or the tribunal if they wish to depart from the code of practice or whatever else it is to which they are supposed to have regard. I believe that is what the Minister was saying and I believe that to be right.
I had the greatest difficulty as a Minister in having "to have regard to" considerations which ultimately I departed from but I always regarded that as a matter which would require justification either in an appellate tribunal or, if the matter were raised in another forum, by way of judicial review. However, of one thing I am certain. If one has regard to something, there must be circumstances in which one is not only entitled but bound in conscience to depart from the issues to which one would have regard, always subject to the fact that one has to justify what one is doing.
As it seems to me, what is wrong with the amendment in the name of my noble friend is that it states in terms that departure from the provisions of the code may be justified only if, in the opinion of the tribunal, the action taken was at least as beneficial to the interests of the child, as if there had been substantial compliance with the provisions of the code. That sounds at first sight absolutely reasonable and indeed incontrovertible.
However, let me just put an imaginary case. The situation which is postulated by the amendment implies an appeal by, let us say, the parents of the child with special educational needs against the decision of the tribunal proposing to depart from the code of practice. Let us suppose that it was established beyond a scintilla of doubt that, although the code would not be as beneficial to the interests of the particular child with special educational needs who is the subject of the proposed appeal, a number of other children would be far more adversely affected than the particular child would he advantaged if the code were closely adhered to. In other words, in any appeal there are other people to be considered with regard to the background of a departure from the code. The principle is inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. That is the case in point. There are other factors; and it may be the interests of the other children who would be affected by a departure from the code of practice to which the tribunal must have regard. Although the argument does not alter the burden of proof—that is a term of art and I should not have used it to justify a departure from the code of practice—it effectively indicates that the interest of the specific child is only one of the factors that the tribunal must take into account before justifying a departure from the code of practice.
1012
It is no good saying that the position is not legalistic; of course it is legalistic. One cannot pass laws which are not legalistic. If one did, they would be bad laws. I am saying that on the sheer merits of the case my noble and learned friend and my noble friend who sits behind me have so far persuaded me that they are wrong.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is not my intention to add to the conviction of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, although I expect the result will be that I shall. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, invited my attention to the subject in the Bishop's Bar and, as there was no escape, I learned from him the Hansards that I should consider and the issue. The point that he had in mind was that the Government stated at Committee stage that they were going to give special legal status to the code. That was to be done by the use of the words "have regard to".
One of the first occasions I sought to address the House was when the new legal aid legislation was before the House. The firm obligation, which previously rested upon my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, to pay fair remuneration for work actually and reasonably done was to be replaced by the then Lord Chancellor (my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay) merely being obliged to have regard to a series of factors. It was generally accepted that that obligation was nothing like the obligation which rested upon my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. That was precisely why it was sought to get rid of that obligation.
The words "have regard to" must be considered in their context. However, there is a context which I believe is helpful. It is in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, now the 1985 Act. Section 12 provides that,
"In relation to homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness a relevant authority shall have regard in the exercise of their functions to such guidance as may from time to time be given by the Secretary of State".
There was alleged to be a failure to have regard to that guidance, and judicial review proceedings took place in the case of De Falco v. Crawley Council. That was in 1980, and reported in the Queen's Bench Reports.
In a judgment concurred with by his brothers, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said:
"I am quite clear that the code should not be regarded as a binding statute. The council, of course, had to have regard to the code: see section 12 of the statute: but, having done so, they could depart from it if they thought fit".
In giving his judgment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Justice Bridge, (as he then was) put it perhaps a little more firmly. He stated:
"Although the authority must 'have regard' to the guidance given under section 12, that guidance is of no direct statutory force or effect and the local authority are not bound to follow it in any particular case".
As a result of refreshing my memory on the subject, and as a result of the insistence of my noble friend Lord Campbell, I then considered the second day of the Report stage on 15th June—reported at col. 1376 of Hansard—to see where that special legal status had been achieved. In the penultimate paragraph of the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, there is this phrase. It is not

1013
drafted with the clarity that I would have expected, but I do not attribute the drafting to the noble Baroness. She stated:
"Guidance available to those involved with the policy and drafting of statutory provisions relating to codes of practice advises"—
that means that guidance advises—
"that if the provisions of a code are intended to be included among the relevant factors to be taken into account in the exercise of specific functions, this can be achieved by requiring the relevant authorities to have regard to the code".
That is exactly the position in the Housing (Homeless Persons) legislation. The noble Baroness continues:
"The consequences of failure to do so are governed by general administrative law. Ad hoc statutory provision as to the effect of failure is therefore neither necessary nor desirable".
Frankly, I do not understand this. If it is meant to indicate that by the use of the words "have regard to" there is placed upon an authority the obligation actually to implement the factors that have to be considered, that just is not the law. One may consider and disregard them. The phrase "have regard to" imposes no kind of statutory obligation and that is why I have had difficulty in understanding how this special statutory status is to be achieved.
There has clearly been a change of heart in regard to this and I do not for myself, from a legal point of view, see that the change of heart has been in any way explained so far on any legal basis. The obligation to "have regard to" does not put the code in a special protected legal status. Those words on their own are clearly not sufficient. It seems to me that to improve the situation the amendment has sought to spell out what is the special status to be provided to those words, and if there is to be a special status for the code, this is so far the only method which has been validly suggested. I support the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords—
6.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, before the noble Lord from I he Opposition Front Bench speaks, I hope I may say a few brief words as my name is attached to this amendment. I wish strongly to support the amendment. I agree with the words of the first four speakers who spoke to it. I have considered all these proceedings again and I wish only to bring to the attention of the House some words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and to ask a question of the Minister.
When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, spoke in Committee on 29th April he said:
"Even the awkward squad is entitled to a clear word of command".—[Official Report, 29/4/93; col. 480.]
That is good common sense which all of us can understand even if we are not learned, as are so many noble Lords who have spoken today and who have blinded us with legal science. That is a good, clear, crisp statement of what this amendment seeks to do. For that reason I strongly support it.
The question I wish to ask the noble Baroness is this: if this measure is not put into the Bill by amendment this evening—and if it prospers in another place—would it be possible for the tribunal to develop its own code of practice, if I may put it like that, which
1014
could include the words of this amendment? If it were able to do that, there would be less pressing need for this amendment to be included in the Bill in this House and that would influence my decision. If it is not possible for the tribunal to develop its own code of practice in this way, I would most certainly support this amendment in a Division.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, might be reassured if he referred to the clause in the Bill—in fact there are several clauses—which establishes the tribunal. The composition, powers and procedure of the tribunal are set out in a considerable amount of detail.
First, I would like to acknowledge the help which for a very long time my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has tried to give in legal matters to MENCAP and to the mentally handicapped. I should like to acknowledge that. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said, he introduced a Private Member's Bill which covered a considerable part of Part III of the Bill. However, I must confess that I could not agree with him when he said, in referring to the provisions of the Bill which overlap with his own Bill, that it was the code of practice that was necessary to implement it. The noble and learned. Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said the same. That, with great respect, is not so. Part III of the Bill contains 33 clauses of detailed legal requirements which your Lordships and another place have said must be in the Bill. Local education authorities will have a lot of decisions to make and it will be for the tribunal to have the last word on appeal. There will, of course, be certain very limited circumstances when a matter can be taken to the High Court following the decisions of the tribunal. If I thought that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway would help children with special educational needs, especially those who are mentally handicapped, I would be voting for and supporting his amendment. But, alas, I cannot support it as I shall explain. I cannot do so mainly because I do not think it achieves its purpose, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone pointed out.
But before I get on to that—I will be very brief—I remind your Lordships that in our law we have three kinds of legal process. We have Acts of Parliament. We have statutory instruments and we have case law based on the decisions of the courts.
Broadly speaking—there have been exceptions—codes of practice have not fallen within those three areas. They are for the guidance of various people. I suppose the most familiar type of code of practice—it has been subject to rather more stringent statutory provisions in recent years —is the Highway Code. That is still the case. The Highway Code gives guidance to motorists but no motorist can be charged for an offence against the Highway Code. If there has been a breach of the Highway Code, that is a matter for the court to take into consideration where, for example, there is a charge of dangerous driving. The Highway Code was for guidance and there have been many other codes for guidance. The real question that we have to decide—if you like it is the technical, legal question—with regard to this amendment is whether,

1015
on the one hand, we wish the code of practice in this case to be for guidance and that the tribunal shall have regard to it or whether, on the other hand, we should have this rather complicated obligation placed upon the tribunal, which in any event will have to consider a great many clauses of the Bill to see whether those have been complied with.
I mention in passing that we do not yet know what will be in the code of practice. It will not necessarily have to be approved by Parliament because Clause 150(2) says that the Secretary of State shall have a code of practice, shall consult people and may lay a draft copy of that code before Parliament, and Parliament can then resolve whether or not to have it. But there is no obligation to turn it into a statutory instrument. I say that it is better to keep this thing in the broad and to do what the Commons Amendment No. 14A does; which means that the tribunal has to consider the whole of the code of practice as well as all the provisions of the Bill that are relevant.
I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that there will be problems if this rather complicated obligation is to be placed upon the tribunal. In summary, its effect will be this. The tribunal will have to make a hypothetical comparison. The words:
"If in the opinion of the Tribunal substantial compliance",
will lead to arguments as to whether or not compliance was substantial. As regards the words:
"such provisions of the Code as may be adjudged to be relevant",
there will be arguments as to relevancy.
The amendment also includes the words "reasonably practical". Those of us with experience in the law know that whenever the word "reasonable" is used there is frequent discussion in the courts or before a tribunal as to whether, in the circumstances, an action was reasonable.
The amendment continues:
"departure from such provision may be justified only if".
Those words "only if" are words of limitation. They limit the obligation of the tribunal. I should have thought that it would be far better if we did not include such words of limitation and we kept the matter in the broad.
I could go on about the wrangles that there will be in court as to whether or not the provision which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has proposed, supported by distinguished noble Lords, shall prevail. I believe that this is self-defeating and that we would be making a mistake if we ask another place to reconsider the matter.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I believe that we can all agree that compliance with the code of practice will itself be a sensitive issue. Indeed, one of the criticisms of the 1981 Act is that no such code existed so that local education authorities did not have clear guidance as to how they should operate its provisions. I believe that it is felt that the code can now be used as a vehicle to force local education authorities and schools to implement the Bill and find sufficient resources and give an excellent education to many children with special educational needs.
1016
We have heard from many noble and learned Lords and noble Lords about the problems with the phrase "have regard to" used in Amendment No. 14A. That is seen as being a let out for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. That raises a serious point which has been given considerable attention by many noble Lords.
In favour of the amendment is the ability that it will give the appeal tribunal—much stronger than would be possible under the Commons amendment, Amendment No. 14A—to investigate actions which have not been in accordance with the code of practice. The Minister raised reservations about making the tribunal less accommodating and friendly to people taking part. However, I question whether that point could not be accommodated in regulations covering tribunal procedures.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on the question addressed to me as a local councillor by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I am perfectly happy for lawyers to play their proper part in tribunals, as they do every day. In my view, as a local councillor, a lawyer's place is in touch and not on top.
As someone who is not a lawyer I listened with interest to the criticisms made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, of Amendment No. 14B, which relates to the interests of the child under consideration. He said that there may be other children whose interests should be considered but, under the amendment, would not be considered. I question whether that is not a common expression and whether it would be in the interests of the child itself that it should not be allowed to disrupt or harm the education of other children.
In conclusion, it is my understanding that a code of practice is never a master; it is only a guide. It is up to Parliament and this House to give the code of practice whatever status it wishes. It is my understanding from the debate so far that it is the need to justify departure from that code which will give the code itself greater force. I would argue that it will lead to a better quality of decision making if the tribunal is asked to justify its departure from that code.
For those reasons we support the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, being only too aware of the slight difference of opinion between the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I had a wretched weekend worrying about whether I should intervene today. However, as chairman of MENCAP I felt that I must do so, especially if I can persuade the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to change his mind, which is wishful thinking indeed.
Like many before me, I turned to the Good Book to guide me —an unusual version, the Good News Bible—and found that the Book of Proverbs had a splendid code of practice concerning my position in this short debate. Chapter 18, verse 17, notes that:
"The first man to speak in court always seems right until his opponent begins to question him".
Chapter 26, verse 17, says, ominously:

1017
"Getting involved in an argument that is none of your business is like going down the street and grabbing a dog by the ears".
As a non-lawyer sandwiched uncomfortably in terms of loyalties between several eminent lawyers, I am painfully conscious of the risk of verbal, though not of course physical, mauling.
Having listened to all the learned arguments with care I am inclined to favour the amendment, for one very simple reason. It seems to me to strengthen and in no way diminish the requirement that we all seek through the Bill, the regulations and the code of practice; namely, that the interests of the child are identified and given absolute priority. If the guidance in the code is, as we must all hope, good and useful guidance, there must be good reasons for any departure from it. The amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and others puts additional weight behind the code while recognising that there will be cases in which results as good or better can be secured by other means. However, I note the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that the amendment as tabled could disadvantage children and families by not allowing sufficient flexibility to take account of special circumstances. I know that I must take that suggestion on board.
Therefore, noble and learned Lords who argue that we do not need this extra safeguard have my earnest attention. Noble Lords, whether learned or like myself unlearned, who argue for belt and braces (and I am learned on that subject) have my conditional support. I am hoping that the last words spoken on the amendment will clarify for me whether the amendment is indeed all gain but legally controversial or embodies disadvantages. If the former, that is all gain and I shall support the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I support the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I support the amendment. I should also like to point out an aspect which has been missed in the discussion on the amendment. In my opinion, one of the great selling points of the code of practice was that it would have legal clarity and it was supposed to be user friendly. Indeed, I can remember a discussion between the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Baroness during which the ways in which we could make the code user friendly were debated. The idea behind the code was that people would know exactly what they could expect.
The amendment suggests that if there is any deviation from the code the reasons will be known. One of the problems for those involved in special educational needs—and I speak with personal knowledge of dyslexia and the problems associated with it—is that people are not sure what they need. Once we deal with that we shall have effectively dealt with many of the problems attached to special educational needs. Intransigent local authorities, of all shapes and sizes, all colours and creeds, with which we have been dealing, have not given the correct provision. Indeed, they have often gone out of their way to give the incorrect provision. Giving the code
1018
legal teeth means we know where we stand and unless one knows where one stands to start with one cannot correct a situation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may at the outset reject the charge that the Government, or indeed I as Minister at the Dispatch Box, have been inconsistent in our approach to the code. Since its introduction the Bill has stated in terms that the code will offer practical guidance.
I do not apologise for saying at the Committee stage that:
"the code will have its own special legal status".—[Official Report, 29/4/93; col. 487.]
By the provisions of the Bill, the Secretary of State will be obliged to issue a code of practical guidance. He will be obliged to lay a draft of the code before Parliament. Parliamentary approval of that draft will be subject to the affirmative procedure. All those to whom the code applies will be obliged in law to have regard to its provisions. Nonetheless, the code remains a code of guidance. These factors are, to my eyes, as a layman I admit, sufficient to give the code a distinct legal status. I therefore stand by my words.
Nor do I disown my words at col. 487, which my noble friend has sought to incorporate in his amendment. Those words were a wholly reasonable general explanation of the status of the code. I was not seeking to create, as my noble friend now seeks to create, a justiciable issue but seeking to explain how the tribunal chairman might deal with the evidence before him. It is indeed probable that, if a local education authority departs significantly from the code of practice, its action might, not be beneficial to the child and would, therefore, not be appropriate. I stress again that the tribunal will be considering whether the LEA's actions were appropriate for the child. In doing so, where relevant, as Amendment No. 14A emphasises, the tribunal will have regard to the code. But for the reasons I have given, especially our concern that the proceedings of the tribunal should be as straightforward as possible, it would not be appropriate to translate my words of general explanation to the face of this Bill, as my noble friend Lord Campbell seeks to do.
Let me briefly restate the Government's position. The code of practice will be a code of practical guidance. If Amendment No. 14B were adopted the tribunal would take on the role of policing the code. It would be side-tracked from its paramount task of considering appeals on the specific grounds set out on the face of the Bill and considering whether LEAs' decisions were appropriate for the needs of the child concerned. It would become the site of complex legal dispute. It could not be the open, parent-friendly, informal forum we intend to create.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the code of practice will have clout and will be user-friendly, if the House rejects the amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was concerned that another place had overturned the amendment. He did not go on to say that it had proposed an amendment in lieu which, I

1019
believe, understood the anxieties underlying my noble friend's amendment. However, that is all part of the democratic process.
The point is that we considered it in this place, this place made a determination, it went to another place for consideration and in another place they took a different view. Nevertheless, they understood the underlying anxieties of my noble friend and proposed an amendment in lieu which is now before this House for consideration. My noble friend feels sufficiently strongly to return to the fray with his amendment and I believe that, rather than a criticism of the way the Bill has been handled, this is all part of the democratic process. In a moment of two we shall take a view about the amendment in lieu and my noble friend's amendment.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham made a further point, one which I had not made and for which I am grateful to him. It is the exclusive reference to the child in Amendment No. 14B. I must say in defence of local authorities that I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has taken the view that he did. When local authorities make their decision about a placement, having had regard to the code and perhaps having even departed from it, and also having had regard to the effective use of resources, they may in addition pray in aid of their case the impact of a placement on other children. That is wholly ignored in the amendment and I believe that the point was well made by my noble and learned friend. The tribunal is charged with making a judgment as to whether the provision made by a local authority is appropriate. It is my view that nothing should detract from what I believe is the prime activity of the tribunal.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, asked a straight question: if the amendment is not agreed upon today and is not put into the Bill, could the tribunal develop its own code of practice. First, the tribunal will have its own rules and procedures, but it will not develop a code of practice. The code of practice will come before the House for approval. It will again come before the House if we wish to alter it, but the tribunal will have to have regard, where relevant, to the code issued under this Bill. As it does so, case law may develop which may refer to the role of the code. It is always possible that a decision taken by a local education authority may be inappropriate and not consistent with the needs of the child. It may be that a contributory factor to the authority's coming to a poor decision is that it departed from the code. That would be taken into account by the tribunal and would be judged accordingly.
It is equally possible that the tribunal, charged with the prime duty of considering the needs of the child, might come to the view that the provision made by the local authority was entirely consistent with the needs of the child, but that it had had regard to the code of practice and had departed from it. The adherence to the code of practice should not become a preoccupation of the tribunal in any sense other than helping it to come to a view on whether the provision for the child was correct.
1020
We have debated the matter at length and I want my noble friend to understand what I put to him in writing. I believe that there is enormous common ground between us on all sides of the House. It is a narrow point that divides us, but a point of substance. What unites the House is that all children with special educational needs shall be properly provided for. That is the mission of the tribunal. I believe that the amendment in lieu supports that, but Amendment No. 14B flies in the face of that. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, as well as the Minister. First, I wish to deal with the rather mischievous demolition job undertaken by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. With the utmost respect to him, I know he enjoyed it very much, but I did not at the time until I realised that it was a total misconception. If it had not been, the Government would have thought of it long ago.
The reason why it was a total misconception is that the position of other children was taken into account when I drafted the amendment. I act in the courts on these matters and fully appreciate that the position of other children is involved when we are dealing with one child. That is one of the reasons why there is the first qualification:
"If in the opinion of the Tribunal substantial compliance … as may be adjudged to be relevant was reasonably practical in the circumstances".
If read fairly, that wholly subsumes the position of the other children. My noble and learned friend will say, "No, it does not", but he is in a sedentary position and I shall not continue to argue the matter.
The next point I wish to take is what I call the fine print contribution of a distinguished lawyer, my noble friend Lord Renton. He said that "only if" are the words of limitation. Yes, they were intended as such, but subject to the point that I have already made. Then the noble Lord dangles before one the spectre of wrangles in court. Anybody can say that. There are always wrangles in court. Why this matter should cause any more wrangles in court than any other, I do not know. The noble Lord will say that he does not agree. But it is my turn to say that I do not agree.
Next, I have to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that there is no disadvantage. I hope I have done that by dealing with the demolition job, which itself collapsed. Then, I have to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that we cannot somehow get this by the back door. Well, we cannot.
Finally, if one spends a bit of time in the Bishops' Bar, it is always well spent. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and I used to travel the western circuit together, after the war when we were young. We have remained on tolerable terms of friendship ever since, although he is a judge and I am not. He is a good lawyer, so I asked him whether he would mind looking the matter up, totally impartially. I had cited these cases—I did not give them to him—in the debate that I initiated in January 1986 on codes of practice. I did not give him that information, but he used one of the same authorities as I was using. He said that "shall have regard to" has no statutory force or effect.

1021
One can consider and one can disregard. The amendment that I propose is the only method of producing a satisfactory status with any form of safeguard. There it is. It is a disagreement which will continue as a disagreement. I opened this matter saying that my noble friend the Minister and I both agreed that it could only be resolved by your Lordships. I beg to move the amendment.
7.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 14B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 14A, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 118.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Lockwood, B.

Addington, L.

Longford, E.

Airedale, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Blackstonc, B.

Milverton, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brimelow, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Nathan, L.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carter, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Prys-Davies, L.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Redesdale, L.

Desai, L.

Renwick, L.

Donoughue, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rix, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Erroll, E.

Russell, E.

Faithfull, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Falkland, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hamwee, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Harrowby, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollick, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howell, L.

Varley, L.

Hughes, L.

Warnock, B. [Teller.]

Jay of Paddington, B.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Wigoder, L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kennet, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Bruntisfield, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Butterworth, L.

Arran, E.

Caithness, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Astor, V.

Carnock, L.

Auckland, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Blatch, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Blyth, L.

Chilver, L.

Borthwick, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Colwyn, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Cranborne, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Crathorne, L.

1022

Crickhowell, L.

Mersey, V.

Cross, V.

Mountevans. L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Munster, E.

Denham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Nelson, E.

Downshire, M.

Norrie, L.

Elles, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Finsberg, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Flather, B.

Pike, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Plumb, L.

Gisborough, L.

Prior, L.

Goold, L.

Quinton, L.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Grantchester, L.

Reay, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rennell, L.

Greenway, L.

Renton, L.

Haddington, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Romney, E.

St. Davids, V.

Hanson, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Sharples, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hives, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Holderness, L.

Stewartby, L

Hooper, B.

Strange, B.

Hothfield, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kimball, L.

Swansea, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Leigh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Whitelaw, V.

Windlesharn, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Wise, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wynford, L.

Marlesford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that this House do not insist on their Amendment No.14 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A in lieu thereof.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
15 Clause 247, page 148, line 6, at end insert:
("(8) In this section "direction" means a direction contained in an order made by the Secretary of State.")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
15A Line 3, after 'State' add 'but section 63(1) of this Act shall not apply to the power of the Secretary of State to make orders under this section.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 15.

1023
Amendment No. 15A ensures that directions made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in respect of sponsor governors at aided schools are not to be made by statutory instrument. These directions are essentially administrative acts relating to individual schools and in common with other such directions it would not be appropriate for them to take the form of statutory instruments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 15.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
16 Clause 251, page 151, line 37, at end insert:
("() in subsection (6) after "with respect to" there is inserted—
"(aa) the planned financial provision in that year specified in the statement prepared by the authority under subsection (3) above", and
() for subsection (8) there is substituted—
"(8) The authority shall furnish—

(a) the governing body of each school required to be covered by the scheme in any financial year, and

(b) the governing bodies of such grant-maintained schools in the authority's area and grant-maintained special schools mentioned in section 34(4) (c) of this Act as may be prescribed,

with a copy of each statement prepared by the authority under this section in relation to that year or, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, with such part or parts of it as may be prescribed."
() After that section there is inserted—
"Certification of statements by Audit Commission.
42A.—(1) This section applies where in the case of any local education authority the authority's financial provision for county and voluntary schools is subject to regulation by a scheme.
(2) Any such local education authority shall, if directed to do so by the Secretary of State, require the Audit Commission to make arrangements in accordance with section 29(1) (d) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 for certifying such statement or statements prepared by the authority under section 42 of this Act as may be specified in the directions; and any statement under that section shall be treated for the purposes of section 29(1) (d) of that Act as a return by the authority.
(3) The arrangements made by the Audit Commission in pursuance of subsection (2) above shall include arrangements for sending a copy of any such statement or statements as so certified to the Secretary of State.
(4) Directions given under subsection (2) above may relate to any local education authority or to local education authorities generally or to any class or description of such authorities." ")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
16A Line 24, after 'Commission' insert 'for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16A to Lords Amendment No. 16. This is a further technical amendment which simply inserts the full title of the Audit Commission in Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
1024
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16A to Lords Amendment No. 16.— (Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
7.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill be now considered.
It might be helpful if I were to say one or two words by way of introduction. The Marshalled List of amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill may strike your Lordships as a pretty formidable tome of amendments. So it strikes me.
Before we come to the consideration of the details of individual amendments, I thought that it would be only courteous to your Lordships if I were to give some slight explanation of the substantial quantity of amendments which are now in front of your Lordships for consideration. The first thing to point out is that the changes which are made to the Bill as it originally left your Lordships' House do not significantly alter its aims or intentions. In fact, they ensure that those aims and intentions are properly fulfilled.
The amendments to Part II, which relates to drugs, and to Part III, which relates to general crime, are in the main technical amendments to clarify and improve the clauses concerned. I hope that your Lordships will welcome that.
The new Part IIIA, which deals with terrorist finances, does not introduce new concepts. What it does is to ensure that the law on the laundering and confiscation of terrorist funds is in line with the law on the laundering and confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking and other crimes.
The amendments to the insider dealing provisions, which my noble friend Lord Caithness will address, came about as a result of further extensive consultation with those who are primarily affected. I hope that your Lordships will welcome the changes as helpful improvements.
As your Lordships will know, the opportunity was taken in the Bill while it was in another place to put right difficulties which had arisen over the implementation of certain parts of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. These appear principally in Amendments Nos. 143 and 144, which will appear before Clause 42 of the Bill. There has been a great deal of concern over the 1991 Act and we shall come to the amendments which affect that in due course.
However, the Government thought it correct to take the opportunity of this Bill to amend the fining and sentencing provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise to thank the Minister for the introduction that he has given to the consideration of the Commons amendments. As the House will know, it is very

1025
difficult to pin any more general statement on the specific amendments that are before us. The Minister said that the 69 pages of amendments which have come from another place do not affect the scope of the Bill. I find that very difficult to accept in the light of the fact that the Long Title is to be amended by no fewer than seven Commons amendments (Nos. 201 to 207).
The Minister will be well aware that when it became clear that the Government intended to use the consideration of the Bill in Committee in the other place in the way that they have done—in other words, substantially to alter the scope as well as the detail of the Bill—my honourable friends saw it as an opportunity to attempt to extend the scope of the Bill very considerably from that which came before your Lordships at the end of last year. In particular, they were concerned that a criminal justice Bill with the kind of scope that is now envisaged could have covered much more effectively issues of crime prevention, delay in the courts, juvenile crime, consistency in sentencing—particularly I draw attention to the urgent need for a sentencing council and that matter will come up in the consideration of amendments today—help to victims of crime, consideration of the mental state of the defendant and better pre-sentencing reports. There are many other issues which could have been included in the Bill once it had become clear that the Government would not restrict their consideration to the very limited matters which were originally in the Long Title to the Bill.
Quite apart from the consideration of the specific amendments, we have to say that since the Government were flexible in other ways and performed a U-turn about a number of issues in the 1991 Criminal Justice Act, the opportunity could and should have been taken to deal with a number of other matters which are still defective in our criminal justice system and which it would have been entirely appropriate and quicker to have dealt with by accepting the amendments put down by my honourable friends in another place. Therefore it is with a sense of disappointment that I repeat my thanks to the Minister for his introduction to these amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I want to say only a few words about this Bill. There are 69 pages of Commons amendments to a Bill of fewer than 50 clauses. That is the first point.
Secondly, as the noble Earl indicated, slightly bleakly if I may say so, we are invited today to become involved in a major re-writing of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act. The clauses to which I refer have in fact been drastically changed and the decision to change them was taken only seven months after the 1991 Act came into force in respect of those issues: one being the sentencing powers of the court and the other matter relating to fines.
I do not feel that this is a sensible way to legislate. It is quite extraordinary that, with the ink on the statute book still wet, we have been asked to change radically what Parliament originally agreed.
Thirdly, the issues involving insider dealing, with which the Treasury is primarily involved, are worthy of some comment. As noble Lords will know, no
1026
proper consultative arrangements were made before the Bill was published. Therefore the consultations have taken place since the publication of the Bill; hence, many of the amendments.
I should like to draw the attention of the noble Earl to the report of the Hansard Society Commission on the legislative process. His noble friend Lord Rippon was the chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, was one of the members and a former Permanent Secretary to the Home Office was a third member. In the summary of conclusions, under "Consultation", the report reads:
"The overwhelming impression from the evidence is that many of those most directly affected are deeply dissatisfied with the extent, nature, timing and conduct of consultation on Bills as at present practised … the Government must heed this criticism and seek to meet it".
The next paragraphs in which the noble Earl will be interested are numbered 6 and 7. Paragraph 6 states:
"Although some Bills are inevitably required in a hurry, getting a Bill right should always have priority over passing it quickly, and we recommend that the Government should publicly endorse this policy".
Paragraph 7 states:
"The Government should make every effort to get Bills in a form fit for enactment, without major alteration, before they are presented to Parliament; in the Government's review of the legislative process, this should be a first and overriding objective".
Those principles seem to me highly desirable. I hope in the future that they may be put into practice.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Earl for affording this House the opportunity to make some general comments on the amendments before we discuss them in detail.
The legislative progress on this measure has been unorthodox, to say the least. The Bill left the House in December of last year with 40 clauses. It was before the Commons, apparently a Bill of low priority, for several months until the then Home Secretary…Kenneth Clarke…decided in the most remarkable turnabout (because of criticism from judicial sources and the magistracy, magnified by the tabloid press) to amend and in some cases to repeal provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which had been under consideration for a period of two or three years and intensively discussed by both Houses of Parliament:. He decided to do that in an immediate way made possible, it turned out, by the view taken by the House authorities in another place differing from the view taken by the authorities in this House, that the Bill, which hitherto had been confined to financial offences and the proceeds of crime—drug trafficking, insider dealing, money laundering and so forth…could be expanded in this dramatic way to alter the powers of the courts and the treatment of offenders.
Tonight the 207 government amendments are before us for a short period of time. if it is necessary to do so the House will return tomorrow for further consideration of those Commons amendments. The high probability is that they will then go on the statute book with the minimum of consideration and effectively no opportunity for this House to exercise its revising role.
I endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in reading the extract from the Hansard

1027
Society Commission report, which is reflected in every classic text referring to the making of statute law. I shall certainly do nothing to make the Government's task more difficult this evening or tomorrow. But it is appropriate to put on record at the outset of this debate our reservations about the way in which the proposals have been put before the House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can understand your Lordships' concern that we are being asked to consider a number of amendments to the Bill which did not come into the frame when the Bill was before your Lordships. It does not surprise me that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, described it as a "U-turn"; the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that after seven months we were changing the way that we had proposed to proceed and that did not seem to him to be a sensible way to legislate. My noble friend Lord Windlesham said that it was a remarkable "turnabout".
The Criminal Justice Act was in practice and in operation and was an Act that we felt was correct in the circumstances of the day. For example, unit fines was a way of making sure that there was uniformity in sentencing throughout the country. For better or worse, for reasons which your Lordships will understand, that created a furore both from the public and the magistrates in regard to the sentences. We felt, being a listening, caring government, that we should take countenance of what was being said and take the opportunity of this Bill to alter the situation.
The difficulty is that if one takes no notice of the row that goes on, everyone says that the Government are obdurate and do not take notice. If one takes notice and tries to address the matter one is accused of vacillating, making U-turns and no one knows where they are. I accept that that is a criticism that your Lordships wallow in making. I understand and do not despise that. Were I in a similar position, I should probably take pleasure in doing the same. The fact is that throughout the country there was concern about sentencing and the Government took the opportunity of this Bill to alter the position as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. was concerned that that did not happen within your Lordships' House. Your Lordships may recall that the authorities of this House took a relatively narrow view of the scope of the Bill when it was before us last year. The view taken by the authorities in another place was somewhat different. The Government decided therefore to take the opportunity afforded by that view to respond in a positive way to pressure for amendment to be made to the fining and sentencing provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it does not fall within appropriate comment by a Minister of the Crown to refer to the view taken by the authorities, either of this House or another place. If the Government or any one else had wished to introduce amèndments to extend the Long Title of the Bill in your Lordships' House, as they did in the Commons, I do not believe that the authorities of the House
1028
would have been in a position to deny them that opportunity. It is a political decision, not an administrative one.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is not quite right. Different procedures operate within the two Houses. It is not a question of altering the Long Title of the Bill; it is a question of amendments which come within the ambit of the Bill. We did not make the alteration in your Lordships' House for the reasons which I gave. When it was in another place the opportunity was presented to do so and the Government felt that it was appropriate to respond to the anxieties being expressed by incorporating the adjustments into the Bill when it was in another place. That was done and it is now for your Lordships to approve those adjustments.
I do not pretend that it is anything but an unusual procedure. But in the circumstances I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is acceptable and reasonable.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to [ Bill 104 ] as first printed in the Commons. ]
1 Clause 2, page 2, line 39, leave out from '(1)' to 'For' in line 41.
2 Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(2) For the purpose of determining whether or not a particular event is a relevant event in relation to a Group A offence, any question as to where it occurred is to be disregarded.
(3) A person may be guilty of a Group A offence if any of the events which are relevant events in relation to the offence occurred in England and Wales.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. These are simply drafting amendments, which are intended to make the effect of Clause 2 more readily apparent. It became clear during the Committee stage in another place that not everyone understood it, although as far as I recall this was not a handicap which your Lordships experienced. These amendments will not add to the Bill or change the meaning of the clause. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. I and 2.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
3 Clause 8, page 6, line 44, leave out '("the specified period")'.
4 Page 7, line 4, after 'period' insert 'under subsection (1) above'.
5 Page 7, line 6, leave out 'when taken'.
6 Page 7, line 7, leave out 'has' and insert 'have'.
7 Page 7, line 11, leave out `on which the defendant was convicted' and insert 'of conviction'.
8 Page 7, line 17, after `above' insert 'for such period as it may specify'.
9 Page 7, line 26, after '(6)' insert 'Unless the court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances,'.
10 Page 8, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).
11 Page 8, line 12, at end insert:
'(11) In this section "the date of conviction" means—

(a) the date on which the defendant was convicted, or

(b) where he appeared to be sentenced in respect of more than one conviction, and those convictions were not all on the same date, the date of the latest of those convictions.'.

12 Clause 10, page 8, line 36, after 'Act', insert 'or applies to the court under section 4A, 5A, 5B or 5C of this Act'.
13 Page 9, line 29, leave out 'the court may direct' and insert 'may be prescribed by rules of court or as the court may direct'.
14 Page 9, line 35, after 'Act' insert 'or has applied to the court under section 5A, 5B or 5C of this Act'.
15 Page 9, line 38, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 1'.
16 Page 10, line 14, leave out 'the court may direct' and insert 'may be prescribed by rules of court or as the court may direct'.
17 Clause 11, page 10, line 25, leave out from 'provision' to end of line 31 and insert '—

(a) for the giving of notice of any application under this section; and

(b) for any person appearing to the court to be likely to be affected by any exercise of its powers under this section to be given an opportunity to make representations to the court.'.

18 Clause 12, page 10, line 32, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections'.
19 Page 10, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 on page 11 and insert:
"'Reconsideration of case where court has not proceeded under section 1.
5A.—(1) This section applies where the defendant has appeared before the Crown Court to be sentenced in respect of one or more drug trafficking offences but the court has not proceeded under section 1 of this Act.
(2) If the prosecutor has evidence—

(a) which was not available to him when the defendant appeared to be sentenced (and accordingly was not considered by the court), but

(b) which the prosecutor believes would have led the court to determine that the defendant had benefited from drug trafficking if—

(i) the prosecutor had asked the court to proceed under section 1 of this Act, and

(ii) the evidence had been considered by the court,

he may apply to the Crown Court for it to consider the evidence.
(3) The court shall proceed under section 1 of this Act if, having considered the evidence, it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.
(4) In considering whether it is appropriate to proceed under section 1, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case.
(5) Where, having decided to proceed under section 1, the court proposes to make a confiscation order against the defendant, it shall order the payment of such amount as it thinks just in all the circumstances of the case.
(6) In considering the circumstances of any case the court shall have regard, in particular, to the amount of any fine imposed on the defendant in respect of the offence or offences in question.
(7) Where the court is proceeding under section 1 of this Act, by virtue of this section, subsection (4) of that section shall have effect as if the words "before sentencing or otherwise dealing with him in respect of the offence or, as the case may be, any of the offences concerned" were omitted.
(8) The court may take into account any payment or other reward received by the defendant on or after the date of conviction, but only if the prosecutor shows that it was received by the defendant in connection with drug trafficking carried on by the defendant or another on or before that date.
(9) In considering any evidence under this section which relates to any payment or reward to which subsection (8) above applies, the court shall not make the assumptions which would otherwise be required by section 2 of this Act.
(10) No application shall be entertained by the court under this section if it is made after the end of the period of six years beginning with the date of conviction.
(11) In this section "the date of conviction" means—

(a) the date on which the defendant was convicted, or

(b) where he appeared to be sentenced in respect of more than one conviction, and those convictions were not all on the same date, the date of the latest of those convictions.

Re-assessment of whether defendant has benefited from drug trafficking.
5B.—(I) This section applies where the court has made a determination ("the section 1(2) determination") under section 1(2) of this Act that the defendant has not benefited from drug trafficking.
(2) If the prosecutor has evidence—

(a) which was not considered by the court in making the section 1(2) determination, but

(b) which the prosecutor believes would have led the court to determine that the defendant had benefited from drug trafficking if it had been considered by the court,

he may apply to the Crown Court for it to consider that evidence.
(3) If, having considered the evidence, the court is satisfied that it would have determined that the defendant had benefited from drug trafficking if that evidence had been available to it, the court—

(a) shall—

(i) make a fresh determination under subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act; and

(ii) make a determination under subsection (4) of that section of the amount to be recovered by virtue of that section; and

(b) may make an order under that section.

(4) Where the court is proceeding under section 1 of this Act, by virtue of this section, subsection (4) of that section shall have effect as if the words "before sentencing or otherwise dealing with him in respect of the offence or, as the case may be, any of the offences concerned" were omitted.
(5) The court may take into account any payment or other reward received by the defendant on or after the date of the section 1(2) determination, but only if the prosecutor shows that it was received by the defendant in connection with drug trafficking carried on by the defendant or another on or before that date.
(6) In considering any evidence under this section which relates to any payment or reward to which subsection (5) above applies, the court shall not make the assumptions which would otherwise be required by section 2 of this Act.
(7) Where the High Court—

(a) has been asked to proceed under section 4A of this Act in relation to a defendant who has absconded, but

1031

(b) has decided not to make a confiscation order against him,

this section shall not apply at any time while he remains an absconder.
(8) No application shall be entertained by the court under this section if it is made after the end of the period of six years beginning with—

(a) the date on which the defendant was convicted; or

(b) where he appeared to be sentenced in respect of more than one conviction, and those convictions were not all on the same date, the date of the latest of those convictions.

Revised assessment of proceeds of drug trafficking.
5C.—(1) This section applies where the court has made a determination under section 1(4) of this Act of the amount to be recovered in a particular case by virtue of that section ("the current section 1(4) determination").
(2) Where the prosecutor is of the opinion that the real value of the defendant's proceeds of drug trafficking was greater than their assessed value, the prosecutor may apply to the Crown Court for the evidence on which the prosecutor has formed his opinion to be considered by the court.
(3) In subsection (2) above—
"assessed value" means the value of the defendant's proceeds of drug trafficking as assessed by the court under section 4(1) of this Act; and
"real value" means the value of the defendant's proceeds of drug trafficking which took place—

(a) in the period by reference to which the current section 1(4) determination was made; or

(b) in any earlier period.

(4) If, having considered the evidence, the court is satisfied that the real value of the defendant's proceeds of drug trafficking is greater than their assessed value (whether because the real value was higher at the time of the current section 1(4) determination than was thought or because the value of the proceeds in question has subsequently increased), the court shall make a fresh determination under subsection (4) of section 1 of this Act of the amount to be recovered by virtue of that section.
(5) Where the court is proceeding under section 1 of this Act, by virtue of this section, subsection (4) of that section shall have effect as if the words "before sentencing or otherwise dealing with him in respect of the offence or, as the case may be, any of the offences concerned" were omitted.
(6) Any determination under section 1(4) of this Act by virtue of this section shall be by reference to the amount that might be realised at the time when the determination is made.
(7) For any determination under section 1(4) of this Act by virtue of this section, section 2(5) of this Act shall not apply in relation to any of the defendant's proceeds of drug trafficking taken into account in respect of the current section 1(4) determination.
(8) In relation to any such determination—

(a) sections 3(4) (a), 4(2) and 5(7) of this Act shall have effect as if for "confiscation order" there were substituted "determination";

(b) section 4(3) of this Act shall have effect as if for "confiscation order is made" there were substituted "determination is made"; and

(c) section 5(3) of this Act shall have effect as if for "a confiscation order is made against the defendant" there were substituted "of the determination".

