Sitting of 1 November 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  UNIBANK BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Cardiff Airport
    Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to use Cardiff Wales airport in the course of his ministerial duties.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I last used Cardiff Wales airport on 8 September. I have no current plans to use it in the near future, but I will use it whenever my ministerial duties so require. I and my hon. Friends are keen to promote it as a good airport, and to see it as an important part of the south Wales economy.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that the services to Europe, and in particular to Germany, from Cardiff Wales airport are abysmal? Manufacturing firms in my constituency and throughout south Wales, increasingly
    2
    require to get their executives and technicians to places such as Frankfurt and Dusseldorf and back in a day. That cannot be done at present. Will the Secretary of State spend his Department's time and resources to establish a daily return flight, five days a week, from Cardiff to Frankfurt?
    Mr. Redwood: I am very keen to promote Cardiff Wales airport. I shall organise a meeting with business users and airlines to bring them together and to get more business through the airport. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was recently on the inaugural flight of the new service to Manchester. The Cardiff Wales airport needs more publicity and the right hon. Gentleman might think it a good idea to use the airport as neutral ground on which the Labour party ladies can get together and settle their differences. That would be newsworthy and promote the airport.
    Mr. Sweeney: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Cardiff Wales airport on its profits last year? Bearing in mind that those profits represent a return of only 1 per cent. on capital for the taxpayer, does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time to consider privatising Cardiff Wales airport?
    Mr. Redwood: As my hon. Friend says, things have been moving in the right direction. I was pleased that the number of passengers using the airport increased by 50 per cent. last year to 900,000 and that the airport is in the black. We will look at all the options for the future of the airport. Anything that will increase business and make the airport a better asset for the people of south Wales will be high on my agenda.
    Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State will realise, or will have been informed, that Cardiff Wales airport was set up by a consortium of local authorities, and funded and paid for by the people of south Wales, not by Her Majesty's Government. Is not the proposition that the airport might be privatised another example of the Secretary of State's skulduggery and thuggery whenever he embarks on privatisation? He has no right to privatise an asset that does not belong to the Welsh Office. The airport belongs to the

    3
    people of south Wales, who have invested money in it over many years, and there is a great deal of anger about the proposition to steal private property yet again.
    Mr. Redwood: Were we to decide to privatise the airport, the money would not be lost to the people of Wales. The hon. Gentleman might learn something of value were he to look at the great success that other airports in the United Kingdom have had since being privatised. Privatisation is an option at the moment, not a confirmed policy. I intend to consult and think about it before announcing such a policy.
    Mr. Richards: When my right hon. Friend uses Cardiff Wales airport, will he take great care to avoid the harridans who have a tendency to prey on the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)?
    Mr. Redwood: I will, indeed, try to avoid those harridans. My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point about the in-fighting in the Welsh Labour party among its female members. I am delighted to note that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, has been a beneficiary of the strange voting practices and received a better vote this year. I think that he owes that to the Welsh Labour party ladies.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that Cardiff Wales airport is a successful and profitable enterprise, which is a credit to its municipal parents, the three county councils of Glamorgan? Would he also like to reassure the employees at that airport that he does not propose to place it in the hands of one of those funny-money residuary bodies run by the usual Tory placemen from central casting and Central Office? Their action, in making a forced sale of that airport, would undoubtedly cost many millions of pounds in lower receipts to the Glamorgan ratepayers who set up that airport.
    Mr. Redwood: I shall look at all the options for the future of that airport with the single question in mind as to what would be best for the south Wales economy. I agree with the Opposition that the airport is important to that economy. We need to increase services out of the airport in order to service the business community and other passengers. That would be my intention and there are a number of ways in which that may be pursued. My immediate task is to try to win more business for the airport in the way that I have already described.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were recognised as homeless in Cardiff and Wales at the last date for which figures are available.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): The figures are 671 and 2,703 respectively.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I do not know where the Minister got those figures, because I am informed that Cardiff city council had to cope with 2,700 inquiries on homelessness last year, which represents a 26 per cent. increase on the previous year. In the past six months, the number of inquiries has increased by a further 12 per cent.
    4
    What extra help will the Welsh Office give to local authorities such as Cardiff to cope with the huge number of homeless, which has increased as a result of Government policy?
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that the figure of 671 came from Cardiff city council and the figure relating to Wales came from the other Welsh local authorities. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we have supported a project worth £800,000 specifically designed to try to help single, vulnerable, homeless people in Cardiff. I attended the launch of that project a while ago and I went to see one of the new homes provided by it, which was, incidentally, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the majority of cases of homelessness are attributable to family breakdowns and to disputes between relatives, parents and the like? Those cases represent the big increase in homelessness to which reference has been made and which is recorded in the figures that have been produced by the Welsh Office, on the basis of information provided by Welsh local authorities.
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is correct. It is important to keep those figures in perspective. Of all local authority lettings and housing association lettings, only approximately 25 per cent. are taken by homeless people.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Bearing in mind the evidence that homelessness is increasing in Welsh rural areas as well as in the urban areas, does the Minister agree that it would be quite unacceptable if Government funding for Tai Cymru —Housing for Wales—were the victim of public expenditure cuts?
    Mr. Jones: I acknowledge the question that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised and the importance of funding for Housing for Wales will be given the fullest consideration.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that of the 6,000 homeless cases involving children and/or pregnancies in Wales last year, only 500 involved pregnant single mothers, and of those only 47 were allotted permanent accommodation? In those circumstances, is not the Welsh Office going over the top in drawing attention to the plight of those people, rather than that of the 99 per cent. of homeless who do not fall into that category and who experience enormous difficulties in trying to find somewhere to live?
    Mr. Jones: No, Madam Speaker. The Welsh Office is certainly not going over the top on that issue. In the interests of all the genuine cases who need housing, it is right that there should not be any unjustified fast track approach to obtaining either council accommodation or housing association accommodation.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that he should go back to Cardiff city council to check his figures, since the total number of inquiries from homeless families in that city is nearly 3,000 and nearly 1,200 people were housed in temporary accommodation over the past year? Does he accept that a vital ingredient of family stability is a permanent home and cannot he see that the release of

    5
    council capital receipts to build homes for thousands of homeless people in Wales is worth more than 100 moralising speeches about single parents?
    Mr. Jones: As I said to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) the figures quoted were given to us by Welsh local councils, especially by Cardiff city council. I know of no money sitting idly not being used effectively for debt redemption. If there were any such moneys sitting idly, I would look to the councillors to pursue that situation energetically and if they failed to act, I would look to the local electors to show their disapproval at the earliest opportunity.

    Poverty
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what response he has made to the pamphlet, "The Politics of Poverty in Blaenau Gwent", a copy of which was sent to him in September.
    Mr. Redwood: I saw the pamphlet for the first time today and, like much Labour policy-making, it is long on gloom and doom and short on decent remedies. The best way of curing poverty is to create more jobs. That is why on 20 October I published details of the new five-year programme for the valleys to regenerate Blaenau Gwent and the other valley communities.
    Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware, especially after reading the pamphlet today, that, after 14 years of Tory Government, Blaenau Gwent still has one of the worst health problems in the United Kingdom? Is he also aware that in the past week, phase 1 of the Blaenau Gwent hospital commenced and that the commitment was given that phase 2 will commence in 1995? Will he reinforce that commitment and assure the House that the second phase will include a stroke unit? Is the Minister aware that the document was sent to the Welsh Office some 28 days ago and does it not say something about the operations of the Welsh Office that it has come into his hands only today?
    Mr. Redwood: I am told that the pamphlet was not addressed to me so it was perfectly proper that it did not go straight to my desk. I have now read it, but, as I said to the hon. Gentleman, we have a big programme for rejuvenating and regenerating the valleys. I hope that he joins me in welcoming Sega as a new investor in Wales, through its links with AB Electronics and the 50 new jobs that that will generate at Abercynon. I hope that he welcomes the Treforest news of STNP creating 129 new jobs as well as 755 new jobs at Tesco. That is what matters —producing new jobs for the valleys, which the hon. Gentleman is asking for in his pamphlet.
    Yes, of course, we will ensure high-quality health services and ensure that the right health facilities are made available for his area as elsewhere in the valleys, as set out in the valleys document that I sent to him.
    Mr. Ron Davies: None of that is of any relevance whatever to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). Is not it clear from his report that, in 1993, a previously unreported depth of poverty and deprivation that arises directly from unemployment and low pay exists in Wales. It is the direct responsibility of the Government and it is an absolute disgrace after 14 years in office. My hon. Friend should be congratulated on his report rather than criticism being
    6
    thrown against him. Does not the Secretary of State realise that we need more positive action on jobs and low pay and more investment in housing, health and education? Is not it time that the Tory party started facing up to its responsibilities, rather than indulging in the hypocritical moralising of other people?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman will not find me unwilling to accept responsibilities. I have set out in the valleys initiative the Government's major expenditure programmes for the next five years. They are geared to bringing in a lot more private sector investment as well, which is what the valleys require. The programme was very successful during its first five years and the number of long-term unemployed fell importantly and dramatically. I accept that much more needs to be done; I have never made any secret of that. The hon. Gentleman should listen and should read the valleys programme initiative because he will see there a bold vision of the future for a better south Wales, based on more jobs, more prosperity and more investment, which I hope that the Opposition welcome.

    Beef
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he has taken to encourage the promotion of Welsh beef for consumption overseas.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Welsh Food Promotions Ltd. was set up more than two years ago with a remit to promote all types of food produced in Wales, including beef. The company works closely with Food from Britain in promoting overseas sales.
    Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent taste and unique quality of Welsh black cattle. Is he equally aware of the grievous losses suffered by the breeders of Welsh black cattle since the imposition of the ban on exports because of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy scare? Is he aware that Welsh black cattle are fed on natural sources, such as silage in winter and grain in summer? Is he further aware that BSE exists anyway in continental Europe? What can my right hon. Friend do to promote the export of Welsh black cattle to Europe as a valuable earner of deutschmarks?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Of course, I am aware of the difficulties that the restrictions on exporting cattle, put into place as a result of BSE, have brought for many producers, and I sympathise with their position. However, the prohibition on the export of live cattle over six months old applies to all breeds of cattle and as Welsh blacks are among the breed types that have had confirmed cases of BSE, we are not likely to be able to advance the case for special treatment for that breed alone. Although a few cases of BSE have been confirmed in some member states, they are all isolated cases which are linked to feedstuffs imported from the United Kingdom. Exports to other member states are likely to remain restricted for some time yet.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been allocated by his Department to promote energy efficiency within housing in Wales in each of the last five years.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: It is for local councils to decide how much of the money that is given to them is allocated to energy efficiency schemes for housing.
    Mr. Dafis: That is a disappointing response. I hope that, following the remarkable rally on Saturday in Cardiff by Friends of the Earth, the Minister recognises that there is now a formidable coalition in favour of energy efficiency, from social and environmental groups that see the issue as not only addressing the problem of pollution, but enabling people to bring about reductions of as much as 30 per cent. in their fuel bills, while providing important savings in other areas. Will the Minister now join me in congratulating neighbourhood energy action and its contractors on its excellent work? Does he agree that there needs to be a comprehensive programme in the area, which should be a central issue of economic policy as a way in which to bring it to fruition?
    Mr. Jones: I should thank the hon. Gentleman for effectively endorsing the lead that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave at the Earth summit in Rio. It behoves all of us to achieve energy efficiency, in the interests of Britain and of the globe generally.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Rather than putting VAT on fuel and causing hypothermia among elderly people in the winter, why do not the Government introduce a comprehensive home insulation programme? It would have a rapid payback, in perhaps four or five years, and it would help to keep people warm in the winter rather than cause hardship.
    Mr. Jones: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are already seeking to carry out such a programme. In our estates partnership programme, it is a requirement that energy efficiency should be considered. Housing for Wales is this week publishing a new consultation document which looks for improved energy efficiency schemes in housing association developments.

    Job Safeguards
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to safeguard jobs in Wales.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The way in which to safeguard jobs is to ensure a steady economic recovery and sustainable growth. Our strategy—low inflation and sound public finances—does just that. We are also pressing ahead with our policies on deregulation, on encouraging enterprise, and on fighting for open and competitive markets.
    Mr. Flynn: Why is the Welsh Office standing by watching so many winning Welsh teams being wrecked? I refer, for example, to the jobs in the brilliantly successful Du Pont group in Pontypool. The Patent Office in Newport is under threat although it has just been awarded a chartermark. Does not the Minister realise that many of the regional policy successes are likely to be destroyed by the Government's mania for privatising everything? Will he give a guarantee today that if privatisation goes ahead, none of the jobs that have come to Wales, such as those at DVOIT in Swansea, the Accounts Services Agency and the Patent Office, will be relocated outside Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is aware that his question about the Patent Office in his constituency is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry and for
    8
    the President of the Board of Trade. The hon. Gentleman talked about getting rid of jobs. He did not mention all the jobs that have come into Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked of today's announcement from Sega. Over the past few weeks, we have had announcements about Hamilton Oil at Connah's Quay in north Wales, and further jobs created by Asat and Aiwa in south Wales.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best things that the Government can do to safeguard jobs in Wales is to continue the polices of promoting the right economic climate, which have been so successful in promoting existing businesses as well as attracting new business opportunities?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is quite right and I am reminded that Wales continues to get 20 per cent. of the United Kingdom's inward investment. It is worth remembering also that some 40 per cent. of European investment from outside Europe comes in to the United Kingdom. Our job is to continue that good work and to support the companies that have come here. I am delighted to say that we are doing that through the export missions that we are leading abroad.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the Minister look with great care at the special problems of the construction industry in Wales, which is now flat on its back and has many jobs haemorrhaging? Surely that industry is heavily dependent on the public sector. Is there not a real danger that, in the Budget, there will be a twofold pressure on the construction industry, both from national ordering and local government ordering as a result of the pressure on local government expenditure? Will he look at the problems of the construction industry, which can create or destroy so many jobs?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman realises only too well that a considerable public sector capital programme exists in Wales. One of the areas for which I am responsible—roads in Wales—is running at a record level of some £200 million a year. Like the Chancellor, I am in the Budget purdah, but I am sure that, unlike the Labour party in the 1970s, we shall seek to protect capital spending even if it means cutting revenue spending.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that inward investment in Wales would be killed if we introduced a national minimum wage or signed the social charter? Is not it significant that those who seek to sell Wales short will destroy the Welsh economy by the restrictions that they suggest?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The Government are accustomed to hearing Opposition right hon. and hon. Members run down Wales. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On the one hand, they complain about wage levels in Wales, even though since 1990 wage levels in Wales have been rising at a faster rate than in the rest of Great Britain. At the same time, they argue for the minimum wage, which would certainly be a cause of increased unemployment in Wales.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have failed hopelessly to safeguard jobs in the south Wales coal mining industry? There are no pits or jobs left in communities such as mine, which has resulted in 40 per cent. of men being either out of work or economically inactive. What new initiative does