(9) The court may take into account any payment or other reward received by the defendant on or after the date of the current section 1(4) determination, but only if the prosecutor shows that it was received by the defendant in connection with drug trafficking carried on by the defendant or another on or before that date.
(10) In considering any evidence under this section which relates to any payment or reward to which subsection (9) above applies, the court shall not make the assumptions which would otherwise be required by section 2 of this Act.
(11) If, as a result of making the fresh determination required by subsection (4) above, the amount to be recovered exceeds the amount set by the current section 1(4) determination, the court may substitute for the amount to be recovered under the confiscation order which was made by reference to the current section 1(4) determination such greater amount as it thinks just in all the circumstances of the case.
(12) Where the court varies a confiscation order under subsection (11) above it shall substitute for the term of imprisonment or of detention fixed under section 31(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 in respect of the amount to be recovered under the order a longer term determined in accordance with that section (as it has effect by virtue of section 6 of this Act) in respect of the greater amount substituted under subsection (11) above.
(13) Subsection (12) above shall apply only if the effect of the substitution is to increase the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under section 31(3A) of the Act of 1973.
(14) Where a confiscation order has been made in relation to any defendant by virtue of section 4A of this Act, this section shall not apply at any time while he is an absconder.
(15) No application shall be entertained by the court under this section if it is made after the end of the period of six years beginning with—

(a) the date on which the defendant was convicted; or

(b) where he appeared to be sentenced in respect of more than one conviction, and those convictions were not all on the same date, the date of the latest of those convictions."'.

20 Clause 13, page 11, line 28, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
'(2) Section 7 of the Act of 1986 (cases in which restraint orders and charging orders may be made) shall be amended as set out in subsections (3) to (5).
(3) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) The powers conferred on the High Court by sections 8(1) and 9(1) of this Act are exercisable where—

(a) proceedings have been instituted in England and Wales against the defendant for a drug trafficking offence or an application has been made by the prosecutor in respect of the defendant under section 16 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (increase in realisable property) or section 4A, 5A, 5B or 5C of this Act,

(b) the proceedings have not, or the application has not, been concluded, and

(c) the court is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe—

(i) in the case of an application under section 5C of this Act or section 16 of the Act of 1990, that the court will be satisfied as mentioned in section 5C(4) of this Act or, as the case may be, section 16(2) of the Act of 1990, or

(ii) in any other case, that the defendant has benefited from drug trafficking.".

(4) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2)—
"(2) Those powers are also exercisable where—

(a) the court is satisfied that, whether by the laying of an information or otherwise, a person is to be charged with a drug trafficking offence or that an application of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) (a) above is to be made in respect of the defendant, and

(b) the court is also satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) (c) above.".

(5) The following subsections shall be added at the end—
"(5) Where the court has made an order under section 8(1) or 9(1) of this Act in relation to a proposed application by virtue of subsection (2) above, the court shall discharge the order if the application is not made within such time as the court considers reasonable.
(6) The court shall not exercise powers under section 8(1) or 9(1) of this Act, by virtue of subsection (1) above, if it is satisfied that—

(a) there has been undue delay in continuing the proceedings or application in question; or

(b) the prosecutor does not intend to proceed.".

(6) In section 8 of the Act of 1986 (restraint orders), the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (5)—
"(5) A restraint order—

(a) may be discharged or varied in relation to any property, and

(b) shall be discharged on the conclusion of the proceedings or of the application in question.".

(7) In section 9 of the Act of 1986 (charging orders), the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (7)—
"(7) In relation to a charging order, the court—

(a) may make an order discharging or varying it, and

(b) shall make an order discharging it—

(i) on the conclusion of the proceedings or of the application in question, or

(ii) on payment into court of the amount payment of which is secured by the charge.".

(8) In section 11 of the Act of 1986 (realisation of property), the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) Where a confiscation order—

(a) has been made under this Act,

(b) is not satisfied, and

(c) is not subject to appeal,

the High Court or a county court may, on an application by the prosecutor, exercise the powers conferred by subsections (2) to (6) below.".
(9) In section 15 of the Act of 1986 (bankruptcy of defendant), the following shall be substituted for paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (6)—
"(a) no order shall be made under section 339 or 423 of that Act (avoidance of certain transactions) in respect of the making of the gift at any time when—

(i) proceedings for a drug trafficking offence have been instituted against him and have not been concluded;

(ii) an application has been made in respect of the defendant under section 4A, 5A, 5B or 5C of this Act or section 16 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 and has not been concluded; or

(iii) property of the person to whom the gift was made is subject to a restraint order or charging order; and

(b) any order made under section 339 or 423 after the conclusion of the proceedings or of the application shall take into account any realisation under this Act of property held by the person to whom the gift was made.".
(10) In section 16 of the Act of 1986 (sequestration in Scotland), the following shall be substituted for paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (6)—
"(a) no decree shall be granted under section 34 or 36 of that Act (gratuitous alienations and unfair preferences) in respect of the making of the gift at any time when—

(i) proceedings for a drug trafficking offence have been instituted against him and have not been concluded;

(ii) an application has been made in respect of the defendant under section 4A, 5A, 5B or 5C of this Act or section 16 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 and has not been concluded; or

(iii) property of the person to whom the gift was made is subject to a restraint order or charging order; and

(b) any decree made under section 34 or 36 after the conclusion of the proceedings or of the application shall take into account any realisation under this Act of property held by a person to whom the gift was made.".
(11) In section 38 of the Act of 1986 (interpretation), the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (12)—
"(12) Proceedings for a drug trafficking offence are concluded—

(a) when the defendant is acquitted on all counts;

(b) if he is convicted on one or more counts, but the court decides not to make a confiscation order against him, when it makes that decision; or

(c) if a confiscation order is made against him in those proceedings, when the order is satisfied.

(12A) An application under section 4A, 5A or 5B of this Act is concluded—

(a) if the court decides not to make a confiscation order against the defendant, when it makes that decision; or

(b) if a confiscation order is made against him as a result of that application, when the order is satisfied.

(12B) An application under section 16 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (increase in realisable property) or section 5C of this Act is concluded—

(a) if the court decides not to vary the confiscation order in question, when it makes that decision; or

(b) if the court varies the confiscation order as a result of the application, when the order is satisfied.

(12C) For the purposes of this Act, a confiscation order is satisfied when no amount is due under it.
(12D) For the purposes of sections 15 and 16 of this Act, a confiscation order is also satisfied when the defendant in respect of whom it was made has served a term of imprisonment or detention in default of payment of the amount due under the order.".'.
21 Clause 14, page 11, line 37, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections'.
22 Page 11, line 38, after 'Act' insert '1986'.
23 Page 12, line 16, leave out 'section 2(2)' and insert 'sections 2(2) and 3(1D), (2) and (3)'.
24 Page 12, leave out lines 21 to 28.
25 Page 12, line 33, at end insert:
'Effect of conviction where High Court has acted under section 4A.
4B.—(1) Where the High Court has made a confiscation order by virtue of section 4A of this Act, the Crown Court shall, in respect of the offence or any of the offences concerned—

(a) take account of the order before—

(i) imposing any fine on him, or

(ii) making any order involving any payment by him, or

(iii) making any order under section 27 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (forfeiture orders) or section 43 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (deprivation orders), and

(b) subject to paragraph (a) above, leave the order out of account in determining the appropriate sentence or other manner of dealing with the defendant.

(2) Where the High Court has made a confiscation order by virtue of section 4A of this Act and the defendant subsequently appears before the Crown Court to be sentenced in respect of one or more of the offences concerned, section 1(1) of this Act shall not apply so far as his appearance is in respect of that offence or those offences.'.
26 Page 12, line 33, at end insert:
'(2) In section 6 of the Act of 1986 (application of procedure for enforcing fines), in subsection (6), after the words "made by", where they first occur, there shall be inserted "the High Court, by virtue of section 4A of this Act, or by".
(3) The following subsection shall be added at the end of section 6 of the Act of 1986—
"(8) Where the High Court makes a confiscation order by virtue of section 4A of this Act in relation to a defendant who has died, subsection (1) above shall be read as referring only to sections 31(1) and 32(1) of the Act of 1973."'.
27 Clause 15, page 12, line 34, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections'.
28 Page 12, line 37, leave out 'in the exercise of its powers under' and insert 'by virtue of'.
29 Page 13, line 3, at end insert:
'() Rules of court may make provision—

(a) for the giving of notice of any application under this section; and

(b) for any person appearing to the court to be likely to be affected by any exercise of its powers under this section to be given an opportunity to make representations to the court.'.

30 Page 13, line 5, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Lord Chancellor'.
31 Page 13, line 10, at end insert:
'Power to discharge confiscation order and order compensation where absconder returns.
19B.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) the High Court has made a confiscation order by virtue of section 4A(4) of this Act in relation to an absconder,

(b) the defendant has ceased to be an absconder, and

(c) section 19A of this Act does not apply.

(2) The High Court may, on the application of the defendant, cancel the confiscation order if it is satisfied that—

(a) there has been undue delay in continuing the proceedings in respect of which the power under section 4A(4) of this Act was exercised; or

(b) the prosecutor does not intend to proceed with the prosecution.

(3) Where the High Court cancels a confiscation order under this section it may, on the application of a person who held property which was realisable property, order compensation to be paid to the applicant if it is satisfied that the applicant has suffered loss as a result of the making of the confiscation order.
(4) The amount of compensation to be paid under this section shall be such as the court considers just in all the circumstances of the case.
(5) Rules of court may make provision—

(a) for the giving of notice of any application under this section; and

(b) for any person appearing to the court to be likely to be affected by any exercise of its powers under this section to be given an opportunity to make representations to the court.

(6) Any payment of compensation under this section shall be made by the Lord Chancellor out of money provided by Parliament.
(7) Where the court cancels a confiscation order under this section it may make such consequential or incidental order as it considers appropriate in connection with the cancellation.
Variation of confiscation orders made by virtue of section 4A.
19C.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) the High Court has made a confiscation order by virtue of section 4A(4) of this Act, and

(b) the defendant has ceased to be an absconder.

(2) If the defendant alleges that—

(a) the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking in the period by reference to which the determination in question was made (the "original value"), or

(b) the amount that might have been realised at the time the confiscation order was made,

was less than the amount ordered to be paid under the confiscation order, he may apply to the High Court for it to consider his evidence.
(3) If, having considered that evidence, the court is satisfied that the defendant's allegation is correct it—

(a) shall make a fresh determination under subsection (4) of section 1 of this Act, and

(b) may, if it considers it just in all the circumstances, vary the amount to be recovered under the confiscation order.

(4) For any determination under section 1 of this Act by virtue of this section, section 2(5) of this Act shall not apply in relation to any of the defendant's proceeds of drug trafficking taken into account in determining the original value.
(5) Where the court varies a confiscation order under this section—

(a) it shall substitute for the term of imprisonment or of detention fixed under section 31(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 in respect of the amount to be recovered under the order a shorter term determined in accordance with that section (as it has effect by virtue of section 6 of this Act) in respect of the lesser amount; and

(b) on the application of a person who held property which was realisable property, it may order compensation to be paid to the applicant if—

(i) it is satisfied that the applicant has suffered loss as a result of the making of the confiscation order; and

(ii) having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the court considers it to be appropriate.

(6) The amount of compensation to be paid under this section shall be such as the court considers just in all the circumstances of the case.
(7) Rules of court may make provision—

1037

(a) for the giving of notice of any application under this section; and

(b) for any person appearing to the court to be likely to be affected by any exercise of its powers under this section to be given an opportunity to make representations to the court.

(8) Any payment of compensation under this section shall be made by the Lord Chancellor out of money provided by Parliament.
(9) No application shall be entertained by the court under this section if it is made after the end of the period of six years beginning with the date on which the confiscation order was made.'.
32 Clause 16, page 13, line 12, after 'following' insert 'section'.
33 Page 13, line 18, leave out 'that property or has possession or the use of it' and insert 'or uses that property or has possession of it'.
34 Page 13, line 21, leave out 'the property' and insert 'or used the property or had possession of it'.
35 Page 13, line 23, leave out from 'above' to end of line 26 and insert'—

(a) a person acquires property for inadequate consideration if the value of the consideration is significantly less than the value of the property; and

(b) a person uses or has possession of property for inadequate consideration if the value of the consideration is significantly less than the value of his use or possession of the property.'.

36 Page 13, line 38, leave out from first 'by' to end of line 40 and insert 'statute or otherwise; and'.
37 Page 14, line 4, leave out 'subsection (5) above' and insert 'this section'.
38 Clause 17, page 14, line 44, leave out 'that property or has possession or the use of it' and insert 'or uses that property or has possession of it'.
39 Page 14, line 47, leave out 'the property' and insert 'or used the property or had possession of it'.
40 Page 15, line 1, leave out from 'above' to end of line 4 and insert—

(a) a person acquires property for inadequate consideration if the value of the consideration is significantly less than the value of the property; and

(b) a person uses or has possession of property for inadequate consideration if the value of the consideration is significantly less than the value of his use or possession of the property.'.

41 Page 15, line 18, leave out from first 'by' to end of line 20 and insert 'statute or otherwise; and'.
42 Page 15, line 31, leave out 'subsection (5) above' and insert 'this section'.
43 Clause 18, page 16, line 32, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
'(2) Subsection (1) above does not make it an offence for a professional legal adviser to fail to disclose any information or other matter which has come to him in privileged circumstances.'.
44 Page 16, line 40, after 'constable' insert'—
(a)'.
45 Page 16, line 42, after 'laundering,' insert 'or
(b) any information or other matter on which that suspicion or belief is based,'.
46 Page 16, line 43, leave out from first 'by' to end of line 45 and insert 'statute or otherwise'.
47 Page 17, line 8, at end insert:
'(5A) A disclosure to which subsection (5) above applies shall not be treated as a breach of any restriction imposed by statute or otherwise.'.
48 Page 17, line 19, leave out from 'Wales' to end of line 23.
49 Page 17, line 26, at end insert:
'() For the purposes of this section, any information or other matter comes to a professional legal adviser in privileged circumstances if it is communicated, or given, to him—

(a) by, or by a representative of, a client of his in connection with the giving by the adviser of legal advice to the client;

(b) by, or by a representative of, a person seeking legal advice from the adviser; or

(c) by any person—

(i) in contemplation of, or in connection with, legal proceedings; and

(ii) for the purpose of those proceedings.

() No information or other matter shall be treated as coming to a professional legal adviser in privileged circumstances if it is communicated or given with a view to furthering any criminal purpose.'.
50 Page 17, line 35, leave out from 'if' to end of line 4 on page 18, and insert—

(a) he knows or suspects that a constable is acting, or is proposing to act, in connection with an investigation which is being, or is about to be, conducted into drug money laundering, and

(b) he discloses to any other person information or any other matter which is likely to prejudice that investigation, or proposed investigation.

(1A) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he knows or suspects that a disclosure ("the disclosure") has been made to a constable under section 23A, 24 or 26B of this Act, and

(b) he discloses to any other person information or any other matter which is likely to prejudice any investigation which might be conducted following the disclosure.

(1B) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he knows or suspects that a disclosure of a kind mentioned in section 23A(8), 24(4A) or 26B(5) of this Act ("the disclosure") has been made, and

(b) he discloses to any person information or any other matter which is likely to prejudice any investigation which might be conducted following the disclosure.

(2) Nothing in subsections (1) to (1B) above makes it an offence for a professional legal adviser to disclose any information or other matter—

(a) to, or to a representative of, a client of his in connection with the giving by the adviser of legal advice to the client; or

(b) to any person—

(i) in contemplation of, or in connection with, legal proceedings; and

(ii) for the purpose of those proceedings.

(2A) Subsection (2) above does not apply in relation to any information or other matter which is disclosed with a view to furthering any criminal purpose.'.
51 Page 18, line 6, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1), (1A) or (1B) above'.
52 Page 18, line 8, leave out 'subsection (1) above' and insert 'that subsection'.
53 Page 18, line 9, leave out from 'laundering"' to end of line I11 and insert 'has the same meaning as in section 26B of this Act'.
54 Page 18, line 27, leave out from '(a)' to end of line 29 and insert 'for the word "contract" there shall be substituted "statute or otherwise".'.
55 Clause 19, page 19, line 6, leave out from 'not' to end of line 10 and insert 'make it an offence for a professional legal adviser to fail to disclose any information or other matter which has come to him in privileged circumstances.'.
56 Page 19, line 16, after 'commissioned', insert '—(a)'.
57 Page 19, line 17, after 'laundering,' insert 'or
(b) any information or other matter on which that suspicion or belief is based,'.
58 Page 19, line 19, leave out from first 'by' to end of line 20 and insert 'statute or otherwise'.
59 Page 19, line 28, at end insert:
'(5A) A disclosure to which subsection (5) above applies shall not be treated as a breach of any restriction imposed by statute or otherwise.'.
60 Page 19, line 39, at end insert:
'() For the purposes of this section, any information or other matter comes to a professional legal adviser in privileged circumstances if it is communicated, or given, to him—

(a) by, or by a representative of, a client of his in connection with the giving by the adviser of legal advice to the client;

(b) by, or by a representative of, a person seeking legal advice from the adviser; or

(c) by any person—

(i) in contemplation of, or in connection with, legal proceedings; and

(ii) for the purpose of those proceedings.

() No information or other matter shall be treated as coming to a professional legal adviser in privileged circumstances if it is communicated or given with a view to furthering any criminal purpose.'.
61 Page 19, line 48, leave out from 'if to end of line 21 on page 20 and insert '—

(a) he knows or suspects that a constable or a person commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise is acting, or is proposing to act, in connection with an investigation which is being, or is about to be, conducted into drug money laundering within the meaning of subsections (6) and (7) of section 43A of this Act; and

(b) he discloses to any other person information or any other matter which is likely to prejudice that investigation, or proposed investigation.

(1A) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he knows or suspects that a disclosure has been made to a constable, or a person so commissioned, under section 42A, 43 or 43A of this Act; and

(b) he discloses to any other person information or any other matter which is likely to prejudice any investigation which might be conducted following the disclosure.

(1B) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he knows or suspects that a disclosure of a kind mentioned in section 42A(8), 43(4A) or 43A(5) of this Act has been made; and

(b) he discloses to any person information or any other matter which is likely to prejudice any investigation which might be conducted following the disclosure.

(2) Nothing in subsections (1) to (1B) above makes it an offence for a professional legal adviser to disclose any information or other matter—

(a) to, or to a representative of, a client of his in connection with the giving by the adviser of legal advice to the client; or

(b) to any person—

(i) in contemplation of, or in connection with, legal proceedings; and

(ii) for the purpose of those proceedings.

(2A) Subsection (2) above does not apply in relation to any information or other matter which is disclosed with a view to furthering any criminal purpose.'.
62 Page 20, line 23, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1), (1A) or (1B) above'.
63 Page 20, line 25, leave out 'subsection (1) above' and insert 'that subsection'.
64 Page 20, line 46, leave out from '(3)' to end of line 48 and insert 'for the word "contract" there shall he substituted "statute or otherwise"'.
65 Clause 20, page 22, line 43, leave out 'an officer' and insert 'a person'.
66 Page 23, line 20, leave out from beginning to 'An' in line 24 and insert:
'(2) In section 24A of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (recognition and enforcement of certain orders), the following shall be substituted for subsection (6)—
"(6)'.
67 Page 23, line 24, leave out 'made'.
68 Page 23, line 27, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(3) The same subsection as is inserted in section 24A of the Act of 1986 by subsection (2) shall be inserted in—

(a) section 25 of that Act (but in substitution for subsection (4));

(b) section 26 of that Act (but in substitution for subsection (5));

(c) section 29 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (but in substitution for subsection (4));

(d) section 30 of the Act of 1987 (but in substitution for subsection (5));

(e) section 94 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (but in substitution for subsection (4));

(f) section 95 of the Act of 1988 (but in substitution for subsection (3));

(g) section 96 of the Act of 1988 (but in substitution for subsection (5));

(h) section 9 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (but in substitution for subsection (5)).'.

69 After Clause 21, insert the following clause:
Enforcement of Northern Ireland orders: drug trafficking
'.—(1) In section 25 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (enforcement of Northern Ireland orders), in subsection (1). for "19" there shall be substituted "18" and the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
"(3A) An Order in Council under this section may, in particular, provide for section 18 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (enforcement of United Kingdom judgments in other parts of the United Kingdom) not to apply in relation to such orders as may be prescribed by the Order.".
(2) In section 29 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (enforcement of Northern Ireland orders), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
"(3A) An Order in Council under this section may, in particular, provide for section 18 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (enforcement of United Kingdom judgments in other parts of the United Kingdom) not to apply in relation to such orders as may be prescribed by the Order.".'.
70 Page 24, line 8, leave out '11'.
71 Page 24, line 8, after '19' insert '(2) (b) (i)'.
72 After Clause 23, insert the following clause:
Appeal against order forfeiting drug trafficking cash
'.—(1) The following sections shall be inserted in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, after section 26—
"Appeal against section 26 order.
26A.—(1) This section applies where an order for the forfeiture of cash ("the forfeiture order") is made under section 26 above by a magistrates' court.
(2) Any party to the proceedings in which the forfeiture order is made (other than the applicant for the order) may, before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date on which it is made, appeal to the Crown Court or, in Northern Ireland, to a county court.
(3) An appeal under this section shall be by way of a rehearing.
(4) On an application made by the appellant to a magistrates' court at any time, that court may order the release of so much of the cash to which the forfeiture order relates as it considers appropriate to enable him to meet his legal expenses in connection with the appeal.
(5) The court hearing an appeal under this section may make such order as it considers appropriate.
(6) If it upholds the appeal, the court may order the release of the cash, or (as the case may be) the remaining cash, together with any accrued interest.
(7) Section 26(3) applies in relation to a rehearing on an appeal under this section as it applies to proceedings under section 26.
Appeal against section 26 order: Scotland.
26B. Any party to proceedings in which an order for the forfeiture of cash is made by the sheriff under section 26 above may appeal against the order to the Court of Session.".
(2) The Act of 1990 shall be further amended as follows.
(3) In section 26 (forfeiture of drug trafficking cash), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4) Proceedings on an application under this section to the sheriff shall be civil proceedings.".
(4) In section 28 (procedure), the words "or appeals" shall be inserted after the word "applications" in each place where it occurs in subsection (2).
(5) In section 30 (forfeited cash to be paid into the Consolidated Fund), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(3) Subsection (2) above does not apply—

(a) where an appeal is made under section 26A or 26B above, before the appeal is determined or otherwise disposed of; and

(b) in any other case—

(i) where the forfeiture was ordered by a magistrates' court, before the end of the period of 30 days mentioned in section 26A(2); or

(ii) where the forfeiture was ordered by the sheriff, before the end of any period within which, in accordance with rules of court, an appeal under section 26B must be made.".

(6) The amendments made by this section apply only in relation to orders under section 26 of the Act of 1990 made on or after the date on which this section comes into force.'.
73 After Clause 23, insert the following clause:
Disclosure of information etc. received in privileged circumstances
'.—(1) In section 31 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (offence of prejudicing investigation), the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(2A) Nothing in subsection (1) above makes it an offence for a professional legal adviser to disclose any information or other matter—

(a) to, or to a representative of, a client of his in connection with the giving by the adviser of legal advice to the client; or

(b) to any person—

(i) in contemplation of, or in connection with, legal proceedings; and

(ii) for the purpose of those proceedings.

(2B) Subsection (2A) above does not apply in relation to any information or other matter which is disclosed with a view to furthering any criminal purpose.".'.
(2) The same subsections as are inserted in section 31 of the Act of 1986 by subsection (1) shall be inserted in section 42 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (corresponding Scottish provision).'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 73.
This is a large set of amendments. I am tempted to say that they are merely technical amendments—and leave it at that. But that might be a little too expeditious for your Lordships' taste, because there are a few alterations of substance, even though the majority of these follow from the principles which were discussed and agreed by your Lordships last year. The amendments make various, mainly technical, changes to Part II of the Bill, which concerns the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking.
When the Bill was first considered by your Lordships, there was, in general, a welcome for Part II, although some concerns were expressed at some aspects of it. These amendments do not alter what we are trying to do in Part II. They really just represent a more fully developed version of the original clauses, so as to ensure that they meet the Government's intentions, and that they are as clear and as technically correct as we can make them. Some of the amendments are minor, and do no more than correct inaccuracies which crept in when the Bill was originally drafted. It might be convenient therefore to your Lordships if I were to limit my explanation of this block of amendments to those which are significant.
We have altered the provision allowing confiscation orders to be revised at a later date. Your Lordships may recall that some disquiet was expressed by certain noble Lords about the powers which are provided by Clause 12. I think, though, that the principle of allowing the prosecutor to seek the confiscation of proceeds of drug trafficking, which were either hidden from the courts, or which came into existence after the time when a confiscation order was originally made, was generally accepted.
The amendments to Clause 12 ensure that we can take account of all the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to seek the confiscation of previously unknown proceeds. The clause now covers three scenarios: first, where the court did not proceed under Section 1 of the Act because there appeared to be no benefit at all; secondly, where it did proceed, following the procedure under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, but found eventually that there had been no benefit; and thirdly, where it did make an earlier confiscation order. In all three scenarios, where proceeds subsequently come to light, it will be possible either to make a new order or to increase the earlier one.
Clause 13 has also been significantly amended. The alteration looks complicated. So it is but it does not alter the substance of the provision in the Clause 13 that was debated by your Lordships at the end of last year. The amendment makes consequential amendments to the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which are necessary as a result of the changes which are made to that Act by Clause 12 of the Bill and the original part of Clause 13. The amendment ensures, in particular, that the enforcement powers—such as the

1043
High Court's powers to issue restraint and charging orders—are available when some of the new measures come into force.
The provision allowing confiscation in the case of drug traffickers, who die or who abscond, is also altered. Amendment No. 25 inserts a new Section 4B into the 1986 Act. It ensures that, where the High Court has made a confiscation order under Section 4A against a drug trafficker who has absconded and who subsequently returns and who appears before the Crown Court to be sentenced, the Crown Court will be required to ignore the size of the confiscation order in deciding the appropriate term of imprisonment.
Where a defendant absconds before conviction and where a confiscation order is made against him in his absence in the High Court, the Crown Court will be prevented from making a confiscation order if the defendant is subsequently convicted of the offence and appears before that court to be sentenced. This is because an order will already have been made in absentia. Without Amendment No. 25, there would be nothing to prevent the Crown Court from making a further order against such an offender.
We have also expanded the compensation provisions in Clause 15. New Sections 19B and 19C, which are to be inserted into the 1986 Act, concern the discharge and variation of orders and the payment of compensation in the case of drug traffickers who abscond. They complement the new Section 19A in the 1986 Act, which allows for the payment of compensation when a defendant, who absconds before conviction and against whom an order is made, subsequently returns and is acquitted. I hope, therefore, that these changes will be welcomed.
The clauses concerning money laundering have also been amended. I ought perhaps to draw your Lordships' attention, in particular, to the legal privilege defence in the new "failure to report" offences in Clauses 18 and 19. On reconsideration, we thought that the defence would be better drafted without reference to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The effect of that formulation was that only written, and not oral, communications with legal advisers could be the subject of the defence. We are also ensuring that the immunity, which is provided in Clauses 18 and 19 for those who make disclosures of suspicions of money laundering applies to the disclosure of the information, or to the disclosure of the matter on which the suspicion is based, as well as to the disclosure of the suspicion itself.
Amendment No. 72 adds a new clause to the Bill. It inserts two new sections—Section 26A and Section 26B—into the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990, to meet a particular problem which has only recently been identified. Section 26 of the 1990 Act enables a magistrates' court to order the forfeiture of cash which is seized when it is found crossing borders if the court is satisfied that the cash represents the proceeds of drug trafficking. But there are at present only limited rights of appeal in England and Wales against such orders. Such appeals can be
1044
made only on the grounds that the order was wrong in law, or in excess of the jurisdiction, but the merits of the decision cannot be re-evaluated.
The lack of a full right of appeal was raised by two honourable Members in another place—the honourable Members for Beckenham and for Lewisham, West—last year, and we have since decided that it would be right to take the opportunity of this Bill to correct the position. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 73.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I propose to raise a matter concerning Karyn Smith and Patricia Cahill, who were given a Royal Pardon by the King of Thailand following the intervention of the Prime Minister—I have given the noble Earl notice that I intended to raise this matter—and also the conduct of Mr. Stephen Jakobi, who is apparently the lawyer of Miss Smith. The Bill deals with the power to give the courts in England and Wales power to try cases of fraud and related offences, and of course fraud is often directly related to drug trafficking and money laundering. What we are discussing now is particularly appropriate—the question of the confiscation of drugs smugglers' assets. Both these two women come into that category and therefore in my view this matter is highly relevant to the issues that we are discussing.
I think there is general agreement in all parts of the House and indeed in another place about the consequences of the growth of drug trafficking in this country, particularly in relation to heroin, cocaine and crack. These drugs kill many thousands of people. They destroy family life. They now involve the activities of a very large industry with a turnover in the United Kingdom of many hundreds of millions of pounds a year. The Bill is aimed rightly at the organisers of this traffic but the Government have also made it clear, and made it clear repeatedly, that they consider it right for the courts to be given adequate powers to imprison for substantial periods those who are involved in carrying drugs from third world countries such as Colombia and from the Golden Triangle states, which include Thailand. All sides of both Houses have endorsed that approach. That being so, I turn now to the cases of Miss Smith and Miss Cahill.
As I understand it, the Government—Mr. Major taking the same view—have accepted the guilt of both of these women. That has been made wholly clear. Mr. Major's approach to the King of Thailand was, as I understand it, based exclusively on what were described as compassionate grounds. The women have now been released. As far as their families are concerned, all of us, I am sure, will understand their delight that their daughters have now returned to this country. But substantial questions do arise from this episode. These women have served three years in prison, but if they had been convicted in a British court on precisely the same charges they would certainly not have been released within a period of three years. Indeed, they could have been in prison —putting aside the length of the sentence —for at least twice as long.

1045
As it is, they have returned to this country and one of them, through her lawyer, Mr. Jakobi, is busy trying to sell her story to newspapers for sums ranging between £80,000 and £100,000. I very much welcome—as I am sure we all do—the statement made by the Press Complaints Commission last week and by my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris, when he cited Article 9 of the code of practice relating to payments to criminals. Apparently, so far the story has not yet been acquired by a British newspaper and I very much hope that it will not be.
But there are now even suggestions that film rights are being sold by one of these women. I find the conduct of those who have been operating on behalf of one of these women, and that of Mr. Jakobi in particular, highly questionable. All I shall say about him is that I hope that the noble Earl will be good enough to refer this matter, following this debate, to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor so that he can have discussions, if he thinks it appropriate, with the Law Society about how a code of ethics involving solicitors relates to the behaviour of Mr. Jakobi, which has been widely publicised. I believe that his behaviour is open to very substantial criticism, but I do not believe in misusing parliamentary privilege. I leave it at the point where I say that I believe that the matter should be inquired into. I hope that that will be done.
Following that, we have had a series of attacks by Mr. Jakobi, and those who have associated themselves with him, on the Customs and Excise, who are being severely criticised because they had the temerity to work in collaboration with the Thai police. That is exactly what the Customs and Excise are supposed to do if we have a situation where they have reason to believe that British subjects, or any other nationals, are involved in the heroin trade.
One has to ask: what happens when the next alleged drug carrier, be it a woman or a man, is caught in Thailand? We have a situation where already one British woman, as has been published in the press in the past few days, is now facing serious charges in Bangkok which involve a possible capital offence because of the quantity of drugs alleged to be in her possession. In Thailand and other parts of Asia, there are in fact capital penalties. We have seen a situation where a young British subject was executed in Malaysia notwithstanding the representations made on his behalf by the then Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
It is critically important for people to realise the gravity of a situation in which young British subjects, who are encouraged to go to Thailand, Malaysia or elsewhere, think that they are going to make very substantial quantities of money. In the particular case to which I have referred this evening, the suggestion is made that, although they have no doubt had a disagreeable experience for the past three years, they can return home, have clutches of television interviews, and may be able to sell their stories to the newspapers but, at worst, they may be able to sell the film rights. That sends an exceedingly bad and dangerous message. The Government must take this matter extremely seriously.
1046
I repeat the question that arises: will representations be made, on what will no doubt be described as compassionate grounds, whenever a woman is convicted in Thailand or elsewhere and sentenced to imprisonment? How can we expect Thailand to take us seriously when we demand, as we do repeatedly, that they step up their campaign against the drug industry and then, whenever British women are caught, a campaign begins at once to free them. This is not the first time that it has happened. There was another case at the beginning of 1979 when, by chance, I was in Thailand myself. There was an extraordinary situation where the British Ambassador was being asked to go in to bat for this particular woman who had been caught with a large quantity of heroin in her possession and was being asked simultaneously to make vigorous representations to the Thai Government because they were not thought to be taking their responsibilities seriously enough in combating drug trafficking.
Finally, I shall be grateful if the noble Earl would explain why it is apparently right to demand compassion on behalf of British women convicted of serious offences when abroad and at the same time to adopt a wholly different approach when drug smugglers are convicted in the United Kingdom. In January 1991—unhappily, I do not have any figures for later than that—I understand that there were 161 women from third world countries in British prisons. Many of them had been convicted of carrying far smaller quantities of narcotics than was the case with the two women in Thailand. Many of them are extremely poor Nigerian women who face the prospect of further punishment when they return home. If it is right to require compassion to be exercised on behalf of Miss Smith and Miss Cahill, is it to be extended to the women in the United Kingdom whom I have referred to as well and if not, why not? This is an issue which deserves the most serious attention from the Government.
The present situation as I have described it is wholly unacceptable. I can understand the generosity of the Prime Minister's motives, but I believe that the noble Earl is required to answer some of these questions this evening. I certainly would not want him to feel that he has to give a full answer now if he cannot do so. But I believe that we would all appreciate a letter—perhaps sent to us following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—so that we have a clear statement of the Government's position for the future. My view is that the present situation cannot go on as it is.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, perhaps I may add one very brief comment. When, as I hope, the noble Earl has a word with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about the matters which my noble friend has mentioned, the noble Earl will hardly need to remind him that he is at this moment adjudicating on an application by the Law Society for rights of audience for solicitors in the higher courts.
Both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Law Society know perfectly well

1047
that in all courts the very highest ethical standards are expected of the lawyers who practise there. It is difficult to be enthusiastic about the Law Society's application when, according to reports, it has already ruled that it has seen nothing improper in the behaviour of one of its members who apparently infiltrated himself into this case in the first place by approaching the defendants' families and offering to serve them without fee and who is now seeking, by various commercial devices, to profit from their release. I hope that the noble Earl will raise this matter with the noble and learned Lord.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, both the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Wigoder, raise a sensitive subject and they are entirely correct and entitled to do so. The first thing we want to make perfectly clear is that drug trafficking, whether in this country or any other, is totally unacceptable. All our aims in the legislation that we have introduced have been directed towards stopping that and towards making it as difficult as possible for people to smuggle or to traffic in drugs, and to make the penalties for so doing very severe. We also encourage other countries to do so. In this case, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, knows, Thailand has severe penalties.
The noble Lord finds difficulty in seeing why these people were released. The release was granted by the King of Thailand on humanitarian grounds. It was given because the girls were young. I believe that they were 17 when they were given 25-year sentences. They have spent some three years in prison and it was reckoned that they had learnt a good lesson. I do not want to go into the details of why they got involved or to seek to justify their smuggling in any way whatsoever. However, the fact is that they were considered as individual cases, and the King of Thailand graciously consented to release them. That does not mean in any respect that we approve of or condone what they did. What they did was wrong. Our desire in this Bill and in other legislation is to ensure that such things do not happen in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asks, "What about the people who come from Nigeria and get caught and who spend their time in prison here? Should we not therefore release them?" I know that the answer will accord with the views of the noble Lord: it is "no". Such people bring drugs into this country and suffer the penalty for doing so and go to prison. If, as a result, they return to Nigeria and serve another sentence there, that is their fault for having carried out that operation in the first place. As I said, individual consideration was given to the two people concerned.
The noble Lord also referred to the solicitor, Jakobi, and said that it was intolerable that such people should profit from television interviews. My sympathies are entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It is intolerable that people who have misbehaved and who have broken the laws of one country and another should then profit by being interviewed or by television commercials. I shall certainly ensure that the noble Lord's concerns—and
1048
those of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—are drawn to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Turning to the proceeds that will be received from rights or book royalties, I can only say that if the girls had been convicted in this country it would be open to the prosecutors to make an application to the Crown Court under Clause 12 of the Bill for a reassessment of the benefits from drug trafficking. However, the convictions occurred in Thailand. Although Clause 12 would not therefore be relevant, it would be possible for us to enforce a Thai confiscation order if the Thais were able to confiscate such proceeds and if we had designated Thailand by Order in Council as a result of the conclusion of a bilateral confiscation agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, will be glad to know that our officials are at present negotiating such an agreement with the Thais. I understand the noble Lord's concerns, and I shall ensure that they are brought to the attention of my noble and learned friend.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl again—I am sure that he will be able to do this—whether he will write me a substantive letter on this issue? My noble friend Lord Wigoder and I would be deeply grateful to him if he could do so.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I had forgotten that he had asked that question. I shall certainly write such a letter to both him and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not in my place when we started our consideration of this Bill. I know that the noble Earl cannot do anything about this, but does he agree that it was singularly inappropriate for that news to be made the first item of news on the radio on the morning when it broke as if it were the most important news to be reported to the nation as a whole? Surely that gives a quite wrong impression of what is important.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, knows only too well, the media have a curious priority of importance. I agree with her that to make that kind of news the central feature, as the most important thing happening in this country, can in some people's minds be considered a misdirection of effort.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
74 Clause 25, page 26, line 12, leave out '("the specified period")'.
75 Page 26, line 16, after 'period' insert 'under subsection (1) above'.
76 Page 26, line 18, leave out 'when taken'.
77 Page 26, line 19, leave out 'has' and insert 'have'.
78 Page 26, line 23, leave out 'on which the defendant was convicted' and insert 'of conviction'.
79 Page 26, line 28, after 'above' insert 'for such period as it may specify'.
80 Page 26, line 37. after '(6)' insert 'Unless the court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances,'.
81 Page 27, line 17, leave out from 'section' to 'references' in line 21.
82 Page 27, line 24, at end insert:
'(11) In this section "the date of conviction" means—

(a) the date on which the defendant was convicted of the offence concerned, or

(b) where he was convicted in the same proceedings, but on different dates, of two or more offences which may be taken together for the purposes of subsection (2) or, as the case may be, (3) of section 71 above, the date of the latest of those convictions.'.

83 Clause 26, page 28, line 12, leave out from first 'by' to 'and' in line 14 and insert 'statute or otherwise'.
84 Page 29, line 14, after '102' insert '(1)'.
85 Page 29, line 14, after 'VI)' insert 'the following definition shall be inserted after the definition of "interest"—
""proceeds of criminal conduct", in relation to any person who has benefited from criminal conduct, means that benefit;".
(3) In section 102(2) of the Act of 1988.'.
86 Page 29, line 15, leave out 'in subsection (2)'.
87 Clause 27, page 29, line 23, leave out 'that property or has possession or the use of it' and insert 'or uses that property or has possession of it'.
88 Page 29, line 26, leave out 'the property' and insert 'or used the property or had possession of it'.
89 Page 29, line 28, leave out from 'above' to end of line 31 and insert—

(a) a person acquires property for inadequate consideration if the value of the consideration is significantly less than the value of the property; and

(b) a person uses or has possession of property for inadequate consideration if the value of the consideration is significantly less than the value of his use or possession of the property.'.

90 Page 29, line 43, leave out from first 'by' to end of line 45 and insert 'statute or otherwise; and'.
91 Page 30, line 7, leave out 'subsection (5) above' and insert 'this section'.
92 Clause 29, page 31, line 27, leave out from 'if' to end of line 44 and insert '—

(a) he knows or suspects that a constable is acting, or is proposing to act, in connection with an investigation which is being, or is about to be, conducted into money laundering; and

(b) he discloses to any other person information or any other matter which is likely to prejudice that investigation, or proposed investigation.

(1A) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he knows or suspects that a disclosure ("the disclosure") has been made to a constable under section 93A or 93B above; and

(b) he discloses to any other person information or any other matter which is likely to prejudice any investigation which might be conducted following the disclosure.

(1B) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he knows or suspects that a disclosure of a kind mentioned in section 93A(5) or 93B(8) above ("the disclosure") has been made; and

(b) he discloses to any person information or any other matter which is likely to prejudice any investigation which might be conducted following the disclosure.