    9
    he have to create male jobs and male employment? The right hon. Gentleman should not just wave glossy brochures, which do not contain a new initiative in that respect.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Before the hon. Gentleman denigrates the valleys initiative, he should remember that, were it not for that initiative in 1988, we should be 10,000 jobs the poorer in south Wales. He must understand that the programme, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just extended, means £1 billion of investment in the south Welsh valleys. That will improve the quality of life for the people of the valleys and bring in new jobs.
    Mr. Ron Davies: That is an untrue and utterly outrageous claim. In every travel-to-work area in the region covered by the valleys initiative, unemployment rose during the time of that initiative.
    I draw the attention of the Minister to a speech made by the Secretary of State for Wales at Cliveden on 30 September, when he said:
    "in the European Community, a single currency would be bad news."
    How does the Minister think that that can be reconciled with the European summit decision of last week to press ahead with full economic and monetary union and what Helmut Kohl described as a "very personal commitment" from the British Prime Minister? Is it not clear that there is a massive difference of opinion between the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister? Given that the Secretary of State has lost all credibility, how does he think that he will safeguard his own job, let alone that of anybody else in Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can safeguard himself as well as his job.
    On the hon. Gentleman's first point about unemployment in the valleys, United Kingdom unemployment is now more than 24 per cent. higher than it was in 1988 when the first programme began, but in the valleys it is 4·5 per cent. lower, which means that there are 10,000 more people at work in the valleys than there would have been had we followed the national trend.
    As to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the events of last week, I am sure that it is right that we should be at the heart of Europe. We understand only too well that arguments about the future course of Europe will proceed and will be with us for a long time to come.

    Cereals
    Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria he proposes to adopt to identify specialist cereal growers for the purposes of the cereals regime in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redwood: I announced on Friday the arrangements that I propose for 1993–94—a division into two regions based on land suitability for growing winter cereals, and cropping patterns in the 1989–91 growing years.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that announcement, but the criteria are complex. Why could he not have approached the matter on the basis of simply identifying individual farms?
    Mr. Redwood: The European Community regulation does not permit us to single out individual specialist growers or farms for support. I hope that when my hon. Friend studies the detail he will see that we have endeavoured to produce the right answers on covering specialist growers in the map that we sketched. As my hon. Friend will have noticed, we are out to consultation on the thrust of the matter of the proposals, so if he has a hard case or a difficulty, I hope that he will make his representations either to me or to the Welsh divisional office, which will be only too willing to help his farmers or those in the constituencies of other hon. Members.

    Local Government Commissioner
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the latest report from the Local Government Commissioner; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: None.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the ombudsman's report contains 10 pages of criticism of maladministration by council housing departments? Does he agree that the Government have done more than any Government to boost private home ownership? Is he further aware that the Opposition now have a policy document saying that the private rented sector badly needs a boost?
    Mr. Jones: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point about the Opposition's deathbed conversion to the importance of the private rented sector. Equally, I acknowledge what my hon. Friend said about bad practice in Welsh local authorities. We have been concerned about that for some time. In our agenda for action on housing, we gave a strong warning against political interference, and earlier this year we embarked on a consultation exercise into the housing allocation policies of all councils. We are now considering the replies to that exercise.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: If only to safeguard the future of local government, will the Minister sack the inspector who awarded costs against Newport borough council for refusing permission to the American concern Browning Ferris for another waste disposal plant? Will he appreciate that the commissar-like attitude is alien to our democratic traditions in Wales and that the elected councillors were only acting in line with the wishes of the electors?
    Mr. Jones: Matters such as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman would be considered in the proper quarters. The inspectors are charged with carrying out inquiries, and they do so to the best of their abilities.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the report of the local government commissioners illustrates the way in which national institutions are exposing wrongdoing, even by elected local government councillors? Does my hon. Friend also think that the report, touching as it does on one of the local authorities in my local area and on authorities represented by Opposition Members, demonstrates the need for the Government to deal urgently with the issue of housing allocation?
    Mr. Jones: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is right in saying that Parliament gives scrutiny to that which needs to be scrutinised. A most amusing suggestion

    11
    which I saw recently was that some examples underline the importance of having a parliament for Wales. I thought that that was really saying that the Opposition is totally ineffective in scrutiny.

    European Community
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the leaders of local government in Wales to discuss EC matters; and what issues were raised.
    Mr. Redwood: I last met leaders of local government on 31 October, when I discussed with them structural funds issues and EC initiatives generally.
    Mr. Griffiths: In those discussions, did the local government leaders point out that more than £45 million of European regional development fund money will be lost to local authorities because of the capping policies of the Welsh Office and the Government? Will the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State now take action to revise the rules to enable local authorities in Wales to utilise fully the money available from Europe for economic and industrial regeneration?
    Mr. Redwood: I am keen to see that local authorities take the maximum advantage; that is why we changed the system and made it transparent. We have made the credit approvals available for those projects which go ahead. I am working closely with local government to see that it gets the maximum benefit from the system.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Has the Secretary of State received queries from local government about European moneys for next year's roads budget for Wales? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that the multi-million pound River Dee crossing scheme will begin next April as promised and that the great road project will not fall victim to the Chancellor's axe in terms of spending next year? Does he appreciate that the building of the crossing is urgently needed on Deeside?
    Mr. Redwood: I understand that need and I will do the best that I can when I put together the Budget for Wales following the Chancellor's statement. I will take the hon. Gentleman's representations fully into account. He will understand that I cannot give him a 100 per cent. guarantee on any item for next year because we have not yet completed the Budget process.

    Incomes
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average per capita income in the counties of Dyfed and Gwynedd in 1992 compared with (a) the Welsh average, (b) the United Kingdom average and (c) the European average in cash and percentage terms.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The latest available data are for 1990, using gross domestic product per head as the measure. For Dyfed, the per capita income was 13·6 per cent. below the Welsh average, 28·1 per cent. below the United Kingdom average and 27·6 per cent. below the EC average. The corresponding figures for Gwynedd were 1·3 per cent., 17·9 per cent. and 17·3 per cent., respectively.
    For the international comparison purposes, GPD per head is calculated in purchasing power units, not in cash terms. This cancels out price differences between member
    12
    states. In 1990, the GDP per head figures for Dyfed, Gwynedd, Wales, the United Kingdom and the EC were 10,484, 11,977, 12,131, 14,583 and 14,488 units, respectively.
    Mr. Ainger: The Minister's reply confirms my worst fears that Dyfed and Gwynedd are among the lowest areas in Europe. From the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, it would appear that we have the highest levels of poverty and unemployment.
    Will the Minister assure me that the review being undertaken within the Welsh Development Agency will include no reduction in the efforts of the agency in trying to improve the situation in the rural parts of Dyfed and of Gwynedd? Does the Minister accept that rumours are circulating that there may be significant cuts in the rural initiative currently being undertaken by the WDA? Will he assure the House that that will not take place, bearing in mind the figures that he has just announced?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: We should perhaps also bear it in mind that the cost of living in Wales may be rather lower than in other parts of the country. We should certainly bear it in mind that Wales is one of the most beautiful parts of Europe. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said earlier —that since April 1990, earnings have risen by some 21·2 per cent. in Wales compared with 20·4 per cent. in Great Britain. So we are making progress. Of course, it is very much in our interests and it is one of our ends and objectives to raise income levels in Wales.
    As for west Wales and the Welsh Development Agency, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the announcement made in January, which included the upgrading of urban development activities, enhanced rural development facilities in the area, enhanced marketing by the Wales tourist board, improved services to the local business community, and the appointment of an executive to promote inward investment in the area. Two of the travel-to-work areas—Fishguard and Haverfordwest—were upgraded to development area status.
    The hon. Gentleman's point about the WDA is a matter for the WDA, but I am sure that it, and we in Government, will bear the hon. Gentleman's thoughts in mind. We are as anxious as he is to do our best by west Wales.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Bishops' Pay
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what submissions the Church Commissioners have had concerning proposed pay and allowances for bishops with extra-territorial jurisdiction; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Act of Synod will provide for the appointment of up to three new suffragan bishops to act as provincial episcopal visitors. Their remuneration will be the same as that of other suffragan bishops. Housing and a car will be provided and working expenses will be reimbursed.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that the Church Commissioners will bear in mind the great concern expressed by the House

    13
    in last Friday's debate that priests and congregations committed to a male priesthood be properly looked after when females—ladies—are ordained as priests in a few months' time? Will he give an assurance that the Act of Synod measure which deals with the matter will give proper moral and real authority to those bishops committed to protecting those congregations and to serving them?
    Mr. Alison: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has underscored the need for the co-called Act of Synod to have real teeth and real moral authority. I shall convey the anxiety that my hon. Friend has expressed to the General Synod when it meets at Church house next week to discuss the very point that my hon. Friend has raised. The Synod will underscore the need for an Act which is adequate. If it is not adequate, the House will insist that a Measure be brought before the House to create a statutory provision.
    Mr. Frank Field: What action does the Estates Commission intend to take on the line in the Lambeth report about the scandalous loss of Church Commissioners' assets which said that the fastest growing area of expenditure was bishops' residences?
    Mr. Alison: The bishops, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, have launched a first diagnostic analysis of the funds and finances of the Church Commissioners. The New Testament utterance, "Physician, heal thyself, will be only too readily applied by those who have initiated this physicians' diagnosis.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what is the policy of the Church Commissioners towards the investment of their funds in firms which trade on Sundays.
    Mr. Alison: We believe that the law should be observed. We have expressed our concern to major retailing companies in which we invest and we shall continue to monitor developments.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the retailing firms in which the Church Commissioners invest have indicated to their Members of Parliament, including myself, that their preference is for option 2—the proposals of the Sunday Shopping Hours Reform Council —which would allow larger shops to open for six hours and smaller ones to open all day? Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to bear that in mind and to convey the information that I have given the House today to the Church Commissioners?
    Mr. Alison: I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend that so large a number of retailers fall into the category that he has just designated. It is my hope and expectation that the group that he has specified will be able to co-ordinate that approach with the group that I personally support—the Keep Sunday Special group. I hope that, between us, we shall have a framework of law which offers full but generous and reasonable regulation for Sunday trading. Of course, the Church Commissioners are there to observe the law, not in any way to attempt to make it. We shall observe it through our shopping retail outlets as assiduously as possible as soon as the law is as clear as possible.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on judicial appointments in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department(Mr. John M. Taylor): The Lord Chancellor is responsible for a wide range of judicial appointments in Northern Ireland. His policy is to appoint to each judicial post the candidate who appears to him to be best qualified regardless of gender, ethnic origin, political affiliation or religion.
    Mr. Trimble: I must ask the Minister for further assurances in this matter in view of a rather disturbing incident that I heard about recently whereby a Roman Catholic barrister practising in Northern Ireland was approached by an Irish civil servant—a civil servant in the employ of the Republic of Ireland—and asked if he would be interested in taking a specific judicial appointment. I hasten to add that the appointment was not one within the gift of the Lord Chancellor. In view of that incident, which was improper, I ask the Minister to be sure that there is no interference by the Irish Republic in judicial appointments at any level. Can he ensure that the merit principle is properly vindicated and that there is no dilution in the quality of the Northern Ireland judiciary for political considerations?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman takes me by surprise in this matter. He will not be surprised if I say that, not knowing, I have not been briefed, either. Now that he has put the matter in the public domain by raising it on the Floor of the House, if he wants to write to me indicating whatever terms—confidential or open—I will certainly look into it for him.

    Magistrates
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates are currently aged 25 years or less; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is none. It is rare for anyone below the age of 27 to be appointed. However, there is no bar to appointment, and a 26-year-old has recently been appointed.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the great gulf that seems to exist between young offenders and the magistracy, and that the best discipline in schools, in my long experience of schools, comes from that administered to children by their peers? They make the wisest and fairest decisions and ones that are most respected by other children. Does my hon. Friend agree that younger magistrates are needed to cope with the current problems of juvenile crime—and end the fuddy-duddy approach of some of the older magistrates and judges in this area? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Taylor: Clearly, the House is not of one mind on this subject. However, it may like some information. No figures are kept on the ages of appointment of magistrates, but a recent sample of 875 new appointments showed—

    15
    this may surprise the House—that 22 per cent. were under 40, 33 per cent. between 40 and 45, 24 per cent. between 46 and 50, and 21 per cent. 51 and over. I found that evenness of spread quite healthy.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister agree that what matters with the judiciary, whether magistrates or judges, is not age but whether they have ordinary common sense and administer justice properly? For example, the Lord Chancellor may have information on the age of Judge Prosser who saw fit to say that a well-known disease, repetitive strain injury, did not exist and should not be on the medical casebooks. Surely we could have some indication of the Lord Chancellor's approach to that sort of case, whatever the age of the judge or magistrate.
    Mr. Taylor: In the case of magistrates, I think that personal suitability is fairly well defined as good character and repute and the ability to command the confidence of both the public and colleagues. As for judges, which the question is not about, there are already arrangements under which unfit judges may retire on health grounds whatever their age. [HoN. MEMBERS: "RSI?"] Meanwhile, the Royal Commission has considered the appraisal of judges, and its recommendations will be considered in due course.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is it not obvious that age and experience are important matters in the selection of judges, and that it cannot be for the confidence of the British people that young, inexperienced and immature magistrates are making judgments in serious matters? The Government's policy sounds sensible and intelligent—provided that a higher proportion of magistrates in the middle age range are selected.
    Mr. Taylor: I had already reached the same conclusion about the virtues of the Government as my hon. and learned Friend. I shall take account of what he says about maturity. Plainly, maturity and experience are qualities that should be sought, but we do not want a bench on which there is no younger representation.

    Media Coverage—Judges
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to issue guidance to courts on the effect of media coverage on trials.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The existing legislation on reporting of court proceedings is clear. I have no plans, nor has the Lord Chancellor, to issue guidance to the judiciary who, independent of the Government, apply the legislation for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has responsibility.
    Mr. Soley: Is not the Minister missing the point? He must be aware of the case of the Taylor sisters who appealed successfully because of inaccurate media coverage. He will be aware of the police officers in the Birmingham Six case. Surely it is time to expect the media to report not only accurately but impartially between prosecution and defence so that press freedom is not sacrificed for wrongful conviction and vice versa.
    Mr. Taylor: I respect the hon. Gentleman for his past work in these areas and no doubt I shall respect his present and future work. He invites me to speak about the Birmingham Six police case. In many ways, that case was
    16
    wholly exceptional. The decision was entirely for the trial judge. However, in staying the proceedings the judge held that the combination of delay, adverse publicity and the impossibility of isolating the very narrow prosecution case from the much wider matrix of events from 1975 was such as to render a fair trial impossible.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that there are severe restraints on academic examination of juries' attitudes, and that it would be helpful in considering this matter to have greater knowledge of how juries work and think? Will he look at the possibility of opening the work of juries to academic consideration?
    Mr. Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The deliberations on the Runciman report would provide exactly the right context in which to take the issue forward, as the hon. Gentleman would like to do.
    Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend will have seen the coverage of the Austin Donellan case. Does he agree that in such cases the defendant should have the same right of anonymity, at least until proved guilty, as the victim of such crimes quite rightly deserves?
    Mr. Taylor: I am well aware of these arguments. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter and advise him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has asked his officials to undertake a review of the question of anonymity in rape cases and in other sexual cases and of the interests of both parties in such cases.

    Judges
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will introduce measures for the election of judges.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The answer is no. The Government do not consider that elections would provide a suitable basis for appointment or be compatible with the principle of judicial independence.
    Mr. Skinner: The Government did not say that about trade union leaders, who they said were out of touch with their members and should be subject to re-election every five years. How else can we make judges accountable, especially in the light of what they have said recently about rape cases and repetitive strain injury—
    Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman: Ask a question.
    Mr. Skinner: I have already asked two questions.
    It is high time that the Government introduced a system of accountability, but they will not do so because too many people in this place, especially those on the Tory Benches, are part and parcel of the judiciary—barristers, solicitors and all the rest of them. That is the real reason why the Government do not want accountability.
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to find that I have an answer that may half oblige him—
    Mr. Skinner: Let us hear it then.
    Mr. Taylor: I am about to give the answer. The Royal Commission has considered the appraisal of judges and its recommendations will be deliberated upon. That represents some new thinking, which I believe will be welcome on both sides of the Chamber.
    Mr. Jessel: If we are to avoid the election of judges, is not the corollary that judges must show that they broadly respect both public policy and public opinion? Is it not unhelpful when two such leading figures as the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls are in open disagreement about what the law should be? Should not the Lord Chancellor ask them to desist from such pronouncements?
    Mr. Taylor: There are conventions in the House about commenting on judges and what judges may say. Hon. Members may feel that this is an occasion on which to make such comments, but I am not sure that a member of the Executive should intrude into a matter of judicial independence.
    Mr. Boateng: While the Minister and his Department have responsibility for the appointment of judges, and at a time of record levels of public concern about crime and the commission or criminal offences, is it not worrying that one day last months 24 courts in the south-east of England were closed for want of work? At the same time, on one day at the beginning of last month at the Snaresbrook crown court, offences of conspiracy to supply heroin and cocaine and offences involving arson with intent to endanger life were not heard because of a shortage of judges—there being insufficient money to pay for recorders or assistant recorders. Is not the Minister's Department presiding over a rather bizarre position, and what does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Taylor: It is not true that Crown courts are standing idle, although some sittings have been reduced to reflect the downturn in receipts for trial. Sittings will be restored later in the year if receipts increase. Sitting days have been reduced by only 2 per cent. compared with last year, despite a reduction in receipts of more than 15 per cent. in the first quarter of this year.

    Freemasonry
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to make freemasonry a publicly declarable interest for members of the judiciary; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor has no plans to make freemasonry a publicly declarable interest for members of the judiciary.
    Mr. Mullin: Does the Minister agree that there is nothing more corrosive of public confidence in the judiciary than the knowledge that many judges and magistrates are members of a secret society, one of whose aims is mutual self-advancement?
    Mr. Taylor: I have answered a similar question from the hon. Gentleman in the past. The critical thing about the judge's appointment is that he takes a judicial oath. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or she."] I beg the House's pardon—or she.
    The judge takes a judicial oath which binds him to consider any interest that he may have, to observe whether it could conflict with any matter before him and to excuse himself from the bench if he considers that there is such a conflict of interest.

    Petty Sessional Divisions
    Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria are being adopted for the amalgamation of petty sessional divisions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The optimum size of a division would be one that permitted an average annual attendance for magistrates of between 35 and 40 sittings.
    Mr. Evans: Will my hon. Friend reconsider his reply and emphasise much more significantly the importance of providing local courts for the convenience of local witnesses and local parties? The insistence on a certain number of sittings is a criterion which ignores the factor of convenience to the public.
    Mr. Taylor: The proposals that the Lord Chancellor has made are so far indicative only. Consultation will follow if a local view emerges which is held to be an improvement. I share with my hon. Friend, however, the opinion that the criteria for amalgamating petty sessional divisions are different from the criteria for the amalgamation of magistrates courts committee areas. He asked about the former and my earlier reply was about that.

European Council (Special Meeting)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, I shall make a statement about the special meeting of the European Council in Brussels on 29 October, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and also about my separate meeting in Brussels with the Irish Prime Minister. The documents issued by the European Council and the joint statement that I issued with the Taoiseach have both been placed in the Library of the House.
Agreement was reached at the European Council on a number of important points. It was decided that, later this month, Finance Ministers would consider a draft White Paper by the European Commission, setting out proposals on growth, competitiveness and employment. The United Kingdom has already put forward suggestions for that White Paper. The European Council renewed its commitment to secure a global commitment in the Uruguay round before the December deadline. The Council agreed to provide extra help to small and medium-sized businesses by widening the criteria for loans by the European investment bank.
The future location of a number of European Community institutions was decided. Some of those decisions were long overdue. Of the main institutions, it was agreed that the headquarters of the European Monetary Institute will be in Germany, the European Medicines Evaluation Agency in the United Kingdom, Europol in the Netherlands and the Trade Marks Office in Spain. The decision on the European Medicines Evaluation Agency should reinforce Britain's position as the centre of the European pharmaceutical industry.
On Bosnia, the Council agreed to try to improve access for aid supplies as winter approaches. We are seeking credible assurances from the warring factions that they will not block access routes. The Council is also looking for more funding and troop contributions from outside the European Community, to supplement the huge efforts made, in particular, by Britain and by France. Work on the further Yugoslavia was identified as one possible area for joint action in foreign policy. The European Council also asked Foreign Ministers to consider joint action in support of the middle east peace process and to contribute to election monitoring by the United Nations in South Africa and in Russia.
Under the interior and justice pillar, the Council asked Ministers to bring forward proposals for co-operation in the fight against international crime and drugs, and over asylum and immigration problems. We agreed that the Europol drugs unit should be up and running within 12 months.
No one at the council was in any doubt that our highest priority is to restore sustainable, non-inflationary growth and to increase employment across the Community. I argued that the European Community had to confront its own structural weaknesses, which had led to a falling share of world markets and, by comparison with the OECD average, the loss of an estimated 9 million jobs since 1980. The quickest boost to growth and employment will be to secure a GATT agreement. It was also generally agreed that the Community needed to make its labour markets
20
more flexible, to cut red tape nationally and in Brussels, to encourage investment and to create the right climate for new and growing businesses.
I believe that economic convergence is a helpful objective for each Community member state. It will assist in keeping inflation and interest rates as low as possible, as well as controlling public borrowing and debt.
In our discussions, I again made clear that I considered the timetable for economic and monetary union stage 3 —a stage to which we are, of course, not committed—to be unrealistic. Public opinion and the recession have changed attitudes within the Community. Subsidiarity, for example, now has very strong support. During the past two years, the European Commission has halved the number of proposals that it has brought forward for new Community rules and regulations. In December, we shall be looking for specific proposals to cut back existing European Community law. There is increasing emphasis on inter-governmental co-operation, with decisions taken by consensus on both foreign and home affairs. We operate by agreement and not only through the treaty of Rome and the European Commission.
The European Council concerned to respond to criticisms that arose throughout Europe during the debate on the Maastricht treaty.
The Council declared:
"We wish to introduce greater transparency, openness and decentralisation in our procedures. We want a Europe close to the citizen and intervening only where necessary to pursue our common interests."
We have argued long and hard for that approach within the Community, and I thoroughly welcome it.
Following the European Concil meeting, I had a bilateral discussion with the Irish Prime Minister. Mr. Reynolds gave me an account of the report given to him by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), together with the assessment that the Irish Government have made in the light of it. He did not pass the report itself to me. We acknowledged the courageous efforts made by the hon. Member for Foyle, but agreed that the report could not in itself be a basis for action.
We agreed that the two Governments should continue to work together on the following basis: Northern Ireland's situation should never be changed by violence or the threat of violence; any settlement must depend on consent, freely given; negotiations on a settlement could only involve constitutional politicians; there could be no secret agreement or understanding between Governments or organisations supporting violence as a price for its cessation; and those claiming a serious interest in advancing the cause of peace in Ireland should renounce the use of, or support for, violence. If and when such a renunciation of violence had been made, and had been sufficiently demonstrated, new doors could open, and both Governments would wish to respond to the new situation which would then arise.
The terrible events in Northern Ireland since our meeting last Friday have further underlined the urgent need for that process to succeed. As the House will know, last Saturday evening, two gunmen fired indiscriminately in a crowded bar in Greysteel, County Londonderry. Seven people died, ranging in age from 19 to 81, and 11 more were injured. A claim of responsibility for that appalling act was subsequently made by the Ulster Freedom Fighters.

21
The Royal Ulster Constabulary, who acted with exemplary speed and skill, have arrested nine people in connection with the attack. That, like the Shankill road bombing and the six other terrorist murders in Northern Ireland last week, was a barbarous and despicable attack on innocent and peaceful civilians. The whole House will wish to extend its profound sympathy to the victims' families and friends.
Less than 24 hours later, an RUC officer was shot and critically injured in Newry. That once again reminds us of the enormous debt that we owe to the brave men and women of that force.
Those murders will bring the terrorists no advantage, but only the prospect of long years in prison. Terrorism will not alter the constitutional guarantee that we have given the people of Northern Ireland. It will not defeat the security forces, and it will not deflect us from the search for a fair and lasting peace.
The joint statement with the Irish Prime Minister provides a clear basis for progress. Both Governments are committed to the talks process. The principle of consent must be at the heart of any settlement—as the Irish Deputy Prime Minister made clear last week, when he acknowledged the rights of Unionists to give or to withhold that consent. That clearly points to constitutional reform in the Irish Republic at the right time and in the right circumstances.
The Government will now intensify their efforts to find a basis for the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to carry on the talks progress. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will hold further discussions with the Irish Deputy Prime Minister in a meeting at the Intergovernmental Conference later this week. We are determined to do all that we can to bring peace to Northern Ireland. The further killings that occurred over the weekend make that search for peace all the more urgent.
Mr. John Smith: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making a statement on both aspects. I welcome the European Council's confirmation of the enlargement timetable for Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden so that negotiations are completed by March 1994 and accession by 1 January 1995. I welcome also the commitment to achieving within the timetable a successful conclusion to the GATT talks, and the initiative proposed for closer police co-operation under Europol.
As to the economic aspect, given the depressing realities of the economic situation in the Community, with 17 million unemployed, and with any recovery in Britain at best patchy and fragile, why is there not a greater sense of urgency on the part of the United Kingdom Government and other member states in taking more effective action to stimulate their economies and to bring down unemployment?
With the Bundesbank having begun to reduce its interest rates, is there not a strong case for co-ordinating interest rates cuts across the Community—not least in this country, where manufacturing output has fallen and the construction industry remains dangerously weak? Although we welcome the modest extra help to small and medium-sized businesses that was promised at the European Council meeting, can the Prime Minister explain why initiatives agreed as long ago as last year's Edinburgh summit have not yet been acted upon?
22
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that it was agreed at that summit to establish a European investment fund in addition to the increased facilities available through the European investment bank. He will be aware also that, for the European investment bank to establish the new fund, it will be necessary to amend the new protocol to the treaty of Rome. Can the Prime Minister explain why, nearly one year after the Edinburgh summit, that has not been done by the United Kingdom and other member states? Will he give the House an undertaking that there will be no more delay in pursuing an initiative for which he claimed credit at Edinburgh?
Will the Prime Minister explain why his Government are denying to areas of high unemployment and industrial decline in the United Kingdom more than £300 million of European funding because of spending restrictions on local authorities—an approach which is locking this country out of desperately needed investment funds? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when his policy was to have Britain at the heart of Europe, the European Monetary Institute is to be placed at the heart of Germany? How will he explain to the City of London that latest triumph of his negotiating skills? Perhaps it is a case of game, set and match to the Bundesbank.
On Bosnia, what evidence is there that the declaration will have any significant impact on Serbian and Croatian aggression? Why did the Council not insist on making effective United Nations Security Council resolution 824 on safe areas in Sarajevo and elsewhere in Bosnia? Will the airlift be significantly increased to provide desperately needed winter aid to the starving people of Bosnia?
I join the Prime Minister in condemning without reservation the atrocities committed by the so-called Ulster Freedom Fighters in Greysteel, County Londonderry. Let me also express our concern at the shooting of an RUC officer in Newry by the IRA. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that these latest outrages have increased the powerful feeling, in Great Britain as well as on both sides of the border in Ireland, that efforts to find a political way forward must be pursued with renewed intensity? Is it not abundantly clear that a cessation of the horrific violence is what is passionately desired by the overwhelming majority in both Great Britain and Ireland?
For our part, we would welcome an early resumption of the talks process. We believe that the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland have a moral obligation to return to the negotiating table without preconditions. Any resumption of the talks, however, should take place within the previous three-strand structure, and on the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
However, while efforts to persuade the parties to return to the talks will proceed, the two Governments have a responsibility to the peoples of these islands to attempt to develop their own institutional framework for peace. I urge the Government to examine carefully the broad thrust of the six principles outlined by the Irish Deputy Prime Minister; they must accept, however, that those principles contain a fine balance between nationalist and Unionist aspirations, which should not be destroyed by their being treated selectively.
Opposition Members recognise the courageous and imaginative work undertaken by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). We also recognise the political and