(2) Nothing in subsections (1) to (1B) above makes it an offence for a professional legal adviser to disclose any information or other matter—

(a) to, or to a representative of, a client of his in connection with the giving by the adviser of legal advice to the client; or

(b) to any person—
1050

(i) in contemplation of, or in connection with, legal proceedings; and

(ii) for the purpose of those proceedings.

(2A) Subsection (2) above does not apply in relation to any information or other matter which is disclosed with a view to furthering any criminal purpose.'.
93 Page 31, line 46, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1), (1A) or (1B) above'.
94 Page 31, line 48, leave out 'subsection (1) above' and insert 'that subsection'.
95 Page 32, line 8, leave out from 'Scotland' to end of line 16.
96 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Enforcement of Northern Ireland orders: proceeds of criminal conduct
'.—(1) In section 94 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (enforcement of Northern Ireland orders), in subsection (1), for "89" there shall be substituted "88" and the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
"(3A) An Order in Council under this section may, in particular, provide for section 18 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (enforcement of United Kingdom judgments in other parts of the United Kingdom) not to apply in relation to such orders as may be prescribed by the Order.".
(2) In section 95 of the Act of 1988 (enforcement of Northern Ireland orders in Scotland), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(2A) An Order in Council under this section may, in particular, provide for section 18 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (enforcement of United Kingdom judgments in other parts of the United Kingdom) not to apply in relation to such orders as may be prescribed by the Order.".'.
97 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Prosecution by order of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
'() The following section shall be inserted in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 after section 93E—
"Prosecution by order of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
93F.—(1) Proceedings for an offence to which this section applies ("a specified offence") may be instituted by order of the Commissioners.
(2) Any proceedings for a specified offence which are so instituted shall he commenced in the name of an officer.
(3) In the case of the death, removal, discharge or absence of the officer in whose name any proceedings for a specified offence were commenced, those proceedings may be continued by another officer.
(4) Where the Commissioners investigate, or propose to investigate, any matter with a view to determining—

(a) whether there are grounds for believing that a specified offence has been committed; or

(b) whether a person should be prosecuted for a specified offence;

that matter shall be treated as an assigned matter within the meaning of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be taken—

(a) to prevent any person (including any officer) who has power to arrest, detain or prosecute any person for a specified offence from doing so; or

(b) to prevent a court from proceeding to deal with a person brought before it following his arrest by an officer for a specified offence, even though the proceedings have not been instituted by an order made under subsection (1) above.

(6) In this section—
"the Commissioners" means the Commissioners of Customs and Excise;
"officer" means a person commissioned by the Commissioners;
"proceedings", as respects Scotland, means summary proceedings; and
"specified offence" means—

(a) any offence under sections 93A to 93D above;

(b) attempting to commit, conspiracy to commit or incitement to commit any such offence; or

(c) any other offence of a kind prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.

(7) The power to make regulations under subsection (6) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(8) Any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 74 to 97 en bloc.
The amendments affect Clauses 25 to 29. Broadly speaking, they do no more than reflect a number of the changes which have been made by the earlier set of amendments to Part II of the Bill. These mainly concern the money laundering provisions. They ensure that the new offences relating to the laundering of the proceeds of criminal conduct are brought into line with those relating to the laundering of the proceeds of drug trafficking.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 74 to 97.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
98 After Clause 30. insert the following clause:
'Part III A
FINANCING ETC. OF TERRORISM
Amendments of the 1991 Act Confiscation orders
.—(1) In section 47(7) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (confiscation orders), for "the amount that might then be so realised" there shall be substituted "—

(a) the amount that might then be so realised, or

(b) a nominal amount, where it appears to the court (on the information available to it at the time) that the amount that might then be so realised is nil".

(2) In section 47 of the Act of 1991, the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(9) The standard of proof required to determine any question arising under this Part of this Act as to—

(a) whether a person has benefited from terrorist-related activities engaged in by him or another;

(b) the value of his proceeds of those activities;

(c) any matter of which the court must be satisfied under subsection (5) above; or

(d) the amount to be required to be paid under a confiscation order made in his case,

shall be that applicable in civil proceedings.".
(3) Section 48 of that Act (postponed confiscation orders etc.) shall be amended as follows.
(4) In subsection (2), for "a period not exceeding six months after the date of conviction" there shall be substituted "such period as it may specify".
(5) After subsection (2) there shall he inserted—
"(2A) More than one postponement may be made under subsection (2) above in relation to the same case.
(2B) Unless it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, the court shall not specify a period under subsection (2) above which—

(a) by itself, or

(b) where there have been one or more previous postponements under subsection (2) above or (3) below, when taken together with the earlier specified period or periods,

exceeds six months beginning with the date on which the defendant was convicted.".
(6) In subsection (3) the words "during the period of postponement" shall cease to have effect and for the words from "on the application of the prosecution" to the end there shall be substituted—
"on that account—

(a) postpone making the confiscation order for such period as it may specify, or

(b) where it has already exercised its powers under this section to postpone, extend the specified period;

but, without prejudice to Article 11 of the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, the court may notwithstanding any postponement under this section proceed to sentence or otherwise deal with the defendant in respect of the conviction.".
(7) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) A postponement or extension under subsection (2) or (3) above may be made—

(a) on application by the defendant or the prosecution, or

(b) by the court of its own motion.

(3B) Unless the court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, any postponement or extension under subsection (3) above shall not exceed the period ending three months after the date of determination of the appeal.".'.
99 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Revised assessments
'.The following sections shall be inserted in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, after section 48—
"Re-assessment of whether defendant has benefited.
48A.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a court proceeding under section 47(1) above decided not to make a confiscation order ("the decision"); and

(b) the statement made by the court under section 48(8) above was to the effect that the reason, or one of the reasons, for the decision was that the court was not satisfied that the defendant had benefited.

(2) If the prosecution has evidence—

(a) which was not considered by the court, but

(b) which the prosecution believes would have led the court to decide that the defendant had benefited,

the prosecution may apply to the Crown Court for it to consider that evidence.
(3) If, having considered the evidence, the court considers that it would have been satisfied that the defendant had benefited if that evidence had been available to it, section 47 shall apply as if the court were convicting the defendant.
(4) The court may take into account any money or other property obtained by the defendant on or after the date of the decision, but only if the prosecution shows that it was obtained by him as a direct or indirect result of terrorist-related activities carried on by the defendant or another on or before that date.
(5) In considering any evidence under this section which relates to any money or other property to which subsection (4) above applies, the court shall not make the assumptions which would otherwise be required by section 51 below.
(6) No application shall be entertained by the court under this section if it is made after the end of the period of six years beginning with the date on which the defendant was convicted.
(7) Subsections (1) to (7) of section 48 above shall not apply where the court is proceeding under section 47 above by virtue of this section.
(8) Where the court—

(a) has, in dealing with the defendant in respect of the conviction or any of the convictions concerned, made an order for the payment of compensation under Article 3 of the Order of 1980, and

(b) makes a confiscation order by virtue of this section,

it shall, if it is of the opinion that the defendant will not have sufficient means to satisfy both orders in full, direct that so much of the compensation as will not in its opinion be recoverable because of the insufficiency of his means is to be paid out of any sums recovered under the confiscation order.
(9) Where the prosecution makes an application to the court under this section it shall, on making the application, give the court a statement under section 52 below.
(10) Where the High Court—

(a) has been asked to proceed under section 52B below in relation to a defendant who has absconded, but

(b) has decided not to make a confiscation order against him,

this section shall not apply at any time while he remains an absconder.
(11) In this section "benefited" means benefited from terrorist-related activities as mentioned in section 47(1) above.
Revised assessments.
48B.—(1) This section applies where the court has made a confiscation order by reference to an amount assessed under section 47(1) above ("the current assessment").
(2) Where the prosecution is of the opinion that the real value of the defendant's proceeds of terrorist-related activities was greater than their assessed value, the prosecution may apply to the Crown Court for the evidence on which it has formed that opinion to be considered by the court.
(3) In subsection (2) above—
"assessed value" means the value of the defendant's proceeds of terrorist-related activities as assessed by the court under section 47(1) above; and
"real value" means the value of the defendant's proceeds of terrorist-related activities which took place—

(a) in the period by reference to which the current assessment was made; or

(b) in any earlier period.

(4) If, having considered the evidence, the court is satisfied that the real value of the defendant's proceeds of terrorist-related activities is greater than their assessed value (whether because the real value was higher at the time of the current assessment than was thought or because the value of the proceeds in question has subsequently increased), the court shall make a fresh determination of the amount to be required to be paid under section 47 above.
(5) In relation to any determination by virtue of this section, section 47(7) above shall have effect as it has effect in relation to the making of a confiscation order.
(6) For any determination by virtue of this section, section 47(8) above shall not apply in relation to any of the defendant's proceeds of terrorist-related activities taken into account in respect of the current assessment.
(7) Sections 50(4) and 52(4) (a) and (7) below shall have effect in relation to any such determination as if for "confiscation order" there were substituted "determination" and section 50(3) below shall so have effect as if for "a confiscation order is made" there were substituted "of the determination".
(8) The court may take into account any money or other property obtained by the defendant on or after the date of the current assessment, but only if the prosecution shows that it was obtained by him as a direct or indirect result of terrorist-related activities carried on by the defendant or another on or before that date.
(10) If, as a result of making the determination required by subsection (4) above, the amount to be required to be paid exceeds the amount set in accordance with the current assessment, the court may substitute for the amount required to be paid under the confiscation order such greater amount as it thinks just in all the circumstances of the case.
(11) Where the court varies a confiscation order under subsection (10) above it shall substitute for the term of imprisonment or of detention fixed under section 35(1) (c) of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 in respect of the amount required to be paid under the order a longer term determined in accordance with that section (as it has effect by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to this Act) in respect of the greater amount substituted under subsection (10) above.
(12) Subsection (11) above shall apply only if the effect of the substitution is to increase the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under paragraph 2(1) (b) of Schedule 4 to this Act.
(13) Where the prosecution makes an application to the court under this section—

(a) it shall, on making the application, give the court a statement under section 52 below; and

(b) section 52A shall apply.

(14) Where a confiscation order has been made in relation to any defendant by virtue of section 52B below, this section shall not apply at any time while he is an absconder.
(15) No application shall be entertained by the court under this section if it is made after the end of the period of six years beginning with the date on which the defendant was convicted."'.
100 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Statements, etc. relevant to making confiscation orders
'.—(1) Section 52 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 shall be amended as follows.
(2) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) In this section, except in subsection (4) below, "a statement" means a statement in the case of a defendant as to any matters relevant—

(a) to determining whether he has benefited from terrorist-related activities,

(b) to assessing the value of his proceeds of those activities, or

(c) to determining whether the requirements of section 47(5) above are satisfied.

(1A) Where section 47(l) above applies—

(a) the court may require the prosecution to give it a statement within such period as it may direct; and

(b) the prosecution may at any time give a statement to the court.

(1B) Where the prosecution has given the court a statement—

1055

(a) it may at any time give the court a further statement; and

(b) the court may at any time require it to give the court a further statement, within such period as the court may direct.

(1C) Where—

(a) a statement has been given to the court under this section, and

(b) the defendant accepts to any extent any allegation in the statement,

the court may treat his acceptance as conclusive of the matters to which it relates.".
(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) for "is tendered under subsection (1) (a) above" there shall be substituted "is given under this section"; and

(b) after first "indicate" there shall be inserted "within such period as the court may direct".

(4) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(2A) Where the court has given a direction under this section it may at any time vary it by giving a further direction."
(5) In subsection (4), for "tendered" there shall be substituted "given".
101 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Provision of information
'.The following section shall be inserted in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, after section 52—
"Provision of information by defendant.
52A.—(1) This section applies where the Crown Court is proceeding under section 47(1) above.
(2) For the purpose of obtaining information to assist it in carrying out its functions, the court may at any time order the defendant to give it such information as may be specified in the order.
(3) An order under subsection (2) above may require all, or any specified part, of the required information to be given to the court in such manner, and before such date, as may be specified in the order.
(4) Rules of court may make provision as to the maximum or minimum period that may be allowed under subsection (3) above.
(5) If the defendant fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any order under this section, the court may draw such inference from that failure as it considers appropriate.
(6) Where the prosecution accepts to any extent any allegation made by the defendant in giving to the court information required by an order under this section, the court may treat that acceptance as conclusive of the matters to which it relates.
(7) For the purposes of this section, an allegation may be accepted in such manner as may be prescribed by rules of court or as the court may direct."'.
102 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Variation of confiscation orders
'.—(1) Paragraph 15 (variation of confiscation orders) of Schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), after "defendant" there shall be inserted "or a receiver appointed under this Schedule, or in pursuance of a charging order, made".
(3) In sub-paragraph (3), for "defendant" there shall be substituted "person who applied for it".
(4) The following shall be added at the end—
"(5) Rules of court may make provision—

(a) for the giving of notice of any application under this paragraph; and

(b) for any person appearing to the court to be likely to be affected by any exercise of its powers under this paragraph to be given an opportunity to make representations to the court."'.

103 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Availability of powers and satisfaction of orders
'.—(1) Schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (supplementary provisions about confiscation orders) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 2 (application of procedure for enforcing fines), the following shall be added at the end—
"(6) Where the defendant serves a term of imprisonment or detention in default of paying any amount due under a confiscation order, his serving that term does not prevent the confiscation order from continuing to have effect, so far as any other method of enforcement is concerned.".
(3) In paragraph 4 (cases in which restraint orders and charging orders may be made), the following sub-paragraphs shall be substituted for sub-paragraphs (1) and (2)—
"(1) The powers conferred on the High Court by paragraphs 5(1) and 6(1) below are exercisable where—

(a) proceedings have been instituted in Northern Ireland against the defendant for a relevant offence or an application has been made by the prosecution in respect of the defendant under section 48A, 48B or 52B of this Act or paragraph 11 below,

(b) the proceedings have not, or the application has not, been concluded, and

(c) the court is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe—

(i) in the case of an application under section 48B of this Act or paragraph 11 below, that the court will be satisfied as mentioned in section 48B(4) of this Act or, as the case may be, paragraph 11(1) (b) below, or

(ii) in any other case, that the defendant has benefited from terrorist-related activities.

(2) Those powers are also exercisable where—

(a) the High Court is satisfied that, whether by the making of a complaint or otherwise, a person is to be charged with a relevant offence or that an application of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (a) above is to be made in respect of the defendant, and

(b) it appears to the court that there is reasonable cause to believe—

(i) in the case of a proposed application under section 48B of this Act or paragraph 11 below, that the court will be satisfied as mentioned in section 48B(4) of this Act or, as the case may be, paragraph 11(1) (b) below, or

(ii) in any other case, that the defendant has benefited from terrorist-related activities.".

(4) The following sub-paragraphs shall be added at the end of paragraph 4—
"(5) Where the court has made an order under paragraph 5(1) or 6(1) below in relation to a proposed application, by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above, the court shall discharge the order if the application is not made within such time as the court considers reasonable.
(6) The court shall not exercise powers under paragraph 5(1) or 6(1) below, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, if it is satisfied that—

(a) there has been undue delay in continuing the proceedings or application in question; or

(b) the prosecution does not intend to proceed.".

(5) In paragraph 5 (restraint orders), the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for sub-paragraph (6)—
"(6) A restraint order—

(a) may be discharged or varied in relation to any property, and

(b) shall be discharged on the conclusion of the proceedings or of the application in question.".

(6) In paragraph 6 (charging orders), the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for sub-paragraph (6)—
"(6) In relation to a charging order the court—

(a) may make an order discharging or varying it, and

(b) shall make an order discharging it—

(i) on the conclusion of the proceedings or of the application in question, or

(ii) on payment into court of the amount payment of which is secured by the charge.".

(7) In paragraph 10 (realisation of property), the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for sub-paragraph (1)—
"(1) Where a confiscation order—

(a) has been made under this Act,

(b) is not satisfied, and

(c) is not subject to appeal,

the High Court may, on an application by the prosecution, exercise the powers conferred by sub-paragraphs (2) to (6) below.".
(8) In paragraph 16 (bankruptcy of defendant), the following shall he substituted for paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (6)—
"(a) no order shall be made under Article 312 or 367 of the said Order of 1989 (avoidance of certain transactions) in respect of the making of the gift at any time when—

(i) proceedings for a relevant offence have been instituted against him and have not been concluded;

(ii) an application has been made in respect of the defendant under section 48A, 48B or 52B of this Act or paragraph 11 below and has not been concluded; or

(iii) property of the person to whom the gift was made is subject to a restraint order or charging order; and

(b) any order made under either of those Articles after the conclusion of the proceedings or of the application shall take into account any realisation under this Schedule of property held by the person to whom the gift was made.".
(9) In paragraph 1 (interpretation), the following sub-paragraphs shall be substituted for sub-paragraph (3)—
"(3) Proceedings for a relevant offence are concluded—

(a) when the defendant is acquitted;

(b) if he is convicted, but the court decides not to make a confiscation order against him, when it makes that decision; or

(c) if a confiscation order is made against him in those proceedings, when the order is satisfied.

(3A) An application under section 48A or 52B of this Act is concluded—

(a) if the court decides not to make a confiscation order against the defendant, when it makes that decision; or

(b) if a confiscation order is made against him as a result of that application, when the order is satisfied.

(3B) An application under section 48B of this Act or paragraph 11 below is concluded—

(a) if the court decides not to vary the confiscation order in question, when it makes that decision; or

(b) if the court varies the confiscation order as a result of the application, when the order is satisfied.

(3C) For the purposes of this Schedule, a confiscation order is satisfied when no amount is due under it.
(3D) For the purposes of paragraph 16 below, a confiscation order is also satisfied when the defendant in respect of whom it was made has served a term of imprisonment or detention in default of payment of the amount due under the order.".'.
104 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Defendant who has died or absconded
'.The following section shall be inserted in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 after section 52A—
"Powers of High Court where defendant has died or absconded.
52B.—(1) Subsection (2) below applies where a person has been convicted of a relevant offence.
(2) If the prosecution asks it to proceed under this section, the High Court may exercise the powers of the Crown Court under this Act to make a confiscation order against the defendant if satisfied that the defendant has died or absconded.
(3) Subsection (4) below applies where proceedings have been instituted against the defendant for one or more relevant offences but have not been concluded.
(4) If the prosecution asks it to proceed under this section, the High Court, if satisfied that the defendant has absconded, may exercise the powers of the Crown Court under this Act to make a confiscation order against the defendant as if the defendant had been convicted of the relevant offence or each of the relevant offences for which the proceedings had been instituted.
(5) The power conferred by subsection (4) above may not be exercised at any time before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date which is, in the opinion of the court, the date on which the defendant absconded.
(6) Where the prosecution makes an application to the court under this section it shall, on making the application, give the court a statement under section 52 above.
(7) In any proceedings on an application under this section—

(a) sections 51, 52(1C), (2) and (3) and 52A above shall not apply,

(b) the court shall not make a confiscation order against a person who has absconded unless it is satisfied that the prosecution has taken reasonable steps to contact him, and

(c) any person appearing to the court to be likely to be affected by the making of a confiscation order by the court shall be entitled to appear before the court and make representations.

(8) Where the High Court has made a confiscation order by virtue of this section, in a case where the defendant has been or is subsequently convicted of one or more of the offences concerned, sections 47 and 48(1) to (5) and (7) above shall not apply in respect of his conviction of that offence or those offences; but any court dealing with him in respect of that conviction or any of those convictions—

(a) shall take account of the order before—

(i) imposing any fine on him; or

(ii) making any order involving any payment by him, other than an order under Article 3 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (compensation orders); or

(iii) making any order under Article 7 of that Order (deprivation orders),

but subject to that shall leave the order out of account in determining the appropriate sentence or other manner of dealing with him; and

1059

(b) if it makes an order for the payment of compensation under Article 3 of the Order of 1980, and is of the opinion that the defendant will not have sufficient means to satisfy both that order and the confiscation order in full, shall direct that so much of the compensation as will not in its opinion be recoverable because of the insufficiency of his means is to be paid out of any sums recovered under the confiscation order."'.

105 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Compensation
'. In Schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph 20—
"Compensation etc. where absconder is acquitted
20A.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) the High Court has made a confiscation order by virtue of section 52B(4) of this Act, and

(b) the defendant is subsequently tried for the offence or offences concerned and acquitted on all counts.

(2) The court by which the defendant is acquitted shall cancel the confiscation order.
(3) The High Court may, on the application of a person who held property which was realisable property, order compensation to be paid to the applicant if it is satisfied that the applicant has suffered loss as a result of the making of the confiscation order.
(4) The amount of compensation to be paid under this paragraph shall he such as the court considers just in all the circumstances of the case.
(5) Rules of court may make provision—

(a) for the giving of notice of any application under this paragraph; and

(b) for any person appearing to the court to be likely to be affected by any exercise of its powers under this paragraph to be given an opportunity to make representations to the court.

(6) Any payment of compensation under this paragraph shall be made by the Lord Chancellor out of money provided by Parliament.
(7) Where the court cancels a confiscation order under this paragraph it may make such consequential or incidental order as it considers appropriate in connection with the cancellation.
Power to discharge confiscation order and order compensation where absconder returns
20B.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) the High Court has made a confiscation order by virtue of section 52B(4) of this Act in relation to an absconder,

(b) the defendant has ceased to be an absconder, and

(c) paragraph 20A above does not apply.

(2) The High Court may, on the application of the defendant, cancel the confiscation order if it is satisfied that—

(a) there has been undue delay in continuing the proceedings in respect of which the power under section 52B(4) above was exercised; or

(b) the prosecution do not intend to proceed.

(3) Where the High Court cancels a confiscation order under this paragraph it may, on the application of a person who held property which was realisable property, order compensation to be paid to the applicant if it is satisfied that the applicant has suffered loss as a result of the making of the confiscation order.
(4) The amount of compensation to be paid under this paragraph shall be such as the court considers just in all the circumstances of the case.
(5) Rules of court may make provision—

(a) for the giving of notice of any application under this paragraph; and

1060

(b) for any person appearing to the court to be likely to be affected by any exercise of its powers under this paragraph to be given an opportunity to make representations to the court.

(6) Any payment of compensation under this paragraph shall be made by the Lord Chancellor out of money provided by Parliament.
(7) Where the court cancels a confiscation order under this paragraph it may make such consequential or incidental order as it considers appropriate in connection with the cancellation.
Variation of confiscation orders made by virtue of section 52B
20C.—(l) This paragraph applies where—

(a) the High Court has made a confiscation order by virtue of section 52B(4) of this Act, and

(b) the defendant has ceased to be an absconder.

(2) If the defendant alleges that—

(a) the value of his proceeds of terrorist-related activities in the period by reference to which the assessment in question was made (the "original value"), or

(b) the amount that might have been realised at the time the confiscation order was made,

was less than the amount required to be paid under the confiscation order, he may apply to the High Court for it to consider his evidence.
(3) If, having considered that evidence, the court is satisfied that the defendant's allegation is correct it—

(a) shall proceed under section 47(1) of this Act to make a fresh assessment of the value of his proceeds of terrorist-related activities, and

(b) may, if it considers it just in all the circumstances, vary the amount required to be paid under the confiscation order.

(4) For any assessment under section 47 of this Act by virtue of this paragraph, section 47(8) shall not apply in relation to any of the defendant's proceeds of terrorist-related activities taken into account in assessing the original value.
(5) Where the court varies a confiscation order under this paragraph—

(a) it shall substitute for the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the order under subsection (1) (c) of section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 (imprisonment in default of payment) a shorter term if the effect of the substitution under sub-paragraph (3) above is to reduce the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under subsection (2) of that section as it has effect by virtue of paragraph 2(1) (b) above; and

(b) on the application of a person who held property which was realisable property, it may order compensation to be paid to the applicant if—

(i) it is satisfied that the applicant has suffered loss as a result of the making of the confiscation order; and

(ii) having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the court considers it to be appropriate.

(7) Rules of court may make provision—

(a) for the giving of notice of any application under this paragraph; and

(b) for any person appearing to the court to be likely to be affected by any exercise of its powers under this paragraph to be given an opportunity to make representations to the court.

(8) Any payment of compensation under this paragraph shall be made by the Lord Chancellor out of money provided by Parliament.
(9) No application shall be entertained by the court under this paragraph if it is made after the end of the period of six years beginning with the date on which the confiscation order was made."'.
106 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Realisable property
'. In Section 50 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (realisable property, value and gifts), in subsection (2), the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (c)—
"(d) section 43 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973; or
(e) section 223 or 436 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975,".'.
107 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Enforcement
'.—(1) Section 67 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (orders and regulations), shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5), after the words "paragraph 7(3)" there shall be inserted "or 19(1) (a)".
(3) Subsection (6) shall cease to have effect.'.
108 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Enforcement of orders outside Northern Ireland
In paragraph 19 of Schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (enforcement of orders outside Northern Ireland), the following sub-paragraphs shall be added at the end—
"(3) An Order under this paragraph may contain such incidental, consequential and transitional provisions as Her Majesty considers expedient.
(4) An Order under sub-paragraph (1) (a) above may, in particular, provide for section 18 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (enforcement of United Kingdom judgments in other parts of the United Kingdom) not to apply.".'.
109 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Offences relating to proceeds of terrorist-related activities
'.—(1) In section 53 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (assisting another to retain proceeds of terrorist-related activities) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
"(3A) Where a person discloses to a constable a suspicion or belief that any funds or investments are derived from or used in connection with terrorist-related activities or any matter on which such a suspicion or belief is based, the disclosure shall not be treated as a breach of any restriction upon the disclosure of information imposed by statute or otherwise.".
(2) In section 53 of that Act the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) In the case of a person who was in employment at the relevant time, subsections (3), (3A) and (4) (c) above shall have effect in relation to disclosures, and intended disclosures, to the appropriate person in accordance with the procedure established by his employer for the making of such disclosures as they have effect in relation to disclosures, and intended disclosures, to a constable.".
(3) In subsection (3) of section 54 of that Act (concealing or transferring proceeds of terrorist-related activities), for the words from "that property" to the end of that subsection, there shall be substituted "or uses that property or has possession of it".
(4) In section 54 of that Act, the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
"(3A) It is a defence to a charge of committing an offence under this section that the person charged acquired or used the property or had possession of it for adequate consideration.".
(5) For section 54(5) of that Act there shall be substituted—
"(5) For the purposes of subsection (3A) above—

(a) a person acquires property for inadequate consideration if the value of the consideration is significantly less than the value of the property;

(b) a person uses or has possession of any property for inadequate consideration if the value of the consideration is significantly less than the value of his possession or use of the property; and

(c) the provision for any person of services or goods which are of assistance to him in terrorist-related activities shall not be treated as consideration.

(5A) Where a person discloses to a constable a suspicion or belief that any property is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, another person's proceeds of terrorist-related activities or any matter on which such a suspicion or belief is based—

(a) the disclosure shall not be treated as a breach of any restriction upon the disclosure of information imposed by statute or otherwise; and

(b) if he does any act in contravention of subsection (3) above, he does not commit an offence under that subsection if—

(i) the disclosure is made before he does the act concerned and that act is done with the consent of the constable; or

(ii) the disclosure is made after he does the act but on his initiative and as soon as it is reasonable for him to make it.

(5B) For the purposes of this section, having possession of any property shall be taken to be doing an act in relation to it.
(5C) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (3) above, it is a defence to prove that—
(a) he intended to disclose to a constable such a suspicion, belief or matter as is mentioned in subsection (5A) above; but
(5D) In the case of a person who was in employment at the relevant time, subsections (5A) and (5C) above shall have effect in relation to disclosures, and intended disclosures, to the appropriate person in accordance with the procedure established by his employer for the making of such disclosures as they have effect in relation to disclosures, and intended disclosures, to a constable.
(5E) No constable or other person shall be guilty of an offence under subsection (3) above in respect of anything done by him in the course of acting in connection with the enforcement, or intended enforcement, of any provision of this Act or of any other enactment relating to terrorism or the proceeds or resources of such terrorism."'.
110 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion relating to proceeds of terrorist-related activities
'. The following section shall be inserted in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, after section 54—
"Failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of offences under sections 53 and 54.
54A.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he knows, or suspects, that another person is acting in the proscribed manner,

(b) the information, or other matter, on which that knowledge or suspicion is based came to his attention in the course of his trade, profession, business or employment, and

(c) he does not disclose the information or other matter to a constable as soon as is reasonably practicable after it comes to his attention.

(2) Subsection (1) above does not make it an offence for a professional legal adviser to fail to disclose any information or other matter which has come to him in privileged circumstances.
(3) It is a defence to a charge of committing an offence under this section that the person charged had a reasonable excuse for not disclosing the information or other matter in question.
(4) Where a person discloses to a constable—

(a) his suspicion or belief that another person is acting in the proscribed manner, or

(b) any information or other matter on which that suspicion or belief is based,

the disclosure shall not be treated as a breach of any restriction imposed by statute or otherwise.
(5) Without prejudice to subsection (3) or (4) above, in the case of a person who was in employment at the relevant time, it is a defence to a charge of committing an offence under this section that he disclosed the information or other matter in question to the appropriate person in accordance with the procedure established by his employer for the making of such disclosures.
(6) A disclosure to which subsection (5) above applies shall not be treated as a breach of any restriction imposed by statute or otherwise.
(7) In this section "acting in the proscribed manner" means doing any act which constitutes an offence under section 53 or 54 above or, in the case of an act done otherwise than in the United Kingdom, which would constitute such an offence if done in the United Kingdom.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, having possession of any property shall be taken to be doing an act in relation to it.
(9) For the purposes of this section, any information or other matter comes to a professional legal adviser in privileged circumstances if it is communicated, or given, to him—

(a) by, or by a representative of, a client of his in connection with the giving by the adviser of legal advice to the client;

(b) by, or by a representative of, a person seeking legal advice from the adviser; or

(c) by any person—

(i) in contemplation of, or in connection with, legal proceedings; and

(ii) for the purpose of those proceedings.

(10) No information or other matter shall be treated as coming to a professional legal adviser in privileged circumstances if it is communicated or given with a view to furthering any criminal purpose.
(11) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or to both." '.

111 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
'Amendments of the 1989 Act Financial assistance for terrorism
.—(1) In section 9 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (contributions towards acts of terrorism), the following shall be inserted at the end of subsection (1) (b)—
"or
(c) uses or has possession of, whether for consideration or not, any money or other property,".
(2) In section 10 of that Act (contributions to the resources of proscribed organisations), in subsection (1) (b), after the words "or accepts" there shall be inserted "or uses or has possession of".
(3) In section 12 of that Act (disclosure of information about terrorist funds) for the word "contract", in subsection (1), there shall be substituted "statute or otherwise".
(4) In section 12 of that Act, the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above a person who uses or has possession of money or other property shall be taken to be concerned in a transaction or arrangement.".
(5) In section 12(3) of that Act, after "section 9(1) (b)" there shall be inserted "or (c)".
(6) The following subsections shall be added at the end of section 12 of that Act—
(5) No constable or other person shall be guilty of an offence under section 9(1) (b) or (c) or (2) or 10(1) (b) or (c) above in respect of anything done by him in the course of acting in connection with the enforcement, or intended enforcement, of any provision of this Act or of any other enactment relating to terrorism or the proceeds or resources of terrorism.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above, having possession of any property shall be taken to be doing an act in relation to it.".'.
112 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Investigation of terrorist activities
' .—(1) Section 17 (investigation of terrorist activities) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (a) (ii)—

(a) for "or 11 above" there shall be substituted "11, 18 or 18A of this Act"; and

(b) for "or 28" there shall be substituted "28, 53, 54 or 54A".

(3) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted—
"(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that a constable is acting, or is, proposing to act, in connection with a terrorist investigation which is being, or is about to be, conducted, he—

(a) discloses to any other person information or any other matter which is likely to prejudice the investigation or proposed investigation, or

(b) falsifies, conceals or destroys or otherwise disposes of, or causes or permits the falsification, concealment, destruction or disposal of, material which is or is likely to be relevant to the investigation, or proposed investigation.

(2A) A person is guilty of an offence if, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that a disclosure ("the disclosure") has been made to a constable under section 12, 18 or 18A of this Act or section 53, 54 or 54A of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, he—

(a) discloses to any other person information or any other matter which is likely to prejudice any investigation which might be conducted following the disclosure; or

(b) falsifies, conceals or destroys or otherwise disposes of, or causes or permits the falsification, concealment, destruction or disposal of, material which is or is likely to be relevant to any such investigation.

(2B) A person is guilty of an offence if, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that a disclosure ("the disclosure") of a kind mentioned in section 12(4) or 18A(5) of this Act or section 53(4A), 54(5D) or 54A(5) of the Act of 1991 has been made, he—

(a) discloses to any person information or any other matter which is likely to prejudice any investigation which might be conducted following the disclosure; or

1065

(b) falsifies, conceals or destroys or otherwise disposes of, or causes or permits the falsification, concealment, destruction or disposal of, material which is or is likely to be relevant to any such investigation.

(2C) Nothing in subsections (2) to (2B) above makes it an offence for a professional legal adviser to disclose any information or other matter—

(a) to, or to a representative of, a client of his in connection with the giving by the adviser of legal advice to the client; or

(b) to any person—

(i) in contemplation of, or in connection with, legal proceedings; and

(ii) for the purpose of those proceedings.

(2D) Subsection (2C) above does not apply in relation to any information or other matter which is disclosed with a view to furthering any criminal purpose.
(2E) No constable or other person shall be guilty of an offence under this section in respect of anything done by him in the course of acting in connection with the enforcement, or intended enforcement, of any provision of this Act or of any other enactment relating to terrorism or the proceeds or resources of terrorism.".
(4) In subsection (3) (defence in respect of disclosure), after "investigation" there shall be inserted "or proposed investigation".
(5) The following shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
"(3A) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (2A) (a) or (2B) (a) above it is a defence to prove—

(a) that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that his disclosure was likely to prejudice the investigation in question; or

(b) that he had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for making his disclosure.".

(6) In subsection (4) (defence in respect of falsifying material etc.), for the words from "the persons" to the end there shall be substituted "any person conducting, or likely to be conducting, the investigation or proposed investigation".
(7) The following shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (2A) (b) or (2B) (b) above, it is a defence to prove that he had no intention of concealing any information contained in the material in question from any person who might carry out the investigation in question.".
(8) In subsection (5) (penalties) after "(2)" there shall he inserted "(2A) or (2B)".
(9) The following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(6) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, as it applies in relation to any offence under section 18 or 18A below or section 54A of the Act of 1991, "act" includes omission.".'.
113 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
Failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of financial assistance for terrorism
'. The following section shall be inserted in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 after section 18—
"Failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of offences under sections 9 to 11.
18A.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he knows, or suspects, that another person is providing financial assistance for terrorism;

(b) the information, or other matter, on which that knowledge or suspicion is based came to his attention in the course of his trade, profession, business or employment; and

(c) he does not disclose the information or other matter to a constable as soon as is reasonably practicable after it comes to his attention.

(2) Subsection (1) above does not make it an offence for a professional legal adviser to fail to disclose any information or other matter which has come to him in privileged circumstances.
(3) It is a defence to a charge of committing an offence under this section that the person charged had a reasonable excuse for not disclosing the information or other matter in question.
(4) Where a person discloses to a constable—

(a) his suspicion or belief that another person is providing financial assistance for terrorism; or

(b) any information or other matter on which that suspicion or belief is based;

the disclosure shall not be treated as a breach of any restriction imposed by statute or otherwise.
(5) Without prejudice to subsection (3) or (4) above, in the case of a person who was in employment at the relevant time, it is a defence to a charge of committing an offence under this section that he disclosed the information or other matter in question to the appropriate person in accordance with the procedure established by his employer for the making of such disclosures.
(6) A disclosure to which subsection (5) above applies shall not be treated as a breach of any restriction imposed by statute or otherwise.
(7) In this section "providing financial assistance for terrorism" means doing any act which constitutes an offence under section 9, 10 or 11 above or, in the case of an act done otherwise than in the United Kingdom, which would constitute such an offence if done in the United Kingdom.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, having possession of any property shall be taken to be doing an act in relation to it.
(9) For the purposes of this section, any information or other matter comes to a professional legal adviser in privileged circumstances if it is communicated, or given, to him—

(a) by, or by a representative of, a client of his in connection with the giving by the adviser of legal advice to the client;

(b) by, or by a representative of, a person seeking legal advice from the adviser; or

(c) by any person —

(i) in contemplation of, or in connection with, legal proceedings; and

(ii) for the purpose of those proceedings.

(10) No information or other matter shall be treated as coming to a professional legal adviser in privileged circumstances if it is communicated or given with a view to furthering any criminal purpose.
(11) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or to both." '.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 98 to 113 en bloc.
In moving the Bill at Second Reading in another place, my right honourable friend's predecessor as Home Secretary recognised that, given the particularly serious nature of both forms of crime, it was only right that the measures taken against terrorist finances should, as far as is appropriate, match those taken in relation to drug trafficking. He therefore announced that it was the Government's intention to introduce amendments to the Bill in order to reproduce, in the terrorism legislation, many of the changes being made

1067
in Part II of the Bill to the money laundering and confiscation provisions contained in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
Amendments Nos. 98 to 113 achieve that intention by introducing equivalent new provisions on terrorist finances in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. They represent a strengthening of the United Kingdom's legislation on terrorist finances.
Specifically, the amendments create new terrorist finance offences in three areas, all of which will apply throughout the United Kingdom. First, Amendments Nos. 109 and 111 will make it an offence to possess or use terrorist proceeds or resources. This will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. Secondly, Amendments Nos. 110 and 113 will make it an offence to fail to disclose knowledge or suspicion of terrorist money laundering or of other financial assistance for terrorism. The maximum penalty will be five years' imprisonment. Thirdly, Amendment No. 112 will make it an offence to tip someone off that a terrorist finance or other investigation is planned or in progress or to conceal or destroy material relevant to such an investigation. This will also carry a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.
These new offences are in similar terms to those introduced in the drug trafficking legislation by Clauses 16 and 18 of the Bill and, like those offences, they contain the defences and safeguards necessary to ensure that they will not harm legitimate business nor threaten those who are carrying out their lawful duties. They will, however, enhance the investigation and prosecution of terrorist funding in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Amendments Nos. 98 to 108 also strengthen the scheme which applies in Northern Ireland for the confiscation of the proceeds of terrorist-related activities by reading across to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 many of the changes which Clauses 7 to 15 of the Bill make to the confiscation scheme which is contained in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. The Northern ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 scheme is already modelled on the provisions which are currently contained in Sections 1 to 19 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, and these amendments will ensure that, as far as is appropriate, the two confiscation schemes will remain in step. Amendment No. 99, for example, will allow the court to make or revise a confiscation order at a later stage if further terrorist proceeds are discovered, while Amendment No. 104 will, in certain circumstances, allow terrorist proceeds to be confiscated where the defendant has died or absconded.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 98 to 113 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
8 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, we believe these powers are highly desirable. We welcome them, and we have no difficulty with them in any way.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
114 Clause 31, page 33, line 9, leave out Clause 31.
115 After Clause 31, insert the following clause:
The offence
'.—(1) An individual who has information as an insider is guilty of insider dealing if, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), he deals in securities that are price-affected securities in relation to the information.
(2) An individual who has information as an insider is also guilty of insider dealing if—

(a) he encourages another person to deal in securities that are (whether or not that other knows it) price-affected securities in relation to the information, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the dealing would take place in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3); or

(b) he discloses the information, otherwise than in the proper performance of the functions of his employment, office or profession, to another person.

(3) The circumstances referred to above are that the acquisition or disposal in question occurs on a regulated market, or that the person dealing relies on a professional intermediary or is himself acting as a professional intermediary.
(4) This section has effect subject to section (Defences).'
116 After Clause 31, insert the following clause:
Defences
'.—(1) An individual is not guilty of insider dealing by virtue of dealing in securities if he shows—

(a) that he did not at the time expect the dealing to result in a profit attributable to the fact that the information in question was price-sensitive information in relation to the securities, or

(b) that at the time he believed on reasonable grounds that the information had been disclosed widely enough to ensure that none of those taking part in the dealing would be prejudiced by not having the information, or

(c) that he would have done what he did even if he had not had the information.

(2) An individual is not guilty of insider dealing by virtue of encouraging another person to deal in securities if he shows—

(a) that he did not at the time expect the dealing to result in a profit attributable to the fact that the information in question was price-sensitive information in relation to the securities, or

(b) that at the time he believed on reasonable grounds that the information had been or would be disclosed widely enough to ensure that none of those taking part in the dealing would be prejudiced by not having the information, or

(c) that he would have done what he did even if he had not had the information.

(3) An individual is not guilty of insider dealing by virtue of a disclosure of information if he shows—

(a) that he did not at the time expect any person, because of the disclosure, to deal in securities in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3) of section (The offence); or

(b) that, although he had such an expectation at the time, he did not expect the dealing to result in a profit attributable to the fact that the information was price-sensitive information in relation to the securities.