23
personal risks that he has taken—not just recently, but over a long period—in an attempt to bring peace to the troubled situation.
May I suggest to the Prime Minister that, whatever progress is made in talks between the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic must continue to consider ways forward, and not hesitate to develop proposals themselves which could be put to the other parties, The public in both Britain and Ireland are looking in the first instance to their Governments to make and sustain a new initiative for peace.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman touched on a large number of important points in my statement. I shall endeavour to respond to all his comments.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for welcoming enlargement, for which there was strong support from all the Heads of Government at the European Community meeting. There was also support for a completion of the GATT talks by 15 December, police co-operation on Europol and the general efforts to deal with money laundering and organised crime.
As for the economic points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made, 18 million people are indeed unemployed across the Community at present. It is estimated that that figure will reach 20 million as unemployment rises sharply, particularly in France and Spain, over the next 12 months. An urgent examination of the policies is indeed under way: that is precisely what the White Paper is doing. It will be considered by Finance Ministers in ECOFIN—the Economic and Finance Council—within the month, and then remitted to the Heads of Government for their meeting in Brussels on 9 December.
I think that there is scope for interest rate reductions in some countries in Europe; some have already been made. I said that when I spoke to the Heads of Government meeting on Friday last week. As for the initiative on the European investment fund, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that it needs legislative cover throughout the Community. Virtually no member state has yet completed the necessary legislative cover, but we shall be able to do so speedily. I look forward to support from the official Opposition when I present the legislation to the House. As for others, I cannot compel them to deal with it speedily, but I have told them in our discussions that I hope that they will be able to do so.
I assume that, in expressing concern about the £300 million, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to European Community funds. We made it clear to the Commission that we expect European Community funds allocated to the United Kingdom to be taken up by the end of this calendar year—not the financial year.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman neglected to mention that many hundreds of jobs will come to London with the European Medicines Evaluation Agency, but I am sure that he will welcome the several hundred direct jobs and the large number of secondary jobs that will be created as a result of that institution coming here. The European Monetary Institute has gone to Germany. That was the
24
consensus among the Community, and since we are not committed to stage 3, it is unsurprising that the consensus was that it should go elsewhere.
The activities of the Opposition last year did not help our negotiating position. [Interruption.] We will take their attitude to Europe seriously when they cease to obstruct European legislation that they claim to be in favour of. They speak with one voice in Europe but another in the Lobby.
I turn now to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments on Bosnia. He has a touching faith in declarations. I am bound to say that he is not dealing with entirely civilised men in Bosnia who are seeking to block the humanitarian aid. We are seeking to open corridors to ensure that we shall be able to get the aid through this winter. That will involve a massive effort. The strain of the effort thus far has been taken by the British and the French. We hope that others will make a larger contribution, and that point was made forcefully in our discussions after the last day.
I can agree with many of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's points on Northern Ireland. Like him, I would welcome an early resumption of the talks under the three-strand process. I am less concerned about the format than the fact of the talks, but it is desirable to get the fact of the talks under way as soon as possible.
There is a great deal in the Tanaiste's six principles with which we can agree—not all of them, but they are a helpful contribution to the debate, and I am happy to acknowledge that that is most certainly so. We wish to work with people to ensure that the talks process is a success. The Government would be willing, if others would find it helpful, to bring forward proposals to provide focus and direction for new talks once they begin. It is a hopeful sign that there seems to be a greater willingness to return to talks. I hope that that willingness will become a reality.
Mr. Norman Lamont: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people had seen this Council as an opportunity for greater realism on the part of the European Community? Will the Prime Minister explain to the House, given the views that he expressed in The Economist, given the break-up of the exchange rate mechanism, and given the views that he has expressed this afternoon about the timetable for monetary union, what is the purpose in going forward with a European Monetary Institute on the timetable envisaged in Maastricht? What will the EMI do? Are we not in danger of being drawn into a further bout of fantasy by the European Community, from which we shall find it difficult to extricate ourselves?
Secondly, there will be support on both sides of the House for the Prime Minister's initiative on Northern Ireland, but may I ask him for the assurance that there is no question of an amnesty for terrorists and no question of any negotiation with anyone who has been involved in terrorism in the past?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Before the Prime Minister responds, will he allow me to say that many hon. Members are seeking to ask questions? It will be impossible to call all of them unless questions are brisk and to the point, and answers equally so.
The Prime Minister: I shall deal with my right hon. Friend's second point first. There are no political prisoners anywhere in the United Kingdom, so the question of amnesties does not arise in any way.
On the European Monetary Institute, there is indeed much greater realism across the Community, as the declaration from which I quoted a few moments ago illustrates very clearly. As my right hon. Friend will know, stage 2 in no sense infringes our monetary sovereignty and, as he will also recall, stage 2, which was negotiated by myself and my right hon Friend, was included in the Maastricht treaty and in our domestic legislation, and that treaty and the domestic legislation require it to commence on 1 January.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is a good thing that the Maastricht treaty is now at last in place, but it is, I regret, a bad thing that the Government, under the Prime Minister's leadership, have once again at this special Council led Europe in its retreat from its responsibilities in Bosnia a failure over which many lives will be lost and which will cause much misery in the coming winter.
On Northern Ireland, does the Prime Minister accept that, for whatever understandable reason, there has been a certain loss of political momentum following the breakdown of the cross-party talks a year ago? Does he agree that this is the moment when he and the Irish Taoiseach could take personal charge? I hope that his statement means that that is what they now intend to do.
Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the six principles outlined by Dick Spring offer not only an appropriate way forward but some reassurance for the Unionist cause, and that the most important thing that could be done now to give impetus to progress towards peace would be if those who represent the Unionist cause could find it possible to utter some welcome, however guarded and partial, for those principles?
The Prime Minister: I shall deal first with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on Bosnia. I find his continuing criticism of what has been achieved by this country, our voluntary services and our troops in Bosnia to be contemptible, and I use the word advisedly. It is time that the right hon. Gentleman stopped grandstanding on this issue and learned some of the facts about Bosnia and the realities of what can be achieved.
On Northern Ireland, the Taoiseach and I certainly propose to take a very close interest in the development of these discussions. We are both committed to seeing a success and to doing everything that can realistically be done to bring an end to bloodshed and to bring peace to the people of Northern Ireland. I acknowledge again, as I did a few moments ago, the importance of the principles enunciated by the Irish Deputy Prime Minister a few days ago. They seem to suggest that, in the right circumstances, articles 2 and 3 can be repealed, or at least put to a referendum for repeal, in the Republic of Ireland. I think that that will be very reassuring and that it is a considerable contribution to the search for peace.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the horrors of Northern Ireland place an awesome responsibility on him, on the Government and, indeed, on us all? Does he also accept that a settlement, or at least agreement on progress towards a settlement, would be an achievement of historic proportions for him and for his right hon. Friends?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that no one underestimates in any way the difficulties that lie in the way of progress in the present situation, but I do not believe that anyone who has observed what has happened in Northern Ireland—not only in the past three weeks, horrific though that has been, but in recent years—can be remotely satisfied with the status quo. Nothing that can realistically be done to bring peace and progress should be left undone.
Mr. John Hume rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hume: May I join the Prime Minister in condemning the horrific slaughter in Greysteel on Saturday evening of so many decent people? May I also say that it is an insult to the memory of the decent people of the Shankill road who were murdered the previous week to use their murder as a reason for murdering others? Let no one be under any illusion: in a divided society, solutions can never be brought about by any form of violence or coercion.
Given that that has been my position and that of my party for the past terrible 25 years, I say that it is the responsibility of all people—especially Governments—to do everything in their power to try to resolve the conflict and bring the violence to an end.
Given that I say that, and note that throughout those 25 years 20,000 troops and 12,000 armed policemen on our streets and stringent security laws have not brought that peace; given that I take the responsibility, which is indeed mine, in circumstances in which I saw a real opportunity —and I mean my words—for achieving a total cessation of violence, which I say is the best opportunity that I have seen in 20 years; and given that the Prime Minister describes me in his statement as courageous and imaginative, why has the right hon. Gentleman rejected my proposals before he has talked to me about them?
The Prime Minister: I think that millions will agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Greysteel and Shankill. Nothing can justify the sort of action that we saw in Greysteel. As I indicated over the weekend, revenge simply breeds revenge—each death leads to another death—and that is no way forward for Northern Ireland.
May I repeat what I said in the statement? I have a great deal of admiration for the persistence and the courage with which the hon. Gentleman has, through many years, pursued a settlement in Northern Ireland. I have not always agreed with the way in which he has pursued that end, but I have always admired his courage and his determination to do so.
I have to make a judgment as to whether the actions that are taken will lead to the consent throughout every aspect of the community that is the irrevocable necessity if one is to have a settlement that will endure for a long period. I listened very carefully to what the Taoiseach had to say. The hon. Gentleman and I met some time ago. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has asked to see me again. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that I am happy to meet him and I look forward to doing so, and to meeting also the leaders of the other constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. My door to them is open for constructive help towards reaching a settlement, from whatever source—any democratic source—it may come.