(4) Schedule (Special defences) (special defences) shall have effect.
(5) The Treasury may by order amend Schedule (Special defences).
(6) In this section references to a profit include references to the avoidance of a loss.'
117 After Clause 31, insert the following clause:
Securities to which Part IV applies
'.—(1) This Part applies to any security which—

(a) falls within any paragraph of Schedule 1; and

(b) satisfies any conditions applying to it under an order made by the Treasury for the purposes of this subsection;

and in the provisions of this Part (other than that Schedule) any reference to a security is a reference to a security to which this Part applies.
(2) The Treasury may by order amend Schedule 1.'
118 Clause 32, page 34, line 8, leave out 'discharging' and insert 'bringing to an end'.
119 Page 34, line 9, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'subsection (1)'.
120 Clause 33, page 34, line 19, leave out 'Part' and insert 'section and section 34'.
121 Page 34, line 27, leave out from first 'securities' to "'price"' in line 34 and insert:
'(1A) For the purposes of this Part, securities are "price-affected securities" in relation to inside information, and inside information is "price-sensitive information" in relation to securities, if and only if the information would, if made public, be likely to have a significant effect on the price of the securities.
(1B) For the purposes of this section'.
122 Clause 34, page 34, line 35, leave out from 'person' to 'he' in line 40 and insert 'has information as an insider if and only if—

(a) it is, and he knows that it is, inside information, and

(b) he has it, and knows that he has it, from an inside source.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person has information from an inside source if and only if—
(a)'.
123 Page 34, line 41, leave out '(a)' and insert '(i)'.
124 Page 34, line 43, leave out `(b)' and insert '(ii)'.
125 Page 34, leave out line 44 and insert 'office or profession; or
(b) the direct or indirect source of his information is a person within paragraph (a).'
126 Clause 35, page 35, line 2, leave out Clause 35.
127 After Clause 35, insert the following clause:
Information "made public"
'.—(1) For the purposes of section 33, "made public", in relation to information, shall be construed in accordance with the following provisions of this section; but those provisions are not exhaustive as to the meaning of that expression.
(2) Information is made public if—

(a) it is published in accordance with the rules of a regulated market for the purpose of informing investors and their professional advisers;

(b) it is contained in records which by virtue of any enactment are open to inspection by the public;

(c) it can be readily acquired by those likely to deal in any securities—

(i) to which the information relates, or

(ii) of an issuer to which the information relates; or

(d) it is derived from information which has been made public.

(3) Information may be treated as made public even though—

(a) it can be acquired only by persons exercising diligence or expertise;

(b) it is communicated to a section of the public and not to the public at large;

(c) it can be acquired only by observation;

1070

(d) it is communicated only on payment of a fee; or

(e) it is published only outside the United Kingdom.'

128 After Clause 35, insert the following clause:
"Professional intermediary"
'.—(1) For the purposes of this Part, a "professional intermediary" is a person—

(a) who carries on a business consisting of an activity mentioned in subsection (2) and who holds himself out to the public or any section of the public (including a section of the public constituted by persons such as himself) as willing to engage in any such business; or

(b) who is employed by a person falling within paragraph (a) to carry out any such activity.

(2) The activities referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) acquiring or disposing of securities (whether as principal or agent); or

(b) acting as an intermediary between persons taking part in any dealing in securities.

(3) A person is not to be treated as carrying on a business consisting of an activity mentioned in subsection (2)—

(a) if the activity in question is merely incidental to some other activity not falling within subsection (2); or

(b) merely because he occasionally conducts one of those activities.

(4) For the purposes of section (The offence) a person dealing in securities relies on a professional intermediary if and only if a person who is acting as a professional intermediary carries out an activity mentioned in subsection (2) in relation to that dealing.'
129 After Clause 35, insert the following clause:
Other interpretation provisions
'.—(1) For the purposes of this Part, "regulated market" means any market, however operated, which, by an order made by the Treasury, is identified (whether by name or by reference to criteria prescribed by the order) as a regulated market for the purposes of this Part.
(2) For the purposes of this Part an "issuer", in relation to any securities, means any company, public sector body or individual by which or by whom the securities have been or are to be issued.
(3) For the purposes of this Part—

(a) "company" means any body (whether or not incorporated and wherever incorporated or constituted) which is not a public sector body; and

(b) "public sector body" means—

(i) the government of the United Kingdom, of Northern Ireland or of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom;

(ii) a local authority in the United Kingdom or elsewhere;

(iii) any international organisation the members of which include the United Kingdom or another member state;

(iv) the Bank of England; or

(v) the central bank of any sovereign State.

(4) For the purposes of this Part, information shall be treated as relating to an issuer of securities which is a company not only where it is about the company but also where it may affect the company's business prospects.'
130 Clause 36, page 35, line 24, leave out Clause 36.
131 Clause 37, page 35, line 35, leave out Clause 37.
132 Clause 38, page 36, line 19, leave out 'A person' and insert 'An individual'.
133 Clause 39, page 36, line 34, leave out 'A person' and insert 'An individual'.
134 Page 36, line 34, leave out 'section 35' insert 'subsection (1) of section (The offence)'.
135 Page 36, line 40, leave out from 'which' to 'regulated' in line 42 and insert 'by an order made by the Treasury, is identified (whether by name or by reference to criteria prescribed by the order) as being, for the purposes of this Part,'.
136 Page 37. line 1, leave out 'A person' and insert 'An individual'.
137 Page 37, line 1, leave out 'section 36' and insert 'subsection (2) of section (The offence)'
138 Clause 40, page 37, line 8, leave out 'Sections 35 and 36 do' and insert 'Section (The offence) does'.
139 Page 37, line 8, after 'done', insert 'by an individual acting on behalf of a public sector body'.
140 Page 37, line 11, leave out from 'reserves' to end of line 12.
141 Page 37, line 13, after 'void' insert 'or unenforceable'.
142 Page 37, line 13, leave out '35 or 36' and insert '(The offence)'.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 114 to 142. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the same time to the other amendments which relate to the insider dealing provisions of the Bill, Amendments Nos. 172 to 179.
Notwithstanding the swift demise by the hand of, and to the delight of, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, of that fine word "tippee", it was the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who said on Third Reading:
"There are some areas of the Bill which may need to be examined closely in another place, in particular the provisions in the final part of the Bill relating to insider dealing. In his heart of hearts the noble Earl will appreciate that those provisions may need further clarification".
Those comments were echoed by other noble Lords. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, the Government have listened to those comments, just as they have listened to the valuable and helpful comments from various bodies with which they have been discussing the legislation.
The result is that the part has been extensively amended in another place. I hope that your Lordships will welcome the amendments which clarify significantly the provisions in the Bill relating to insider dealing.
The purpose of the amendments before your Lordships is threefold. They redraft the backbone provisions of Part IV: the definitions of the offence, defences and insiders. They amend existing provisions; these amendments include the introduction of a definition of when information has been "made public". The amendments also regroup the material, for example, to bring key definitions together.
Although the language employed in the Bill and the amendments is different, the overall effect is basically the same. I believe that this will become clear as I explain the amendments. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do so in a way which focuses on the principal amendments which are before the House.
I shall start with Amendment No. 115 which defines the offence of insider dealing by acquiring and disposing of securities, encouraging another to do so and disclosing inside information, in a single clause which defines all three forms of the offence. In broad terms, therefore, it replaces Clauses 35 and 36. It
1072
remains an essential requirement of all three forms of the offence that an individual has to have information as an insider.
The other essential requirement of the first form of the offence (dealing in securities) is that the individual deals in securities which are price-affected securities in relation to the information in circumstances which are set out in the clause. Those circumstances are, as in the Bill as approved by the House, that he deals either on a regulated market or that he relies on, or is himself, a professional intermediary. The second and third forms of the offence are disclosure of information which could be used for insider dealing and encouraging someone to deal. I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in order to close off a loophole which could be exploited by the unscrupulous, other forms of the offence are slightly modified in the amendment. The encouraging offence is aligned more closely with our existing legislation and applies to encouraging where someone knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that the person receiving the encouragement would deal in the circumstances covered by the dealing offence. The disclosing form of the offence has also been adjusted to make it clear that it does not apply to someone who discloses information in the proper performance of the functions of his employment, office, or profession.
Amendment No. 116 inserts a new clause into the Bill, which provides defences to the offence of insider dealing. The new clause therefore replaces Clause 37 of the Bill. As well as reflecting the amendments made to the offence, the new clause particularises the defences which the Bill provides. That change reflects concerns put to the Government about the need for a greater degree of certainty about the effect of the defences.
The new clause provides that, so far as concerns dealing, there is no offence in three particular circumstances. The first is that the person dealing did not expect to make a profit attributable to the fact that he possessed information which was price sensitive in relation to the securities in question.
The second defence applies where someone believed, on reasonable grounds, that the information had been disclosed widely enough to ensure that none of those taking part in the dealing would be prejudiced by not having the information. That defence would be applicable to properly conducted corporate finance transactions such as underwriting offers of listed securities.
The third defence applies where someone can show that he would have done what he did even if he had not had the information. Analogous defences are also provided for the encouraging form of the offence. So far as concerns disclosure, defences are provided where no dealing was expected or dealing was not expected to lead to someone making a profit attributable to the fact that the securities concerned were price affected in relation to the information in question.
In addition to the defences I have just mentioned, there are also of course the defences provided by the new schedule which Amendment No. 172 inserts into the Bill. The new schedule is derived from Schedule 2

1073
of the Bill and carries forward, in amended form, defences related to market making, price stabilisation, and market information. The amendment extends the defences to the encouraging form of the offence as well as its dealing form. They also specify circumstances in which it is reasonable for someone to use market information.
The amendments to the definition of insider dealing (Amendments Nos. 122 to 125) are consequential on the recasting of the offence provided by Amendment No. 115. Who does and does not fall within the ambit of the legislation is not changed by these amendments.
That concludes what I have to say about what I described earlier as the backbone provisions of the part. Accordingly, I now turn to the other amendments to the part, and I shall focus particularly on the amendments which introduce new clauses into the Bill.
Amendment No. 117 provides a new clause which defines the securities to which the part applies. The new clause is, of course, derived from the first part of Clause 31 of the Bill. I should add here that one of amendments to Schedule 1, which sets out the types of securities to which the legislation applies, extends securities to include contracts whose value depends upon the interest payable on money placed on deposit in order to catch certain contracts on short-term interest rates.
Amendment No. 127 introduces a new clause relating to when information is to be regarded as having been made public. When information has and has not been made public is the single issue which has caused most concern about this part and was the subject of valuable discussion during your Lordships' earlier consideration of the Bill.
The new clause takes the form of a non-exhaustive provision which contains two elements. First, it describes circumstances in which information is definitely to be regarded as having been made public. Those include publication of information under the rules of a market or circumstances where the information is readily accessible to investors.
Secondly, it identifies situations where the circumstances in which the information is disclosed may cast doubt on whether the information could be treated as having been made public: it provides that where those circumstances apply the information may have been made public. That covers, for example, situations involving payment of a fee.
Amendment No. 128 introduces the definition of professional intermediaries into the main body of the Bill. As it left this House it formed part of a schedule.
Amendment No. 129 brings together definitions of various terms employed in the part. The new clause provides definitions of regulated markets, issuers, companies and public sector bodies, and makes it clear that information shall be treated as relating to an issuer if it may affect its business prospects. Minor amendments have been made in bringing the provisions together.
Before concluding, I should like to speak briefly about banks' ability to be involved in debt equity swaps in order to remove any possible doubt which might arise from the debate in another place.
1074
Restructuring through debt equity swaps generally involves the issue of new equity, in which case it will be outside the scope of the legislation, because the legislation will apply to securities which are, rather than are to be, listed. If existing listed equity is involved in a transaction, the second of the recast general defences will apply, where, as will be the case in a debt-for-equity swap, the parties involved in the transaction possess the relevant information. There can be no question therefore of a bank which is involved in a properly conducted corporate restructuring falling foul of the legislation.
My comments have focused upon the most important of the features of the amendments to the insider dealing provisions contained in the Bill. I commend them to your Lordships as improving and clarifying the legislation. I am sure that they will be welcomed by the whole House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 114 to 142.— (The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his clear and lucid explanation of the amendments which we have all followed with the greatest of interest. One of the unhappy features of the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House was that when it came to Part IV (insider dealing) those of us who were taking part in the proceedings found ourselves in receipt of no substantial assistance from any of the professional organisations which were deeply involved in the intricacies of this complicated subject. I believe that I am right in saying that none of the Members of your Lordships' House who are members of those organisations found it possible to be here in Committee and to help us by commenting on the clauses.
In those circumstances it was hardly surprising that on Third Reading considerable anxiety was expressed about these provisions. It was assumed that substantial amendment would be necessary in another place. I welcome the amendments. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would assist the House about the organisations which were consulted before the improvements were agreed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl was absent when I referred to the report of the Hansard Commission on the legislative process. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be glad to know that I do not propose to repeat those quotations. All that I wish to say to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is that most of the criticisms in that report about the way in which governments legislate have been replicated in this Bill. There was a woeful lack of consultation before it was published. Admittedly we have a series of amendments as a result of that consultation. However, I hope that the two economic departments which are involved in this part of the Bill—that is both officials and Ministers—will have their attention drawn to what the Hansard Commission stated about the matter. We should not be forced to legislate in this manner with consultation beginning after the publication of the Bill. That is the criticism to which

1075
the Government were subjected when the Bill was first published and I hope that we shall not have a repetition of that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said and I shall draw that to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As regards the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I understand the frustration at not having the proper information when the matter could have been debated using the expertise of your Lordships' House. I, too, was disappointed that those involved in the issue on a day-to-day basis were unable to participate in our debates and that more representation was not made at an earlier stage. If it was, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, might not have made those comments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
MOTION AND AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
References are to HL Bill 121]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey 143A Lord McIntosh of Haringey to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 143 but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
Before Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
Adjustment of fines
(".—In section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) Rules made by the Lord Chancellor in exercise of the powers conferred on him by paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above shall provide for an expenditure allowance to be deducted from the offender's weekly income before his disposable weekly income is determined, and the size of such allowance shall vary according to which of ten or more bands of income levels includes the offender's income."")
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 143 but propose the amendment printed on the Marshalled List in lieu thereof.
We move to the extremely important issue which was introduced into the Bill in May of this year—and only in May—of the fixing of fines and of unit fines. I shall not weary the House with the long history of that subject. Suffice it to say that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was enacted when almost 19,000 people were imprisoned in this country for the non-payment of fines. They made up almost a quarter of the total number of people imprisoned in this country. Generally they were imprisoned for only a short time and therefore at any one time their proportion represented substantially less than one quarter. Nevertheless, the costs of processing such short prison sentences must be considerable. They include the costs of reception, discharge, the paper work involved and the fact that they were put into local prisons which are the most overcrowded. That is quite apart from the justice of the matter because one must reach the
1076
conclusion that a large number of people were imprisoned for not paying fines which they could never have paid when they were imposed. That was the conclusion of the 1990 Home Office evaluation paper which stated that poor offenders had in the past been fined more than they could afford.
It was that situation—a very serious situation, I hope that your Lordships will agree—which caused the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to be enacted. It is not as though that Act were dreamt up at short notice. It does not suffer the defects which this Bill suffers. The scheme of unit fines was produced after extensive experimentation in Basingstoke, Bradford, Swansea and Teesside and after the Home Office evaluation study reached the conclusion that there were falls of between 24 and 27 per cent. in the rates of imprisonment for the non-payment of fines in three of the courts which imprisoned people for non-payment. Basingstoke had never done so.
It is not as though the 1991 Act was ill-considered, as I have said. But what has happened? Seven months after the Act came into force in a more rigid way than should have been the case, everyone panicked. That came through to many magistrates' courts which could not have been aware of the experience of the four experimental courts. The panic came through to Conservative MPs and to others. The Government, having denied that there was anything wrong with the 1991 Act, and having denied that any change was required—and the Bill had been in Parliament since November of the previous year—suddenly in May changed their mind and proposed to remove the provision of unit fines.
That is not a way in which we should react to issues of public policy and it is not a way in which we should treat Parliament. The amendment does not suggest that we should return to the unit fine provision of the 1991 Act without alteration. We are suggesting that there are relatively simple and easily understood ways of dealing with the problem of unit fines without some of the grotesqueries which occurred. They were caused largely by the fact that the maximum units were introduced at far too low a level of income and because there was no provision for dealing with the problems of those who for whatever reason failed to submit details of their income. We propose that the Lord Chancellor should make rules which provide for an expenditure allowance to be deducted from the offender's weekly income before his disposable weekly income is determined. Those rules should apply to all magistrates' courts and not merely to those which continue to use the unit fines system.
One of the worst features of the Bill as amended will be that although Ministers have clearly said that they do not object to magistrates' courts using a unit fines tariff they will not insist on it. As a result we shall have the worst of all possible worlds. We shall have enormous differences between one magistrates' court and another in the way in which they deal with the size of the fine in relation to an offender's income. Some magistrates' courts will use a unit fines system, as Basingstoke continues to do, and some will not. Some, whether they do so or not, will behave differently from others. There will be no consistency of practice and we

1077
shall have exactly the same kind of problem as we had with the imprisonment for non-payment of fines before the passage of the 1991 Act.
It must be recognised that acceptance of my amendment would rule out Amendment No. 180, which is the schedule referred to in Amendment No. 143. But of course, Amendment No. 180, the proposed new schedule, is defective in any event. In particular, it seems to suggest that it is quite an acceptable procedure for somebody to write in pleading guilty and then, and only then, to be asked for a statement of his financial situation before a fine is imposed. I put it to the noble Earl, in the hope that it can be incorporated in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill, that it is surely better that when people are notified of their opportunity to plead guilty by post without attending the court, at the same time they should be sent a straightforward form dealing with their financial situation so that the court can, without further inquiry, immediately impose a fine. That may be merely an administrative matter but it would save a considerable amount of court time.
Where the unit fine system has been applied with a degree of flexibility, which would be provided for with the amendment, it has worked. Where it has worked, it has reduced the prison population—the number of admissions to prisons for non-payment of fines. Surely we should take this opportunity to apply a more flexible system which recognises the ability of offenders to pay the fines that are imposed. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I prefer Amendment No. 143. I find it difficult to believe that fines can be satisfactorily assessed by somewhat artificial arithmetic formulae. I should much sooner see those fines being assessed by magistrates exercising their enormous pool of common sense, experience and knowledge of the world. Of course, they are advised on legal matters by a clerk to the justices. In those circumstances, although this may have been an experiment worth trying, I believe that within the six or seven months of its duration it proved not to be successful. As I say, I prefer the government amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I begin by saying that I have been in contact with the Magistrates' Association and it wishes me to make one specific point to the Minister. It hopes that magistrates will not be required to put all the amendments into effect before 1st November because time is needed for the revision of sentencing guidelines and for training.
I was a magistrate for 30 years; I have had experience of sitting in Crown Courts; and I was a member of the Parole Board. Therefore, I have an interest in whatever the Government decide to do when dealing with criminal matters. I shall not make a Second Reading speech. I shall speak to the amendments.
I understand that we are at present dealing with Amendment No. 143A. In consequence of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, I ask the Minister whether it is intended that a means form should be
1078
sent out with the original summons. I am not sure whether that would prove to be helpful. I must say that not all the defendants are as honest as some other people in the country. Even if they have signed a form, it is not always necessarily completely correct. But one would suppose that the guidelines which would have to be sent out by the Magistrates' Association and the Lord Chancellor would have to incorporate that.
I ask also whether, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggests, the guidelines for payment are based on the weekly take-home pay. As I am well aware, there are various ideas as to how fines should be paid, when they should be paid and what the punishment should be if they are not paid. Many changes will be made to the system that was used in my day. On the other hand, it is very much better to leave such matters as far as possible to the magistrates concerned.
Having been a magistrate for very many years and having served as a member of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee for Middlesex for 12 years, I pay tribute to the common sense of the magistracy. If your Lordships decide that the magistrates should not be trusted to use their own common sense, as they have always done, and that laws and guidelines should be laid down which are almost impossible for them to fulfil, so be it. But I feel that the experiment has been tried. It has caused trouble in most of the country. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will not be agreed to and that we shall accept government Amendments Nos. 143 and 180.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I did not take part in our debates at earlier stages of the Bill. However, in many respects the Bill that we discussed then was a different Bill from that which we are now discussing. I am tempted to take part now and I took part in the proceedings which resulted in the unit fine experiment being implemented. I remain persuaded that it has some merit.
While I do not recommend the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it would be extremely helpful were we to have some assurances from the Government before we dismiss it.
I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, whose opinion I greatly respect, refer to the experiment as a failure. I believe that that is how he described it. I have a summary of the Home Office Research and Planning Unit Paper No. 59 sent to some of your Lordships by NACRO. That report gives one to understand that courts were able to obtain sufficient information about offenders' means without undue difficulty by using a simple form; that fines imposed on the poorest offenders were reduced to more realistic levels; that disparities between courts as regards fines imposed on poorer offenders were significantly reduced; that fines were paid more quickly and there was a lower rate of default; and that there was a large drop in the number of people imprisoned for non-payment. At three of the four courts there were falls of between 24 per cent. and 27 per cent. in the number of people imprisoned for fine default. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already said, the

1079
fourth court, Basingstoke, rarely imprisoned offenders for fine default even before the experiment. The evaluation report concluded:
"The consensus among magistrates and court staff at all the courts involved in the experiments was that unit fines were an improvement on the previous system".
I do not believe that that experiment can be rated as a failure if the description is accurate. What may have been a failure was the way in which it was followed when there was an attempt to introduce the scheme on a wider scale. One would not wish to see some of the absurdities repeated, although the media were much fonder of telling one of ridiculous fines when they were promulgated than of telling one when they had been reduced to a fraction if they were too much, or increased if they were too little before being enforced. Therefore, the country received a falsified view of what was going on and of the experiences of the courts.
I hope that the principle that the unit fine scheme introduced can be preserved; that is to say, that ability to pay shall be a significant factor in the decision of the level of fine as well as other considerations. It is ridiculous for a millionaire to be fined the same amount as someone almost on social security for a similar offence. That is so obvious that it ought not need to be said.
In replying to the debate, I hope that my noble friend will say what steps will be taken in the form of guidelines or other means for ensuring that the fixing of the level of fines, upon which a good deal of the repute of our criminal justice system depends, can be made a visibly influential part of the machinery. The courts may then be able voluntarily to follow a unit fine scheme of their own and call it something else.
However, I hope that my noble friend will say that we shall return in some way to a position in which one can expect the level of fines to bear a relationship not only to the seriousness of the offence but also the ability to pay. If someone rich has a small fine, it has no relationship to the severity of the offence. The level of hurt is infinitely less than for someone with a very small income. I hope that I have made the point clear and that my noble friend will be able to incorporate some response in his reply.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I feel unable to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I believe that it would be bureaucratic and detailed. It would take away the flexibility of magistrates.
I am delighted to support the government amendment. However, we should recognise that the principle of unit fines was good. Sadly, in practice it produced a straitjacket for magistrates and eliminated from them all flexibility and discretion.
Although pilot schemes were held in various courts around the country with qualified success, all that experience went out of the window when the maximum financial penalty was raised five-fold. However, I believe that the intensive training that we as magistrates received for the unit fine system will not be wasted. I am sure that the three issues in the
1080
amendment for consideration will be addressed in an even more sensitive and sensible manner: the financial circumstances of the offender; the seriousness of the offence; and the circumstances of the case.
I congratulate the Minister for responding to the anxieties of my colleagues in such an expeditious way.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, clearly there has to be a relationship between the means of an offender and the level of fine. Indeed, it would be an absurdity to argue the reverse. I do not have difficulty with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said about some form of voluntary system.
I believe that it is only fair to say that the Government were in a mess over the system. There was no easy solution. Having had the good fortune to sit in on one or two Home Office crisis meetings. I can imagine the different arguments which would have been deployed when one has to deal with the great crisp packet crisis. I refer to the gentleman who was unemployed and was fined about £1,200. We cannot have a situation in which the law is made to appear absurd; and that was the problem.
There is no easy solution. One could argue that the Government might have taken some action other than the course that they have adopted. However, I believe that they were in genuine difficulties. I regret that the experiment —perhaps I should say "full scheme" or I shall be reproved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—did not succeed. However, it did not; we have to recognise the reality of that. Such critical comment was made that I believe it undermined the integrity of the system. That being so, the Government had a difficult choice. All that we can do today is to regret what happened and to agree with what the noble Lord. Lord Elton, said; namely, that if any form of voluntary system could be introduced, speaking for myself. I would welcome it greatly.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the understanding way in which you have dealt with the problem. It may be convenient if we discuss Amendments Nos. 143 and 180 at the same time because they all cover the same point.
My noble friend Lord Elton hoped that we shall return to a point where the level of fines relates to the ability to pay. That is precisely the point that we wish to have in mind. The level of fine which is imposed by a court should not only reflect the seriousness of the offence for which it is being imposed, it should also take into account the offender's means. That principle still remains.
Amendment No. 143 will place upon the courts a duty to inquire into the financial circumstances of an offender before setting a fine. This preserves one of the most important features of the unit fine scheme because, although many magistrates did make such inquiries before the unit fine scheme was introduced, they had no duty to do so, and now they have. It also extends that duty to the Crown Court where there has not, up to now, been any explicit requirement to make inquiries of this kind.
But, in contrast to the present arrangements, the new provisions will allow courts to decide the kind of inquiry which would be appropriate in each individual

1081
case. There will be no prescribed statutory form although courts will, of course, be free to devise a form for their own local use if they conclude that that would best suit their needs.
The amendment also stipulates certain factors which a court has a duty to consider when it is determining how much an offender should be fined. Under the new arrangements, each fine must reflect the court's view of the seriousness of the offence but, in setting a fine which reflects the seriousness of the offence, we intend that courts should be required to take into account the circumstances of the case and, in particular, the offender's financial position.
My noble friend Lord Elton was concerned that those requirements should acknowledge that the same fine can have a different impact on different offenders; indeed, so it can because of the offenders' different financial circumstances. A fine might represent the equivalent of a month's food and rent for one offender and therefore might result in significant hardship for him and his family. But, for another, the same fine might be nothing more than loose change or the cost of a night out on the tiles—an inconvenience at most. A court may consider that different fines would reflect the seriousness of the same offence for offenders of differing means.
My noble friends Lord Elton and Lady MacLeod, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, were concerned about guidelines for the courts. The new statutory provisions require means to be taken into account. I understand that the Magistrates' Association will be issuing guidance on the new fining provisions, including sentencing guidelines, and the Home Office will be issuing a circular explaining the change of law in that area.
My noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, were concerned that the courts should be free to apply their own voluntary schemes if they wish to do so. The new provisions restore discretion to the courts. If individual courts find it helpful to devise their own informal local unit model which allows them to apply the new provisions to fine an individual offender justly and sensibly, perhaps by providing a starting point for sentences, then they will be free to do so. The government amendment explicitly contains the power which was first conferred on magistrates and Crown Courts by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to raise as well as lower a fine in order to take account of an offender's financial circumstances. In our view, that is central to retaining the principle that courts should be able to set fines which impose, so far as is reasonably practicable, equivalent hardship for all.
We do not think, though, that a fine should be raised or lowered to such a degree that it no longer bears any reasonable relationship to the offence which is committed. An offender with limited means should not be fined a negligible sum for a serious offence. To do so diminishes the seriousness of the offence in the eyes of the public.
However, at the same time we do not think that affluent offenders should be fined thousands of pounds for minor offences—a fact which some of your Lordships may find reassuring, even though to others it may be academic. That means, therefore, that there
1082
will be a range of possible fines which reflect the seriousness of the offence. The point at which the fine is fixed in any individual case will depend on the financial circumstances of the offender. We believe that sentencers will use their discretion to apply the new provisions both sensibly and justly. The remaining provisions of Amendment No. 143 are consequential. The amendment also brings into operation a schedule which is created by Amendment No. 180.
Amendment No. 143A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, introduces a different matter altogether. It would insert a new clause into the Bill which suggests that the Government should have amended the unit fine scheme rather than have abandoned it. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for saying that he approved the Government's amendment. I was also grateful to my noble friend Lady Seccombe for saying so too. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will recognise the difficulty that we were in. We recognised that there was a significant problem with the operation of the unit fine scheme. Before we changed it we looked at all the options for amending it. We do not think, though, that introducing a system of banded expenditure allowances, or indeed any other refinement, would have solved the problems which sentencers have experienced with the scheme.
The process of determining local allowances for expenditure and applying them properly in individual cases is already a complicated feature of the unit fine scheme. A system of banded allowances would require magistrates to devise and apply a whole series of such allowances—perhaps 30 or more—for offenders of different incomes. To do this they would need to calculate the probable expenditure of offenders in their local area on a whole range of essential items such as food, housing, clothing, council tax, housing and water rates. And they would need to undertake the same process for the offender's dependants. That simply is not realistic. It would make it wildly complicated and completely incomprehensible.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, one thing still worries me. It is that the efficiency of the system seems to depend on the honesty of the accused—or, as he later is, the convicted—in declaring his means and his liabilities. Can my noble friend tell us what will become of the convicted if it later transpires that he has succeeded in misleading the court? In other words, what is the onus or the pressure on a person to declare that he has sufficient money to be fined a reasonable amount?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course it is up to any person to he honest in court. If he is not honest and he misleads the court, he is in trouble. Under Section 20 of the Act, which is amended by Amendment No. 180, if misleading information is given in response to a financial circumstances order, an offence is committed which carries three months' imprisonment and/or a fine up to £2,500. I would hope that that would have what one might call a slowing up effect on people's desire to mislead the court.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think—
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Can he advise the House whether the ceiling on fines under the unit fine system is likely to be changed? Perhaps I can give the noble Earl an example. Earlier this year I was fined £400 for a speeding offence which I felt was an excessive burden although I duly paid the fine on the basis that my understanding was that if someone—one should bear in mind that my income is round about £12,000 a year —appeared in court who was in exactly the same situation and his income was £120,000 a year, he would be fined £4,000. If his income was £1.2 million a year, my understanding was he would be fined £40,000. One can imagine the sense of unfairness I felt when I realised later that there was a ceiling and that very rich people would not be paying pro rata fines; effectively they would get off fairly lightly. Can the noble Earl please advise me whether this terrible unfairness will be correcteed by these measures?
8.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this brings the position into reality. The position is that there are certain levels of fines. Each level enables a maximum amount of fine to be obtained. The purpose of the unit fine—it was a complicated purpose—was to achieve continuity on the basis of units, the maximum of which came to the top of the maximum of the level of unit fine. In other words, if a level 3 fine was a certain maximum, then the amount of units one could obtain could not exceed that amount. What we are saying is that the same levels will obtain now as obtained then but it will be up to the court to determine, up to that level, how much the person concerned can afford to pay and how much, in all the circumstances, it is right for him to pay. It is not our intention at the moment to raise the levels. They have been raised relatively recently and they could be raised in the future. For any particular offence there is a maximum which can be charged and the amount charged per person will depend upon the circumstances of the individual and the particular case.
I now return to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Even if local bands could be realistically and consistently devised, such a scheme would still not produce satisfactory results. However frequently the bands were set—even at £10 intervals —there would be cases where, by earning a few pounds more, an offender would move into a higher income band where he would attract a higher allowance, which would result in him paying a lesser fine. In this case, the more he earns, the less he will pay. That cannot be right. The whole purpose of justice is that it must not just be done but be seen to be done. If you do not understand it, it is not seen to be done. And in this case even if you do understand it, justice is still not done.
My noble friend Lady Macleod asked whether these arrangements would be implemented before November. I can inform her that we are considering the date of the implementation of these arrangements.
1084
I am sure your Lordships would agree that once Royal Assent is given, we must try to implement the arrangements as soon as possible so that everything can settle down and the courts can get on with their proper job.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked whether people could plead guilty by post. When defendants are invited to plead guilty by post, they can, of course, be offered the chance to tell the court about their means but they should not be obliged to do so unless it is clear that they are pleading guilty. For all those reasons I hope your Lordships will agree that the amendments made in another place are correct and that it would be best not to amend them by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it will be obvious that I am not happy with that situation. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and for his support for the principle of unit fines. I am also grateful for the thoughtful and cautious approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, who has immense experience and the views of the Magistrates' Association behind her.
The fact of the matter is that the situation before 1991 did not work. It resulted in far too high a level of committal to prison, which happened despite the fact that it was the almost universal practice—in fact I suggest it was the universal practice—of magistrates to ask defendants what their income was. Therefore the duty to ask for financial information is not very much greater than it was before 1991.
I am sorry that the result should be that the Government are determined to abandon the unit fine scheme rather than amending it as we suggest. I suspect that there will continue to be guidance from the Home Office to magistrates. Of course, we shall have a Criminal Justice Bill in the next Session, in which it may be necessary to return to this issue. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Amendment No. 143A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 143, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 143.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 143.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
144 Before Clause 42, insert the following clause:
Powers of courts to deal with offenders
'.—(1) In section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (restrictions on imposing custodial sentences), the following shall be substituted for subsection (2) (a)—
"(a) that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, was so serious that only such a sentence can be justified for the offence; or".
(2) In section 2 of the Act of 1991 (length of custodial sentences), in subsections (2) (a) and (3), for the word "other" there shall be substituted "one or more".
(3) In section 3 of the Act of 1991 (procedural requirements for custodial sentences), in subsection (3) (a), the words "or (as the case may be) of the offence and the offence or offences associated with it," shall be inserted after the word "offence".
(4) In section 6 of the Act of 1991 (restrictions on imposing community sentences)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "other offence" there shall be substituted "or more offences"; and

(b) in subsection (2) (b), for the word "other" there shall be substituted "one or more".

(5) In section 7 of the Act of 1991 (procedural requirements for community sentences), in subsection (1), the words "or (as the case may be) of the offence and the offence or offences associated with it," shall be inserted after the word "offence".
(6) For section 29 of the Act of 1991 (effect of previous convictions) there shall be substituted—
"Effect of previous convictions and of offending while on bail.
29.—(1) In considering the seriousness of any offence, the court may take into account any previous convictions of the offender or any failure of his to respond to previous sentences.
(2) In considering the seriousness of any offence committed while the offender was on bail, the court shall treat the fact that it was committed in those circumstances as an aggravating factor.
(3) A probation order or conditional discharge order made before 1st October 1992 (which. by virtue of section 2 or 7 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, would otherwise not be a sentence for the purposes of this section) is to be treated as a sentence for those purposes.
(4) A conviction in respect of which a probation order or conditional discharge order was made before that date (which, by virtue of section 13 of that Act, would otherwise not be a conviction for those purposes) is to be treated as a conviction for those purposes.".
(7) In subsection (1) of section 12D of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (duty of court to state in certain cases that requirement is in place of custodial sentence), in paragraph (ii) (a) for the words "other offence" there shall be substituted "or more offences".
(8) In section 38 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (committal for sentence on summary trial of offence triable either way), in subsection (2) (a), for the word "other" there shall be substituted "one or more".
(9) The amendments made by this section shall apply in relation to offenders convicted (but not sentenced) before the date on which this section comes into force as they apply in relation to offenders convicted after that date'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 144. This amendment deals with sentencing matters and makes three significant changes to the powers of the courts.
The most significant of these amendments—and certainly the one which has received the most attention—reverses the effect of Section 29 of the 1991 Act so that courts will be allowed to pay full and proper regard to an offender's previous convictions and to have regard to any failure to respond to previous sentences when forming an opinion about the seriousness of the offence or offences. This change does not alter the fundamental principle which lies
1086
behind the 1991 Act, which is that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence. We have, though, realised that considerable concern has been expressed by sentencers—including the senior judiciary and others—that, in some cases, the seriousness of the current offence can only adequately be assessed if previous convictions are taken into account and if the response of the offender to previous sentences, which may have been imposed upon him, are also considered. We are, therefore, restoring to sentencers the discretion which they need to sentence justly in individual cases.
The amendment also requires that where an offence is committed on bail this should be regarded by the court as an aggravating factor in weighing the seriousness of the offence. In most cases, this will result in a heavier sentence than would otherwise have been the case. The amendment gives effect to the Government's manifesto commitment to strengthen the powers of the court to deal with those who offend on bail. It has been drafted following consultation with the judiciary. Your Lordships will know that the Government share the widespread public concern about offending on bail, and I hope that this will be an added inducement for the courts to take tough action against those who offend while on bail.
In subsection (1) the amendment also removes the restriction which was imposed by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which allows the courts to consider only one offence and one other when forming an opinion as to whether custody is justified. The amendment also removes the restriction where it appears elsewhere in the Act.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 144.—(Earl Ferrers.)
AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 144
144A Before Clause 42, in subsection (1), leave out inserted paragraph (a) and insert:
(""(a) that the offence was so serious, or the overall seriousness of the offence and one or more offences associated with it was such, that only such a sentence can be justified for the offence; or"")
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 144A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 144. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 144B, 144C and 144D.
This is, of course, an immensely complicated problem. It is probable that no formulation in legislation will get the matter entirely right. It is an issue where the practice of the judiciary and the magistrature cannot be completely constrained but where behind those practices there are a number of principles which ought as far as possible to be made effective by legislation.
Amendment No. 144A seeks to change the phrase:
"the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it"
to the phrase:
"the overall seriousness of the offence"
and other offences. A more complicated version has been proposed by Justice, but it has the same aim.