27
But I had to make a judgment on whether I thought that the proposals reached by the hon. Gentleman, at this time, and in the fashion that he proposed them, would actually lead to progress and to a settlement. I reached the conclusion—after having been informed of them by the Taoiseach, as we said in our statement over the weekend —that that was not the right way to proceed, and for that reason I said earlier today that I believe the way forward is the way set out in the joint statement that the Taoiseach and I issued on Friday.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said in condemning without reservation all the murders that have been taking place in our land. There is no difference between the tears of Protestants and the tears of Roman Catholics. These murders come from hell and lead to hell and there can be no justification for them on any grounds whatever.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Northern Ireland will be listening carefully to what he is saying today? As he said in his statement that the document resulting from the Hume-Adams talks, as they are called, was not delivered to him but that the Taoiseach made some comments upon it, can he tell the House and the people of Northern Ireland what detail of that document led him to reject it? This House and the people of Northern Ireland should know that.
May I also tell the right hon. Gentleman that many people in Northern Ireland are alarmed by the communiqué that was issued, especially point 5:
"The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach agreed that any initiative can be taken only by the two governments"?
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the people of Northern Ireland what difference there is between that and joint sovereignty? Surely the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman as Prime Minister, are the only people who can take an initiative in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister also told the House today that, when the time is ripe, there is going to be a change in the constitution of the South. The people of Northern Ireland will be asking the Prime Minister, now many more Shankill roads and Greysteels must we have to bring about the ripening of the time?
The Prime Minister: To an extent, the hon. Gentleman answered part of his own question in the second part of his question. We need a settlement that will last. I do not think that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), any more than I or any hon. Member, is simply looking for a short-term ceasefire. We are looking for a permanent cessation of violence. That is what we are seeking. That means that some of the action—for example, the action that will bring comfort in the North on articles 2 and 3 —must necessarily be taken by the Government of the Republic of Ireland and not by us. It is right that we should work together to see whether we can produce peace in Northern Ireland.
So far as the document is concerned, I reiterate that I have not read it. Having spoken to the Taoiseach, I am aware of the document's contents. As I said to the hon. Member for Foyle, I made the judgment, on the basis of
28
that, that I did not think that it would lead to consent across Ireland and should not therefore be proceeded with in the form in which it existed.
Mr. William Ross: The horrific assault at Greysteel in my constituency on Saturday night has rightly drawn down the universal condemnation of all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland and their public representatives. May I say to the Prime Minister that the people in the area were very glad to see the Secretary of State paying a visit there yesterday, He was very much welcomed.
That atrocious attack left seven people, most of whom were my constituents, dead. Does the Prime Minister understand that universal condemnation—welcome though that is—is not enough? Actions speak much louder than words. Did the Prime Minister therefore ask Mr. Reynolds to close down places like the Republican News Bureau in Dublin, from which all the statements by the IRA are issued?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now give the most careful attention to selective detention, to behead the terrorist organisations of their control and command structures? Before he starts that, will he read the excellent article that appeared in the Irish edition of The Sunday Times yesterday on that subject, which unfortunately was not printed in the British editions? That article will clarify everyone's thinking. Does the Prime Minister also agree that swift and vigorous action is now necessary to restore confidence and to get rid of the massive fear that exists throughout Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: The slaughter of the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Greysteel was unforgivable. I hope that he will understand and pass to his constituents the depth of sympathy that exists in this House and across the country for the people who suffered in that attack and for their families.
We are in constant contact with the Government of the Republic of Ireland about security matters. There have been substantial improvements in security co-operation and cross-border co-operation over recent years. That is a continuing programme. It is not something that is begun and ended. A whole range of matters are continually under discussion.
As for selective detention, I have noted the public debate on the arguments for and against internment. This is, of course, an option which remains open to the Government. It would not, I think, at the moment be appropriate for me to comment on the circumstances in which that option might necessarily be used. It is there, and I do not rule it out.
Sir James Kilfedder: I associate myself wholeheartedly with the political initative by the Prime Minister. With the Irish Republic's acceptance, if such be the case, that there can be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority there, and the promised removal, if such be the case, of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, it would seem sensible and desirable that the talks between the constitutional parties should be resumed as soon as possible. Does my right hon. Friend agree that every public representative in Northern Ireland should now call upon the people unequivocally to support the security forces in their fight to defeat terrorism, which presents a bar to political progress?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend upon that issue. The Taoiseach has indicated acceptance of the principle of consent in Northern Ireland on the constitutional guarantee, and the Deputy Prime Minister in Ireland, of course, has indicated the possibility of putting a referendum on articles 2 and 3 to the people in the Republic.
My hon. Friend is entirely right about the need for the security forces to have the complete support of the people and of the leaders in Northern Ireland. There must be within Northern Ireland people who have information about those who have taken part in terrorist activities over recent weeks. I would appeal to those people to come forward with that information. It requires an act of bravery to do so, but that bravery, if they do so today, may prevent more slaughter, mayhem, death and misery for other families at a later stage.
Mr. David. Winnick: Is it not rather disappointing, to say the least, that the reaction of many Unionist politicians over the weekend to the constructive proposals that were put forward by the Irish Foreign Minister was to dismiss them as simply blarney? If agreement could be reached between the two Governments which accepts, of course, that the majority of the people in Northern Ireland have a right to stay in the Union but also makes other proposals leading to power-sharing in the North, would the Prime Minister carefully consider having a referendum in the United Kingdom as a whole? Although there might be a referendum in the Republic, the people of the United Kingdom could have an opportunity of deciding on those proposals prior to any parliamentary approval. Would not that be one way forward to overcome any veto by politicians in the North?
The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure that it would be helpful to making progress to comment on every aspect of what the hon. Gentleman says, although I understand what compels him to say it.
Perhaps I could make this point, which is relevant to the position in Northern Ireland: for too long the concerns of many people in Northern Ireland have been dominated by fears—some rational, some irrational—at each extreme of debate. What I think we have to do, if we are to work with the constitutional leaders in Northern Ireland to provide a settlement, is to try to offer the guarantees and certainties that will ensure that the extreme views that are so often put do not carry favour with the majority of people in Northern Ireland.
Once those fears and uncertainties are put to rest, I believe that we will have a much better climate in which we can work with all the constitutional leaders in Northern Ireland and try to promote a settlement that will end the bloodshed. Therefore, the way ahead that we proposed is the right one, although I note the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Has any estimate been made of the expenditure involved in the many bodies that were set up at the Council meeting? Although I agree very much indeed with what the Prime Minister said about economic policy, does he accept that the best that we can now do in the House of Commons is to wish him well, observing that the European union requires that the broad outlines and guidance of economic policy will now be determined by the Council by majority vote under article 103, which applies to us as well as to other member states?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, those are guidelines, and they were negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and myself in the Maastricht negotiations some time ago. On the substantive matter of the European union, the European union gives rise to a good deal of misunderstanding among people. It simply consists of the so-called three pillars—the European Community plus the arrangements for intergovernmental co-operation—I emphasise the word "co-operation"—in foreign and home affairs. "Union" is a way of describing that three-pronged structure, and it is nothing more than that.
I cannot immediately give my hon. Friend, off the cuff, the costs of those new institutions. Many of the institutions were agreed in principle many years ago, and there has been a delay in establishing them until the matter of sites was concluded. My hon. Friend will agree, for example, to take but one illustration, that the advantage of establishing Europol, if it is successful in dealing with drugs and crime money, is expenditure that, for all the people of Europe, will be seen as well worth while.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be great disappointment that he has rejected the proposals which my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has been discussing? Given that Mandela was convicted of terrorism and has just won a Nobel prize, that Arafat was once refused permission to enter America and has now entered into meaningful discussions with the Israeli Government, and that David Owen is in Yugoslavia talking with men associated with violence, is it not time to look at the proposal put forward by the Irish Government 25 years ago, that the United Nations might send a mediator who would be able to talk to everybody in Ireland? The Prime Minister's refusal to have talks with everybody is now an obstacle to a peaceful settlement.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's implication is that he would talk to men engaged in violence. That is not a position that I or the leaders of any of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland hold. It may he the right hon. Gentleman's view, but in a democracy such as the United Kingdom, that is not the way to proceed.
The right hon. Gentleman speaks almost for himself—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: No.
The Prime Minister: Well, for himself and perhaps the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—not together a weighty crowd.
I respect and admire the efforts of the hon. Member for Foyle—I mean that; I am not saying it as a matter of form—but it is my view and that of the Irish Prime Minister that we cannot proceed with those proposals.
Sir Peter Hordern: As to the European Commission's White Paper on growth and unemployment, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's opinion is that economic growth cannot be obtained by increasing public spending, still less by raising taxes? Will he further confirm that the best way to achieve economic growth is to cut European bureaucracy and arrive at a successful conclusion of the Uruguay round? Will my right

31
hon. Friend say what success Mr. Delors and the Commission are having with the French on the latter matter?
The Prime Minister: There was complete agreement at the Council that we need a satisfactory settlement of the Uruguay round by 15 December. There was no suggestion by any participating state that that was not a desirable goal. I hope that progress is being made in dealing with the particular difficulties of agriculture in France. There are difficulties in concluding the Uruguay round with other countries beyond the European Community.
My right hon. Friend's points about economic development are entirely mine, and I would not wish to add to them. He makes the point that it is supply side changes that will lead to further growth and more jobs in Europe, not an excess of centrally funded expenditure.
Dr. Joe Hendron: I join all other hon. Members in condemning the massacre in Greysteel, and the UFF/UDA. I hope and pray that the young policeman shot by the Provisional IRA in Newry makes a speedy recovery.
Is the Prime Minister aware that, as long as murderers are stalking the streets of Northern Ireland, especially in west and north Belfast, people are living in terrible fear? It ill behoves anyone to criticise those who are trying to end murder. I do not wish to make political points about articles 2 and 3 or Select Committees; I am asking the House how we can end murder and slaughter on our streets. Of the 23 people murdered in the past eight days, 12 have come from the edge of west Belfast, the Shankhill road, or from the centre of my constituency, Kennedy way.
My friend and colleague the hon. Member for Foyle has made courageous efforts to try to end the violence and the existence of one of the killing machines. Bearing that in mind, will the Prime Minister use his close relationship with the Official Unionist party to persuade its Members of Parliament and colleagues in local government to speak directly to the UFF, the UDA and the Democratic Unionist party, to try to persuade them to end their terrible campaign of violence?
The Prime Minister: I have to say that I doubt whether the constitutional politicians of Northern Ireland have any authority over these murdering butchers. That is undoubtedly the case, whether those murdering butchers are members of the UFF or the IRA. We are dealing with people who are beyond the pale of civilised behaviour, and it does not lie within the remit of any hon. Member to be able to talk them out of their behaviour. I wish it were the case that hon. Members could, but events of recent years have shown that they cannot.
The hon. Gentleman may have implied that I was critical of his hon. Friend the Member for Foyle. As I said earlier, I am not, and I am happy to reiterate that. The fact that I have chosen, for the reasons that I have set out, to say that we cannot take his hon. Friend's proposals further in their present form does not imply a criticism of his hon. Friend's activities or his courage in recent years. I happily make that point plain again.
How are we to deal, asks the hon. Gentleman, with the fear that exists on the streets of west Belfast and elsewhere? The answer is to continue to give the fullest possible support to the security forces and the Royal Ulster
32
Constabulary. Against the sombre background of the murders committed in the past few days, we should not lose sight of the many achievements of the security forces in recent months. This year, some 50 people have been charged with murder or attempted murder, 3,600 kg of explosives have been recovered—more than twice as much as in the comparable period in the previous year—and 164 firearms and 42 rockets and mortar launchers have also been recovered. Many attempted attacks have also been prevented. Three such attempts have been intercepted in the past three weeks, and six people have been charged as a result.
The security forces are always in the light of public criticism when events of the type that we have seen in recent days occur, but we should also recall their many successes, not all of which can be made public.
Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people in the country would recognise that he took exactly the right line at the European summit when he insisted on dealing with practical issues such as competitiveness rather than airy-fairy dreams for the next century? In that respect, would my right hon. Friend also agree that, since Britain and America have been far more successful in creating new jobs in recent years than continental Europe, he should continue to use his influence to press the other EC countries to lighten the burden on business—for example, by removing red tape, as he said earlier? That burden should be lifted particularly from small and medium-sized firms, because they will create the new jobs that we all want to see in Europe.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. That is why we took the initiative to help small and medium-sized companies with extra resources from the European investment fund. It is a fact that, if the Community had been as successful in the past 14 years in creating jobs as other countries in the OECD have been, we might have 9 million fewer unemployed in the Community.
It is also the case that, in the past 20 years, the Community's relative share of world trade has reduced. Part of that reduction was entirely to be expected as countries in the Pacific basin in particular began to industrialise, but the loss in the share of world trade implies a significant lack of relative competitiveness. That is a problem that we need to address.
It is a striking statistic—one that I have used before, but it is worth repeating again—that, given the same growth in the past 20 years, the United States has created four jobs for every single job created throughout the European Community.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Would the Prime Minister remind supporters of internment that its reintroduction would almost certainly be counterproductive, because the last time it was tried, it turned out to be an effective recruiting sergeant for the paramilitaries, and the violence went from bad to worse?
Does the Prime Minister agree that the best way in which to proceed in the quest for peace would be to invite all the interested parties to a constitutional conference and to make it absolutely clear, right at the outset, that, if a party or parties boycotted those talks, they would nevertheless proceed, with a view to finding a just and peaceful solution to end the appalling bloodshed?
The Prime Minister: I set out my views on internment a few moments ago, and I have nothing to add. There are many lessons to be learned from experiences on previous occasions. Simply to call a constitutional conference with great hopes built up for it and then to see it fail may not be the most practical way forward.
What is right, which is implicit in the hon. Gentleman's question, is that we should continue discussions to find the maximum amount of agreement that exists between the constitutional parties, and then focus on the areas of disagreement and see how we can eliminate them. That is the intention of the talks that are proceeding, whether one calls them an intergovernmental conference or a constitutional conference. What is sought from them is what the hon. Gentleman was seeking with his proposal.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Continuing with the question of Northern Ireland, does my right hon. Friend agree that constitutional uncertainty has been and remains a breeding ground for terrorism in Northern Ireland? Does he further agree that Northern Ireland, de facto and de jure, is part of the United Kingdom because that is the democratically expressed wish of the people of Northern Ireland; and that, important though the search is for a political formula, it is equally important to assure the peole of Northern Ireland and of Great Britain who has experienced terrorist outrage that the security response is commensurate with the increased threat of terrorism?
The Prime Minister: We must certainly ensure that the security response is commensurate with the increase in terrorism, and we remain in close touch with the General Officer Commanding British forces and, of course, with the leaders of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As chairman of the Back-Bench committee on Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend speaks with considerable authority of the difficulties that he sees in Northern Ireland. I confirm his observation that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and that, under the constitutional guarantee, it will remain so until and unless a contrary view is taken by the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I bring the Prime Minister back to the question of Northern Ireland and hope that I get an answer from him today? In answer to one question, the Prime Minister said that he still favours a three-strand approach. Does he accept the position that was adopted by predecessor some time ago —that there can be no agreement on any especial strand until there is agreement on all three?
The Prime Minister: The answer to that question is yes.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Government of the Republic of Ireland are as committed to war against the IRA as Her Majesty's Government, that offers an opportunity for the IRA and Sinn Fein to be proscribed in both countries, so that a proper military offensive can be conducted against them? Would not that mean that there would be no hiding place at all for them on the island of Ireland, and that, although it maybe a rather sombre assessment, it is likely to be more realistic than the courageous efforts by the hon. Member for Foyle, which would require us to sit at a bargaining table with terrorists?
The Prime Minister: We remain in close consultation with the security forces in the Republic of Ireland, and that will continue. It is improving all the time, and I expect it to continue to improve; I would not wish to go further than that on this occasion.
Ms Kate Hoey: I welcome the Prime Minister's call for constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to get round the table as quickly as possible. Does he agree that there is a huge democratic deficit in how we govern Northern Ireland at present, and that, while it is part of the United Kingdom, we should surely treat it in the same way as we treat other parts of the United Kingdom? Some hon. Members greatly support the setting up of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland. Did he discuss that with the Taoiseach? Did he have any views and if he did, what was the Prime Minister's response to his views?
The Prime Minister: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Lady has said. I did not discuss the setting up of a Select Committee of this House with the Head of Government of the Republic of Ireland. That is a matter for the House. I certainly did not discuss it. It is a matter to be considered by the Procedure Committee. I understand that the Committee is examining it, and in due course, we shall consider any report that it may produce.
The hon. Lady is entirely right about a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland; there is a democratic deficit. It is precisely because we strongly share her views on that that we wish to make progress in the talks so that we can devolve a proper system of local government—an enhancement of democracy for local politicians in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the murderers need to be limited in their physical capability? It needs to be made clear to those on both sides that the violence and the killing will bring no advantage to them. It is important to go on working so that their supporters put pressure on them to reduce their capability. May I sum up by saying that each part of the community must protect the other just as much as it tries to protect itself? Is not that a welcome small silver lining in the ghastly cloud hanging over Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: It is. One of the horrific ironies of the murders in Greysteel the other day is that members of both the Protestant and Roman Catholic communities were murdered in the attack. My hon. Friend is entirely right about that.
On my hon. Friend's first point, I can give a categorical assurance that there is no way in which the continued murdering and killing by anyone, whether from the Protestant side or from the Catholic side, will affect the Government's policies and it will not gain anyone anything in terms of democratic advantage.
Mr. Skinner: Is not the Prime Minister aware that when he speaks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about dealing with terrorists, the people outside Parliament understand only too well that the Government have dealt with terrorists over the decades? They are dealing now with the Chinese Government who were responsible for the massacre in Tiananmen square only a few years ago.
Will the Prime Minister understand that, if we are to follow the success of the Arafat-Rabin talks, we must have talks not in the Irish Republic or in Britain, but in a neutral

35
country? The way to get things off the ground is not to deal with the Conservative Government, who are in league with the Ulster Unionists who deliver them votes in the House of Commons, or with those in the Irish Republic, but to start the process in a neutral country. Such a policy resulted in success in the middle east, and that is the only way in which success can be achieved now.
The Prime Minister: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is very lucid, and as almost ever, he is entirely wrong. If the implication of his remarks is that we should sit down and talk with Mr. Adams and the Provisional IRA, I can say only that that would turn my stomach and those of most hon. Members; we will not do it. If and when there is a total ending of violence, and if and when that ending of violence is established for a significant time, we shall talk to all the constitutional parties that have people elected in their names. I will not talk to people who murder indiscriminately.
Mr. David Faber: In the course of his discussions on Bosnia, was my right hon. Friend able to bring to the attention of his European counterparts the remarks last week of the senior British officer in Bosnia, Brigadier Angus Ramsay, who described Croat soldiers as "scum"? Given the appalling atrocities that continue to be carried out by regular Croat army troops in Bosnia, was my right hon. Friend able to make any progress towards the long overdue sanctions against Croatia?
The Prime Minister: The question of further sanctions anywhere in the former Yugoslavia did not come up in the discussions. It did not come up in the discussions between the Heads of Government. To the best of my knowledge —unless I am corrected by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—the question did not come up in the parallel discussions at Foreign Minister level.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Everyone in Britain and in the island of Ireland desperately wants progress towards peace and a settlement in Northern Ireland. Is the Prime Minister aware that people find it difficult to understand why someone holding the office of Prime Minister in Britain is nit-picking about the proposals by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, which he apparently has not even seen yet? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not allow his dependence on Ulster Unionist votes in the House to obstruct progress?
The Prime Minister: I would have thought that, even by the standards of the hon. Gentleman, that was rather cheap. Let me remind him that the position that I took on the initiative of the hon. Member for Foyle was taken also by the Taoiseach, who is not a Member of the House and is not dependent on the votes of any Member of the House. As I said earlier, there are no special agreements or deals with any other parties in the House. That has been stated by me and by others. The hon. Gentleman may smirk like a juvenile, but he falls well below the level of events with that sort of remark.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not need to be defensive about the creation of the European union as of today, because it underlines the
36
fact that the progress in the Europe of tomorrow will be on an intergovernmental basis and not just on a better defined set of Community institutions?
Will my right hon. Friend put maximum emphasis also on the workings of the European Monetary Institute? Even if this country does not want to be part of a single currency, it is vital that we encourage the convergence criteria within the European Community so that we can benefit from the stability that will emerge. It is vital also that we underline the importance of the single market, because if that were ever questioned, through currency instability, jobs in this country would be at threat.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Co-operation by consensus, by universal agreement across the Community, is a sensible way of progressing whenever it is appropriate. That is what happens under the three-pillared approach that was agreed in the Maastricht treaty. It is not a question of compulsion; it is a question of agreement. Where that agreement can be reached, we are stronger collectively and individually.
As far as the convergence criteria are concerned, they occasionally raise the hackles of some hon. Members, but the reality is that the convergence criteria are precisely the sort of sound economic policies that some of those who oppose them under the European label urge on me in other circumstances. The reality is that they are nothing more or nothing less than sound economic management.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Next weekend but one, the country will stop in its business for about two minutes to pay tribute to those who have died in two world wars, and will try to ensure that we as a nation learn the lessons of that.
The past hour has demonstrated the concern that is felt across the House for the people of Northern Ireland—across party, religion and denomination. I seek your guidance so that we can reflect the anger and solidarity, not only of Members of the House but of our constituents, who feel with and for their brothers and sisters on the other side of the Irish sea, on how we might appropriately show that.
There have been 3,000 people killed as a result of what has gone on in Northern Ireland: 2,000 were civilians; the remaining 1,000 were either in the police or armed forces. I do not think that there is a precedent, but I wonder whether you would permit, either between now and the end of today, or this week, the House to be adjourned or suspended for a moment or two to mark the universal disapproval of terrorism and of terrorists, and to reflect the cross-party resolve in the House, to try to see that no effort is spared to ensure that peace comes to Ireland as soon as possible?
Madam Speaker: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's motives in putting his suggestions to me, and I appreciate the way that he put them.
There is undoubtedly complete disapproval in all sections of the House of what has taken place in Northern Ireland recently. Expressions of profound sympathy with the sufferings of Northern Ireland, and of concern for its future too, have been heard from every quarter of the House in recent days. As we have heard following the

37
statement today, those expressions have been reconfirmed by every Member whom I have called and who represents the varying points of view of the parties in the House.
Let there be no doubt that I share those sentiments—as I am sure does every hon. Member—as Speaker of the House of Commons, although I do not speak on those matters. We have recorded the sentiments that we feel about the happenings in Northern Ireland in recent days. I think that one of the best tributes that we can pay to the families there and to the people who have suffered is that we let those sentiments be known, as we have done today, and go on with our proceedings. I hope that hon. Members will support me in that.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, I thank you for those remarks. They will be helpful to us all.
Madam Speaker: I am very touched by that.

Orders of the Day
  Railways Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Railways Bill
    Clause 4

      GENERAL DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE REGULATOR
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 46, at end insert—
      ("() The Secretary of State shall also be under a duty, in exercising the functions assigned or transferred to him under or by virtue of this Part, to promote the award of franchise agreements to companies in which qualifying railway employees have a substantial interest, "qualifying railway employees" meaning for this purpose persons who are or have been employed in an undertaking which provides or provided the services to which the franchise agreement in question relates at a time before those services begin to be provided under that franchise agreement.")
      4.40 pm
      The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
      Mr. John Heppell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. During the passage of the Bill in Committee, 713 amendments and 32 new clauses were tabled. On report, we debated 252 amendments and 28 new clauses. We are now faced with another 470 Lords amendments and new clauses. Is there a parliamentary procedure to prevent the Government from tabling new amendments at this late stage and effectively changing their earlier promises?
      Dr. John Marek: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am concerned about the matter. You must have seen the myriad amendments and new clauses that have been tabled. It makes me think that my service on the Standing Committee was a complete waste of time because we have a new Bill before us. Is there no way to send this botched job back to the Government draftsmen so that they can come up with something new that we can consider in detail, and in enough time? Effectively, we have a new Bill before us and only two days in which to consider it. It is a travesty of the rules of Parliament.
      Madam Speaker: There is a great deal of responsibility on the Ministers whose task is to persuade the House to agree with the amendments. The ball is in their court.
      Mr. Freeman: I hope that the House will find several of the groups of amendments that we shall be considering today and tomorrow relatively uncontroversial, although I recognise that some are controversial. My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping gave detailed explanations of many of the amendments and I hope that the House will have had the chance, to the extent necessary and prudent, to study his remarks.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. I do not believe what my ears are hearing. Is it customary for hon. Members to recommend that other hon. Members take as read speeches made in the other place? Is it not normal parliamentary procedure for Ministers to take responsibility for their own speeches, to move their own amendments and to do the House the elementary courtesy of at least trying to explain what they have in mind?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Ministers must make their own judgments.
      Mr. Freeman: I am just coming on to do that. I was trying, in a courteous manner, to refer to the proceedings in another place. I am only too delighted, as I had planned to do, to explain the purpose of the amendments.
      Lords amendment No. 1 lays a duty on the Secretary of State in relation to part I. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who participated in the Standing Committee, will remember that there were already provisions in the Bill, which we debated in Committee, dealing with the promotion of management-employee buy-out bids. The Bill was defective in not including such reference in part I. The amendment rectifies that. It does not introduce a new principle or policy. It makes the Bill clearer.
      The amendment lays on the Secretary of State a duty clearly to promote the award of franchise to management-employee bids, and that is defined in the amendment. It refers to companies
      "in which qualifying railway employees have a substantial interest, 'qualifying railway employees' meaning for this-purpose persons who are or have been employed in an undertaking which provides or provided the services to which the franchise agreement in question relates at a time before those services began to be provided under that franchise agreement."
      There is no clear definition—essentially, it will be a matter for the courts—of "a substantial interest". I shall not attempt to define that. The courts may wish to adjudicate upon the matter if a case comes before them.
      The purpose of putting "a substantial interest" on the face of the Bill is to show that we wish to support British Rail management and employees who come together to take an interest—it does not have to be a 100 per cent. interest—in a company that bids for a franchise. Although the interest does not have to be 100 per cent., clearly, "a substantial interest" does not refer to a 5 per cent. interest. It is for the courts to determine, in the circumstances of a case, what is "substantial".
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I am beginning to find this even more "Alice in Wonderland" than I had expected. Will the Minister accept that it is the responsibility of the House of Commons to frame legislation in such a way that it is clear and that House votes on it on the basis of its meaning? I have always had the rather old-fashioned view that Parliament is here to examine clear English, to understand what it means and to take decisions based on that. Will the Minister explain why he is seriously suggesting that the House should accept wording that is so unclear that he automatically expects it to be challenged in a court?
      Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady had time to table an appropriate amendment defining that in terms of 5, 10, 15 or 20 per cent.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I am not a Minister.
      Mr. Freeman: The Government prefer this more general language. One has to decide, in the particular circumstances of the case, what "a substantial interest" means. In part, it will depend on the capitalisation of the company. It is not possible to legislate precisely in all circumstances. It depends in part on the debt burden. As those on the Opposition Front Bench will appreciate, in past bus privatisations, the amount of debt incurred by the management and employees varied considerably. The substantiaal debt burden incurred by some is still being repaid from the profits of the operation. It is not possible to be precise in every circumstance.
      Mr. John Prescott: Is the Minister telling the House that if British Rail employees —managers or workers—want to combine in a joint bid with both private and public sectors, a judgment will have to be made about the size of the interest? Is he leaving the courts—rather than the House—to decide whether that will be 5, 10, 15, 20 or 50 per cent.? Taking into account the Government's other view—that British Rail will be allowed to make a bid for a franchise and could do so at a cheaper price than that being offered by the private sector—will that not encourage the private sector to get into bed with one or two employees so as to offer a cheaper price and make its bid seem like a British Rail bid?
      Mr. Freeman: It might help if I explain that the Government have not reached any conclusions, or made any announcements, about any price reference to management-employee buy-out bids for franchises. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in Standing Committee I made it plain that our policy in relation to the outright sale of freight, whether train load or container business, was that it was appropriate for a small premium to be afforded to the management-employee bids, consistent with the preferences given in the sale of bus companies. That is normally expressed in terms of a discount.
      Mr. Prescott: A cheaper price.
      Mr. Freeman: Yes, but we are not applying that principle to the bidding for franchises. As I made clear in the Standing Committee, there is a distinction between franchises and bids for discrete businesses of British Rail which it will sell.
      Mr. John McAllion: If the Minister looks at the wording of the amendment, he will see that a duty is imposed on the Secretary of State to promote the award of franchises to bids which involve former employees of British Rail. If the Government are to promote in that way, that must mean that some competitive advantage will be given to such a bid.
      If the Government are doing that, why is it necessary for franchise bids only to have "a substantial interest"? It will be possible for a bid with only a minority interest of former BR employees to be given a competitive advantage. The Minister is not addressing that point. Has not the Minister recommended to the private sector that a bid representing the interest of 20 or 25 per cent. of former employees of British Rail will have a competitive advantage over every other bid for franchises?
      Mr. Freeman: We are not discussing the process for the bidding for franchises. The hon. Gentleman knows that that subject will be dealt with in the debate on a grouping

      41
      of amendments in due course. We are talking about a general duty that is placed on the Secretary of State to promote management and employee buy outs—
      Hon. Members: That is the point.
      Mr. Peter Snape: Perhaps I could help the Minister.
      Mr. Freeman: I am well capable of helping myself, thank you very much.
      Mr. Prescott: It does not seem so.
      Mr. Freeman: Perhaps I could explain. I have dealt with the price preference, but there is another way in which management and employee bids can be assisted. That is in terms of the financial assistance which is to be provided by British Rail, and which is limited to a sum of £100,000 in each particular management and employee bidding group, in preparing for bidding for franchises. That is a clear example, and I am not talking about the price preference in the context of the 5 per cent. discount that has been applied in the past for bids for bus companies.
      Mr. Snape: The Minister seems to be floundering—that is unusual for the hon. Gentleman—on the clear piece of legislation contained in the clause.
      I wish to raise a point similar to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). Surely at such an early stage of the proceedings it would be helpful to know what criteria—financial or otherwise—railway managers are expected to follow before they mortgage their homes. Is not this the right place and time to debate that subject?
      Mr. Freeman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will raise that matter during his speech, at which time I will seek to answer it.
      I know that the hon. Gentleman has experience of the process because he has been associated with a distinguished management and employee bid in the bus industry. I congratulate West Midlands Travel and appreciate the supporting role that the hon. Gentleman has been playing since the company entered the private sector. I do not wish to score party political points here, but the company is owned by its management and employees. It is successful, and I am pleased that the former employees of the company own shares in it. The hon. Gentleman and I visited the company recently and I am glad to applaud the company, its management and its employees.
      There is no question of the management and employees of British Rail having to enter into second, third or Fourth mortgages to raise money to bid for franchises. That is wholly out of the question. We are talking about the management and staff of British Rail joining to bid for franchises, either by themselves or in conjunction with other private sector companies. Those companies might be financial institutions or operating companies.
      We want that to happen, and there is real evidence of interest among the 25 potential franchise companies. I have spoken to a number of managers and I can confirm that senior management responsible for running train services within British Rail are interested in proceeding. We shall see how many of them offer bids when we come to the franchising process, but the Secretary of State will have a duty under the amendment to promote that interest. I have given a clear example of the way in which my right hon. Friend intends to do so.
      Mr. John Gunnell: The Minister referred to a management buy-out in the West midlands. He will be aware that I was involved in a similar buy-out in West Yorkshire.
      There is a great difference between those buy-outs and what the Minister is dealing with in this case. In the cases of the bus companies, the buy-outs involved existing and functioning companies, the value of which could be ascertained; finance could then be put together on the basis of management who were motivated to move in that direction before it received any suggestions from outside. The buy-outs came from the innate motivation of the managers, who believed that that was way to ensure an integrated network in West Yorkshire.
      The position is different if one has to encourage and prod people into undertaking management bids. Does the Minister agree that the motivation of managers and their drive to make a company successful will determine in part whether people will finance that company? I am concerned that—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is becoming concerned at the hon. Gentleman's lengthy intervention. He has made his point, and perhaps the Minister will now reply.
      Mr. Freeman: It is a fundamental tenet of Conservative party policy that we wish to encourage the management and staff of any enterprise to take an equity interest in the running of that enterprise. That has worked well with the National Freight Corporation, with British Airways and with the bus industry. It is a fundamental tenet, and that is why we are putting it in the Bill.
      It may be helpful if I briefly explain the financial structure of the franchises. I am not talking about a company that is bidding for a franchise with or without its management and employees having to bid sufficient sums to acquire or maintain the infrastructure. That is the responsibility of Railtrack.
      I am not talking about the necessity to acquire rolling stock. We recognise that rolling stock—either second-hand or new—will have to be leased from the rolling stock leasing companies which we propose to establish. Franchising companies will need sufficient resources to meet the working capital requirement. In many cases, that will be a negative working capital requirement because of the prepayments of season tickets by commuters. There may be no need to raise capital simply for the working capital requirements of the business. It may be necessary to have lines of credit or financial resources which may have to be drawn upon if the business encounters either a fall in its revenues or an unforeseen increase in costs. Those are risks with which the private sector has experience of dealing. Therefore, although I do not anticipate that the management and employees will have to put up significant sums, they will be involved in the venture. They will need lines of credit or financial support from the City and elsewhere to bid for franchises.
      Amendment No. 2 deals with the relationship between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—and future Secretaries of State—and the regulator. The amendment deals with a change in a provision in the original text of the Bill, where the regulator had to have regard to the financial position of Railtrack. The change which was proposed in