1087
The purpose is to maintain a relationship between the sentence and the gravity of the current offence with which the court is concerned. We have to try to avoid sentencing a petty thief as though he were a more serious criminal. Again, we must refer back to the situation which existed before the Criminal Justice Act 1991 when it was possible for petty thieves, particularly those who were accustomed to spending most of their lives in prison, to be in prison for a very long time for minor offences. That was called the stepladder.
Amendment No. 144B is concerned with a similar element in the same issue. The Government have rightly said that more than two offences can be taken into account in determining the sentence. I hasten to say that I believe that the government amendments improve the position under the 1991 Act. Certainly, it is perfectly proper that a more severe sentence should be passed on an offender with previous convictions. However, I suggest to your Lordships that the sentence should not be out of all proportion to the seriousness of the current offence. In other words, we must not revert to the situation before the 1991 Act.
In 1980 the Court of Appeal said that an offender should not be sentenced for the offences which he has committed in the past and for which he has already been punished. That is an important principle which we ought not to forget. Otherwise, if we did not observe that principle, somebody guilty of repeated burglaries, however small, could be sentenced more severely than a rapist. I believe that the term here is sentencing on the record. We need a limiting principle of proportionality to the offence before the court.
Amendment No. 144C is a fall-back position. It accepts the wording in Amendment No. 144 but suggests that it would be desirable that the court should state which previous convictions or which failure to respond is taken into account and why it is relevant to do so. I should have thought that that was relatively uncontroversial. I may well be reassured by being told by the Minister that that could be incorporated in guidance.
Amendment No. 144D refers to the matter to which the Minister referred in his introduction: namely, the question of offences committed while on bail. I certainly agree with the Minister that there has been a great deal of public anxiety about offences committed on bail. However, I suggest that there could be circumstances when there is no aggravation and no reason for a more severe sentence just because somebody is on bail.
I should like to put two examples to the Minister. The first is where the original offence is a serious offence but the new offence is either minor or completely irrelevant. For example, the original offence might be armed robbery but the new offence might be a parking offence or drunk and disorderly. I suggest that under those circumstances there is no aggravation as a result of the offence being committed while on bail.
The second point which I should like to put to the Minister is the case where the result of offending on bail is the revocation of bail. In that event the offender
1088
is already suffering significant extra punishment and it might be that in the circumstances in some cases there would be no justification for saying that there was aggravation in the particular case.
Therefore, we propose simply to leave out the word "shall" and insert "may" so that there is a degree of discretion in the cases to which I have referred.
As I said, these are difficult matters and are not ones which will ever be resolved finally. But we do not want to return to the situation before 1991. The Government are making a worthwhile attempt to improve the law with these amendments. We simply suggest that the law could be improved even more with the further amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, that Amendment No. 144A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 144, be agreed to.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before embarking on comments on the amendments, perhaps I may seek to meet the proposition that there was something, back in 1991, which called for the censure which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has just uttered. Over 20 years ago I used to preside over sentencing conferences. The principles of sentencing were as clear then as they are today. One of them was that one imposes a sentence proportional to the offence. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, cares to look in the Library, he will find a two-volume work called Encyclopaedia of Sentencing Principles, dealing, item by item, with principles and offences. If he looks at another document which I caused to be put into the Library, he will see a collection of guideline principles. He speaks as if, prior to the Criminal Justice Act 1991, there were no sensible sentencing principles, that the Court of Appeal did not exist and that judges did not know their job. With great respect, that is complete nonsense.
What is required is a little plain speaking about what is now being done. Sections 1, 2 and 29 constituted aberrations on the part of the Government of quite monumental proportions. They so startled and astonished the former Home Secretary, the right honourable Kenneth Clarke, that he thought and so alleged in the radio programme "Today" on 5th May that his predecessor had fully consulted the judiciary who had agreed with the sections which are now to be amended. He withdrew that statement when its inaccuracy was drawn to his attention. But the fact that he thought that consultation must have taken place shows, in my respectful submission to the House, his astonishment that the provisions existed.
When, seven days later, he came to make a Statement in the House, it is revealing how he put it:
"First, we will seek to amend section 1 of the 1991 Act so as to allow the courts to take into account all the offences for which the offender is being dealt with, instead of only one offence, or that offence and one other offence, which is the case now".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/93; col. 939.]
The phrase,
"we will …allow the courts",
is merely a disguised way of saying "we will restore to the courts the powers that we so foolishly took away".
Then he continued:
"Secondly, we propose to restore to the courts their power to have full regard to the criminal record of an offender and

1089
his response to previous sentences when deciding on the sentence for his current offence. We will do this by repealing Section 29 of the 1991 Act which prevents a court from regarding an offence as more serious by reason of any previous convictions of the offender or his failure to respond to previous sentences.
"These changes which I wish to see made to the 1991 Act will make it clear that sentencers have all reasonable discretion to decide upon the right sentence in a particular case, bearing in mind the seriousness of the offences being dealt with, all the circumstances of the offender and his offending behaviour".
When he talked about the sentencers having all reasonable discretion he was referring to the discretion which they had prior to the Act and which the Act removed.
When the matter came before the House on Second Reading, as your Lordships would have expected, I, as a sitting Law Lord —that is a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary—consulted the Chief Justice before taking part in the debates. I said this:
"Of course it has for long been established that an offender is not to be punished twice for the same offence, and accordingly must be sentenced for the crime or crimes which brought him before the court. However, in evaluating the seriousness of that crime or crimes, with particular regard to the need to protect the public from further offences committed by him, hitherto, among other things, a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties or an inability or unwillingness to respond to them were understandably considered …relevant".—[Official Report, 12/3/91; col. 127.]
I then leave out an unnecessary part for the purpose of this debate and at col. 128 say:
"Of course, Parliament is entitled to establish a framework within which judges are to operate; but if that framework is distorted, then so will be the decision of the court".
That is exactly what has happened. It is the distortions which have caused public dismay and hence the amendments.
It was ironic that I was in Poland, leading a small delegation of judges, at the suit of the British Council, addressing the Polish judges on the need for judicial independence and for a proper separation of powers, when the Committee stage came on. I was accordingly unable to be present. I apologised to the House when I attended at the Report stage and moved the very amendment to Clause 1 which the Government have now been obliged to bring in.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that I lost that amendment by 29 votes to 183 votes. Among those who voted in favour of my amendment, including myself, were four Law Lords: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, whose wisdom has been so recently referred to; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, well known also for his wisdom in this House; and Lord Lowry, the former Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. In addition, there was in favour of the amendment: Lord Havers, a former (albeit briefly) Lord Chancellor and the longest serving Attorney-General this century. There were no judges who voted against the amendment—although perhaps that is not strictly accurate. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who, I am delighted to see, is back on the Woolsack, was one of the 183. He was, of course, a High Court judge for some years in Scotland, and I enjoyed immensely his company as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary for some two years. That
1090
type of defeat occurred in every amendment which I produced focusing on the matters which are now before your Lordships.
How then did this aberration come about? The answer is quite simple. The Government ignored the doctrine of separation of powers. They decided to control the administration of criminal justice by obliging judges to sit in blinkers, insulated, as I respectfully pointed out in the debates, from reality; unable to focus on vital, relevant facts; unable to apply the Government's own doctrine of just deserts emphasised in the White Paper which preceded this Bill. The judges were, as a result, unable to protect the public from the persistent offender.
It may be asked: why am I stressing, or even over-stressing, this matter? The answer is quite simply that there has been a tendency in the Government to fail to recognise that judicial independence—that is, its ability to do its job without interference from the Executive—is an absolutely essential feature for the proper functioning of an effective judiciary.
It was not very long ago that this House debated Clause 25 of what was then the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill, now an Act. Under that clause, power was to be taken by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor at his sole discretion to continue the senior judiciary in office beyond what is to be the new compulsory retirement age of 70 from year to year, up to a period of five years—described as a system of judges on contract. Over 50 years ago that concept was rejected by the Royal Commission, the appeal commission, of which Sir Claude Schuster, an outstanding Permanent Secretary in my noble and learned friend's department, was a member. In the debate on the report on 29th October, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale expressed his astonishment that,
"this unconstitutional provision ever appeared in the Bill".—[Official Report, 29/10/92; col. 1262.]
Thankfully, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had second thoughts and removed the offending clause, but not until the Third Reading.
Noble Lords may still recall the debates on the Green Papers which preceded the Courts and Legal Services Bill and the dramatic quotation which my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson, the Master of the Rolls, made when it was considered that the judicial power in certain respects to control its courts was being usurped by the Executive. He quoted the phrase: "Get your tanks off my lawn".
I am delighted that, by the new clause, the clock is to be put back. Judges are to be returned to their power, which it is now recognised on all sides they need, to deal justly and effectively with offenders that come before them.
Once again, in case it may be thought that this emphasis on judicial independence is being overstressed, perhaps I may remind noble Lords, as I have in the past, of the following excerpt from a lecture; the F.A. Mann Lecture given in 1989 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, then the Lord Chancellor, on the subject: "The Office of the Lord Chancellor and the Separation of Powers." He said:
"But surely, it will be asked, everyone supports judicial independence? Oh, do they? Certainly not the public or the

1091
back-benchers in the House of Commons who constantly revile, frequently from inconsistent standpoints, individual judges or particular decisions, or what they imagine to be judicial policies and daily demand individual judges to be directed or rebuked (presumably by the Executive Government) to move in this direction or that, or even should be removed from office. Certainly not the Opposition, whichever party happens to he on the Speaker's left. Certainly not party conferences… And, least of all, I may assure you, individual members of the Cabinet, whose Departmental interests from time to time basically conflict not only with the views of the judiciary, where they are entitled to differ, but in the provision of the means necessary to enable the courts to discharge their functions".
I end by expressing the hope that the Government may perhaps realise that nothing is to be achieved except disaster if politics are allowed to interfere with the due administration of justice.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am delighted that the unit fines are going. They removed the ability of a magistrate to use his common sense in cases.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Unit fines were dealt with on the last amendment. We are now dealing with a quite different matter.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is it not the same thing?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, could give us any indication, if these amendments are put into the legislation, when they might be put into effect as a complicated commencement order clause. My recollection is that the new powers will be available to sentencers if people have been convicted but not yet sentenced at the date of a commencement order.
The last thing I wish to suggest is that anybody will go back and ignore the lessons of the 1991 Act and the enormous amount of training that went into the judiciary in the course of preparing for it. Nevertheless, the result is that a considerable number—virtually all—of the more serious cases that come before the courts now have a report prepared for them before sentence is passed and after conviction or a plea of guilty. I feel that there will have to be some warning to people when these powers are to be brought into effect. It may very well be that there will have to be some small amount of training through the Judicial Studies Board—though not so much as happened before the 1991 Act came into effect—before we fully comprehend what has to be done.
It would be very helpful if the Government could give some indication of when that change will come in so that people may be prepared for it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree very strongly with the remarks of the noble Viscount. The noble Earl owes us some kind of clear answer to his question; namely, when and on what date will the new provisions come into operation?
The noble Viscount said that very substantial resources were deployed for judicial training. That
1092
being so, it is even more necessary that the judiciary should know, preferably tonight, the date of the commencement order so far as concerns this section of the Bill. I simply say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that he was right and we were wrong. He was wholly right. I remember the speech that he made. I was almost certainly one of the 183 Members who voted the wrong way (as he would see it) and now I certainly acknowledge my error in the matter. Undoubtedly, during the discussion I had substantial feelings of disquiet on the matter. I believe that I did go into the Lobby. It is just possible that I did not participate in the Division, though I fear that I did do so.
What concerns me is the matter to which the noble and learned Lord drew our attention; namely, consultation with the judiciary. It seems to me exceptionally difficult to move in the direction that the Government chose to move—with, it has to be said, all party support—and then be surprised when there is a public uproar so soon as that section of the Act comes into operation. Disquiet was voiced not only by the judiciary but, as the noble Earl is aware, the police too were outraged when they discovered what was about to take place. They too had not been consulted.
I do not believe that judges, the police or anybody else has a right of absolute veto on legislation. So far as this Government and any future government are concerned, it does not seem to me that it is particularly wise to try to push through legislation in the teeth of opposition of this character. When it comes into operation, public disquiet is expressed. Public attention is drawn to the fact that the judiciary and the police are wholly opposed to what is being done. In this matter, as in the last, we then have the Government announcing within a few months of the commencement order that a major part of the criminal law of this country recently put on the statute book is about to be repealed. That is no way to legislate. That cannot be emphasised too strongly.
I wish to make only two further points. First, I agree entirely with what the noble Earl said in regard to offences committed by people who are on bail. As the noble Earl is aware, I have taken a keen interest in this issue and pursued him on the matter over a period of some months because of the disquieting evidence of the growth in the number of criminals deciding to commit a series of offences while on bail in the belief that they stand a good chance of not being caught or, if they are caught, that no greater sentence will be imposed by the sentencing judge. That is not an acceptable situation and I welcome the fact that something is to be done about it.
The second matter to which I should like to refer—I gave notice to the noble Earl that I intended to raise this question—is the leak which appeared in the Guardian two or three weeks ago in relation to a letter sent by the director general of the prison service to the Home Secretary. It concerned the consequences of this legislation in relation to the size of the prison population. As I understand it, there were quotation marks in the letter; the Home Office has not denied its authenticity and therefore we can work on the assumption that it is a genuine letter. That being so,

1093
perhaps the noble Earl can tell us whether or not the Government believe that there is a real prospect that the size of the prison population will increase in the region of 5,000. The resource implications of that are considerable. It has direct implications in relation to the future prison building programme and I welcome any comments the noble Earl can make about it.
As he may be aware, there is a suggestion that the Government may have to introduce prison ships to hold some of the people who will be swelling the numbers of those in custody. He will be aware also that a question was raised in Mr. Lewis's letter to the Home Secretary as to whether it would be lawful to hold them in such circumstances. It would be extremely helpful if the noble Earl could comment on those questions. But I come back to my original point; namely, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is entirely justified in what he said and we owe him an apology.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I rise with great diffidence as an outsider to intervene briefly in this debate. However, this issue has aroused interest among a great many outsiders.
I listened with great interest to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said. I agree with him on the point in regard to the judiciary. But the amendment illustrates the need for an important skill which all Ministers should possess—I say that on the basis of having observed Ministers over some years —the skill of knowing when to accept the advice of officials and when to ignore it, and when to take the view of the public and when to ignore it. The history of this amendment is that Ministers took the advice of officials, given in a very pernicious form in the sense that they were trying, as I understand it, to achieve a different objective from the objective which was actually put forward for the original proposal. My right honourable friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I believe, behaved extremely sensibly in taking the advice of the public by seeking to make this change.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what he has said just happens to be wholly untrue? These proposals were pushed through by Mr. John Patten, then Minister of State at the Home Office. There is no question of this having been some form of secret agenda by Home Office officials. Many of us paid tribute to Mr. Patten personally when we discussed the 1991 Act. I hope that the noble Lord will not believe in this conspiracy theory of officials. It does not happen to be true.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, perhaps I may make one brief comment. It is not necessary for us to decide this evening whether or not the 1991 legislation was an improper interference with judicial independence. Perhaps the real issue is whether it was a totally mistaken fetter upon judicial discretion, which is not perhaps quite the same matter. It is perfectly clear now, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has demonstrated beyond peradventure, that the exercise by the judges of their discretion on sentence before the 1991 Act was a great deal more satisfactory than the
1094
restrictions which were imposed by that Act. Obviously, all sentencing legislation to some extent impairs the discretion of judges on sentencing. That is quite inevitable. The only question is: were those restrictions wrong? I venture to suggest that experience has shown that they were manifestly wrong and that the sooner they are repealed the better.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, this amendment is one of the most important of all the amendments with which we are dealing today. It will have far-reaching consequences. On behalf of the magistracy, I am very grateful that this has come about. It is vitally important.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, approved of the Government's amendments, although I am bound to say that his effusion of congratulations was rather limited in its forthcoming. But I assume from what he said that on the whole he was glad that these alterations had been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that the real question was whether the previous Act of 1991 was a fetter on judicial discretion. I do not think that it is appropriate necessarily to go into the details of whether or not this was a fettering. The fact is that those changes were made in 1991 for very good and for what appeared to be very sensible reasons. Even the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, admitted that he had voted for them. If he has any anguish about that, let me tell him that when he is good enough to accompany me into the Division Lobby, he need not have any fear or any humility about it. I am only too glad to see that his views are running in the right direction. The fact is that, periodically, one has to change one's mind. Periodically, whatever the reasons were, one discovers that the practice has not worked as effectively as was expected. That is why we have introduced these amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that this was no way to legislate. I quite agree with him that, as a matter of principle, one would not wish to alter these provisions as quickly as that. However, it was necessary to do so. The noble Lord also referred to the leak, as he put it, and to the Guardian of 19th July. We have estimated that the total effect of all the changes we are making, including provisions relating to offending on bail and causing death by dangerous driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, may be in the region of 5,000. Our amendments to Sections 1 and 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 essentially return the discretion to the courts. It is extremely difficult to predict something that depends on judicial behaviour, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will be the first to understand.
Contingency plans are being made by the prison service to cope with any surge in the prison population. They include identifying the sites for new cell blocks in existing prisons, identifying prison service sites where temporary, secure buildings can be placed and examining the use of floating accommodation units.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, moved some amendments and perhaps I may briefly refer to them

1095
because they are what we are discussing. The effect of Amendment No. 144A is that the court is allowed to have regard to the overall seriousness of all the associated offences in the way that the wording suggests. But we believe that our wording is more precise than that.
The intention behind Amendment No. 144B is to try to limit the extent to which previous convictions can be taken into account so that mere repetition does not lead to disproportionate sentences for minor offences. I do not believe that it is practically possible or desirable to return to the courts the power to have regard to previous convictions, but to do so only within certain limitations. That was, after all, precisely what Section 29 tried to do in the first place. That amendment attempts in effect to draw a distinction between the effect on the seriousness of an offence which is caused solely by the element of repetition disclosed by previous convictions and the aggravation of seriousness which can be the result of substantive features of previous offending such as the selection of ethnic minority victims.
I am not sure that a distinction between mere repetition and aggravating factors disclosed by previous convictions can be realistically drawn. Many sentencers would wish in principle to be able to take the view that repeated offending can indeed make the current offence more serious, and does not merely deprive the offender of mitigation; many of the public, particularly those who have suffered from multiple offending, would agree.
The "progressive loss of mitigation" principle sits very uneasily with a "just deserts" sentencing framework. It operates on the basis that there is a maximum appropriate sentence for any offence, in the absence of any mitigation. The offender starts off with a certain amount of mitigation "in the bank" as it were, because he has never offended before. As an offender repeats the offence, he progresses upwards towards the maximum sentence. I believe that these are all matters for the judge, using his experience and common sense. The simple language of our amendment will allow that to happen.
Amendment No. 144C would have the effect of obliging sentencers to state in open court which previous convictions they have taken into account in reaching a decision and why they have done so. In our view any such requirement would, for no significant benefit, place an unnecessary burden on sentencers. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 already obliges sentencers to state in open court, and in ordinary language, why a custodial sentence is being passed. It is also very often the case that sentencers will choose to make clear the reasons for their decisions. This is especially so if there are factors which have aggravated an offence. We believe that it is right for courts to remain free to make the kind of statement envisaged by the noble Lord's amendment but that it would be wrong to oblige them to do so.
The Government's amendment on bail to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred, requires the courts to take a step up in the level of seriousness with which they view offences committed while on bail.
1096
Amendment No. 144D takes us back to where we started. The courts already have discretion under common law to take into account offending on bail when considering sentence.
The Government do not intend that an offence committed on bail will always lead to a longer sentence. That would be absurd where the two offences were totally unconnected, or the second offence a trivial one. The measure is aimed at the career burglar who regards bail with indifference, and is caught and convicted again. If, in the court's opinion, the fact of offending on bail does not make the offence so serious that it deserves a jump to the next level of sentence, there is nothing in the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to prevent such a conclusion being reached.
My noble friend Lord Colville and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked when these new powers would come into effect. We are considering the date when that should happen in the same way as we are as regards unit fines. I can only tell them as shortly as I can that they will come in as quickly as possible.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that detailed and, on the whole, helpful response to what, after all, were amendments not seeking to turn back the thrust of the Government's amendments but to point out one or two defects in them. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for his well-researched speech which was particularly valuable to those of us who cannot read Hansard. I do, however, think that he is slightly unjust to accuse me of thinking that there was no consistency in sentencing policy before 1991. I feel some sympathy with the Minister. His response to the noble and learned Lord reminded me of the following:
"Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love,
But why did you kick me downstairs?"
It was not necessary to be quite so forthright. Perhaps that is the best way of putting it.
As I have said, these amendments attempted to point out some of the potential defects in the final drafting of the Government's amendments, the thrust of which we agree with. I do not intend to pursue them and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 144A.
Amendment No. 144A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 144, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 144B to 144D not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
145 Before Clause 42, insert the following clause:
Penalty for causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving
'.—(1) In Part I of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences), in the entries relating to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (causing death by dangerous driving) and section 3A of that Act (causing death by careless driving while under influence of drink or drugs), in column 4, for "5 years" there shall be substituted "10 years".
(2) In section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (punishment of certain serious crimes), the following shall be inserted after the word "law" in paragraph (a)—
"(aa) a young person is convicted of—

(i) an offence under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (causing death by dangerous driving); or

(ii) an offence under section 3A of that Act (causing death by careless driving while under influence of drink or drugs);".'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 145.
This amendment increases the penalties for those who are found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. At the moment, the maximum penalty for both offences is five years' imprisonment. We wish to double that maximum.
The amendment also amends subsection (2) of Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 so that 14 to 17 year-olds can be sentenced to custodial sentences of up to the maximum which is available for adult offenders. Without such an amendment, 14 year-old offenders would not be liable to a custodial penalty at all; and courts would only be able to sentence 15 to 17 year-olds to 12-month custodial sentences. We do not anticipate that the courts will often be called upon to use this power, hut we think that it is right that they should have the discretion to do so in appropriate circumstances.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 145.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Monson: My Lords, I certainly agree that causing death by dangerous driving or by driving carelessly while under the influence of drink or drugs is a serious crime. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will remember my concern to ensure that the minimum period of disqualification for this crime was raised from 12 months to two years. Having said that, I cannot help feeling slightly uneasy at the tendency of this Government to increase maximum sentences sharply as a result of popular pressure.
I should like to ask the Minister three questions. First, have there been any cases in which the current maximum of five years has been imposed? Secondly, has the judiciary at any time complained about the inadequacy of the present maximum sentence? Thirdly, in particularly heinous examples of this crime, why are the accused not charged instead with manslaughter as an alternative to raising the maximum penalty from five to 10 years' imprisonment?
I remember well discussing these matters 40-odd years ago with my father who was a barrister by training. It was common practice to charge people who caused death in this way with manslaughter and there never seemed to be any difficulty in obtaining a conviction. It must be said, however, that the sentences that were imposed were relatively light by present-day standards. Such crimes were not regarded as seriously as we would regard them today. I remember one such case which took place about four miles from where we lived. In the middle of the day, an extremely drunken driver crashed into a bus queue, killing two people and injuring several more. He was
1098
convicted of manslaughter and duly sentenced to two years' imprisonment which was considered about right then. That was the way that people thought in those days.
It is a paradox—is it not?—that if somebody drives a speedboat, train or aeroplane dangerously or while under the influence of drink or drugs and kills somebody, that person is charged with manslaughter, but people who drive cars, lorries or motorcycles are treated differently. It seems odd. I wonder whether any thought was given to keeping open the manslaughter option instead of raising the maximum sentence from five to 10 years—the option must he open—for the serious cases. The Minister said that there were only a few cases in which anyone would want to impose a sentence of more than five years. As that option is still currently open, why is not that course taken instead of deciding to double the maximum?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, one of the problems with bringing a charge of manslaughter is that the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. It would defeat the purpose of what the noble Lord is suggesting.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may add one or two comments. My understanding is that the statutory offence of causing death by dangerous driving was introduced for the very reason that the juries would not convict in manslaughter cases. Cars and motorcycles are, from a practical point of view, in a different category because of the old approach, "There, but for the grace of God, go I". That does not apply so much to speedboats, aeroplanes and things of that kind. As I understand it, that was the reason for the introduction of a statutory offence.
I do not believe the judges—I may he a little out of touch—have asked for any greater powers to sentence. My recollection is that, not very long ago—perhaps five or six years—there was a general criticism of the judges for under-sentencing. There are guidelines on sentencing in these cases, drawing attention to the fact that imprisonment must, in nearly every case, be imposed. I do not believe that there has been any clamour by the judiciary for greater powers.
One of the essential problems in this type of case is that the person never intended the ghastly consequences of what he did, and either he was reckless and gave no thought, or no proper thought, or, if he was drunk, it follows that he very probably did not recognise the danger of what he was doing. To an extent, one is sentencing on results—namely, the death—and not on the mental element which is usually intent. But I expect that the Minister knows more about it than I do.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, does he agree that the driver of a water-ski boat which runs over someone and kills them does not mean to do what he did, nor does an anaesthetist who gives too much anaesthetic, too little oxygen, or whatever it might be? The same applies there.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I agree entirely. I should be very surprised if a manslaughter conviction would be achieved.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for explaining so clearly to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and others of your Lordships what is the position. I can only tell the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that it is up to the CPS and the police to decide whether a charge of manslaughter should be brought. That is entirely a matter for them. If the circumstances fit, they can do so. He asked why it was necessary to introduce this provision. The answer is that causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs are appalling things to do. It was a manifesto commitment that we would strengthen the law. That is why we are doing so.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, are there many recent instances of the maximum sentence having been passed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not have the figures. I cannot tell the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
146 Before Clause 42, insert the following clause:
Appeals in Scotland against lenient disposals. etc
'.—(1) In section 228(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (right of appeal of person convicted on indictment)—
(a) after paragraph (b) (and before the word "or") insert—
"(bb) against his absolute discharge or admonition;
(bc) against any probation order or any community service order under the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978;
(bd) against any order deferring sentence;"; and
(b) in paragraph (c), after "sentence" add "or disposal or order".
(2) In section 228A of that Act (appeal by Lord Advocate against sentence in solemn proceedings etc.)—
(a) after "conviction" insert "or against any probation order or any community service order under the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978 or against the person's absolute discharge or admonition or against any order deferring sentence"; and
(b) for paragraph (a) substitute—
"(a) if it appears to the Lord Advocate that, as the case may be—

(i) the sentence is unduly lenient;

(ii) the making of the probation order or community service order is unduly lenient or its terms are unduly lenient;

(iii) to dismiss with an admonition or to discharge absolutely is unduly lenient; or

(iv) the deferment of sentence is inappropriate or on unduly lenient conditions;".

(3) In section 442(1) of that Act (rights of appeal in summary proceedings)—
(a) in paragraph (a)—
(i) after "person convicted" insert ", or found to have committed an offence,";
(ii) in sub-paragraph (i), after "conviction" insert "or finding";
(iii) after sub-paragraph (ii) (and before the word "or") insert—
"(iia) against his absolute discharge or admonition or any probation order or any community service order under the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978 or any order deferring sentence;"; and
(iv) in sub-paragraph (iii), after "sentence" add "or disposal or order"; and
(b) in paragraph (c)—
(i) after "conviction" insert "or, whether the person has been convicted or not, against any probation order or any community service order under the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978 or against the person's absolute discharge or admonition or against any order deferring sentence";
(ii) for "the sentence is unduly lenient" substitute—
",as the case may be—

(i) the sentence is unduly lenient;

(ii) the making of the probation order or community service order is unduly lenient or its terms are unduly lenient;

(iii) to dismiss with an admonition or to discharge absolutely is unduly lenient; or

(iv) the deferment of sentence is inappropriate or on unduly lenient conditions;".'.

147 Before Clause 42, insert the following clause:
Supervised release of certain young offenders in Scotland
'. In section 212A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (which makes provision for the supervised release of short-term prisoners in Scotland) at the end add—
"(7) The foregoing provisions of this section apply to a person sentenced under section 207 or 415 of this Act as the provisions apply to a person sentenced to a period of imprisonment.".'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 146 and 147.
Perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 152 and 153. The purpose of the new clauses is to clarify certain provisions which are made in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 and which reflect provisions in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 146 and 147. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
148 Clause 42, page 37, line 24. after '42.-' insert:
'(1) Paragraphs 8(3), 9(2) and 10(3) of Schedule 8 to the Banking Coordination (Second Council Directive) Regulations 1992 shall cease to have effect.'
149 Page 37, line 31, after 'Articles' insert '3,'.
150 Page 37, line 32, after 'to' insert 'the consolidated supervision of'.
151 Page 37, line 45, at end insert:
'(3) Subsection (1) shall not affect the punishment for an offence committed before that subsection comes into force.'.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their clarificatory Amendments Nos. 148 to 151 en bloc.

1101
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 148 to 151 en bloc.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
152 After Clause 46, insert the following clause:
Compassionate release of certain children and other persons in Scotland
'.—(1) In section 7(5) of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (which applies provisions of that Act to certain children), for "Sections", where it first occurs, substitute "Without prejudice to section 6(1) (b) (ii) of this Act, sections 3,".
(2) In paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 6 to that Act (which makes transitional provision as respects release on licence on compassionate grounds) after "Act" insert ", and sections 12 and 17 of this Act in so far as relating to a licence granted, or person released, by virtue of this sub-paragraph,".'.
153 After Clause 46, insert the following clause:
Life prisoners transferred to Scotland
'.—(1) The Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 10 (life prisoners transferred to Scotland)—

(a) in subsection (1), the words "(whether before or after the commencement of this section)" shall cease to have effect;

(b) in subsection (2), after "life prisoner" insert ", except such case as is mentioned in paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 to this Act,"; and

(c) in subsection (4)—

(i) in paragraph (a), after "has" insert "(whether before or after the commencement of this section)"; and

(ii) in paragraph (b), after "Scotland" insert "(whether before or after that commencement)".

(3) In Schedule 6 (transitional provisions and savings)—

(a) in paragraph 1, in the definition of "existing life prisoner", after "person" insert "(other than a transferred life prisoner)";

(b) in paragraph 2(1), for "paragraph 7 below" substitute "to section 10(4) of this Act"; and

(c) for paragraph 7 substitute—

"7. In the case of a transferred life prisoner who is a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 by virtue of section 48 of or paragraph 9 of Schedule 12 to that Act, subsection (3) of section 10 of this Act applies and the certificate mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection is the certificate under the said section 48 or paragraph 9.".'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 152 and 153. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 146.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 152 and 153. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
154 After Clause 46, insert the following clause:
Power to extend certain offences to Croon servants and to exempt regulators etc
'. Schedule (Extensions and exemptions), which confers power on the Secretary of State to make regulations extending certain provisions to Crown servants and to make regulations exempting persons from certain offences, shall have effect.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 154. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 181. Amendment No. 154 inserts a new clause into Part V of the Bill. This gives effect to the new schedule which was inserted by Amendment No. 181.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 154.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
155 Clause 47, page 42, line 43, leave out 'Section 48(9)' and insert 'Sections (Appeals in Scotland against lenient disposals, etc.), (Supervised release of certain young offenders in Scotland), (Compassionate release of certain children and other persons in Scotland), (Life prisoners transferred to Scotland) and 48(l) to (9), paragraph (Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975) of Schedule 3 and, in so far as relating to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 and the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, Schedule 4'.
156 Page 43, line 9, leave out from 'Part II' to 'that', in line 10, and insert 'Part III, or (as the case may be) Part IIIA.
157 Page 43, line 12, at end insert:
'() Section 4A(3) and (4) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (inserted by section 14) shall not apply to any proceedings—

(a) for an offence committed before the commencement of section 14; or

(b) for one or more offences, any one of which was so committed.'.

158 Page 43. line 12, at end insert:
'() Section 52B(3) and (4) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (inserted by section (Defendant who has died or absconded)) shall not apply to any proceedings—

(a) for an offence committed before the commencement of section (Defendant who has died or absconded); or

(b) for one or more offences, any one of which was so committed.'.

159 Page 43. line 14, leave out from 'Part II' to 'other' and insert 'Part III or Part IIIA.
160 Page 43, line 17, at end insert:
'(9) For the purposes of section 27 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (temporary provisions), any amendment made in that Act by a provision of Part IIIA of, or paragraph 8A of Schedule 3 to, this Act shall be treated, as from the time when that provision comes into force, as having been continued in force by the order under subsection (6) of that section which has effect at that time.
(10) For the purposes of section 69 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (temporary provisions), any amendment made in that Act by a provision of Part IIIA of, or paragraph 9A(1), (2), (5), (6) and (7) of Schedule 3 to, this Act (other than sections (Compensation) and (Enforcement)) shall be treated, as from the time when that provision comes into force, as having been continued in force by the order under section 69(3) of the Act of 1991 which has effect at that time.'.
161 Clause 48, page 43, line 22, leave out '21(2) (so far as it amends the first section referred to)' and insert 'and (3) (h)'.
162 Page 43, line 23, after '22' insert '(Appeal against order forfeiting drug trafficking cash), (Enforcement), (Enforcement of orders outside Northern Ireland), (Offences relating to proceeds of terrorist-related activities), (Failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion relating to proceeds of terrorist-related activities), (Financial assistance for terrorism), (Investigation of terrorist activities), (Failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of financial assistance for terrorism)'.
163 Page 43, line 23, after '44,' insert '(Power to extend certain offences to Crown servants and to exempt regulators etc.),'.
164 Page 43, line 24, leave out '1 and 2' and insert '(Special defences) and 1'.
165 Page 43, line 24, at end insert:
'paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Schedule (Extensions and exemptions).'.
166 Page 43, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 29 and insert:
'(3) The following provisions of this Act extend only to Great Britain—
sections 13(9) to (I 1), 21(3) (e), 23(2), (3) and (7) to (10), 26 to 29, (Enforcement of Northern Ireland orders: proceeds of criminal conduct) (1), (Prosecution by order of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise), (Penalty for causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving) (1) and 45; and paragraph 3 of Schedule (Extensions and exemptions).
(4) The following provisions of this Act extend only to Scotland—
sections 17, 19, 20(2), 21(3) (c) and (d), (Enforcement of Northern Ireland orders: drug trafficking) (2), 23(12) to (15), (Disclosure of information etc. received in privileged circumstances) (2), 30, (Appeals in Scotland against lenient disposals, etc.), (Supervised release of certain young offenders in Scotland), (Compassionate release of certain children and other persons in Scotland), and (Life prisoners transferred to Scotland), and
paragraph 2 of Schedule (Extensions and exemptions).'.
167 Page 43, line 29, at end insert:
'() Sections (Confiscation orders), (Revised assessments), (Statements, etc. relevant to making confiscation orders), (Provision of information), (Variation of confiscation orders), (Availability of certain powers and satisfaction of orders), (Defendant who has died or absconded), (Compensation) and (Realisable property) extend only to Northern Ireland.'.
168 Page 43, line 29, at end insert:
'() Sections 21(3) (f) and (Enforcement of Northern Ireland orders: proceeds of criminal conduct) (2) extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland only.'.
169 Page 43, line 30 at end insert:
'() The provisions of Schedules 3 and 4 have the same extent as the provisions on which they operate.'.
170 Page 44, line 6, leave out subsection (I11) and insert:
'(11) The repeals and revocations set out in Schedule 4 (which include the repeal of two enactments which are spent) shall have effect.'.
171 Page 44, line 7, leave out subsection (12).
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 155 to 171 en bloc. These amendments are technical amendments which change the commencement and extent provisions of the Bill. They are required mainly as a result of changes made elsewhere in the Bill.
1104
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 155 to 171 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
172 Before Schedule I, insert the following schedule:
'SCHEDULE
Special defences
Market makers
1.—(1) An individual is not guilty of insider dealing by virtue of dealing in securities or encouraging another person to deal if he shows that he acted in good faith in the course of—

(a) his business as a market maker, or

(b) his employment in the business of a market maker.

(2) A market maker is a person who—

(a) holds himself out at all normal times in compliance with the rules of a regulated market or an approved organisation as willing to acquire or dispose of securities; and

(b) is recognised as doing so under those rules.

(3) In this paragraph "approved organisation" means an international securities self-regulating organisation approved under paragraph 25B of Schedule 1 to the Financial Services Act 1986.
Market information
2.—(1) An individual is not guilty of insider dealing by virtue of dealing in securities or encouraging another person to deal if he shows that—

(a) the information which he had as an insider was market information; and

(b) it was reasonable for an individual in his position to have acted as he did despite having that information as an insider at the time.

(2) In determining whether it is reasonable for an individual to do any act despite having market information at the time, there shall, in particular, be taken into account—

(a) the content of the information;

(b) the circumstances in which he first had the information and in what capacity; and

(c) the capacity in which he now acts.

3. An individual is not guilty of insider dealing by virtue of dealing in securities or encouraging another person to deal if he shows—

(a) that he acted—

(i) in connection with an acquisition or disposal which was under consideration or the subject of negotiation, or in the course of a series of such acquisitions or disposals; and

(ii) with a view to facilitating the accomplishment of the acquisition or disposal or the series of acquisitions or disposals; and

(b) that the information which he had as an insider was market information arising directly out of his involvement in the acquisition or disposal or series of acquisitions or disposals.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 market information is information consisting of one or more of the following facts—

(a) that securities of a particular kind have been or are to be acquired or disposed of, or that their acquisition or disposal is under consideration or the subject of negotiation;

(b) that securities of a particular kind have not been or are not to be acquired or disposed of;

(c) the number of securities acquired or disposed of or to be acquired or disposed of or whose acquisition or disposal is under consideration or the subject of negotiation;

1105

(d) the price (or range of prices) at which securities have been or are to be acquired or disposed of or the price (or range of prices) at which securities whose acquisition or disposal is under consideration or the subject of negotiation may be acquired or disposed of;

(e) the identity of the persons involved or likely to be involved in any capacity in an acquisition or disposal.

Price stabilisation
5.—(1) An individual is not guilty of insider dealing by virtue of dealing in securities or encouraging another person to deal if he shows that he acted in conformity with the price stabilisation rules.
(2) In this paragraph "the price stabilisation rules" means rules which—

(a) are made under section 48 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (conduct of business rules); and

(b) make provision of a description mentioned in paragraph (i) of subsection (2) of that section (price stabilisation rules).'

173 Schedule 1, page 45, line 24, leave out 'thing' and insert 'security'.
174 Page 45, line 27, leave out 'at a future date of any relevant securities' and insert 'of relevant securities under which delivery is to he made at a future date and'.
175 Page 45, line 29, after '(1)' insert '—

(a) the references to a future date and to a price agreed when the contract is made include references to a date and a price determined in accordance with terms of the contract; and

(b)'.

176 Page 45, line 29, leave out 'thing' and insert 'security'.
177 Page 45, line 32, leave out from first 'contract' to end of line 39 and insert 'which does not provide for the delivery of securities but whose purpose or pretended purpose is to secure a profit or avoid a loss by reference to fluctuations in—

(a) a share index or other similar factor connected with relevant securities;

(b) the price of particular relevant securities; or

(c) the interest rate offered on money placed on deposit.'

178 Page 46, line 1, leave out 'thing' and insert 'security'.
179 Schedule 2, page 46, line 3, leave Out Schedule 2.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 172 to 179 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 172 to 179 en bloc.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
180 Before Schedule 3, insert the following schedule:
'SCHEDULE
Financial penalties
Increases in certain maximum fines
1.—(1) In section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (increases in certain maximum fines), subsection (3) (e) shall cease to have effect.
(2) In Schedule 4 to that Act (increase of certain maxima) Part V shall cease to have effect.
Statements as to offenders' financial circumstances
2.—(1) In section 20 of the Act of 1991 (statements as to offenders' means) the following shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) Where a person has been convicted of an offence, the court may, before sentencing him, make a financial circumstances order with respect to him.
(1A) Where a magistrates' court has been notified in accordance with section 12(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 that a person desires to plead guilty without appearing before the court, the court may make a financial circumstances order with respect to him.
(1B) Before exercising its powers under section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 against the parent or guardian of any person who has been convicted of an offence, the court may make a financial circumstances order with respect to the parent or (as the case may be) guardian.
(1C) In this section "a financial circumstances order" means, in relation to any person, an order requiring him to give to the court, within such period as may be specified in the order, such a statement of his financial circumstances as the court may require.".
(2) In subsections (2) and (3) of section 20 of the Act of 1991, for the words "an order under subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted "a financial circumstances order".
(3) Section 20(5) of the Act of 1991 shall cease to have effect.
Remission of fines
3. The following section shall be substituted for section 21 of the Act of 1991 (remission of fines)—
"Remission of fines.
21.—(1) This section applies where a court has, in fixing the amount of a fine, determined the offender's financial circumstances under section 18(3) above.
(2) If, on subsequently inquiring into the offender's financial circumstances, the court is satisfied that had it had the results of that inquiry when sentencing the offender it would—

(a) have fixed a smaller amount; or

(b) not have fined him,

it may remit the whole or any part of the fine.
(3) Where under this section the court remits the whole or part of a fine after a term of imprisonment has been fixed under section 82(5) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (issue of warrant of commitment for default) or section 31 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (powers of Crown Court in relation to fines), it shall reduce the term by the corresponding proportion.
(4) In calculating any reduction required by subsection (3) above, any fraction of a day shall he ignored.".
Default in paying unit fines
4. Section 22 of the Act of 1991 (default in paying fines fixed under section 18 of that Act) shall cease to have effect.
Responsibility of parents and guardians
5. In section 57 of the Act of 1991 (responsibility of parent or guardian for financial penalties), the following shall be substituted for subsections (3) and (4)—
"(3) For the purposes of any order under that section made against the parent or guardian of a child or young person—

(a) sections 18 and 21 above; and

(b) section 35(4) (a) of the 1973 Act (fixing amount of compensation order),

shall have effect (so far as applicable) as if any reference to the financial circumstances of the offender, or (as the case may be) to the means of the person against whom the compensation order is made, were a reference to the financial circumstances of the parent or guardian.
(4) For the purposes of any such order made against a local authority (as defined for the purposes of the Children Act 1989)—

(a) section 18(1) above, and section 35(4) (a) of the 1973 Act, shall not apply; and

(b) section 18(3) above shall apply as if the words from "including" to the end were omitted.".

Other amendments
6.—(1) In section 15 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (variation and discharge of supervision orders), the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (7)—
"(7) A fine imposed under subsection (3) or (4) above shall be deemed, for the purposes of any enactment, to be a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.".
(2) In section 27 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (breach of requirement of suspended sentence supervision order), the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (4)—
"(4) A fine imposed under subsection (3) above shall be deemed, for the purposes of any enactment, to be a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.".
(3) In section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (maximum fine for refusal to give evidence), the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (5)—
"(5) A fine imposed under subsection (4) above shall be deemed, for the purposes of any enactment, to be a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.".
(4) In section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (maximum fine for contempt in face of magistrates' court), the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2A)—
"(2A) A fine imposed under subsection (2) above shall be deemed, for the purposes of any enactment, to be a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.".
(5) In section 14 of that Act (maximum fine for contempt in an inferior court), the following subsection shall be substituted for the subsection (2A) inserted by the Criminal Justice Act 1991—
"(2A) A fine imposed under subsection (2) above shall be deemed, for the purposes of any enactment, to be a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.".
(6) In section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (binding over of parent or guardian), the following subsection shall he substituted for subsection (4)—
"(4) A fine imposed under subsection (2) (b) above shall be deemed, for the purposes of any enactment, to be a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.".
(7) In paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (miscellaneous supplemental provisions), the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for sub-paragraph (2)—
"(2) A fine imposed under paragraph 3(1) (a) or 4(1) (a) above shall he deemed, for the purposes of any enactment, to be a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.".'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 180. This was taken with Amendment No. 143.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 180.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
181 Before Schedule 3, insert the following schedule:
'Schedule
Extensions and Exemptions
The Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (c.32)
1. The following section shall be inserted in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, after section 36A—
"Extension of certain offences to Crown servants and exemptions for regulators etc.
36B.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, sections 23A, 24, 2613, 26C and 31 of this Act shall apply to such persons in the public service of the Crown, or such categories of person in that service, as may be prescribed.
(2) Section 26B of this Act shall not apply to—

(a) any person designated by regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purpose of this paragraph; or

(b) in such circumstances as may be prescribed, any person who falls within such category of person as may be prescribed for the purpose of this paragraph.