      43
      the Lords and which we are commending to the House deals with the regulator acting in a manner which will not render it unduly difficult to finance any activities.
      The amendment strengthens the position of Railtrack vis a vis the regulator in a perfectly sensible fashion. It allows Railtrack to prosper, and ultimately we wish to see Railtrack move into the private sector, although we cannot forecast when that will happen. We want Railtrack to be able to manage its affairs in a sensible fashion and in accordance with the financial regime that has been laid down by the Secretary of State while it is subject to the regulator.
      The way in which the regulator controls the activities of Railtrack is essentially through the access agreements, with which the regulator has to agree. The Government think that the amendment is sensible and that it provides sufficient air for Railtrack to breathe to ensure that it succeeds and prospers.
      Those are the reasons behind the two amendments which I have addressed. Amendment No. 3 does not represent a change in policy and is technical. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: First, I must place on record our deep objection to the way in which the Bill has been handled right up to the eleventh hour. In two days we are supposed to deal with 109 pages and 470 Lords amendments. The Bill has been rewritten. Fundamental changes were made at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute. Many of the assurances given by Ministers in Committee have been thrown overboard at the last moment in an effort to make the whole thing workable—a task in which Ministers have signally failed.
      Seldom can a piece of legislation have been so thoroughly discredited before even reaching the statute book. Yesterday the final depths of farce were plumbed. We learned that the Department of Transport working party on restructuring British Rail had told Ministers that a £2 billion public service obligation grant will be required for next year. That is £1·15 billion more than for the current year, and it is just the first instalment in the cost of privatisation.
      5 pm
      At a time when everything worth while in our society is under threat and when the nation's economic plight is so dire that value added tax is to be added to the cost of domestic fuel, the Government are considering spending an extra £1·15 billion not on improving the railways but on financing the privatisation of the railways. As a result of that extra £1·15 billion, not one extra train will run, not one extra passenger will be carried and not one extra tonne of freight will be transferred from our roads. The phenomenal increase in the taxpayers' subsidy will not go towards developing our railways. It will go towards paying for the gargantuan additional costs inherent in rail fragmentation and privatisation.
      The proposed level of grant referred to in the working party's document is far in excess of the grant that British Rail has ever been given. If British Rail were given an annual grant of £2 billion, no one would be talking about privatising the railways. We would be boasting, like our continental neighbours, about how good our state railway company is. But having cut the grant to British Rail by
      44
      23 per cent. in the current year, with all the resultant service cuts and fare increases, the Tories are preparing to increase the grant by 250 per cent. next year to put in place the structure for privatisation. That is not a transport policy. It is the politics of prejudice, which have characterised the whole shoddy operation.
      We see the same approach in the first amendment before us today. The Minister in the Lords suggested that it was merely a technical amendment. The Minister here says that it does not change anything. But the amendment would not have been proposed if it did not change anything and was not intended to do so. It was specifically the first attempt at circumventing the Peyton-Marsh amendment. That amendment placed a duty on the franchise director to give preference to management buy-outs. As my hon. Friends have adduced, management buy-outs are a form of privatisation.
      The record of many management buy-outs is different from the one cited by the Minister. The Medway Ports were a management buy-out. City Link was a management buy-out. But, of course, management buy-outs quickly become full privatisations. The Government merely say that preference will be given to private bids to take over parts of the railways.
      I object strongly on behalf of the great majority of railway managers to the way in which their name has shamelessly been taken in vain by Ministers. Ministers have paraded the country telling everyone who would listen—many preferred not to—that the Government were doing everything for the railway managers, who were champing at the bit to become involved in management buy-outs. Under the regulations that the Government insisted on enforcing, those same railway managers are not allowed to answer back for themselves on pain of losing their employment with the railways. If one of them had stood up and said that railway managers were not keen to become involved in management buy-outs, he would have risked not only his career prospects but his job.
      While railway managers have been constrained, Ministers have felt able to travel around the country falsely representing the views of the railway managers. Ministers took it to the ultimate extreme in dealing with their Back Benchers. They told Back Benchers that they could not allow British Rail to compete because railway managers wanted to compete. Last week we saw the first evidence of the truth of the matter in a survey of railway managers.
      Under the protection of anonymity—which surely should not be required in a democratic society—81 per cent. of railway managers said that they were opposed to privatisation as outlined in the Railways Bill. When asked whether they were in favour of British Railways Board having the ability to bid for franchises, 68 per cent. said yes and 18 per cent. said no. When asked whether they were in favour of management buy-outs in preference to BR bidding, 20 per cent. said yes and 64 per cent. said no. When asked whether there was a conflict between management buy-outs and BR bids, 77 per cent. said yes and 6 per cent. said no.
      So when, for the first time, the managers are asked, we find a majority of between three and four to one against everything that the Government are doing. Yet Ministers have shamelessly maintained outside this place the hypocrisy and untruth that the purpose of the legislation is to support the ambitions of railway managers.
      Why do the Government always support minority vested interests? It would be astonishing if within the

      45
      whole railway network there were not a few managers who could be paraded in The Daily Telegraph—three, to be precise—and I believe that the same three were paraded last week at St. Ermine's hotel to tell Tory Back Benchers about the enthusiasm for management buy-outs among their colleagues. If railway managers were so in favour of management buy-outs, I should have thought that two different sets of three could have been found—one for St. Ermine's hotel and one for The Daily Telegraph. But not a bit of it—it was the same three.
      I should be interested to know who paid those three railway managers while they sat in St. Ermine's hotel in a room booked by Coopers and Lybrand telling Tory Back Benchers what to do with their votes in the Division Lobby. Indeed, I am interested in the role of Coopers and Lybrand in rail privatisation as a whole. Why does Coopers and Lybrand book rooms at St. Ermine's hotel and fill them with railway managers, presumably in British Rail's time, in order to dragoon Tory Back Benchers into those rooms to be told what to do?
      Coopers and Lybrand has a big role in all this. It has a big financial role. One of its directors, Sir Christopher Foster, is the Secretary of State's adviser on privatisation. While Coopers and Lybrand may be able to do some of the Government's dirty work a few yards away from here and book hotel rooms, it does not seem to be getting on so well with the substantive matters of railway privatisation. I do not know whether the Minister will tell me what Coopers and Lybrand is paid for its consultants' reports.
      Coopers and Lybrand has come back twice to the Government to tell them that it cannot come up with access-charging regimes for the railways and that more work will have to be done. According to Modern Railways this month, Coopers and Lybrand has told the Government that the idea of railway leasing stock companies will not work. The Government can pay anyone to book a room in St. Ermine's hotel, but they are paying Coopers and Lybrand millions to tell them that the thing will not work and that the crucial solutions cannot be found. If the Minister can shed any light on the role of Coopers and Lybrand, Sir Christopher Foster and all the rest of the interlocking gang who are pushing privatisation through, the information will be received with interest and probably with surprise by the House.
      Conservative Back Benchers can do what they like. I am sure that they will vote for all this nonsense. They will think that they have got themselves off the hook. The legislation was another own goal even before the historic compromise was reached: it had been discredited and the Government were a laughing stock because they were offering nothing. The amendment is part of that. Priority, preference and promotion will be given to private bids against any bids from British Rail. That is the easy bit. Legislating for that is easy. But management buy-outs or private companies with a token insert of management involvement will still have to raise the money.
      We know—we do not need to have it explained in a little tutorial from the Minister—that companies will not take over the assets. We know that the Tory Government are setting up a raft of quangos to take over the assets. We know that the companies will take over management contracts for a limited period without any of the assets that provide security. We understand all that. But the companies will still have to raise the money in the markets to finance that operation.
      46
      I notice that the Secretary of State is sitting there dumb. I am reminded of something that I read yesterday when I was browsing through Lady Thatcher's memoirs—it is good for insomnia. I quote from page 835 under the heading, "Men in Lifeboats":
      "But I still wanted a new face at Education where John MacGregor's limitations as a public spokesman were costing us dear in an area of great importance."
      If he was a failure at education, he is a disaster at transport. [Interruption.] I am sorry. Lady Thatcher has high opinions—
      Mr. Stephen Day: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wilson: No. Obviously, the Secretary of State for Transport has a great track record on popular policies. I quote from page 848 of Lady Thatcher's memoirs:
      "John MacGregor supported me: I could not now credibly promise a radical overhaul of the community charge, no matter how convenient it seemed."
      He is back today and cannot promise an overhaul of rail privatisation, no matter how convenient or sensible it might seem, and no matter what a splendid precedent it might be.
      Yesterday, he was confronted with questions. Suddenly, after so many months, we started to hear about 15-year franchises—such franchises entered the frame. It is policy on the hoof. The Government can provide 15-year, 30-year or 50-year franchises, and they can politically fix a subsidy to those franchises for a couple of years, but they will not be here to see them through. I make no idle boasts but there may or may not be a change of Government—that remains to be seen.
      If anyone in the City puts money into the franchises on the assumption that this Government, for political reasons, can guarantee a level of subsidy and then guarantee the conditions of those franchises to those operations for more than 18 months or two years, much less three years, five years, 10 years or 15 years, they will be much mistaken. I would not put tuppence on it. I do not think that they will put much money on it because everyone realises that the Government will throw money at a small number of franchises to give them some political credibility this side of a general election. People will see through that because they will realise that, if it ever got beyond that stage, every bit of loading that went towards the few private franchisees would be at the expense of those operations that were still run by British Rail.
      Labour Members speak for railway managers. We speak for the 80 per cent., not the 20 per cent. While 20 per cent. are being bribed into taking franchises with assurances that Ministers are in no position to give, 80 per cent. will still be running services in the public sector. We will not stand idly by and see them left with a rump railway stripped of investment and subsidy in order to skew financial support to those small elements that the Government have managed to get into the private sector.
      "Preference" and "the promotion of management buy-outs" are double talk for saying that, in all the circumstances, British Rail will be discriminated against and anyone the Government can get to bid against British Rail will be preferred. That approach, which is inherent in this amendment, was confirmed by the deal done last week where it was formalised that if anyone bids, or anyone can be found to run a railway, British Rail will be disqualified from doing so.