(3) The Secretary of State may designate, for the purpose of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above, any person appearing to him to be performing regulatory, supervisory, investigative or registration functions.
(4) The categories of person prescribed by the Secretary of State, for the purpose of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above, shall be such categories of person connected with the performance by any designated person of regulatory, supervisory, investigative or registration functions as he considers it appropriate to prescribe.
(5) In this section—
"the Crown" includes the Crown in right of Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland; and
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(6) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(7) Any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".
The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (c.41)
2. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph 1 shall he inserted in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987, after section 46, as section 46A, but with the substitution—

(a) in subsection (1), of "sections 42 to 43B of this Act" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and

(b) in subsection (2), of "43A" for "26B".'

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33)
3. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph 1 shall be inserted in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, after section 93F, as section 93G, but with—

(a) the substitution in subsection (1), of "sections 93A, 93B, 93C(2) and 93D above" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and

(b) the omission of subsections (2) to (4).

The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (c.4)
4. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph 1 shall be inserted in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, immediately after section 19, as section 19A, but with the substitution—

(a) in subsection (1), of "sections 9 to 11. 17 and 18A above" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and

(b) in subsection (2), of "18A" for "26B".

The Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (c.5)
5. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph 1 shall be inserted in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, after section 23, as section 23A, but with—

1109

(a) the substitution in subsection (1), of "section 14(2) above" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and

(b) the omission of subsections (2) to (4).

The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (c.24)
6. The same section as is inserted in the Act of 1986 by paragraph 1 shall be inserted in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, after section 55, as section 55A, but with the substitution—

(a) in subsection (1), of "sections 53, 54(2) to (6) and 54A above" for "sections 23A, 24, 26B, 26C and 31 of this Act"; and

(b) in subsection (2), of "54A" for "26B".'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 181. This was taken with Amendment No. 154.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 181.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
182 Schedule 3, page 47, line 32, at end insert:
'The Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c.19)
In section 50 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (meaning of "sentence"), the following shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) In this Act "sentence", in relation to an offence, includes any order made by a court when dealing with an offender including, in particular—

(a) a hospital order under Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983, with or without a restriction order;

(b) an interim hospital order under that Part;

(c) a recommendation for deportation;

(d) a confiscation order under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 other than one made by the High Court;

(e) a confiscation order under Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988;

(f) an order varying a confiscation order of a kind which is included by virtue of paragraph (d) or (e) above;

(g) an order made by the Crown Court varying a confiscation order which was made by the High Court by virtue of section 4A of the Act of 1986; and

(h) a declaration of relevance under the Football Spectators Act I989."'.

183 Page 47, line 32, at end insert:
'The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c.21)
.—(1) The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In each of sections 181 and 382 (admonition in, respectively, solemn and summary proceedings), for "found guilty" substitute "convicted".
(3) In section 191 (effects of probation and absolute discharge: solemn proceedings), for paragraph (a) of subsection (3) substitute—
"(a) any right to appeal;".
(4) In section 233 (note of appeal)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for "against sentence alone" substitute "under section 228(1) (b), (bb), (be) or (bd) of this Act" and after "sentence", where it occurs for the second time, insert "(or as the case may be, of the making of the order disposing of the case or deferring sentence)"; and

1110

(ii) in paragraph (b), after "sentence" insert "(or as the case may be, of the making of the order disposing of the case or deferring sentence)"; and

(b) in subsection (4), for "against sentence alone" substitute "under section 228(1) (b), (bb), (be) or (bd)".

(5) In section 238(1) (admission to bail), for paragraph (b) substitute—
"(b) any relevant appeal by the Lord Advocate under section 228A of this Act.".
(6) In section 244(2) (abandonment of appeal), after "sentence"—

(a) where it first occurs, insert "(or as the case may be against both conviction and disposal or order)"; and

(b) where it occurs for the second time, insert "(or disposal or order)".

(7) In section 254 (disposal of appeals in solemn proceedings)—

(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) after "appellant" insert "(or as the case may be any disposal or order made)";

(ii) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), after "sentence" insert "(or disposal or order)";

(iii) after "sentence", where it occurs for the fourth time, insert "or make another (but not more severe) disposal or order"; and

(iv) after "sentence", where it occurs for the fifth time, insert ", disposal or order";

(b) in subsection (4), after "appellant" insert "(or disposal or order made)"; and

(c) after subsection (4) insert—

"(4A) In subsection (3) above, "appeal against sentence" shall, without prejudice to the generality of the expression, be construed as including an appeal under section 228(1) (bb), (be) or (bd), and any appeal under section 228A, of this Act; and other references to sentence in that subsection shall be construed accordingly.".
(8) In section 268 (reckoning of time spent in custody pending appeal), in each of subsections (1) and (2), for "appeal by the Lord Advocate against the sentence passed on conviction" substitute "relevant appeal by the Lord Advocate under section 228A of this Act".
(9) In section 392 (effects of probation and absolute discharge: summary proceedings) for paragraph (a) of subsection (3) substitute—
"(a) any right to appeal;".
(10) In section 442B (method of appeal against sentence alone in summary proceedings)—

(a) after "person" insert ", or as the case may be a person found to have committed an offence,";

(b) the words "against sentence alone" shall cease to have effect; and

(c) after "442(1) (a) (ii)" insert "or (iia)".

(11) In section 443A (suspension of disqualification, forfeiture, etc.), in each of subsections (1) and (2), at the end add "(or disposal or order)".
(12) In section 444(1) (b) (contents of application for stated case), after "sentence" insert "or disposal or order".
(13) In section 452A (disposal of stated case)—

(a) in subsection (2), after "sentence", where it first occurs, insert "("sentence" being construed in this subsection and in subsection (3) below as including disposal or order)"; and

(b) after subsection (4) insert—

"(4A) Any reference in subsection (4) above to convicting and sentencing shall be construed as including a reference to convicting and making some other disposal or convicting and deferring sentence."
(14) In section 453B (appeals against sentence only in summary proceedings)—

(a) in each of subsections (1), (2), (7) and (8), after "442(1) (a) (ii)" insert "or (iia)";

1111

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (a), after "sentence" insert "(or as the case may be of the making of the order disposing of the case or deferring sentence)"; and

(ii) in paragraph (b), at the end add "(or making)";

(c) in subsection (3) (b), at the end add "(or as the case may be who disposed of the case or deferred sentence)"; and

(d) in subsection (4), after "sentence" add "(or within two weeks of the disposal or order)".

(15) In section 453C (disposal in summary proceedings of appeal by note of appeal)—

(a) in subsection (3), after "442(1) (a) (ii)" insert "or (iia)"; and

(b) at the end add—

"(4) In subsection (1) above, "appeal against sentence" shall, without prejudice to the generality of the expression, be construed as including an appeal under section 442(1) (a) (iia), and any appeal under section 442(1) (c), of this Act; and without prejudice to subsection (5) below, other references to sentence in that subsection and in subsection (3) above shall be construed accordingly.
(5) In disposing of any appeal in a case where the accused has not been convicted, the High Court may proceed to convict him; and where it does, the reference in subsection (3) above to the conviction in respect of which the sentence appealed against was imposed shall be construed as a reference to the disposal or order appealed against.".'.
184 Page 47, line 32, at end insert:
'The Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c.47)
. The provisions of section 30 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (interpretation of Part I) shall become subsection (1) of that section and the following subsection shall be added—
"(2) In this Part of this Act "sentence" also includes—

(a) a confiscation order made by the Crown Court under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991;

(b) an order varying such an order; and

(c) an order made by the Crown Court varying a confiscation order made by the High Court by virtue of section 52B of the Act of 1991."'.

185 Page 47, line 39, at end insert:
'The Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (c.32)
In section 3(3) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (statements relating to drug trafficking) for "(2)" there shall be substituted "(1D)".'.
186 Page 47, line 39, at end insert:
'. In section 38(1) of the 1986 Act (interpretation), the following definitions shall be inserted at the appropriate places—
" "confiscation order" means an order under section 1 of this Act and includes, in particular, an order under that section which is made by virtue of section 4A, 5A or 5B;"
" "defendant" means a person against whom proceedings have been instituted for a drug trafficking offence (whether or not he has been convicted);".'.
187 Page 48, line 37, at end insert:
'The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33)
.—(1) Section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (disclosure of information subject to contractual restriction on disclosure) shall cease to have effect.
(2) In section 172 of the 1988 Act (extent)—

(a) in subsection (2), after "84 to 88" there shall be inserted "sections 93A to 93D; sections 93F and 93G"; and

(b) in subsection (4), after "sections 90 to 93" there shall be inserted "section 93E".'.

188 Page 48, line 37, at end insert:
'The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (c.4)
8A. In section 19(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (institution of proceedings) for the words "or 18" in both places where they occur there shall be substituted ", 18 or 18A".'.
189 Page 48, line 42, at end insert:
'The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (c.24)
9A.—(1) In section 49(1) (a) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (relevant offences)—

(a) after "(c)" there shall be inserted ", (dd)"; and

(b) after "(k)" there shall be inserted ", (kk);".

(2) In section 56(1) of the 1991 Act (interpretation of confiscation provisions), at the end of the definition of "confiscation order", there shall be added "and includes, in particular, an order under that section which is made by virtue of section 48A or 52B above".
(3) In section 69(2) (c) of the 1991 Act, for "paragraph 20" there shall be substituted "paragraphs 20 to 20C".
(4) In section 71(2) of the 1991 Act (extent), for "54" there shall be substituted "to 54A, 55A".
(5) In Part I of Schedule 1 (scheduled offences) to the 1991 Act—
(a) after paragraph 20(d) there shall be inserted—
"(dd) section 18A (failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of financial assistance for terrorism);" and
(b) after paragraph 22(k) there shall he inserted—
"(kk) section 54A;".
(6) In paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 4 to the 1991 Act (application of procedure for enforcing fines), after "made by", where those words first occur, there shall be inserted "the High Court. by virtue of section 52B of this Act, or by".
(7) The following sub-paragraph shall he added at the end of paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the 1991 Act—
"(7) Where the High Court makes a confiscation order by virtue of section 52B of this Act in relation to a defendant who has died, subparagraph (1) above shall be read as referring only to sections 35(1) (a), (b) and (d) and 35(4) (a) and (b) of the Act of 1945."'.
190 Schedule 4, page 49, line 33, at end insert:

'1980 c. 43.

The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

In section 12(1) (a) the words "and section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (unit fines)".'.

191 Page 49, line 33, at end insert:

'1975 c. 21

The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.

In section 442B, the words "against sentence alone".'.

192 Page 49, line 37, column 3, at beginning insert 'In section 1, in subsection (5) (b) (iii), the words from "section 39" to "bankruptcy orders)" and subsection (8)'.
193 Page 49, line 38, column 3, at end insert 'In section 26A(3), the words from "or by" to the end.'.
194 Page 49, line 41, column 3, at end insert 'In section 38(2), the entries relating to a confiscation order and a defendant.'.
195 Page 50, line 27, column 3, at end insert 'Section 98.'.
196 Page 50, line 28, at end insert:

1113

'1989 c. 4.

The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

In section 9(1), the word "or" immediately before paragraph (b).'.

197 Page 50, line 32 at end insert:

'1993 c.9.

The Prisoners and Criminal Proceedingsd (Scotland) Act 1993.

In section 10(1), the words "(whether before or after the commencement of this section)".'.

198 Page 50, line 32, at end insert:

'1991 c. 24.

The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

In section 48(3), the words "during the period of postponement". In section 50(2), the word "or" immediately before paragraph (c). Section 51(3). Section 67(6).'.

199 Page 50, line 32, at end insert:

'1191 c. 53.

The Criminal Justice Act 1991.

Section 17(3) (e). Section 19. Section 20(5). Section 22. Section 28 (3). In section 30 (1), the words "or the Lord Chancellor". In Schedule 4, Part V. In Schedule 11, paragraph 24.'.

200 Page 51, line 5, at end insert:

'S.I. 1992/3218.

The Banking Coordination (Second Council Directive) Regulations 1992.

In Schedule 8, paragraphs 8(3), 9(2) and 10(3). In Schedule 10, paragraphs 17 and 25.'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 182 to 200 en bloc. These amendments to Schedules 3 and 4 are consequential on changes made elsewhere in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 182 to 200 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
201 In the Title, line 6, after '1988;' insert 'to make provision with respect to the financing of terrorism, the proceeds of terrorist-related activities and the investigation of terrorist activities;'.
202 Line 6, after'1988;', insert 'to amend Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991;'.
203 Line 8, after 'securities;' insert 'to provide for certain offences created by the Banking Coordination (Second Council Directive) Regulations 1992 to be punishable in the same way as offences under sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Banking Act 1987 and".
204 Line 10, after |Articles' insert '3,'.
205 Line 11, leave out from 'in' to 'to' where it first occurs in line 13 and insert 'that way'.
206 Line 13, after '1987' insert 'to make provision with respect to the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs;'.
207 Line 18, after 'arrangements:' insert 'to amend the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 and Part I of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993;'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 201 to 207 en bloc. These amendments to the Title of the Bill are necessary to take account of new clauses which have been added in another place.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 201 to 207 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill
9.47 p.m.
The Bill was brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Agriculture Bill [H.L.]
9.48 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill [127] as first printed in the Commons.]
1 Clause 3, page 3, line 44, leave out 'milk produced' and insert 'the occurrence'.
2 Page 3, line 45. after 'year)', insert 'of any relevant matter'.
3 Page 3, line 46, leave out 'the authority is satisfied that'.
4 Page 3, line 47, leave out from 'is' to end of line 48 and insert 'not earlier than 31st March 1993 and not later than the vesting day under the scheme.'.
5 Page 3, line 48, at end insert:
'(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above, the following are relevant matters—

(a) the production of milk, and

(b) the sale of milk by the person responsible for producing it.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) (b) above, milk shall be treated as sold if it is sold in the form of milk or in the form of a product which is wholly or partly derived from milk or which includes milk as an ingredient.'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 5 en bloc. One of the matters to which the Minister must have regard in deciding whether to approve a re-organisation scheme for a

1115
milk marketing board is whether that scheme makes reasonable provision for the distribution of assets to registered producers. Clause 3(5) describes a number of bases for such a distribution which should not be considered unreasonable.
As amended, the situations covered by this clause would be as follows: a distribution to producers who were registered on a specified date or at some time during a specified period; and a distribution related to registered producers' sale of milk and milk products from milk produced by their own cows over a specified period. The date or the end of the period would have to be no earlier than 31st March 1993 and no later than vesting day.
The main change is to enable 1992-93 to be used as a reference period, which should be more practicable than the year 1993-94 if vesting is to go ahead on 1st April 1994, which is the board's present objective.
For the sake of clarity and completeness I should add that a board is not constrained to propose a distribution in accordance with one of the possible ways described in Clause 3(5) to 3(7). A board could propose some other basis of distribution, which might, however, be more open to challenge on the grounds of its being unreasonable.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 7, page 6, line 41, leave out '21' and insert '14'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. With the leave of the House, I would also like to speak to Amendment No. 24.
Clause 7 provides that if Ministers require information from a milk marketing board which has submitted a reorganisation scheme, and that board fails to supply the information, then the board's application is treated as having been withdrawn. Clause 28 contains an equivalent provision in relation to a transfer scheme from the Potato Marketing Board.
The Government accepted the Opposition's suggestion in another place that a board should have only 14 days, rather than 21 days, to show that any failure to supply information was accidental. These amendments make the necessary changes.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Publicity for determinations
'.—(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after granting an application under section 2 or 5 above, the authority granting the application shall make public in such manner as it thinks fit—

(a) the fact that it has granted the application, and

(b) the principles of the approved scheme or, as the case may be, of the approved variation.

(2) As soon as reasonably practicable after deciding under section 6 above to withdraw an approved scheme's approval, the authority making the decision shall make its decision public in such manner as it thinks fit.'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 25. These amendments provide for the publication of the principles of an approved milk reorganisation scheme and any major subsequent changes including withdrawal of approval.
There is equivalent provision in respect of a potato transfer scheme except that, as Part II of the Bill makes no provision for the Potato Marketing Board to apply for approval of a transfer scheme to be withdrawn, there is no need for a requirement to publicise the fact of withdrawal.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, as I understand it, the amendment deals with the publication of an approved scheme after it has been agreed by the Government. I believe that we can assume that under Clause 3 the proposals will be published because obviously there will be consultation on the proposals of the various boards. Will the Minister explain what will be the procedure with regard to the publication of reorganisation schemes before they are determined by Ministers? How will they be published? Will they be published in full? Will it be a government document? How will the industry and others know the proposals of the various boards?
The amendment deals with the publication after Ministers have decided on the scheme, but perhaps the Minister will explain the procedure so that the proposals of the various boards are known.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Bill as originally drafted would require a milk marketing board to bring the principles of its reorganisation scheme to the attention of registered producers. Following an amendment in this House, Ministers would have to consult representatives of producers, processors, retailers and consumers of milk on the scheme. Therefore, the principles of any scheme will be in the public domain at the outset.
However, under the provisions of Clause 4, a reorganisation scheme may be modified between submission and approval if Ministers cannot approve the scheme in its original form. Therefore, a scheme as approved may be different from that originally submitted for approval. Therefore, this amendment would require Ministers to make public the principles of an approved scheme.
An approved scheme may also be varied or, in the case of an MMB scheme only, withdrawn with Ministers' approval if there is a material change of circumstances. These amendments require those events to be publicised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
8 Clause 10, page 8, line 19, after 'a', insert 'qualifying'.
9 Page 8, line 19, leave out from 'transfer' to and' in line 21.
10 Page 8, line 29, at end insert:
'(2A) For the purposes of subsection (1) (a) above, a transfer is a qualifying transfer if it is—

(a) a transfer of property, rights or liabilities of—

(i) the relevant board, or

(ii) a subsidiary of that board,

to a body which is a qualifying body, or

(b) a transfer of property, rights or liabilities of a subsidiary of the relevant board to that board.

(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A) above, a body is a qualifying body if it is—

(a) a development council established under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947,

(b) a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 which has not previously traded,

(c) a company registered under the Companies Act 1985 which has not previously traded, or

(d) a company registered under that Act which was a subsidiary of the relevant board immediately before the day on which this Act is passed.'.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 en bloc. With the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 26 to 28, 53 to 55, 58 and 59, 228 to 236, 239, 245, 247, 249 to 251 and 254. This group of amendments concerns the types of body to which assets of a board, or of a subsidiary of one, could be transferred under a reorganisation scheme. They add a development council to the types of body to which assets of a milk marketing board, or of a subsidiary of one, could be transferred under a reorganisation scheme. For example, it has been suggested that national milk records should in future be operated by a development council. The amendments would keep that possibility open, but of course no decisions have yet been taken. It is up to the board to propose, and Ministers to decide, accordingly.
The other amendments in the group make drafting changes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 en bloc. —(Earl Howe.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the amendments refer to transfer of liabilities. Perhaps I may ask the Minister this question; I believe that it is the right time to ask it. I refer to the position affecting the Scottish Milk Marketing Board and the deduction of the capital levies from producers. The situation has been challenged. I believe that the case is now sub judice. What effect will that issue have on the calculation of the liabilities of the marketing boards? Will the matter be left to the residuary bodies which succeed the marketing boards? It would he ironic if the capital levies had to be paid back and then a levy raised under Clause 16 to meet the liabilities of the marketing boards which arose from the repayment of the capital levies. I am not sure that that position is affected by the amendment. However, it would be helpful for the
1118
industry if the Minister will spell out the situation with regard to capital levies as it affects the five milk marketing boards when they bring forward their reorganisation schemes.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am happy to help the noble Lord in so far as I can. The Commission has pointed out in a reasoned opinion that EC regulations prohibit the MM Bs from withholding money from milk producers in order to finance their commercial operations. That mainly affects the Scottish and Northern Ireland MMBs which have outstanding financial commitments which they would intend to meet by raising a statutory levy. The Commission is primarily concerned that no new levies should be raised. That could create a problem for the MMBs concerned and possibly give rise to a liability which would fall to be met under a scheme of reorganisation.
The Bill provides the necessary mechanisms for dealing with outstanding liabilities, as the noble Lord well appreciates. As for levies raised in the past, the Commission appears to accept that, if substantial assets are returned to producers when the milk marketing schemes are ended, that should take care of the problem. Thus if it were established that Dairy Crest had at any time since 1978 benefited from a statutory levy contrary to EC regulations, the proposed distribution of Dairy Crest shares to registered producers should take care of that problem. That is obviously a sensible approach. It would clearly not be sensible to raise new money from producers in order to give them back money withheld from them at some time in the past.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
11 After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
Power to carry out preparatory work,
'.—(1) The functions of a milk marketing board shall be deemed always to have included the function of preparing for the enactment of this Part of this Act.
(2) In this section, "milk marketing board" includes the board established under the Milk Marketing Scheme (Northern Ireland) 1989; and, in the application of this section to that board, the reference to the enactment of this Part of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the making of Northern Ireland legislation corresponding to this Part.'.
12 After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
Functions under section 19 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958
'. The functions of a committee appointed under section 19 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 (consumers' committees and committees of investigation) shall not include the consideration of anything done by a milk marketing board—

(a) by way of preparing for the enactment of this Part of this Act, or

(b) in connection with an application under this Part of this Act or the carrying out of an approved scheme.'.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. With the leave of the House, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 31, 48 and 49.

1119
The milk marketing boards have already carried out a considerable amount of work on their reorganisation proposals in anticipation of the enactment of the Bill. They have relied upon existing powers in their respective milk marketing schemes. In view of the fact that the provisions of the milk marketing schemes were not drawn up with those particular circumstances in mind, the Government consider it desirable to remove any potential areas of doubt about the adequacy of the powers in question. These amendments, in particular Amendment No. 11, would do precisely that.
Secondly, the amendments clarify the positions of the committees of investigation and consumers' committees established under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958. Those committees' purposes are, respectively, to consider complaints about the operation of the milk marketing schemes, to monitor the schemes' effect on consumers and to report to Ministers. The new clause introduced by Amendment No. 12 would make it clear that the committees' remit does not extend to the boards' activities relating to schemes of reorganisation before or after enactment of the Bill.
The approval and monitoring of the implementation of reorganisation schemes are already directly the responsibility of Ministers, as provided for in the Bill.
1120
Amendment No. 31 has an effect equivalent to Amendment No. 12 in relation to the potato marketing scheme with one difference. Unlike the milk boards, the Potato Marketing Board has not had to consider in detail what any transfer scheme might contain. There is therefore no need for Amendment No. 31 to refer to activities carried out by the board in preparation for the enactment of the relevant part of the Act.
These amendments will not affect the existing roles of the committees in any way. The Committees will remain responsible for overseeing the boards' operation of the milk marketing schemes until they are revoked.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, when I read this it looks remarkably like retrospective legislation. It is as well for the Minister that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not in the House; otherwise, he might have some observations to make. I understand this provision deals with the ultra vires point that has been raised on various occasions. We welcome this, and we hope that it will not be subject to judicial review.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 22, page 12, line 45, at end insert:
'(1A) Until a decision has been made by the Council of the European Communities to introduce a regulation on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in potatoes, subsection (1) above shall have effect with the substitution for "expedient" of "in the public interest".'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. With the leave of the House, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 to 23, 29, 30 and 47.
In dealing with these amendments, I should like to set them in context, and in doing so make the Government's position quite clear. The Bill as now before the House provides for two possibilities, depending upon the existence or otherwise of an EC regime for potatoes. Let me deal first with the situation should there be such a regime.
I shall not go into any detail on the proposal put forward by the Commission last November, other than to remind the House that it is extremely lightweight. It does not provide for any market support measures; and if it is adopted in its present form, it will mean the end of national arrangements, both here and elsewhere. We have already made it quite clear that, in the context of this proposal, we do not intend to press for retention of our quota and support buying arrangements. No other member state wishes to adopt quotas, and it would clearly not be in the national interest, even were we allowed to do so, to limit our own growers while others could grow as many potatoes as they liked. In the context of a common organisation of the potato market, our quota system would be neither sustainable nor desirable. Noble Lords may recall that your Lordships' Select Committee on European Communities endorsed this view. Indeed, it went even further by saying that the committee believed Britain would be better able to compete in Europe without the constraints of the potato marketing scheme, whether or not there is an EC regime for potatoes.
This Bill therefore prepares us to respond to any Community regime, and most importantly, to retain the many highly constructive and desirable activities of the board, such as research and development and market promotion, if that is what growers want. The Bill allows for the establishment of a successor body for this purpose. Without the Bill, we would have no alternative but to revoke the scheme and wind up the board without any possibility of a successor.
I should now like to bring the House up to date with discussions in Brussels. The proposal was considered by the May Council, together with presidency proposals incorporating marketing standards. Agreement was not possible on the proposals as they stood, and the Special Committee for Agriculture has been asked to do further work. The proposal was not discussed at the June Council and we have no indication of when it will be brought forward again.
This brings me to what might happen in the continued absence of an EC regime. Here I should like to emphasise that the Government have not made any decision to revoke the scheme. My right honourable
1122
friend the Minister wishes to acquaint herself first hand with all the arguments, and meetings are already being arranged with the industry bodies concerned. She will then be in a position to discuss the matter in an informed way with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, who are of course also involved in making any decision. She has already made it clear that she will want to spend a considerable amount of time and effort listening to growers—and to processors and others—before she reaches any conclusions about the future of the scheme.
In this connection during Report stage in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister said that, in order to give herself time for full consultation, she was prepared for the present arrangements for the target (and quota) area arrangements to apply to the 1994 season. There is therefore no question of an immediate end to the present scheme.
Turning now to this group of amendments, I emphasise to the House that the Government have retained the full spirit of the amendments made by your Lordships during Third Reading on 2nd February. We have made some tidying up amendments, which noble Lords in moving the amendments accepted would be necessary, but the thrust of the amendments is unaffected.
Perhaps I may remind the House that the effects of the amendments were, first, to specify that any order revoking the potato marketing scheme should be subject to affirmative resolution procedure unless the scheme's continued existence became inconsistent with an EC regulation. Furthermore, in the absence of a regulation, Ministers would only be able to make such an order if they considered it necessary or in the public interest. Secondly, the amendments would require the Potato Marketing Board, if the scheme were to be revoked, to apply to Ministers for approval of a transfer scheme, unless a poll of producers was against that course of action. Thirdly, they would require the PM B to consider the desirability of certain successor arrangements when preparing its transfer scheme and insert a requirement on Ministers to consult appropriate representatives on the principles of any transfer scheme submitted to them for approval.
Amendments Nos. 13, 15, 16 and 17 make minor drafting changes and incorporate the newly inserted Clause 22(3) into a new Clause 22(2). This places the two subsections which specify the circumstances in which Ministers can make the order invoking Part II together at the beginning of the clause. The distinction between "expedient" and "in the public interest", which your Lordships considered important, has been retained, esoteric though it may be. For completeness, Amendment No. 47 inserts a reference into Clause 54 (which deals with all other order-making powers) to the fact that Clause 22 contains its own provisions relating to parliamentary procedures.
The introductory print of the Bill gave the Potato Marketing Board a discretionary power to apply to Ministers for approval of a transfer scheme. It also empowered them to withdraw such an application. The intention of your Lordships' amendment requiring the board to submit a scheme would not be

1123
met if at any time after making the application the board could withdraw it and be under no requirement to take further action. Amendments Nos. 18 and 21 therefore remove the facility for such a withdrawal.
Your Lordships' clear intention was that the PMB should be bound by the results of any poll of producers which put the question whether or not the board should make an application to Ministers for approval of a transfer scheme. Amendment No. 29 therefore makes it clear that if a poll of producers voted against the PMB making an application for approval of a transfer scheme the board would be released from its duty to submit a scheme. Similarly, if producers voted against the board on the principles of a particular transfer scheme the board could not proceed with that scheme. The new clause in Amendment No. 30 ensures that the voting procedure used in any poll would be the same as that used for polls under the potato marketing scheme.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 amend Clause 25 to make clear the division of responsibilities between the PMB and Ministers on the steps to be completed before Ministers could approve a transfer scheme.
In the light of that rather lengthy explanation, I hope that the House will accept that these amendments do not change the intention of the amendment passed by your Lordships during Third Reading and will agree them accordingly.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the Minister for explaining the matter so clearly and will wish to thank the Government for accepting the amendments which were originally passed in this House. I am glad that the Minister agreed that the Government had accepted the spirit of the amendments, because I had a sneaking suspicion that that was the case when we passed them.
The Minister explained extremely clearly the order of play and exactly what happens now, whether or not there is an EC regime. He referred to the report of Sub-Committee D of this House. The noble Earl will remember that when we debated the report in this House there was not overwhelming support for some of the conclusions of that report.
We welcome the new Minister, Gillian Shephard, but when the noble Earl said that she proposed to consult all the organisations to apprise herself fully of the facts, he agreed by implication with what some of us thought—that her predecessor had consulted all the organisations, and was not fully apprised of all the facts.
There is still some confusion in the industry about exactly what will happen. Does the Minister agree that the department understands the need for speed in the matter so that the industry is not left in a state of limbo? We are grateful that it has been cleared that for the 1994 season the scheme will still apply. I do not know whether, when he replies, the Minister will be able to tell the House how long it will be before there is a final decision on the matter, one way or the other, so that we know where we stand.
1124
I was a little amused to see that the noble Earl regarded the distinction between "in the public interest" and "expedient" as esoteric. I remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, spent many happy hours, as we did, trying to convince the Minister that the public interest was the better choice. I am glad that the Government have seen the strength of the arguments which the noble Baroness produced and of course we accept that.
A small final point on Amendment No. 15: why "Communities" instead of "Community"?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I think it is right that I should say a few words as one of the amendments was mine. Again, I wish to thank my noble friend for explaining so carefully what has happened. In welcoming the amendments, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 14 which refers to the potato marketing scheme. I should like to thank noble Lords, particularly my noble friend on the Front Bench, for the way in which, during the Bill's passage through this House, they appreciated the problems facing the potato industry.
I welcome the assurance of my right honourable friend the Minister that she will spend time and effort before reaching any conclusion about the future of the potato marketing scheme.
Everyone in the industry realises that there is a need for change. I can say that the Potato Marketing Board itself is looking at the changes within the scheme which will benefit the industry as a whole. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I hope that my right honourable friend will feel able, after consultation, to provide as soon as possible long-term plans, including an assurance that the scheme will continue beyond the 1994-95 season. That is, of course, in the absence of an EC scheme. I thank my noble friend and my right honourable friend for the way in which they have dealt with the matter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may endorse those remarks. I think that all noble Lords will be grateful and those concerned in the industry will appreciate the sensitivity with which the matter has been handled, both by my noble friend on the Front Bench here and by my right honourable friend.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and both my noble friends for their remarks. It is helpful to the potato industry that my right honourable friend has agreed to take a long, careful look at all sides of the argument.
As to when a decision will be reached, I am afraid that I cannot be of much help, except to say that I agree that uncertainty is unhelpful. My right honourable friend will endeavour to apprise herself of all the facts in a speedy fashion and thereafter take a decision one way or the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why in Amendment No. 15:
"the Council of the European Community"
has been amended to:
"the Council of the European Communities".

1125
There is one Council covering the three Communities, that is to say: the European Economic Community, Euratom and the Coal and Steel Community. That is the reason for that amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
14 Clause 22, page 12, line 45, at end insert:
'(1B) Where subsection (1A) above applies, no order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless the Ministers have consulted on a proposal to bring the Potato Marketing Scheme to an end with such persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of producers, purchasers, retailers and consumers of potatoes as they consider appropriate.'.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14 which would require Ministers to consult before making an order to end the potato marketing scheme in the absence of a Community regime. The Government were happy to accept this amendment in another place, and I now commend it to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, this amendment is highly welcome. It strengthens the various discussions that we had in this House. The Government's recognition of the need to consult on any change to the scheme is to be wholly welcomed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
15 Clause 22, page 13, line 4, leave out 'Community' and insert 'Communities'.
16 Page 13, line 5, leave out 'include' and insert 'included'.
17 Page 13, line 7, leave out subsection (3).
18 Clause 24, page 13, line 41, leave out 'or withdrawn'.
19 Page 13, line 47, leave out 'not' and insert before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1) above,'.
20 Page 13, line 47, after first 'application', insert 'but not'.
21 Page 13, line 48, leave out 'or withdrawn'.
22 Clause 25, page 14, line 11, at end insert 'and'.
23 Page 14, line 25, leave out '(d) that' and insert 'unless'.
24 Clause 28, page 17, line 6, leave out '21' and insert '14'.
25 After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
Publicity for determinations
'. As soon as reasonably practicable after granting an application under section 24 or 27 above, the Ministers shall make public in such manner as they think fit—

(a) the fact that they have granted the application, and

(b) the principles of the approved scheme or, as the case may he, of the approved variation.'.

26 Clause 31, page 18, line 8, after 'transfer', insert 'under the scheme which—
(a) is a transfer'.
27 Page 18, line 9, after 'Board', insert:
'(b) is a transfer to a body which is a qualifying body, and
(c) is a transfer'.
28 Page 18, line 14, at end insert:
'(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a body is a qualifying body if it is—

(a) a development council established under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947,

(b) a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 which has not previously traded, or

(c) a company registered under the Companies Act 1985 which has not previously traded.'.

29 Clause 36, page 19, line 31, leave out from 'under' to end of line 33 and insert 'subsection (1) (a) above and a majority of the votes cast are cast against the making of any application under section 24 above, the Board shall cease to be subject to the duty imposed by subsection (1) of that section.
(3) Where the Board carries out a poll under subsection (1) (b) above and a majority of the votes cast are cast against the making of an application under section 24 above in relation to the scheme which is the subject of the poll, no such application may be made in relation to that scheme.'.
30 After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
Voting in poll under section 36
'.—(1) A person shall only be eligible to vote in a poll under section 36 above if—

(a) he was registered as a producer under the Potato Marketing Scheme at noon on the day four weeks before the day of the poll ("the relevant time"), and

(b) he was, at the relevant time, in occupation of land which—

(i) was under potatoes on 1st June immediately preceding the day of the poll, or

(ii) was under potatoes at any time in the period beginning with 2nd June immediately preceding the day of the poll and ending with the day four weeks before the day of the poll.

(2) A person voting in a poll under section 36 above shall be treated as having cast his standard number of votes, which shall he determined as provided below.
(3) Where a person who is eligible to vote in a poll under section 36 above was, at the relevant time, in occupation of land which was under potatoes on 1st June immediately preceding the day of the poll, his standard number of votes shall be calculated as provided by paragraph 14(5) of the Potato Marketing Scheme, the appropriate area for the purposes of that provision being taken to be the area of such land of which he was in occupation at that time.
(4) Where a person who is eligible to vote in a poll under section 36 above was not, at the relevant time, in occupation of land which was under potatoes on 1st June immediately preceding the day of the poll, his standard number of votes shall be one.
(5) For the purposes of this section, a poll shall be treated as taking place on the last day for the return of voting papers.'.
31 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
Functions under section 19 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958
'. The functions of a committee appointed under section 19 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 (consumers' committees and committees of investigation) shall not include the consideration of anything done by the Board in connection with an application under this Part of this Act or the carrying out of an approved scheme.'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 31 en bloc, which have already been spoken to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 31.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
32 Clause 44. page 22, line 23, leave out 'a' and insert 'the'.
33 Clause 45, page 23, leave out lines 14 to 17 and insert 'knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material respect'.
34 Clause 46. page 23, line 23, leave out 'brought' and insert 'commenced'.
35 Page 23, line 26, leave out 'brought' li.nd insert 'commenced'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 to 35 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 to 35.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
36 Clause 48, page 24, line 6, leave out 'as from 1st May 1993'.
37 Page 24, line 10, leave out first 'that date' and insert 'the day on which this Act is passed'.
38 Page 24, line 10, leave out second 'date' and insert 'day'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 en bloc. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 263.
These amendments alter the date on which the repeal of the legal basis in primary legislation for operating a wool guarantee has effect. Clause 48 of the Bill was initially drafted so that this repeal would have effect from 1st May 1993. This was based on the assumption that the Bill would be enacted by that date. This clearly did not prove possible. Thus to avoid what would otherwise become a retrospective provision, these amendments alter the effective date from 1st May to the date of enactment of the Bill.
In addition, Amendment No. 263 includes a purely technical clarification that the repeal of Schedule 1 to the 1957 Act, which lists those products which qualify for a guarantee, does not affect the saving clauses in relation to the wool and potato guarantees.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36 to 38.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
39 Before Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
Commercial activities of milk marketing boards: distribution of profits
'.—(1) It shall be deemed to be an overriding requirement of a milk marketing scheme that any distribution in respect of profits attributable to any relevant commercial activities shall be made so as not to discriminate, as between persons who are registered as producers under the scheme—

(a) by reference to the identity of the person to whom milk is sold, or

(b) by reference to whether milk is sold in the form of milk or in the form of a product which is wholly or partly derived from milk or which includes milk as an ingredient.

(2) The powers conferred by a milk marketing scheme on the board administering the scheme shall be deemed to include whatever powers are necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the requirement under subsection (1) above.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the following are relevant commercial activities, namely—

(a) the separation of milk,

(b) the heat treatment of milk,

(c) the retail packaging of milk,

(d) the manufacture of milk products, and

(e) the provision of services for reward, otherwise than under the arrangements for the sale of milk to the board.

(4) In that subsection, the reference to a milk marketing scheme is to a scheme having effect under—

(a) the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958, or

(b) the Agricultural Marketing (Northern Ireland) Order 1982,

for the marketing of milk.
(5) This section shall apply in relation to any distribution the amount of which is declared on or after the passing of this Act, irrespective of when the profits concerned were made.'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39. With the leave of the House, I would also like to speak to Amendment No. 50.
These amendments deal with the distribution of profits which the milk marketing boards make from their commercial activities as against the boards' statutory functions of buying and selling raw milk. Commercial activities include the processing of milk into products such as yoghurt, butter and cheese and the provision of on-farm services.
All registered producers have to operate within the terms set by their relevant milk marketing scheme, even where they are not bound to sell their milk to the board. For one thing, the pricing structure of the entire market is dictated by agreements reached between the board and the Dairy Trade Federation in the relevant joint committee.
Even more significantly, the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 requires all registered producers to contribute to the debt of a board on a winding up, not just those producers who sell to the board. To discriminate between producers who sell to the board and those who do not, for the purposes of distributing commercial profits, is therefore in the Government's view not justifiable. It is also unacceptable to the EC Commission, which considers it to be contrary to the provisions of the EC regulations authorising the boards' activities, and to the principles of the Common Market. The Government have taken account of the Commission's views and the likelihood of action against us under Article 169 of the treaty if we fail to act.

1129
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39.—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the only point that I wish to make is a drafting point. I was surprised to see that the Government had introduced a new clause under Part IV, under the "other miscellanous provisions", and not under Part I, which has to do with milk marketing. I am not sure whether that is covered by this amendment. Would this be the right stage to ask whether the details of the allocation for Dairy Crest, which is part of the commercial activities of the milk boards, will have to be in the reorganisation schemes which are presented to the Minister and made known to the industry? I presume that they will. I do not think that it has been confirmed that the details of the formula to be used in the allocation will be in the reorganisation schemes that the Minister has to consider.
Earl Howe: My Lords, Ministers will have to consider whether a scheme put forward by the milk marketing board is reasonable, taking account of the views of all the interested parties. Dairy Crest, according to the MMB, represents approximately four-fifths of the MMB's assets, which is a very significant proportion. Ministers will have to look extremely carefully at those assertions in conjunction with their accountants and those of the board. The valuation of Dairy Crest will in part be dependent upon the market. Obviously it is of substantial value but, as I say, it must be properly assessed.
As to the detail of the distribution of shares, clearly the boards will be expected to submit their proposals on that score also and Ministers will have to look to see whether the basis of distribution is fair to producers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
40 Before Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
British Wool Marketing Board: power to grant relief
'. For the purposes of section 727 of the Companies Act 1985 and Article 675 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (power of court to grant relief in certain cases), the British Wool Marketing Board shall be treated as a company and its members shall he treated as officers of it.'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 40. With the leave of the House I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 51.
The provision arises from the British Wool Marketing Board's concern that—in terms of legal liability—members and officers of the board do not currently enjoy a degree of protection equivalent to that ordinarily available to directors of limited companies. The Government are sympathetic to the board's desire—given the ending of the wool guarantee—to take steps to address the usual risks associated with operating within a more commercial business environment. The new clause therefore places board members and executives on an equal footing
1130
with company directors as regards the scope for relief from liability. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 40.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
41 Clause 51, page 26, line 9, at end insert:
'() In any proceedings of the Joint Consultative Committee for the purposes of this section, decisions shall he made by a majority of the members present, with the Chairman voting only in the event of a tie.'.
42 Page 26, line 17, leave out 'Advisory'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
Amendment No. 41 is necessary in order to establish the voting procedure to be used by the joint consultative committee of the potato marketing board in deciding upon the target area. The procedure is slightly different from that currently in the potato marketing scheme, where the JCC puts recommendations to Ministers or the board, and the chairman is given some flexibility in order to ensure that a recommendation does come forward.
Under Clause 51, the JCC is given the duty of reaching its own decisions on target area, and simple majority voting, with the chairman having the casting vote in the event of a tie, is more appropriate.
The deletion of "Advisory" in Amendment No. 42 is simply an acknowledgement of the new executive functions of the committee. I commend these amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
43 Clause 52, page 26, line 23, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 25 and insert:
'(a) after the words "made on" there shall be inserted "such persons as may be specified in the order, being", and
(b) the words "on persons", in the second place where they occur, shall be omitted.'.
44 Page 26, line 45, at end insert:
'(4A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a development council order shall be taken to relate to agriculture if any of the activities that are to be treated as constituting the industry to which the order relates is an agricultural activity.'.
45 Page 26, line 46, leave out 'subsection (1) above' and insert 'this section'.
46 Page 26, line 47, after '1947', insert ', and "agricultural" shall be construed accordingly'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 en bloc.
Clause 52 would modify Section 4 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947 to allow an agricultural development council to collect its levies through intermediaries rather than direct from those on whom they are raised. The intention is to facilitate

1131
the collection of a levy in a fragmented industry. The effect of the amendments is to apply Clause 52 to a development council which included processors as well as primary producers. I should make it clear that they do not prejudge the question of whether a development council should in any particular case include the processors. It is for the industry itself to make proposals in each case. I commend the amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 43 to 46.—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, since this group of amendments deals with the proposed milk development council, it would be helpful if the Government could confirm the welcome that I am sure they will give to proposals for a milk development council as they come forward. I hope that they will also agree with the point that was made when we debated the matter in this House with regard to the timetable. It is extremely important that the milk development council, should it be set up, is up and running from 1st April 1994 if that is the vesting date of the new arrangements. It is extremely important, if there is to be a deduction from producers' returns of a statutory levy, that it should operate at the same time, from the beginning of the new regime, as it were, and that there is not a gap between the vesting day and the deduction of statutory levies if it can possibly be avoided.
Can the Minister say whether the Government are expecting representations from the industry in the fairly near future? If so, what sort of timetable are they anticipating? If the representations are to come forward—whether or not they include the processors —can we look forward to a quick response from the Government to the proposals? It is perhaps unfair to ask at this stage, but perhaps the Minister could say whether or not the Government have been able to form a view on the question of central testing and national milk records.
In a previous group of amendments the Minister referred to the possibility of national milk records being a function of a milk development council, which is an idea I have not heard before. There is general agreement that there are certain functions about which there is no argument—for instance, research and development is now conducted by the milk marketing board; the Animal Data Centre functions and generic promotion will be carried on by the dairy council. Those are natural functions for a milk development council. However, there is still a difference of view over central testing and perhaps national milk records.
If the Minister could give the Government's views on the ideas, the possible functions and timetable for a milk development council, it will be extremely helpful to the industry.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government have always said that they stand ready to consider proposals from the milk industry for a development council. Clearly the procedures in the 1947 Act would have to be followed. We have now received a proposal
1132
from the NFU to consider the establishment of a milk development council. We are looking at the proposal with due expedition and care. But Ministers will have to be satisfied that such a council is desired by a substantial number of those in the industry. That is laid down in the 1947 Act. We shall need to look carefully at the evidence provided by the NFU to that effect.
With regard to central testing and national milk records, I have said, as the noble Lord reminded the House, that we are open to the suggestion that national milk records should be a function performed by a future development council. We cannot go further than that at this stage until we receive a formal proposal from the board. The same comment can be made in regard to central testing. Clearly we shall need to take a long, cold look at what is reasonable and what makes sense for the industry as a whole. Our thinking has moved a little way since we were last in debate in your Lordships' House on these issues, as may be discerned from the amendments.
Lord Carter: My Lords, with the leave of the House, can the Minister say whether it is likely that the response of the Government to the proposals for a development council will be made known to the industry at about the same time as they will advise the industry of their response to the reorganisation scheme? It will be helpful if that were the case.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we shall endeavour to do that. I agree with the noble Lord's earlier remarks, that it is desirable for there to be some simultaneity between the establishment of a development council and vesting day. The timetable for both is extremely tight. We are aware of that, and I know that the industry is also. We shall need to keep that in mind as we look through the proposals presented to us.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I rather start from the premise, in regard to national milk records, that those who pay for recording their cows should have the copyright in that. I hope that at some stage the matter will be in their hands to decide. They have more right to decide about it than anyone else.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the right to decide on these matters, as my noble friend is aware, rests with Ministers. But Ministers have to take account of the interests of the whole sector, from producers to consumers, in the industry. I am sure that the views of those sectors will not be slow in coming forward. However, I take the point that my noble friend made.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I apologise for perhaps overstating the case. I am sure that my noble friend knows what I meant.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
47 Clause 54, page 27, line 31, at end insert:
'(4A) Section 22 above contains its own provisions about parliamentary procedure in relation to an order under that section.'
48 Clause 55, page 27, line 38, after 'I', insert '(except section 11 (so far as relating to Part I of Schedule 2) and section [Power to carry out preparatory work ])'.
49 Clause 57, page 28, line 19, at end insert 'section [Power to carry out preparatory work],'.
50 Page 28, line 20, at end insert 'section [Commercial activities of milk marketing boards: distribution of profits],'.
51 Page 28, line 20, at end insert 'section [British Wool Marketing Board: power to grant relief],'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 51. They have already been spoken to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 51.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
52 Clause 57, page 28, line 24, leave out subsection (6).
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52. This amendment removes the Privilege amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
53 Schedule 1, page 30, line 4, leave out 'paragraph 11(2) (a), (b) or (c) below' and insert 'section I0(2B) (a), (b), (c) or (d) above'.
54 Page 30, line 7, leave out 'paragraph 11(2) (a) or (b) below' and insert 'section 10(2B) (a), (b) or (c) above'.
55 Page 30, line 24, leave out 'to one or more qualifying successor bodies'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53 to 55. These amendments have already been spoken to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53 to 55.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
56 Schedule 1, page 30, line 29, leave out 'and'.
57 Page 30, line 32, at end insert, and
(d) any property or rights whose transfer would involve a breach by the board of the restriction imposed by section 47(2) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 (restriction on disclosure of information obtained under the Act).'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 56 and 57. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 60, 185, 237, 238, 242 and 253.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 57, 60 and 185 tighten up the rules concerning the disclosure of confidential information by the milk marketing boards as part of the implementation of an approved reorganisation
1134
scheme. Any category of information which is to be disclosed to a third party by a milk marketing board will, as a result, have to be specified in a reorganisation scheme. In addition, any information relating to an individual purchaser may be disclosed only with that purchaser's written consent. I am sure your Lordships will agree that these additional safeguards are highly desirable. Amendments Nos. 237 and 238, 242 and 253 make equivalent changes in respect of potatoes except that there is no requirement to obtain the written consent of purchasers. That is because the Potato Marketing Board, unlike the MMBs, is not essentially a trading body. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 56 and 57.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
58 Schedule I, page 30, line 33, leave out subparagraph (2).
59 Page 30, line 43, leave out `paragraph 11 (2) (a) or (b)' and insert 'section 10(2B) (b) or (c)'.
60 Page 31, line 12, at end insert:
.—(1) The scheme must specify what information to which this sub-paragraph applies is to be disclosed by the board for the purposes of the scheme and to whom.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies to information the disclosure of which is (apart from paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to this Act) restricted by section 47(2) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.
(3) Where information specified under subparagraph (1) above identifies a person as a purchaser of milk from the hoard, the scheme must provide for the information to be disclosed only with his written consent.'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 58 to 60. The amendments have already been spoken to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 58 to 60.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
61 Schedule 2, page 31, line 35, leave out 'successor'.
62 Page 31, line 37, leave out 'the successor' and insert 'that'.
63 Page 31, line 39, leave out 'the trade carried on by a qualifying successor body' and insert 'where any trade, or part of a trade, carried on by a milk marketing board is transferred under section 10 above to a qualifying body, the trade carried on by that body'.
64 Page 31, line 40, after 'under', insert 'that'.
65 Page 31, line 40, leave out '10 above'.
66 Page 31, line 43, leave out 'all' and insert 'any'.
67 Page 31, line 43, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
68 Page 31, line 44, leave out 'successor'.
69 Page 31, line 46, leave out second 'and' and insert 'or'.
70 Page 31, line 47, leave out 'the qualifying successor' and insert 'that'.
71 Page 32, line 2, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
72 Page 32, line 3, leave out 'successor'.
73 Page 32, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert:
'(2) In its application to this paragraph, paragraph 17D(1) below (definition of "qualifying body") shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (b).'.
74 Page 32, line 21, leave out 'successor'.
75 Page 32, line 23, leave out 'the successor' and insert 'that'.
76 Page 32, line 24, leave out 'the trade carried on by a qualifying successor body' and insert 'where any trade, or part of a trade, carried on by a subsidiary of a milk marketing board is transferred under section 10 above to a qualifying body, the trade carried on by that body'.
77 Page 32, line 25, after 'under', insert 'that'.
78 Page 32, line 25, leave out '10 above'.
79 Page 32, line 28, leave out 'all' and insert 'any'.
80 Page 32, line 28, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
81 Page 32, line 30, leave out 'successor'.
82 Page 32, line 32, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
83 Page 32, line 32, leave out 'the qualifying successor' and insert 'that'.
84 Page 32, line 34, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
85 Page 32, line 35, leave out 'successor'
86 Page 32, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert:
'(2) In its application to this paragraph, paragraph 17D(1) below (definition of "qualifying body") shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (b).'.
87 Page 32, line 48, at end insert:
'2A—(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) in accordance with an approved scheme, shares in a subsidiary of the board to which the scheme relates are transferred otherwise than under section 10 above to a qualifying body ("the successor"), and

(b) the scheme provides—

(i) for free shares in the successor to be issued or transferred to persons by virtue of their being, or having been, registered producers, and

(ii) for the taking of steps with a view to securing the quotation of the successor on the Stock Exchange.

(2) For the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts—

(a) the shares transferred to the successor shall be treated as having been, at the time when they became vested in the transferor and at all times since that time, vested in the successor; and

(b) anything done by the transferor in relation to the shares transferred to the successor shall be deemed to have been done by the successor.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (b) (i) above, shares are free if they are issued or transferred without any consideration being provided by the persons acquiring them, there being disregarded for this purpose any depreciatory effect of transfers under the scheme on the value of a right to participate in the winding up of the board to which the scheme relates.
(4) This paragraph shall have effect in relation to accounting periods beginning after the last complete accounting period of the transferor ending before the date of the transfer to the successor.'.
88 Page 32, line 48, at end insert:
'2B.—(1) Where—
1136

(a) in accordance with an approved scheme, shares in a subsidiary of the relevant board ("the transferred company") are transferred otherwise than under section 10 above to a qualifying body ("the successor"),

(b) immediately after the transfer, the successor is a member of a group of which the relevant board is a member, and

(c) the scheme provides as mentioned in paragraph 2B(1) (b) above,

sections 178 and 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 shall not apply on the transferred company ceasing to be a member of a group of which the relevant board is a member if, immediately after doing so, it is a member of a group of which the successor is a member.
(2) Where by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above sections 178 and 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 do not apply, then, on the transferred company ceasing to be a member of a group of which the successor is a member, those sections shall apply—

(a) as if any assets acquired by the transferred company, at any time when it was a member of a group of which the relevant board was a member, from any member of that group had been acquired by it at that time from the successor, and

(b) as if the transferred company and the successor had at all material times been associated companies for the purposes of those sections.

(3) In this paragraph—
"group" has the meaning given by section 170 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992; and
"relevant board" means the board to which the scheme relates.'.
89 Page 33, line 3, after first 'a', insert 'qualifying'.
90 Page 33, line 3, leave out from 'transfer' to 'a' in line 4.
91 Page 33, line 5, leave out 'or 2' and insert ', 2 or 2A'.
92 Page 33, line 9, leave out 'or 2' and insert ', 2 or 2A'.
93 Page 33, line 10, at end insert 'and which, both immediately before and immediately after the transfer, is a member of the same group as that company.'.
94 Page 33, line II, leave out 'transferee' and insert 'body to which the qualifying transfer is made'.
95 Page 33, line 14, leave out 'the transferee' and insert 'that body'.
96 Page 33, line 16, at end insert '; and
"qualifying transfer" means a transfer under an approved scheme to a qualifying body of shares in a subsidiary of the board to which the scheme relates, being a transfer which takes place under section 10 above or in circumstances in which paragraph 2A above applies.'.
97 Page 33, line 22, leave out 'successor' and insert 'qualifying'.
98 Page 33, line 25, leave out 'successor' and insert 'qualifying'.
99 Page 33, line 27, leave out paragraph 5.
100 Page 33, line 41, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert:
'(1) This paragraph applies where under an approved scheme there are one or more relevant successors in relation to the relevant board.
(2) Where there is one relevant successor in relation to the relevant board, any unallowed capital losses of the relevant board shall—

(a) be apportioned between the relevant board and the relevant successor in accordance with the scheme, and

1137

(b) so far as apportioned to the relevant successor, be treated as allowable capital losses accruing to it on the disposal of an asset on the vesting day under the scheme.

(2A) Where there is more than one relevant successor in relation to the relevant board, any unallowed capital losses of the relevant board shall—

(a) be apportioned amongst the relevant board and the relevant successors in accordance with the scheme, and

(b) in the case of each relevant successor to which such losses are so apportioned, be treated as allowable capital losses accruing to it on the disposal of an asset on the vesting day under the scheme.'.

101 Page 33, line 47, at end insert:
'() In this paragraph, references to relevant successor, in relation to the relevant board, include a body to which shares held by that hoard in a subsidiary of its are transferred in circumstances in which paragraph 2A above applies.'.
102 Page 33, line 48, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert:
'(3) In this paragraph—
"allowable capital losses" means losses which are allowable losses for the purposes of corporation tax on chargeable gains;
"relevant board" means the board to which the scheme relates; and
"unallowed capital losses" means any allowable capital losses which have accrued to the relevant hoard before the vesting day under the scheme, in so far as they have not been allowed as deductions from chargeable gains.'.
103 Page 33, line 49, at end insert:
'6A.—(1) This paragraph applies where an approved scheme provides for the transfer of all the property, rights and liabilities to which a subsidiary of the relevant board is entitled or subject on the vesting day under the scheme.
(2) Where there is one relevant successor in relation to the subsidiary, any unallowed capital losses of the subsidiary shall be treated as allowable capital losses accruing to the relevant successor on the disposal of an asset on the vesting day under the scheme.
(3) Where there is more than one relevant successor in relation to the subsidiary, any unallowed capital losses of the subsidiary shall—

(a) be apportioned between the relevant successors in accordance with the scheme, and

(b) in the case of each relevant successor to which such losses are so apportioned, be treated as allowable capital losses accruing to it on the disposal of an asset on the vesting day under the scheme.

(4) In this paragraph—
"allowable capital losses" means losses which are allowable losses for the purposes of corporation tax on chargeable gains;
"relevant hoard" means the milk marketing board to which the scheme relates; and
"unallowed capital losses" means any allowable capital losses which have accrued to the subsidiary before the vesting day under the scheme, in so far as they have not been allowed as deductions from chargeable gains.
6B.—(1) This paragraph applies where an approved scheme provides for the transfer of some, but not all, of the property, rights and liabilities to which a subsidiary of the relevant board is entitled or subject on the vesting day under the scheme.
(2) Where there is one relevant successor in relation to the subsidiary, any unallowed capital losses of the subsidiary shall—

(a) be apportioned between the subsidiary and the relevant successor in accordance with the scheme, and

1138

(b) so far as apportioned to the relevant successor, be treated as allowable capital losses accruing to it on the disposal of an asset on the vesting day under the scheme.

(3) Where there is more than one relevant successor in relation to the subsidiary, any unallowed capital losses of the subsidiary shall—

(a) be apportioned amongst the subsidiary and the relevant successors in accordance with the scheme, and

(b) in the case of each relevant successor to which such losses are so apportioned, be treated as allowable capital losses accruing to it on the disposal of an asset on the vesting day under the scheme.

(4) Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 6A above shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that.'.
104 Page 33, line 49, at end insert:
'6C. Where by virtue of paragraph 6A or 6B above losses of one body are treated as accruing to another body, they shall not be allowed as deductions from chargeable gains accruing to that other body on a disposal of shares in, or securities of, the first-mentioned body.'.
105 Page 34, line 3, leave out 'successor' and insert 'qualifying'.
106 Page 34, line 3, at end insert '("the successor bodies")'.
107 Page 34, line 15, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).
108 Page 34, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
109 Page 34, line 34, at end insert:
'() In this paragraph, "unallowed tax losses" means—

(a) any losses which, as at the end of the last complete accounting period of the board ending before the date of the transfer under section 10 above, are losses which under section 393(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 are or, if a claim had been made under that subsection, would be available for relief against the hoard's trading income for the next accounting period, and

(b) any allowances which, as at the end of the last complete accounting period of the board ending before that date, are allowances which, under section 145(2) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990, are available for carry forward to the next accounting period.'.

110 Page 34, line 34, at end insert:
'7A.—(1) This paragraph applies where a trade carried on by a subsidiary of a milk marketing board is transferred under section 10 above to more than one qualifying body ("the successor bodies").
(2) There shall be apportioned between the successor bodies—

(a) the unallowed tax losses of the subsidiary, and

(b) any expenditure incurred by the subsidiary before the date of the transfer and by reference to which capital allowances may be made.

(3) The apportionment under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be made in such manner as is just and reasonable having regard—

(a) to the extent to which the losses and expenditure mentioned in that sub-paragraph are attributable to the different parts of the trade transferred, and

(b) as respects the apportionment of such expenditure, to the division of the subsidiary's assets between the successor bodies.

(4) In this paragraph, "unallowed tax losses" means—

1139

(a) any losses which, as at the end of the last complete accounting period of the subsidiary ending before the date of the transfer under section 10 above, are losses which under section 393(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 are or, if a claim had been made under that subsection, would be available for relief against the subsidiary's trading income for the next accounting period, and

(b) any allowances which, as at the end of the last accounting period of the subsidiary ending before that date, are allowances which, under section 145(2) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990, are available for carry forward to the next accounting period.

7B.—(1) This paragraph applies where part of a trade carried on by a subsidiary of a milk marketing board is transferred under section 10 above to one qualifying body ("the successor body") and the remainder is retained by the subsidiary.
(2) There shall be apportioned between the subsidiary and the successor body—

(a) the unallowed tax losses of the subsidiary, and

(b) any expenditure incurred by the subsidiary before the date of the transfer and by reference to which capital allowances may be made.

(3) The apportionment under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be made in such manner as is just and reasonable having regard—

(a) to the extent to which the losses and expenditure mentioned in that sub-paragraph are attributable to the different parts of the trade, and

(b) as respects the apportionment of such expenditure, to the division of the subsidiary's assets between itself and the successor body.

(4) In this paragraph, "unallowed tax losses" has the same meaning as in paragraph 7A above.
7C.—(1) This paragraph applies where part of a trade carried on by a subsidiary of a milk marketing hoard is transferred under section 10 above to more than one qualifying body ("the successor bodies") and the remainder is retained by the subsidiary.
(2) There shall be apportioned amongst the subsidiary and the successor bodies—

(a) the unallowed tax losses of the subsidiary, and

(b) any expenditure incurred by the subsidiary before the date of the transfer and by reference to which capital allowances may be made.

(3) The apportionment under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be made in such manner as is just and reasonable having regard—

(a) to the extent to which the losses and expenditure mentioned in that sub-paragraph are attributable to the different parts of the trade, and

(b) as respects the apportionment of such expenditure, to the division of the subsidiary's assets amongst itself and the successor bodies.

(4) in this paragraph, "unallowed tax losses" has the same meaning as in paragraph 7A above.
7D.—(1) Any question which arises as to the manner in which the apportionment under any of paragraphs 7 to 7C above is to he made shall be determined, for the purposes of the tax of the parties concerned—

(a) in a case where one body of General Commissioners have jurisdiction with respect to all the parties concerned, by those Commissioners, unless the parties concerned agree that it shall be determined by the Special Commissioners;

1140

(b) in a case where more than one body of General Commissioners have jurisdiction with respect to the parties concerned, by such of those bodies of General Commissioners as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may direct, unless the parties concerned agree that it shall be determined by the Special Commissioners; and

(c) in any other case, by the Special Commissioners.

(2) The Commissioners by whom the question falls to be determined shall make the determination in like manner as if it were an appeal except that the parties concerned shall be entitled to appear and be heard by the Commissioners or to make representations to them in writing.
(3) In this paragraph, references to the parties concerned are to the persons between or amongst whom the apportionment in question falls to be made.'.
111 Page 34, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert:
'8.—(1) This paragraph applies to the following events—'.
112 Page 34. line 38, after 'scheme', insert 'on or'.
113 Page 34, line 39, at end insert:
'(aa) the issue or transfer under an approved scheme to trustees of any shares in, or securities of, a company on terms which provide for the transfer of those shares or securities to persons by virtue of their being, or having been, registered producers:'.
114 Page 34. line 42, at end insert:
'(bb) the conferring under an approved scheme on or before the vesting day under the scheme of any such right as is mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 15(1) below:'.
115 Page 34, line 44, leave out 'a subsidiary of'.
116 Page 34, line 45, after first 'board', insert ', or of a subsidiary of such a board,'.
117 Page 34, line 45, leave out first 'successor' and insert 'qualifying'.
118 Page 34, line 45, leave out from first 'body' to 'and' in line 46.
119 Page 35, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
120 Page 35, line 7, at end insert:
'(2A) None of the events to which this paragraph applies, and no combination of the events mentioned in paragraphs (a) (so far as relating to the issue or transfer of shares) and (c) of sub-paragraph (1) above, shall be regarded as—

(a) a distribution for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts, or

(b) a capital distribution for the purposes of section 122 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.'.

121 Page 35, line 9, at beginning insert '(a)'.
122 Page 35, line 10, after 'production', insert 'or storage'.
123 Page 35, line 12, at beginning insert '(b)'.
124 Page 35, line 13, after first 'a', insert 'relevant'.
125 Page 35, line 13, leave out 'body'.
126 Page 35, line 15, after first 'a', insert 'relevant'.
127 Page 35, line 15, leave out 'body'.
128 Page 35, line 15, at end insert ', and
(c) references to relevant successor—

(i) in relation to a milk marketing board, include a body to which shares held by the board in a subsidiary of its are transferred in circumstances in which paragraph 2A above applies, and

1141

(ii) in relation to a subsidiary of such a board, include a body to which shares held by the subsidiary in a subsidiary of its are transferred in circumstances in which that paragraph applies.'

129 Page 35, leave out lines 16 to 21.
130 Page 35, line 22, leave out paragraph 9.
131 Page 35, line 25, at end insert:
'Disapplication of section 22 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992
9A. Section 22 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (disposal where capital sums derived from assets) shall not apply in relation to any of the events to which paragraph 8 above applies.'.
132 Page 35, line 25, at end insert:
'Depreciatory transactions,
9B.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) by virtue of the occurrence of any of the events to which paragraph 8 above applies ("the relevant event"), one company ("the first company") would, apart from the provisions of this Part of this Schedule, be treated for the purposes of the taxation of chargeable gains as disposing of, or of an interest in, any shares in, or securities of, another company ("the second company"), and

(b) as a result of the occurrence of that event the value of those shares or securities ("the shares or securities concerned") is materially reduced.

(2) Section 176 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 shall apply to any disposal to which sub-paragraph (3), (4) or (5) below applies—

(a) as if the relevant event were a depreciatory transaction, and

(b) if the first company and the second company and, if different, the company which makes the disposal are not, throughout the period beginning with the occurrence of the relevant event and ending with the disposal, members of a group of companies (within the meaning of that section), as if they were.

(3) This sub-paragraph applies to any disposal by the first company which—

(a) is a disposal of the asset of which the shares or securities concerned are deemed for the purposes of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 to consist at the time of the event, and

(b) is not a disposal which by virtue of any enactment is treated as one on which neither a gain nor a loss accrues to the person making the disposal.

(4) This sub-paragraph applies to any disposal, by a company to which shares or securities comprised in the asset mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) above are transferred under section 10 above, or in circumstances in which paragraph 2A above applies, which—

(a) is a disposal of the asset which those shares or securities are deemed for the purposes of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 to consist of, or to be included in, immediately after the transfer, and

(b) is not a disposal which by virtue of any enactment is treated as one on which neither a gain nor a loss accrues to the person making the disposal.

(5) This sub-paragraph applies to any disposal, by a company which acquires shares or securities on an excepted disposal, which—

(a) is a disposal of the asset which those shares or securities are deemed for the purposes of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 to consist of, or to be included in, immediately after the acquisition, and

(b) is not a disposal which by virtue of any enactment is treated as one on which neither a gain nor a loss accrues to the person making the disposal.

(6) In sub-paragraph (5) above, the reference to an excepted disposal is to a disposal to which sub-paragraph (3), (4) or (5) above would have applied but for paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph.
(7) In this paragraph, "company" has the same meaning as in the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.'.
133 Page 35, line 29, at end insert:
'(1A) The acquisition of the asset shall not be taken into account as a receipt in computing, under Case I or VI of the Schedule set out in section 18 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (Schedule D), the profits of the person acquiring it.'.
134 Page 35, line 32 at end insert 'and without making a disposal.'.
135 Page 35, leave out lines 33 to 37.
136 Page 35, line 37, at end insert:
'(2A) No allowance in respect of the asset shall be made under the Capital Allowances Act 1990 to the person acquiring it.'.
137 Page 35, line 46, after 'production', insert 'or storage'.
138 Page 36, line 3, after third 'a', insert 'relevant'.
139 Page 36, line 6, after 'in', insert ',or security of,'.
140 Page 36, line 7, after third 'a', insert 'relevant'.
141 Page 36, line 10, at end insert:
'(1A) The acquisition of the asset shall not be taken into account as a receipt in computing, under Case I or VI of the Schedule set out in section 18 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (Schedule D), the profits of the person acquiring it.'.
142 Page 36, line 13, at end insert 'and without making a disposal.'.
143 Page 36, leave out lines 14 to 18.
144 Page 36, line 22, at end insert:
'(3A) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person shall not be regarded as providing consideration by virtue only of the fact that transfers under the scheme reduce the value of his right to participate in a winding up of the relevant board.'.
145 Page 36, line 24, leave out 'approved'.
146 Page 36, line 25, leave out from 'relates' to end of line 29.
147 Page 36, line 29, at end insert ', and
(c) references to relevant successor—

(i) in relation to the relevant board, include a body to which shares held by that board in a subsidiary of its are transferred in circumstances in which paragraph 2A above applies, and

(ii) in relation to a subsidiary of that board, include a body to which shares held by the subsidiary in a subsidiary of its are transferred in circumstances in which that paragraph applies.'

148 Page 36, line 29, at end insert:
'Trusts for registered producers
11 A.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) under an approved scheme, shares in, or securities of, a company are issued or transferred to trustees on terms which provide for the transfer of those shares or securities to persons by virtue of their being, or having been, registered producers, and

(b) the circumstances are such that in the hands of the trustees the shares or securities constitute settled property within the meaning of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

(2) For the purposes of tax on chargeable gains—

1143

(a) where the trustees acquire the shares or securities on a disposal, the person making the disposal shall be treated as if the consideration for the disposal were of such amount as would secure that on the disposal neither a gain nor a loss accrues to him,

(b) the shares or securities shall be treated as acquired by the trustees for no consideration,

(c) the interest of any beneficiary in the settled property constituted by the shares or securities shall be treated as acquired by him for no consideration and as having no value at the time of its acquisition,

(d) where a beneficiary becomes absolutely entitled as against the trustees to any of the settled property, both the trustees and the beneficiary shall be treated as if, on his becoming so entitled, the shares or securities in question had been disposed of and immediately reacquired by the trustees, in their capacity as trustees within section 60(1) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, for a consideration of such amount as would secure that on the disposal neither a gain nor a loss would accrue to the trustees (and accordingly section 71 of that Act shall not apply in relation to that occasion), and

(e) on the disposal by a beneficiary of an interest in the settled property, other than the disposal treated as occurring for the purposes of paragraph (d) above, any gain accruing shall be a chargeable gain (and accordingly section 76(1) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 shall not apply in relation to the disposal).

11B.—(1) This paragraph applies where, under an approved scheme, shares in, or securities of, a company are issued or transferred to trustees on terms which provide for the transfer of those shares or securities to persons by virtue of their being, or having been, registered producers.
(2) The trust shall not be treated as a unit trust scheme for the purposes of section 469 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 or section 99 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 if it would not fall to be so treated were there disregarded—

(a) any depreciatory effect of transfers under the approved scheme on a right to participate in a winding up of the board to which that scheme relates, and

(b) any management of the trust property as a whole by or on behalf of the trustees.'.

149 Page 36, line 42, leave out 'share is' and insert 'shares are'.
150 Page 36, line 42, at end insert 'allotted, or'.
151 Page 36, line 43, leave out from 'issued' to `to' in line 44 and insert 'without prior allotment—(a)'.
152 Page 36, line 45, at end insert 'and without any consideration being provided by him,
(b) to trustees on terms which provide for the transfer of the shares to persons by virtue of their being, or having been, registered producers,'.
153 Page 36, line 45, at end insert, ' or
(c) to the relevant board, by a body to which sub-paragraph (1A) below applies.
(1A) This sub-paragraph applies to a body which—

(a) is a relevant successor of the relevant board, or of a subsidiary of that board, and

(b) is not a body in relation to which the scheme makes provision for the transfer to it of anything other than shares in a subsidiary of the relevant board.'.

154 Page 36, line 46, leave out 'share' and insert 'shares'.
155 Page 36, line 47, leave out 'it' and insert 'they'.
156 Page 36, line 48, after 'the', insert 'relevant'.
157 Page 36, line 48, leave out 'body'.
158 Page 36, line 49, leave out 'nominal' and insert 'market'.
159 Page 36, line 49, leave out 'share' and insert 'shares'.
160 Page 36, . line 49, at end insert 'at the time of allotment or, if issued without prior allotment, at the time of issue.
(2A) In sub-paragraph (2) above, the reference to the market value of the shares is to the price which they might reasonably be expected to fetch on a sale in the open market.
(2B) Section 272(2) to (4) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (general principles for determining market value of shares) shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph.
(2C) Where, as at the time at which the market value of any shares falls to be determined for the purposes of this paragraph, the shares are not quoted on a recognised stock exchange, subsection (3) of section 273 of that Act (assumption with respect to information available to prospective purchaser) shall apply for the purposes of the determination as it applies for the purposes of a determination falling within subsection (1) of that section.
(2D) In sub-paragraph (2C) above, "recognised stock exchange" has the meaning given by section 841 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.'.
161 Page 37, line 1. leave out 'Sub-paragraph' and insert 'Sub-paragraphs (3A) and'.
162 Page 37, line 2, leave out 'it applies' and insert 'they apply'.
163 Page 37, line 4, after 'debenture', insert '(a)'.
164 Page 37, line 4, after second 'a', insert 'relevant'.
165 Page 37, line 5, after 'board,', insert 'and
(b) is either—
(i) issued'.
166 Page 37, line 6, at end insert 'and without any consideration being provided by him.'.
167 Page 37, line 6, at end insert or
(ii) included in an issue of debentures to trustees on terms which provide for the debentures to be transferred to persons by virtue of their being, or having been, registered producers.'.
168 Page 37, line 8, after 'to', insert 'the taxation of company distributions, or to'.
169 Page 37, line 9, leave out 'that company' and insert 'the relevant successor'.
170 Page 37, line II, leave out 'that company' and insert 'the relevant successor'.
171 Page 37, line 12, at end insert:
'(2A) For the purposes of section 117(1) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (meaning of "qualifying corporate bond"), the indebtedness acknowledged by the debenture shall be treated as representing a normal commercial loan at any time after the debenture has been acquired by a person as a result of a disposal which is not excluded for the purposes of section 117(7) of that Act.
(2B) Except as provided by sub-paragraph (2A) above, the indebtedness acknowledged by the debenture shall not be treated for those purposes as representing a normal commercial loan.'.
172 Page 37, line 13, leave out 'Sub-paragraph' and insert `Sub-paragraphs (3A) and'.
173 Page 37, line 14, leave out 'it applies' and insert 'they apply'.
174 Page 37, line 18. after second 'a', insert 'relevant'.
175 Page 37. line 18, leave out second 'body'.
176 Page 37, line 19, at end insert ', in priority to other persons'.
177 Page 37, line 26, at end insert:
'(2A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) above, shares are free if they are issued or transferred without any consideration being provided by the person acquiring them, there being disregarded for this purpose any depreciatory effect of transfers under the scheme on the value of a right to participate in a winding up of the relevant board
178 Page 37, leave out lines 29 to 46.
179 Page 38, line 4, at end insert:
'Stamp duty
17A.—(1) No transfer effected under section 10 above shall give rise to any liability to stamp duty.
(2) Stamp duty shall not be chargeable—

(a) on an approved scheme, or

(b) on an instrument which is certified to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by the relevant authority—

(i) to be an instrument made in pursuance of such a scheme, and

(ii) to be an instrument in respect of which no disqualifying consideration has been given.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) (b) (ii) above, consideration given in respect of an instrument made in pursuance of an approved scheme shall be treated as disqualifying consideration unless—

(a) it is given by the milk marketing board to which the scheme relates ("the relevant hoard"),

(b) it is given by a person to whom property, rights or liabilities of the relevant board, or of a subsidiary of that hoard, are transferred under the scheme, other than a person who is, or has been, a registered producer, or

(c) it is given by a person who is, or has been, a registered producer and takes the form of a surrender in whole or part of a right to participate in the winding up of the relevant board.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) (b) above, a person to whom property is leased shall be treated as a person to whom property is transferred if the scheme could, without breaching the requirement in paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 1 to this Act, have provided for the property concerned to be transferred to him.
(5) No instrument which is certified as mentioned in paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (2) above shall be taken to be duly stamped unless—

(a) it is stamped with the duty to which it would, but for that sub-paragraph, be liable, or

(b) it has, in accordance with section 12 of the Stamp Act 1891, been stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is not chargeable with any duty or that it is duly stamped.

(6) In sub-paragraph (2) (b) above, "relevant authority" means—

(a) in the case of a certificate with respect to a scheme relating to the England and Wales Milk Marketing Board, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State acting jointly,

(b) in the case of a certificate with respect to a scheme relating to the board established under the Milk Marketing Scheme (Northern Ireland) 1989, the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, and

(c) in the case of a certificate with respect to any other scheme, the Secretary of State.

Stamp duty reserve tax
17B. No agreement made in pursuance of an approved scheme shall give rise to a charge to stamp duty reserve tax.'.
180 Page 38, line 4, at end insert:
'Interpretation
17C.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule, references to relevant successor, in relation to a milk marketing board, are to a body—

(a) to which property, rights or liabilities of the board are transferred under section 10 above, and

(b) which is a qualifying body in relation to the transfer.

(2) In this Part of this Schedule, references to relevant successor, in relation to a subsidiary of a milk marketing board, are to a body—

(a) to which property, rights or liabilities of the subsidiary are transferred under section 10 above, and

(b) which, by virtue of paragraph 17D(1) (a), (c), (d) or (e) below, is a qualifying body in relation to the transfer.

17D.—(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, a body is a qualifying body, in relation to a transfer under an approved scheme, if it is—

(a) a development council established under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947,

(b) a company registered under the Companies Act 1985 which was, immediately before the day on which this Act is passed, a 100 per cent. subsidiary of the board to which the scheme relates,

(c) a company registered under the Companies Act 1985 in relation to which either or both of the first and second conditions are met and in relation to which the third condition is met,

(d) a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 in relation to which either or both of the fourth and fifth conditions are met, or

(e) a company registered under the Companies Act 1985 in relation to which the sixth condition is met.

(2) The first condition is that—

(a) the scheme makes provision for the issue or transfer of shares in the company to members of the relevant class without any consideration, or with only a nominal consideration, being provided by the members acquiring them, and

(b) the members of that class who fall within the provision represent at least 90 per cent. of the total number of members of that class.

(3) The second condition is that—

(a) the company is one of a number of companies registered under the Companies Act 1985 in relation to each of which the scheme provides as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) (a) above, and

(b) the members of the relevant class who fall within the provision relating to the company, when taken together with the members of that class who fall within the provision, or provisions, relating to the other company, or companies, represent at least 90 per cent. of the total number of members of that class.

(4) The third condition is that, immediately after the transfer, at least 90 per cent. of the ordinary share capital of the company consists of shares which—

(a) are owned directly or indirectly by the board to which the scheme relates,

(b) have been issued or transferred under the scheme to members of the relevant class without any consideration, or with only a nominal consideration, being provided by the members acquiring them,

(c) have been issued or transferred under the scheme to persons who are, or have been, registered producers in settlement of claims against the board to which the scheme relates, being claims arising out of the supply or production of milk,

1147

(d) have been issued or transferred under the scheme to trustees on terms which provide for their transfer to members of the relevant class, or

(e) are held by persons to whom they have been issued or transferred under the scheme in connection with securing the quotation of the company on the Stock Exchange.

(5) The fourth condition is that—

(a) the scheme provides for membership of the society to be open to members of the relevant class, and

(b) the members of that class who fall within the provision represent at least 90 per cent. of the total number of members of that class who are engaged in milk production on the day of the transfer.

(6) The fifth condition is that—

(a) the society is one of a number of societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 in relation to each of which the scheme provides as mentioned in subparagraph (5) (a) above, and

(b) the members of the relevant class who fall within the provision relating to the society, when taken together with the members of that class who fall within the provision, or provisions, relating to the other society, or societies, represent at least 90 per cent. of the total number of members of that class who are engaged in milk production on the day of the transfer.

(7) The sixth condition is that the company is a 100 per cent. subsidiary of a company falling within paragraph (c) of sub-paragraph (I) above or of a society falling within paragraph (d) of that sub-paragraph.
(8) For the purposes of this paragraph, a body corporate shall be deemed to be a 100 per cent. subsidiary of another body corporate if and so long as the whole of its ordinary share capital is owned directly or indirectly by that other body corporate.
(9) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether under an approved scheme shares are issued or transferred without any consideration, or with only a nominal consideration, being provided by the persons acquiring them, there shall be disregarded any depreciatory effect of transfers under the scheme on the value of a right to participate in the winding up of the board to which the scheme relates.
(10) For the purposes of this paragraph, the relevant class, in relation to an approved scheme, consists of those to whom property or rights are to be distributed under the scheme by virtue of their being, or having been, registered producers.
(11) Subsections (4) to (10) of section 838 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (rules for determining amount of share capital owned) shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that section.
(12) In this paragraph—

(a) "ordinary share capital" has the same meaning as in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988,

(b) "owned directly or indirectly", in relation to a body corporate, means owned directly or through another body corporate or other bodies corporate or partly directly and partly through another body corporate or other bodies corporate, and

(c) references to ownership shall be construed as references to beneficial ownership.'.

181 Page 38, line 6, after 'Schedule', insert:
'(a) "approved scheme" includes a scheme of reorganisation approved under any provision in Northern Ireland legislation corresponding to section 3 above (with any variation approved under any provision in such legislation corresponding to section 5 above) and in relation to which approval has not been withdrawn under any provision in such legislation corresponding to section 6 above, and
(b)'.
182 Page 38, line 8, leave out from 'Schedule' to end of line 9 and insert `by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above—'.
183 Page 38, line 17, leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
'(d) "registered producers", in relation to the board established under the Milk Marketing Scheme (Northern Ireland) 1989, means persons registered as producers under the marketing scheme administered by the board;'.
184 Page 38. line 24. at end insert:
'(3) In paragraph 17 above, the reference to section 16 above shall be construed as including a reference to any corresponding provision in Northern Ireland legislation.'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 184. With the leave of the House, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 243, 244, 246, 248 and 252.
Our objective in considering the tax consequences of a reorganisation scheme has been to avoid tax charges arising solely as a result of the reorganisation. Part I of Schedule 2 therefore contains a number of tax provisions which are intended to make the implementation of a scheme broadly tax neutral and to provide even-handed treatment of the parties concerned. They effectively defer the payment of charges until the next time they would otherwise have arisen.
The taxation provisions were considerably expanded in another place. Although numerous, these amendments do not represent a change in policy. Many were merely clarificatory and drafting changes. Their main effect was to extend the areas to which the provisions applied to cover further possibilities which a board might wish to include in its reorganisation scheme. For example, most of the tax provisions apply only to statutory transfers on vesting day. The England and Wales board, however, would like to be able to float Dairy Crest before vesting day. That would involve a transfer of the board's assets to its producers. We consider that the final transfers necessary for the flotation of a milk marketing board's subsidiary should be treated for tax purposes in broadly the same way as those transfers which occur on vesting day. The amendments would achieve this.
The other significant effect of the amendments to the schedule was to insert safeguards ensuring that special tax treatment should only be available to bodies which genuinely represented the collective interest of producers. We would not wish tax benefits to pass to those who did not represent the interests of a board's members. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 184.—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I presume that this is entirely to do with taxation as it affects the boards and their successor bodies and not with the likely taxation treatment in the hands of producers when the board comes to distribute its assets to producers by way of shares or however it is done. This is entirely to do with the taxation as it affects the boards themselves and is nothing to do with the taxation in the hands of producers, whatever may happen with the transfer documents, cash or whatever they receive.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is my understanding. However, if I am incorrect in that assumption I shall write to the noble Lord. I believe that he has expressed the matter very well.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
185 Schedule 2, page 38, line 30, leave out 'for the purposes of carrying out' and insert 'in accordance with the provisions of'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 185. I have already spoken to it.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 185.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
186 Schedule 2, page 39, line 2, leave out 'This paragraph' and insert 'Sub-paragraph (2) below'.
187 Page 39, line 4, after third 'the', insert 'principal'.
188 Page 39, line 4, leave out 'whose employees may belong to the scheme'.
189 Page 39, line 6, after 'existing', insert 'principal'.
190 Page 39, line 7, after 'body', insert—
(a) which already participates in the scheme, or
(b)'.
191 Page 39, line 7, after 'existing', insert 'principal'.
192 Page 39, line 8, at end insert:
'(3) Sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply if the substitution is made otherwise than in connection with the carrying out of an approved scheme.'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 186 to 192 en bloc. As my right honourable friends have explained in another place, the rearrangement of the milk marketing boards' pension schemes to take account of the changes envisaged by this Bill will he the responsibility of the boards as employers and the trustees of their pension schemes. They will be subject to the principles of trust law and must act in accordance with the comprehensive legislation governing occupational pension schemes. The Bill therefore does not deal with pensions in any great detail, although this is, of course, one of the matters Ministers will have in the front of their minds when considering a board's reorganisation scheme.
Paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 is the only provision relating directly to pensions in the Bill. It puts beyond doubt the propriety of the trustees of a pension
1150
scheme operated by a milk marketing board, or a subsidiary of one, using any power under their pension scheme to change the identity of the principal employer for that scheme when this is used to substitute a successor body under a reorganisation scheme for the existing employer. This would ensure, for example, that the trustees of the England and Wales Board pension schemes could, if they wished, substitute Milk Marque for the board as the principal employer for the schemes.
These amendments make a few technical changes to paragraph 22 because, as presently drafted, it does not apply to all the reasonable changes the trustees may wish to make. In particular it might not cover the replacement of the England and Wales Board by Dairy Crest. That is because, if the board were not to propose that any of its property, rights or liabilities should be transferred to Dairy Crest, then Dairy Crest would not, in formal terms, be a successor body.
This group of amendments therefore extends paragraph 22 to cover substitution of a board, or of a subsidiary of one, as principal employer by an employer which already participates in the particular pension scheme concerned. The amendments also clarify the intention of the provision by inserting a specific reference to the term "principal employer" and restrict use of paragraph 22 to changes made in connection with the carrying out of an approved scheme.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 186 to 192 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, these are important amendments and we should spend a few moments discussing them. The Minister will know that a number of the pensioners of the milk marketing boards have expressed some concern and this is a good chance to allay those anxieties. For example, I believe that the valuation of the fund at 31st March this year, 1993, is not yet available to pensioners. Has the department seen it and can the Minister confirm that there is a surplus on the fund? The most recent figures I have seen are to March 1990. It will be helpful to know whether the Government are satisfied that there is a surplus on the fund.
It is fair to point out that, after all, it is the Government which have wound up the milk marketing boards and it is therefore not unreasonable to say that they should now be prepared to fulfil their responsibilities and ensure that pensioners who are left as a result of that winding up are properly looked after. The Minister used an interesting phrase that they would have in the front of their minds the fortunes of the pension fund. Does that mean that they will consider the pension funds when considering the reorganisation schemes that are presented to them or will their minds be compartmentalised so that they look at the reorganisation scheme and at the pension arrangements separately? How exactly will they ascertain that they have all the information that they need to ensure that the pensioners will be properly looked after in the reorganisation? For example, will the pensioners have the right of consultation'?

1151
Presumably, like anybody else the pensioners can make known their views about the reorganisation schemes. But if those schemes do not include what is supposed to happen to the pension schemes, it is a little hard to know how the pensioners can be consulted. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how the Ministry proposes to deal with that. Indeed, an assurance from the Minister that she will not agree to the final distribution of the assets and the demise of the board without first satisfying herself that the pension arrangements are satisfactory, with the consultation and participation of the pensioners, would be helpful.
I have had an extremely helpful brief from the Milk Marketing Board. I am sure that the trustees are trying hard to ensure that the schemes are handed over properly and looked after. The brief states:
"The employers also propose (without legally binding themselves) that subject to the availability of funds they will continue the practice that has existed with the MMB Group Pension Fund of awarding higher discretionary pension increases where the increase in the retail prices index exceeds the minimum guaranteed pension increase".
Obviously, that is extremely welcome and I understand why they are not able legally to bind themselves. However, as a potential member of Milk Marque I am a little concerned—perhaps the Minister can put all our minds at rest—about whether Milk Marque is, as a result, likely to end up with a moral obligation that would affect its overheads if there were a deficiency in the funds which its commercial competitors do not have. This point has been put to me by a number of producers. Obviously, it is extremely welcome that Milk Marque is taking over the group fund but what would be the position if, for any reason, the fund had any problems? Under the existing arrangements with the Milk Marketing Board the MMB is obviously able to make up any deficit. Perhaps the Minister could spell out the position.
There is absolutely no doubt at all of the good intentions of all those concerned. I know that they are working hard to ensure that the pensioners' concerns are properly allayed. As I have said, the Government are winding up the MMB, so they cannot simply walk away from this problem which results from that winding-up. I hope that the Minster will be able to give us a little more information than has been available so far. It has been made clear—this is extremely welcome—that there is no way in which any surplus on the funds can be used in the reorganisation schemes or to pay any of the reorganisation costs.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we have received a considerable number of representations from and on behalf of pensioners of the England and Wales board over the past year. The central theme in all these letters has been uncertainty and concern for the future. I am sure we all understand and sympathise with these concerns which are quite natural in a period of such change. The Government have sought to address them by urging the board and the trustees to keep the pension scheme members in touch with their progress. They have responded by writing several times to all pensioners, particularly over the past few months as their proposals for the future have developed.
1152
The reorganisation scheme which a board submits to Ministers will have to specify to whom any property, rights or liabilities of the board which it still owns on vesting day will be transferred. A board will also be free, but not obliged, to provide in its scheme for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities before vesting day.
Ministers will therefore only have a formal role under the Bill in relation to changes to a milk marketing board's pension arrangements in two possible respects. These are, first, to the extent that the liability to pay pensions and the assets necessary to generate them rest with the boards rather than the scheme trustees and, secondly, if any fund surpluses have to be considered property or rights of the board and thus fall to be dealt with in a reorganisation scheme.
When considering any reorganisation scheme of the England and Wales board, the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales shall wish to be satisfied that its coverage is complete. We have appointed independent consultants, KPMG Peat Marwick, to advise us when we consider the England and Wales board's reorganisation scheme. This is one point on which we may well seek the consultants' advice.
The Secretary of State for Scotland will need to take a view in relation to reorganisation schemes submitted by the three Scottish boards.
The position with respect to the England and Wales board is that it has at present two main pension funds of which it is the principal employer. Those are the MMB Group Pension Fund which has both board and Dairy Crest members, and the 'C' fund which has Dairy Crest members only.
The Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Crest Board have agreed in principle to proposals for changes to those arrangements. I understand that the trustees also approved the proposals in principle at a meeting on 1st July and will be writing shortly to all scheme members with more details. Scheme members will be given the opportunity to comment in a series of meetings planned for August and September before a final decision is taken.
The board's proposals would maintain board scheme members' entitlements to benefit. In the case of the scheme 'C' fund, they would involve the replacement of the board by Dairy Crest as the principal employer for that scheme. Dairy Crest would thus take over the board's obligations in respect of that scheme.
The proposals envisage the division of the MMB Group Pension Fund scheme between Dairy Crest and the board. Those members, both employees and pensioners, associated with Dairy Crest would be transferred to a replacement scheme operated by Dairy Crest. A proportionate share of the fund, including the relevant proportion of any surplus, would also be transferred. The proposals aim to ensure that both the ongoing group fund and the new Dairy Crest scheme would have a similar membership profile, thus avoiding, for example, one scheme having a particularly large proportion of members in receipt of pensions. It is also hoped to give pensioners the option of exchanging their pension for a fixed rate

1153
insurance policy, should they wish to do so. I understand that the trustees will be writing very shortly to all pensioners to explain those proposals in more detail.
The advantages and disadvantages of a particular route must of course be for the trustees and the employers concerned to decide. I understand, however, that the MMB group fund has sufficient funds to meet its liabilities on an ongoing basis and can therefore see no reason in principle why it should be unreasonably expensive to maintain.
The noble Lord asked me whether any of the English, Welsh or Scottish schemes were in surplus. An actuarial valuation of the England and Wales MMB group fund at 31st March 1993 is being finalised and is likely to show a small surplus of about 5 per cent. on an ongoing basis and no surplus using assumptions prescribed by the Government Actuary for the purposes required by the Inland Revenue for checking surplus in a scheme.
The most recent actuarial valuation of the board's 'C' scheme has revealed a small surplus on a winding-up basis and a small deficit on an ongoing basis. There is a small surplus in the 'part-timers' fund. The Scottish boards have advised us that it is almost certain that there will be no surplus in their pension plan.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
193 Page 39, line 11, leave out from 'say,' to end of line 13 and insert 'a body to which property, rights or liabilities of a milk marketing board are transferred under section 10 above.'.
194 Page 40, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert: '"statutory accounts", in relation to a successor body, means any accounts prepared for the purpose of any provision of the legislation under which the body is registered.'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their ' Amendments Nos. 193 and 194.
Paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 and paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 specify which values are to be entered for accounting purposes into the books of successor bodies in respect of assets and liabilities transferred to them under an approved scheme.
The two paragraphs are worded differently but that does not reflect a significant difference in their effect. The two amendments would make the provisions for milk marketing boards in Schedule 2 follow the pattern of those in Schedule 4 relating to the Potato Marketing Board. That will avoid anyone looking for a significant difference between the two provisions which does not exist.
With the leave of the House, perhaps I may take the opportunity to clarify a point that I made earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on tax provisions. The Bill also affects the tax treatment of shares and so forth which are distributed to producers. It specifies that they will not be liable to income tax on those shares when they are in receipt of them. But if the noble Lord would like me to write to him, I should be delighted to do so.
1154
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 193 and 194.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
195 Schedule 2, page 40, line 19, leave out from first 'of' to end of line and insert 'the making of any application under section 2 or 5 above'.
196 Page 40, line 20, leave out 'thing done' and insert 'making of such an application'.
197 Page 40, line 23, leave out from 'which' to first 'of' in line 24 and insert 'imposes a prohibition (whether absolute or qualified) on the transfer'.
198 Page 40, line 31, leave out 'penalises' and insert 'has the effect of penalising'.
199 Page 40, line 32, leave out or a transfer without consent,'.
200 Page 40, line 33, leave out from 'which' to 'of' and insert 'imposes a prohibition (whether absolute or qualified) on the transfer'.
201 Page 40, line 35, leave out 'if' and insert 'unless'.
202 Page 40, line 35, leave out 'private' and insert 'public'.
203 Page 40, line 42, leave out 'penalises' and insert 'has the effect of penalising'.
204 Page 40, line 43, leave out 'without consent'.
205 Page 40, line 44, leave out 'prohibits the effecting without consent' and insert 'imposes a qualified prohibition on the effecting'.
206 Page 41, line 2, leave out 'private' and insert 'purposes other than public'.
207 Page 41, line 9, leave out 'penalises' and insert 'has the effect of penalising'.
208 Page 41, line 10, leave out 'without consent'.
209 Page 41, line 12, leave out from 'If' to 'such' in line 14 and insert 'any person suffers a diminution in the value of any property or interest in consequence of the operation of paragraph 26 or 27 above or, where sub-paragraph (IA) below applies, paragraph 25 above,'
210 Page 41, line 16, at end insert:
'(1A) This sub-paragraph applies where the effect of the transfer is to sever the ownership of the property or rights to which the provision concerned relates.'.
211 Page 41, line 18, leave out 'to or'.
212 Page 41, line 28, leave out 'prohibits' and insert 'imposes an absolute prohibition on'.
213 Page 41, line 31, leave out paragraph (b).
214 Page 41, line 32, leave out 'private' and insert 'purposes other than public'.
215 Page 41, line 37, after 'below', insert 'in relation to the identified provision'.
216 Page 41, line 38, leave out 'the' and insert 'that'.
217 Page 42, line 14, leave out 'penalises' and insert 'has the effect of penalising'.
218 Page 42, line 17, after 'above', insert in relation to any provision'.
219 Page 42, line 30, after 'paragraph', insert ', in relation to the provision concerned,'.
220 Page 42, line 30, at end insert:
'Restrictions on change of location
30A.—(1) For the purposes of this paragraph, a provision is a qualifying provision if—

(a) it is contained in a qualifying agreement,

(b) it imposes an absolute or qualified prohibition on the movement outside a specified area of property to which the agreement relates, and

1155

(c) the prohibition which it imposes is imposed for purposes other than public purposes.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, an agreement is a qualifying agreement if—

(a) it is an agreement under which moveable property is leased to a milk marketing board or to a subsidiary of such a board, and

(b) an approved scheme makes provision for the transfer of rights and liabilities of the lessee under the agreement.

(3) Where an approved —

(a) identifies a qualifying provision as one to which this paragraph applies,

(b) specifies a relevant modification in relation to that provision,

(c) specifies a commencement date in relation to the modification, and

(d) specifies one of the relevant bodies as the body against which any claim under paragraph 30B below, in relation to that provision, is to be made,

then, subject to any provision of regulations under sub-paragraph (4) (c) below, that provision shall have effect subject to the specified modification on and after the commencement date specified in relation to it.
(4) The appropriate authority may make regulations—

(a) with respect to the giving of notice of a provision of an approved scheme which does any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of sub-paragraph (3) above,

(b) with respect to the giving by the authority of a certificate of compliance in relation to the giving of notice under paragraph (a) above, and

(c) excluding sub-paragraph (3) above where no certificate of compliance under paragraph (b) above has been given before such date as may be specified in the regulations.

(5) Where by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) above a qualifying provision is modified in its application to any property, the fact that, at any time in the week beginning with the date on which the modification first has effect, that property is outside the permitted area shall not be treated as constituting a breach of the provision if the property—

(a) is in the area which was the permitted area before the modification had effect, or

(b) is in transit from that area to the permitted area.

(6) In sub-paragraph (3) (b) above, "relevant modification", in relation to a qualifying provision, means a change, in relation to any of the property to which the provision applies, in the area by reference to which the qualifying provision has effect.
(7) In sub-paragraph (3) (d) above, the reference to the relevant bodies is to—

(a) the milk marketing board to which the scheme relates, and

(b) the body or bodies to which property, rights or liabilities of that board are, under the scheme, to be transferred under section 10 above.

(8) In sub-paragraph (4) above, "appropriate authority" means—

(a) in the case of an approved scheme relating to the England and Wales Milk Marketing Board, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State acting jointly, and

(b) in any other case, the Secretary of State.

(9) For the purposes of this paragraph, any provision which has the effect of penalising the movement of property outside a specified area shall be treated as prohibiting it.
30B. Paragraph 30 above shall apply in relation to a person who suffers a diminution in the value of any property or interest in consequence of the operation of paragraph 30A above as it applies in relation to a person who suffers a diminution in the value of any property or interest in consequence of the operation of paragraph 29 above.'.
221 Page 42, line 30, at end insert:
'Transfers relevant to flotation
30C.—(1) Where an approved scheme provides for rights and liabilities of a lessee under a qualifying agreement to be transferred to a company on a day earlier than the vesting day under the scheme, the provision shall have effect by virtue of this paragraph if, immediately before the day of the transfer, the company is a qualifying transferee.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above, "qualifying agreement" means an agreement under which moveable property is leased to the board to which the scheme relates or to a subsidiary of that board.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (I) above, a company is a qualifying transferee if it is—

(a) a company in relation to which the scheme provides for the taking of steps with a view to securing its quotation on the Stock Exchange,

(b) a subsidiary of a company falling within paragraph (a) above, or

(c) a company which, if the scheme is carried out, will become a subsidiary of a company falling within paragraph (a) above before that company is quoted on the Stock Exchange.'.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 195 to 221 en bloc. With the leave of the House I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 223 to 227 and 255 to 262.
The main purpose of the property provisions in Schedules 2 and 4 is to ensure that third party rights cannot be exercised in such a way as to delay or disrupt the implementation of an approved MMB reorganisation scheme or a transfer scheme of the Potato Marketing Board. Compensation would be available where the overriding of third party rights resulted in a material reduction in the value of that third party's interest. The provisions also ensure that there will be documentary proof of transfers effected under a transfer scheme and provide for a successor body to stand in the shoes of its predecessor board in respect of agreements or transactions relating to property, rights or liabilities transferred to it.
Since we last considered Schedule 2 in this House a number of points came to light, both as a result of our own reflection and in discussions with the boards, which persuaded us of the need to make a number of amendments. Many of the changes simply clarify the intention behind the provision concerned or make drafting improvements. Others, such as Amendments Nos. 209 and 210, extend the compensation provisions to cover additional circumstances in which a third party might suffer a reduction in the value of his interest in property transferred under an approved scheme. In addition the Commons amendments insert equivalent provisions, adjusted when necessary, in respect of transfers of the Potato Marketing Board's property.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 220, 221, 226 and 227 facilitate the transfer of finance leases under an approved scheme. For example, they would enable certain provisions of the leases to be overridden by an

1157
approved scheme and enable the transfers to be completed before the vesting day for the scheme concerned.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 195 to 221 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
222 Schedule 2, page 42, line 30, at end insert:
'30D.—(1) Where—

(a) an approved scheme provides for the taking of steps with a view to securing the quotation of a company on the Stock Exchange, and

(b) the board to which the scheme relates makes under the scheme a qualifying transfer of shares in a subsidiary of its,

then, if the shares transferred were subject in the hands of that board to a resulting or constructive trust, they shall by virtue of the transfer cease to be subject to that trust.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, a transfer is a qualifying transfer if—

(a) it takes place in connection with the carrying out of the provision mentioned in paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph, or

(b) the transferee is a qualifying person and the shares transferred are of the same class as other shares in the subsidiary which fall to be transferred as mentioned in that paragraph.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above, the transferee is a qualifying person if the shares are transferred to him—

(a) by virtue of his being, or having been, a registered producer, or

(b) as trustee for persons who are entitled to participate in the trust by virtue of their being, or having been, registered producers.

(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, shares of a company shall not be treated as being of the same class unless they are so treated by the practice of the Stock Exchange or would be so treated if dealt with on the Stock Exchange.'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 222. The point of this amendment is to ensure that if a flotation is proposed as part of a reorganisation scheme it will not be jeopardised by a potential claim by former producers to the title of shares in the company concerned. Leaving open the merest possibility of such a claim, which would have to be publicly disclosed, could be more than enough to stop a flotation from going ahead.
This amendment therefore removes a potentially serious source of delay to the reorganisation timetable, on the assumption that the England and Wales board will, as anticipated, propose the flotation of Dairy Crest as part of its reorganisation scheme. The Government consider that the sort of claim which this amendment is intended to deal with would have no more than a remote chance of succeeding. Action is no less necessary for that. The amendment deals with the matter in a manner which does not prejudice the right of potential complainants to challenge approval of a reorganisation scheme or their right to compensation if their arguments are in the event upheld. If a court were to find that former producers who had not received shares in a company did have a
1158
valid claim, they would be entitled to financial compensation and their claim would be directed against the residuary body.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amemdment No. 222.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
223 Schedule 2, page 42, line 35, leave out 'that'.
224 Page 42, line 35, after 'section', insert '10 above'.
225 Page 44, line 44, leave out 'The' and insert 'A'.
226 Page 45, line 44, after 'above', insert 'or paragraph 30C above'.
227 Page 45, line 46, leave out 'vesting day' and insert 'day of the transfer'.
228 Page 46, line 35, leave out 'corporate'.
229 Page 46, line 44, leave out `corporate'.
230 Page 47, line 3, leave out `to a body corporate'.
231 Page 47, line 4, leave out 'that body corporate' and insert `the body to which it is so transferred'.
232 Page 47, line 5, leave out 'corporate'.
233 Page 47, line 7, leave out 'corporate'.
234 Page 47, line 12, leave out 'corporate'.
235 Schedule 3, page 48, line 9, leave out 'to one or more qualifying successor bodies'.
236 Page 48, line 11, leave out 'the successor body or bodies' and insert 'a body to which property, rights or liabilities of the Board are to be transferred under that section'.
237 Page 48, line 11, leave out 'and'.
238 Page 48, line 13, at end insert and
(c) any property or rights whose transfer would involve a breach by the Board of the restriction imposed by section 47(2) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 (restriction on disclosure of information obtained under the Act).'.
239 Page 48, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 223 to 239 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 223 to 239 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
240 Schedule 3, page 48, line 28, after `(2)', insert 'Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply'.
241 Page 48, line 29, leave out from '1947' to end of line 35 and insert `(development council).'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 240 and 241.
Under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947 it is for Ministers to specify in the order establishing a development council its name and the functions to be assigned to it and for Parliament to approve the order. The original draft of the Bill required the Potato Marketing Board to specify in its transfer scheme the name and functions of any successor body that was to be a development council. While Ministers will obviously wish to have the PMB's views on what a development council

1159
should do, it is not the board's place to specify them. This group therefore removes the requirement on the board and, in so doing, brings the potatoes provisions into line with those on milk.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 240 and 241. —(Earl Howe.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe that this is the last group to which the Minister will speak. Perhaps I could move a little outside our rules. It is the last opportunity to wish the Bill well and to thank the Minister for explaining the amendments so clearly.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and for the constructive way in which he has addressed the amendments we have been discussing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
242 Schedule 3, page 48, line 35, at end insert:
'Disclosure of information,
.—(1) The scheme must specify what information to which this sub-paragraph applies is to be disclosed by the Board for the purposes of the scheme and to whom.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies to information the disclosure of which is (apart from paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to this Act) restricted by section 47(2) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.'.
243 Schedule 4, page 49, line 6, leave out 'all' and insert 'any'.
244 Page 49, line 6, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
245 Page 49, line 7, leave out 'to a qualifying successor body'.
246 Page 49, line 9, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
247 Page 49, line 9, leave out 'qualifying successor body' and insert 'transferee'.
248 Page 49, line II, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
249 Page 49, line 12, leave out 'to a qualifying successor body'.
250 Page 49, line 13, leave out 'that body' and insert 'the transferee'.
251 Page 49, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
252 Page 49, line 16, at end insert:
'() This paragraph shall have effect in relation to accounting periods beginning after the last complete accounting period of the Board ending before the date of the transfer under section 31 above.'.
253 Page 49, line 30, leave out 'for the purposes of carrying out' and insert 'in accordance with the provisions of.
254 Page 49, leave out lines 44 and 45.
255 Page 50, line 40, at end insert:
'Restraints on alienation etc.,
6.—(1) Any provision which imposes a prohibition (whether absolute or qualified) on the transfer of any property or rights of the Board shall be treated as not applying in the case of a transfer under section 31 above.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply in the case of a provision which is formulated specifically with reference to the possibility of the undertaking of the Board being transferred otherwise than to a board constituted by a scheme under Part I of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, any provision which has the effect of penalising a transfer shall be treated as prohibiting it.'.
256 Page 50, line 40, at end insert:
'7.—(1) This paragraph applies to any provision which imposes a qualified prohibition on the effecting of any description of transaction, other than a transfer, with respect to any property or rights of the Board.
(2) Where the prohibition imposed by a provision to which this paragraph applies is imposed for purposes other than public purposes, it shall, subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, be treated as not applying in the case of a transaction effected under an approved scheme.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply in the case of a provision which is formulated specifically with reference to the possibility of the undertaking of the Board being transferred otherwise than to a board constituted by a scheme under Part I of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, any provision which has the effect of penalising the effecting of any description of transaction shall be treated as prohibiting it.
8.—(1) If any person suffers a diminution in the value of any property or interest in consequence of the operation of paragraph 7 above or, where sub-paragraph (2) below applies, paragraph 6 above, such compensation as may be just shall be paid to that person by one or more of the parties to the transfer or other transaction.
(2) This sub-paragraph applies where the effect of the transfer is to sever the ownership of the property or rights to which the provision concerned relates.
(3) Any dispute as to whether, and, if so, how much, compensation is payable under this paragraph, or as to the person by whom it shall be paid, shall be referred to and determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Ministers.'.
257 Page 50, line 40, at end insert:
'9.—(1) For the purposes of this paragraph, a provision is a qualifying provision if—

(a) it imposes an absolute prohibition on the effecting of any description of transaction, other than a transfer, with respect to any property or rights of the Board, and

(b) the prohibition which it imposes is imposed for purposes other than public purposes.

(2) Where an approved scheme—

(a) identifies a qualifying provision as one to which this paragraph applies, and

(b) if the scheme provides for there to be more than one transferee under section 31 above, specifies one of them as the body against which any claim under paragraph 10 below in relation to the identified provision is to be made,

that provision shall, subject to any provision of regulations under sub-paragraph (3) (c) below, be treated as not applying in the case of a transaction effected under the scheme.
(3) The Ministers may make regulations—

(a) with respect to the giving of notice of a provision of an approved scheme which identifies a qualifying provision as one to which this paragraph applies,

(b) with respect to the giving by the Ministers of a certificate of compliance in relation to the giving of notice under paragraph (a) above, and

(c) excluding sub-paragraph (2) above where no certificate of compliance under paragraph (b) above has been given at the time that a transaction is effected.

(4) Sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply in the case of a provision which is formulated specifically with reference to the possibility of the undertaking of the Board being transferred otherwise than to a board constituted by a scheme under Part I of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.
(5) For the purposes of this paragraph, any provision which has the effect of penalising the effecting of a description of transaction shall be treated as prohibiting it.
10.—(1) If any person suffers a diminution in the value of any property or interest in consequence of the operation of paragraph 9 above in relation to any provision, such compensation as may be just shall be paid to him—

(a) where the approved scheme provides for there to be one transferee under section 31 above, by that body, and

(b) where the scheme provides for there to be more than one transferee under that section, by the body which the approved scheme specifies as the body against which any claim for compensation under this paragraph, in relation to the provision concerned, is to be made.

(2) Any dispute as to whether, and, if so, how much compensation is payable under this paragraph, or as to the person to whom it shall be paid, shall be referred to and determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Ministers.'.
258 Page 50, line 40, at end insert:
'Certificates of vesting,
11.—(1) Where section 31 (1) above applies on the vesting day under an approved scheme, the Ministers shall give to each person identified by the scheme as a person to whom any property, right or liability of the Board is to be transferred under section 31 above ("a relevant transferee") a certificate ("qualification certificate") stating—

(a) that he is identified by the scheme as a relevant transferee,

(b) whether the concurrence of any person is required to the issue by him of a certificate of vesting in relation to the Board, and

(c) if it is, whose concurrence is required.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, a person's concurrence is required to the issue of a certificate of vesting in relation to the Board if he is identified by the scheme as a relevant transferee.
(3) Where a person to whom a qualification certificate is given issues a certificate of vesting in relation to the Board, then, subject to subparagraphs (4) to (6) below, it shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes of any fact stated in it with respect to the effect of section 31 above in relation to any property, right or liability of the Board.
(4) Where a qualification certificate states that the concurrence of one or more persons is required to the issue of a certificate of vesting in relation to the Board, sub-paragraph (3) above shall not apply in relation to such a certificate issued by the person to whom the qualification certificate is given unless it is issued with the concurrence of the person, or each of the persons, identified by the qualification certificate as a person whose concurrence is required.
(5) Sub-paragraph (3) above shall not apply to a certificate of vesting in relation to the Board to the extent that the certificate relates to land which is registered land at the time the certificate is issued if a person has, at that time, been registered as the proprietor of the land in reliance on the operation of section 31 above in relation to it.
(6) Sub-paragraph (3) above shall cease to apply to a certificate of vesting in relation to the Board—

(a) to the extent that the certificate relates to land which is not registered land at the time the certificate is issued, on the land becoming registered land, and

(b) to the extent that the certificate relates to land which is registered land at the time the certificate is issued, on a person being registered as the proprietor of the land in reliance on the operation of section 31 above.

(7) In this paragraph—
1162

(a) references to a certificate of vesting in relation to the Board are to a certificate with respect to the effect of section 31 above in relation to any property, right or liability of the Board, and

(b) references to registered land are to registered land within the meaning of the Land Registration Act 1925.'.

259 Page 50, line 40, at end insert:
'Land registration
12.—(1) Where section 31(1) above applies on the vesting day under an approved scheme, the Ministers shall—

(a) give a copy of the order under section 23(5) above to each person from or to whom property, rights or liabilities are transferred under section 31 above in accordance with the scheme, and

(b) annex to the copy order a copy of the scheme certified by them to be a true copy.

(2) A copy of the scheme given under sub-paragraph (1) above shall he treated for land registration purposes in England and Wales as conclusive evidence of the terms of the scheme.
13.—(1) This paragraph applies where any registered land in England and Wales is transferred under section 31 above.
(2) The transferee shall be entitled to be registered as proprietor in place of the transferor on an application in that behalf made to the Chief Land Registrar.
(3) On an application under sub-paragraph (2) above, the transferee shall supply to the Chief Land Registrar such information and produce to him such documents as he may require for the purpose of enabling him to deal with the application.
(4) Section 43 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (effect of transmissions) shall apply in relation to any person registered in place of the transferor as it applies in relation to any person registered in place of a deceased or bankrupt proprietor, but with the omission of the words from "upon the trusts" to "applicable by law, and".
(5) In this paragraph, "registered land" has the same meaning as in the Land Registration Act 1925.
14.—(1) This paragraph applies where any land in England and Wales which is not registered land is transferred by virtue of section 31 above.
(2) Unless the transferee, or his successor in title or assign, has before the end of six months from the date of the transfer applied to be registered as proprietor of the land, section 31 above shall he deemed never to have had effect to transfer the legal estate in the land.
(3) The power conferred by the proviso to section 123(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925 (power of Chief Land Registrar, or court on appeal from him, to extend the period within which an application for first registration must be made) shall also apply in relation to the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above.
(4) Any rules made by virtue of section 123(2) of the Land Registration Act 1925 shall—

(a) apply to dealings with the land which may take place between the date of the transfer and the date of the application to register as if the land had been the subject of a conveyance or assignment on the date of the transfer, and

(b) apply in relation to an application for registration under this paragraph as they apply in relation to an application for registration under section 123 of that Act.

(5) On an application for first registration under this paragraph, the applicant shall supply to the Chief Land Registrar such information and produce to him such documents as he may require for the purpose of enabling him to deal with the application.
(6) In this paragraph, "registered land" has the same meaning as in the Land Registration Act 1925.
15. In relation to Scotland, any transfer under an approved scheme shall have effect subject to the provisions of any enactment which provides for transactions of that description to be given effect to by registration in any statutory register.'.
260 Page 50, line 40, at end insert:
'Transfers under section 31: transition
16.—(1) Any agreement, transaction or other thing which—

(a) is made, effected or done with respect to anything transferred under section 31 above in accordance with an approved scheme,

(b) is made, effected or done by, to or in relation to the transferor, and

(c) is in force or effective immediately before the vesting day under the scheme,

shall, on and after that day, have effect as if made, effected or done by, to or in relation to the transferee in all respects as if the transferee were the same person in law as the transferor.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not affect the construction of any provision which is formulated specifically with reference to the possibility of the undertaking of the Board being transferred otherwise than to a board constituted by a scheme under Part I of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.'.
261 Page 50, line 40, at end insert:
'Provisions of scheme effective on statutory vesting
17.—(1) Where section 31(1) above applies on the vesting day under an approved scheme, the provisions of the scheme shall, to the extent that they fall within sub-paragraph (2) below, have effect by virtue of this paragraph.
(2) The provisions of an approved scheme fall within this sub-paragraph to the extent that they purport—

(a) to impose on one relevant body an obligation on or after the vesting day under the scheme to enter into a written agreement with, or execute an instrument in favour of, another relevant body;

(b) to create for one relevant body, on the vesting day under the scheme, an interest in or right over property transferred under section 31 above to another relevant body; or

(c) to adapt, with effect from the vesting day under the scheme, references to members or officers of the Board in a document or oral agreement relating to anything transferred under section 31 above.

(3) The provisions of an approved scheme only fall within sub-paragraph (2) above by virtue of paragraph (c) of that sub-paragraph to the extent that their purpose is to prevent, so far as reasonably possible, the effect of the provisions in which the references concerned occur being materially altered as a result of the transfer.
(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above, the following are relevant bodies in relation to an approved scheme—

(a) the Board, and

(b) any body to which property, rights or liabilities of the Board are transferred under section 31 above.'.

262 Page 50, line 40, at end insert:
18.—(1) Where section 31(1) above applies on the vesting day under an approved scheme, the provisions of the scheme shall, to the extent that they fall within sub-paragraph (2) below, have effect by virtue of this paragraph
(2) The provisions of an approved scheme fall within this sub-paragraph to the extent that they purport—

(a) to impose on the Board, or on any body to which property, rights or liabilities are transferred under section 31 above, duties to take, on or after the vesting day under the scheme, such steps as may be requisite to secure that the vesting under that section of any foreign property, right or liability of the Board is effective under the relevant foreign law;

(b) to impose on the Board a duty, in relation to any foreign property, right or liability of its which is transferred under section 31 above, to hold that property or right for the benefit of, or discharge that liability on behalf of, the body to which it is so transferred, until the vesting of that property, right or liability in that body is effective under the relevant foreign law;

(c) to require a body to which any foreign property, right or liability of the Board is transferred under section 31 above to act on behalf of the Board (so far as possible) for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance of any duty of the Board under the scheme in relation to any foreign property, right or liability of its so transferred to that body; or

(d) to require any body to which property, rights or liabilities of the Board are transferred under section 31 above to meet expenses incurred by the Board in consequence of provisions of the scheme which fall within this sub-paragraph by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) above.

(3) Nothing in any provision which has effect by virtue of this paragraph shall be taken as prejudicing the effect, under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, of the vesting under section 31 above of any foreign property, right or liability.
(4) Where provisions of an approved scheme have effect by virtue of this paragraph, the Board shall have all such powers as may be requisite for the performance of any duty to which it is subject as a result.
(5) In this paragraph, references to any foreign property, right or liability are to any property, right or liability as respects which any issue arising in any proceedings would have to be determined (in accordance with the rules of private international law) by reference to the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.'.
263 Schedule 5, page 51, leave out line 26 and insert:
'1. The repeals in the Agriculture Act 1957 are without prejudice to sections 48(2) and 49(2) above.'.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 242 to 263 en bloc. The amendments have already been spoken to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 242 to 263.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Leeds Supertram Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  PRISON ESCORTS: ASSAULTS ON OFFICERS
  PRISON ESCORTS: ASSAULTS ON OFFICERS
  PRISON SERVICE ESCORTS: ESCAPES AND ATTEMPTED ESCAPES
  PRISON SERVICE ESCORTS: ESCAPES AND ATTEMPTED ESCAPES
  WAR CRIMES ALLEGATIONS: HEATHERINGTON-CHALMERS REPORT
  WAR CRIMES ALLEGATIONS: HEATHERINGTON-CHALMERS REPORT
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS: FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT SCHEMES
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS: FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT SCHEMES
  MENTALLY DISORDERED REMAND PRISONERS: SELF-INFLICTED DEATHS
  MENTALLY DISORDERED REMAND PRISONERS: SELF-INFLICTED DEATHS
  WOLDS PRISON: ASSAULTS ON OFFICERS
  WOLDS PRISON: ASSAULTS ON OFFICERS
  WOLDS REMAND PRISON PCO ASSAULTED BY PRISONERS
  WOLDS REMAND PRISON PCO ASSAULTED BY PRISONERS
  WOLDS PRISON: DISTURBANCES
  WOLDS PRISON: DISTURBANCES
  DISTURBANCES
  DISTURBANCES
  ARTS COUNCIL (REVIEW)
  ARTS COUNCIL (REVIEW)
  THEATRES: ARTS FUNDING
  THEATRES: ARTS FUNDING
  RESEARCH COUNCILS: MISSION STATEMENTS
  RESEARCH COUNCILS: MISSION STATEMENTS
  EDUCATION: ASSISTED PLACES SCHEME
  EDUCATION: ASSISTED PLACES SCHEME
  STUDENT INCOME AND EXPENDITURE: SURVEY
  STUDENT INCOME AND EXPENDITURE: SURVEY
  TEACHERS: TRAINING AND SUPPLY
  TEACHERS: TRAINING AND SUPPLY
  HONG KONG MILITARY SERVICE CORPS: BRITISH CITIZENSHIP PLACES
  HONG KONG MILITARY SERVICE CORPS: BRITISH CITIZENSHIP PLACES
  US GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM
  US GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM
  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD AND AWE, ALDERMASTON: BROWN AND ROOT LTD.
  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD AND AWE, ALDERMASTON: BROWN AND ROOT LTD.
  GEN. McPEAK'S VIEWS
  GEN. McPEAK'S VIEWS
  CIVIL PLUTONIUM
  CIVIL PLUTONIUM
  INDUSTRY AND THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING BASE: PARTNERSHIP
  INDUSTRY AND THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING BASE: PARTNERSHIP
  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS (WALES)
  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS (WALES)
  QUEEN MARY'S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL: BURNS AND PLASTICS UNIT
  QUEEN MARY'S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL: BURNS AND PLASTICS UNIT
  THE DISABLED: CHARGES FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY SERVICES
  THE DISABLED: CHARGES FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY SERVICES
  PEERS: HEALTH AUTHORITY APPOINTMENTS
  PEERS: HEALTH AUTHORITY APPOINTMENTS
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE AUTHORITIES AND TRUSTS
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE AUTHORITIES AND TRUSTS
  NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODIES
  NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODIES
  MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983: FORMAL ADMISSIONS
  MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983: FORMAL ADMISSIONS
  SEA FISH INDUSTRY AUTHORITY
  SEA FISH INDUSTRY AUTHORITY
  SET-ASIDE RULES
  SET-ASIDE RULES
  DEREGULATION TASK FORCES: MEETING WITH THE PRIME MINISTER
  DEREGULATION TASK FORCES: MEETING WITH THE PRIME MINISTER
  CONSTRUCTION DEREGULATION TASK FORCE: CHAIRMAN
  CONSTRUCTION DEREGULATION TASK FORCE: CHAIRMAN
  CLOSE-RINGED BIRDS: REGULATION
  CLOSE-RINGED BIRDS: REGULATION
  STOLEN BIRDS
  STOLEN BIRDS
  BIODIVERSITY CONVENTION: RATIFICATION
  BIODIVERSITY CONVENTION: RATIFICATION
  SOCIAL SECURITY (STATISTICS)
  SOCIAL SECURITY (STATISTICS)
  HOUSING BENEFIT AND INCOME SUPPORT
  HOUSING BENEFIT AND INCOME SUPPORT
  SOCIAL SECURITY BUDGET (CHILD BENEFIT)
  SOCIAL SECURITY BUDGET (CHILD BENEFIT)
  SOCIAL FUND (LOANS)
  SOCIAL FUND (LOANS)
  SOCIAL FUND: BUDGET
  SOCIAL FUND: BUDGET
  SOCIAL FUND (REPAYMENTS)
  SOCIAL FUND (REPAYMENTS)
  COMMUNITY CARE GRANTS: REFUSAL
  COMMUNITY CARE GRANTS: REFUSAL
  SOCIAL SECURITY: EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS
  SOCIAL SECURITY: EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS
  INFRASTRUCTURE: INVESTMENT
  INFRASTRUCTURE: INVESTMENT
  STERLING: SUPPORT
  STERLING: SUPPORT
  CAMEROONIAN STUDENTS IN UK: UNPAID FEES
  CAMEROONIAN STUDENTS IN UK: UNPAID FEES
  SOMALIA: UN RESOLUTION 794
  SOMALIA: UN RESOLUTION 794
  EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMMES
  EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMMES
  MALAWI: UK AID
  MALAWI: UK AID
  RECEIVERS
  RECEIVERS
  BLANK RECORDING TAPE (LEVY SCHEME PROPOSALS)
  BLANK RECORDING TAPE (LEVY SCHEME PROPOSALS)
  PUBLIC SECTOR RESEARCH BODIES
  PUBLIC SECTOR RESEARCH BODIES
  CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND ENGINEERS
  CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND ENGINEERS