      47
      I need hardly say that that is not acceptable to the Labour party. I said last week, and I say again, that if people buy the fact that silly Government Members paraded their consciences in the summer about their concern for the future of the railways and the right of British Rail to bid, electors and anyone who knows anything about the industry will judge the consistency or the principle that underlies that decision. We will oppose amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
      The whole question of Railtrack's charges becomes extremely interesting in the context of the document entitled "Commercial Returns for Passenger Train Operating Companies", which states:
      "Roundly the central Government grant requirement would total some £2 billion in 1994–95 assuming an 8 per cent. return for Railtrack."
      It is interesting to have confirmation that Ministers are working on a return of 8 per cent.
      Mr. Freeman indicated dissent.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Wilson: The Minister is welcome to intervene if he so wishes. The 8 per cent. return for Railtrack will come only through charges to the operating companies. That will be the source of income for Railtrack via the franchise director. As we all know, the subsidy to British Rail in the current year is about £830 million. Those are the two figures, like for like—£830 million and £2 billion. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) looks characteristically puzzled. I may be able to help him.
      Mr. Peter Luff: My puzzlement relates to what the hon. Gentleman's speech has to do with the amendments under consideration.
      Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman's puzzlement speaks volumes about his comprehension. If he does not understand—
      Mr. Matthew Banks rose—
      Mr. Wilson: Tory Members should hang on a second —I will listen to one at a time. Public schoolboys are so impetuous.
      If the hon. Member for Worcester cannot read the amendments and find that they relate to the charging regime of Railtrack and management buy-outs, perhaps he needs a course in literacy rather than rail privatisation.
      Mr. Banks: If the hon. Gentleman spent more time doing his homework not simply on the railways but in every respect, he would know that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) nor I went to a public school. Throughout this debate, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will spend more time concentrating on the amendments and less time on the invective. I have always felt that he makes much better contributions, which are listened to with greater interest on both sides of the House, when he is less personal and concentrates on the matter in hand.
      Mr. Wilson: I am so impersonal I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's name.
      We have come to the end of a long process. We had reasonable debates in Committee, and we won assurances there. However, we have seen those assurances overturned
      48
      in the other place. We have come to the last lap in the parliamentary process and we are confronted with an additional 470 amendments. Railway pensioners have written to us to express their concerns, but those concerns have been ignored.
      Frankly, I am much less concerned about abuse towards Government Members than I am about the abuse of Ministers towards the railway network, railway pensioners and so on. If Conservative Members expect a soft ride and a nice little game of cricket, they will not get it. This privatisation is not like other privatisations because the difficulties do not end here—they begin here. All around the country, we will continue to tell people what the Government have done to the railways. We will identify stage by stage the consequences of the legislation and we will hold to personal and electoral account those who voted for it in the full knowledge of precisely what they were doing to the railways.
      Sir David Mitchell rose—
      Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
      Sir David Mitchell: I simply join my colleagues in expressing the hope that the hon. Gentleman might turn his attention to the amendments.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendments relate to the general duties of the Secretary of State and the regulator. There has been nothing out of order to date.
      Mr. Wilson: If I were in trouble, I do not think that I would like the hon. Members for Worcester, for Southport (Mr. Banks) and for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) as my cavalry. Many of my hon. Friends wish to participate in this key debate.
      What we have here is a set-up. I wonder whether any Conservative Members took the trouble to fight to get a copy of the report. It is not a two-bit report from a junior civil servant; it is a report from a top working party—the good and the great of the Department of Transport putting their collective intellect into how this will work.
      I can provide copies of this paper to any Conservative Member who wants to know what he is voting for. It roundly says that the Government grant requirement will total some £2 billion in 1994–95, assuming an 8 per cent. return for Railtrack. Everyone will pay everyone else 8 per cent., and so that the train operating companies can pay the leasing companies and Railtrack the economic costs plus 8 per cent., £2 billion will be needed next year to start the circle. That compares with £830 million this year.
      I hope that I have demonstrated that I am happy to take interventions and will be pleased to answer questions. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) was a great rebel in this matter, and by now I would have expected the hon. Gentleman and the ex-Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West, to be leaping to their feet to explain why it is a better deal for the taxpayer to pay £2 billion to restructure for privatisation than to pay £830 million to keep the BR network going. If any Conservative Member can explain that, I shall be pleased to allow him to intervene.
      There is silence, because they do not know and do not care. They do not care how much it costs, or about the £2 billion for restructuring or the £25 million currently being

      49
      paid to consultants such as Coopers and Lybrand and the usual suspects who are trying to tell the Government how to make the plan work.
      They do not care that the extra £2 billion next year to British Rail will not provide an extra train. All that they care about is the ideology of breaking the system up and selling it. That is how it is seen in the country. No doubt we shall return to these arguments in the debate.
      I ask my hon. Friends to oppose Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I again express shock at the fact that we shall have to vote on 470 amendments. We are in for a long night.
      Sir Michael Grylls: I have not spoken on the Bill before. That confession is not especially relevant but my deeper confession is that I am filled with admiration for the Opposition. For 13 years companies have been privatised or commercialised, one after the other. Great monolithic nationalised industries which were pinned down by the Government and the Treasury were allowed to fly free and prosper and provide a better service for the public. After 13 years the Opposition are still bitterly opposed to that.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) gave me the impression that he was not greatly in favour of privatisation. I admire the fact that he can still say that because he has been proved wrong time and again. Today's issue of the Evening Standard has a front-page headline about British Telecom offering a better and better service to the public. I am using that as an analogy, and I hope that I am in order. British Telecom would never have offered such a service before it was privatised. It is offering it now because the monopoly has been broken, more competition has appeared, and BT has to offer a better service.
      Many of my constituents daily use the railways, and it might be thought that I would have been nervous about privatisation because it might upset some of them. I have thought carefully about the Bill and about the railways, which I use. To put it mildly, the rail service is not that good, and almost anything would be an improvement. Our track record on freeing up monopolies and introducing competition over the past 13 years has been very successful.
      I am prepared to stick out my neck and say that railway privatisation is good because it will introduce competition through franchises and because it will allow management buy-outs. The Opposition used to espouse a form of co-operative ownership, and that had some attractions. A management buy-out is at least half of that because it will free experienced people in the railways from the bureaucratic clutch of British Rail. They will be allowed to get money to run a railway and offer a franchise, and that must be good.
      Mr. Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman speaks about the breaking of monopolies and the development of competition. Is he aware that the Government's proposals will lead to the establishment of regional and local private monopolies for periods of six, seven and possibly 15 years? Some of us prefer public and publicly accountable monopolies to private monopolies of the sort proposed by the Government.
      Sir Michael Grylls: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and I accept that he is partly right. However, there will probably not be different franchises on all sets of
      50
      railway lines, so it would seem that there will not be competition. There may be competition on the north-east route to Scotland. Let us assume that the hon. Gentleman is right, and that only one franchisee will operate on that line. There will be competition between that line and an operator on another line. People may say about my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), "His constituents have a fantastic line with a wonderful operator and we should try to encourage that operator to another line." Therefore, there will be competition by example.
      Sir David Mitchell: Surely because of the private car and the considerable expansion of coach operators, especially on commuter routes, it is no longer true to say that railways have a monopoly. On the longer routes there is competition from the airlines. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who raised this hare, is wrong.
      Sir Michael Grylls: I was giving the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt and trying to be as kind as possible while not deviating from the amendment.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I shall be a little more vicious than my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) is diametrically wrong? The whole point about franchising and contracting out is that they will give the client, British Rail, control of public accountability on behalf of the taxpayer. Currently there is no such accountability.
      Sir Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend puts the point rather more firmly than I would have done. I rest on the truth of the interventions by both my hon. Friends who spoke with great clarity.
      No hon. Member can escape the fact that competition, however it is done and however imperfect—and it is difficult to get perfect competition—is beneficial. We should aim for maximum competition, and I thank the Government for breaking the monopoly because it has always been illegal for anyone other than British Rail to operate a railway system. That is a big step. [Interruption.]
      The Opposition should listen. Hon. Members are here for only one reason—to try to serve the public. We are not here for our own gratification. At the moment, the railway is a public service and we should try to ensure that it provides a better service.
      I end where I started. The Opposition have experienced successful privatisation and commercialisation over the past 13 years, and they are still saying, "Oh no, it does not work." They are either blind or determined not to work for the good of their constituents or the wider public. We should encourage the Government to press ahead with franchising as quickly as possible in the interests of our constituents. Management buy-outs should be encouraged, and I am glad to see that referred to in the amendment.
      Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is obviously a great expert on privatisation. Can he tell us of any other privatisation in which the industry concerned continues to depend for its profitability on the level of taxpayers' subsidy?
      Sir Michael Grylls: The hon. Gentleman has asked a perfectly fair question and I shall answer it. We are aware that many of the railway routes will require continuing subsidies. The Government have not been doctrinaire and said that the subsidies will be wiped out overnight. It is in

      51
      the interests of the public that they continue. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the rail network is a more difficult commercialisation—perhaps a better term than privatisation when applied to the railways—I agree with him. However, that does not mean that we should run away from it and that we should not be more flexible in the way that we handle it.
      5.30 pm
      The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that the railways will be better served by competition, by the breaking of the monopoly and by the provision of a service with a private enterprise ethos. The industry needs to get away from the dread hand of a huge, bureaucratic business, which can never ben changed from within. The culture is too deep to change it from within; it can only be changed from without. I remember Sir Ian MacGregor saying when he was at British Coal, that every decision made either by him or by those at levels below him was immediately reported to the then Department of Energy. A business cannot be run properly with continual interference from Government.
      British Rail needs to be freed from the dread hand of Government and commercialisation and management buy-outs must be encouraged. The Government are to be congratulated and I wish them well with the amendments.
      Mr. Nick Harvey: It is small wonder that, at this last stage in the progress of the Bill, we are considering measures to featherbed management and employee buy-outs. It is not that many months since the Secretary of State told us that he was holding back the floodgates of private sector interest until 1994. Now, with just two months until it is 1994, the floodgates are in danger of collapsing inwards for the lack of any water on the other side. The truth is that virtually no one is showing any interest in bidding. The whole madcap plan for privatisation is now dependent upon management and employee buy-outs. As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said, a recent survey shows that, even among those groups, there is precious little interest in bidding.
      The Government are flogging a dead horse and this is their last chance to salvage anything from the project. Is it any surprise that management and employees are showing such a lack of interest? What is in it for them? They are being offered only short franchises and there are no assets against which to raise funds. There is no opportunity to build up any assets that they can sell on at the end of the franchise period. For them, it will just be a daily struggle to run the services.
      Why should managers and employees want to carry the can when disasters, such as that at Clapham, happen? Why should they take on that burden of responsibility without any proper corporation behind them? They know the horrible truth about the running of the nation's railway services and trying to encourage them to take responsibility for that is, as has been said, like trying to sell ice to an eskimo. It is no wonder that they need the incentive of extra funds and a clear path in the bidding process, with British Rail being kept out of it.
      In Committee, we discussed in some detail the principle that the teams running the shadow franchises should not then bid to take over those franchises. At that point in the saga, the Minister agreed with that. If the teams running the
      52
      shadow franchises then bid for them, in effect they will be determining the price that they will have to pay for those franchises, or the subsidy that they will receive to run them. I recall that there was bad feeling during the bus privatisation because teams of managers valued the bus services that they then proceeded to buy.
      In considering the special measures proposed to help management and employee buy-outs, we must question what impact competition law will have. I cannot help but remember the whole sorry debacle of the British Aerospace takeover of Rover, when the European Commission found that there had been unacceptable sweeteners. There is a risk that the Commission will reach the same conclusion about these measures.
      Only this weekend we heard how much more privatisation will cost than was originally suggested. The late Robert Adley, the predecessor to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), coined the expression "poll tax on wheels" to describe the Bill. At the time, he was referring to its unpopularity, but it might have been a more apt comparison had he been referring to the horrible expense that the taxpayer will have to bear. Privatisation will end up costing at least what was suggested at the weekend and probably a great deal more.
      The preparations within British Rail for the shadow franchises and the management buy-outs are already having a desperate effect on morale as people within the industry wonder whether they are part of the in crowd—part of any bid. The air of intrigue and suspicion is having a profound effect on the morale of railway workers and that will become worse as time goes on.
      Sir Michael Grylls: If the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to the Bill, why has the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council on the Isle of Wight welcomed the opportunity for the private sector to bid for the Isle of Wight railway? Why does the hon. Gentleman take a different line?
      Mr. Harvey: I have said nothing today, or previously, to suggest that there should not be any private sector bid for any railway service. The amendments that we are discussing relate to management and employee buy-outs, which the Government want to featherbed. They want to distort competition and to short-change the taxpayer. Taxpayers have been investing heavily in our railway network for many decades. When someone wants to take over the service—whether a management buy-out or a private sector business—the least that the taxpayers are entitled to is the satisfaction and certainty of knowing that the service will be better run and at a better price than under British Rail, the existing carrier. There is no reason why there should not be management and employee buy-outs; I am not suggesting that they should be prohibited. However, such bids should be able to stand on their own feet in their attempt to beat British Rail.
      The truth is that, in the dying hours of the passage of this Bill, the Government have been driven to make policy off the cuff. That is behind the Secretary of State's reluctant admission at the weekend that franchises might be allowed to run for as long as 15 years. For many months, anyone considering taking on a franchise has told him that, because any investment in the railways takes so long to be repaid, potential bidders would be interested only if the

      53
      franchises ran for longer than originally proposed. Now, in their desperation to make some sense of the privatisation, the Government have had to agree to that.
      The Government are absolutely determined to wipe British Rail off the map. The amendments are an attempt to load the dice in favour of any bidder trying to take services away from British Rail. By all means management and employee buy-outs should be allowed to bid, but they should stand on their own feet, win on price and win on service provision.
      Mr. Keith Hill: Lords amendment No. 2, according to the Minister, will enable Railtrack to manage its affairs sensibly. It also modifies the powers of the regulator in his application of access agreements.
      Splitting the railway network between operating companies and an infrastructure authority—Railtrack—is a fundamental aspect of the Government's proposals. The scheme was greeted with bewilderment by the international experts who appeared before the Transport Select Committee, and the Committee expressed great scepticism about it on operational grounds. It remains a matter of deep confusion, however, why the Government have resolutely refused to name Railtrack on the face of the Bill, or to describe its functions therein.
      Why have the Government refused to include any reference to Railtrack? Why have they broken with all precedent in privatisation legislation and refused to name a successor organisation of such fundamental significance? Why did they take their resistance to naming Railtrack to the extent of voting down an amendment so to do in the House of Lords? Does not that confirm that enormous powers for the future organisation of the railway will be concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State. In the words of the Select Committee report, it is
      "an indication of the sweeping powers contained in part II which enables the Secretary of State to restructure British Rail in the way he sees fit."
      Will the Minister confirm, because Parliament, the public and potential operators have the right to know, that the absence of Railtrack from the Bill means that it will be possible for the regulator to approve franchises which combine control of both operations and infrastructure? Is that not the very definition of a network licence, which appears in amendment No. 2?
      In other words, will the Minister confirm that it will be perfectly possible for, for example, Mr. Richard Branson, of a potential Virgin Rail, to enjoy sole ownership of the east coast main line—if he so wills and if he can afford it—for a period of several years in the not-too-distant future? Was not that the effect of amendment No. 163, passed in Standing Committee B in the House of Commons on 23 February 1993?
      5.45 pm
      The Minister owes it to the House to be frank about the matter, because it bears profoundly on the kind of railway service that the public are likely to experience in the future. It also bears profoundly on the future viability of Railtrack itself.
      Are there not several other major question marks over the financial arrangements of Railtrack? One major question is about access charges. Will the Minister confirm that, with only five months to go before Railtrack assumes its responsibilities, there is still no agreement on a financial regime—in other words, that there is still no agreement about the rate of return that Railtrack is required to make
      54
      on its assets and that, as a consequence, there is still no agreement on the charges that it will want to impose on British Rail or on possible private operators?
      Is it not an extraordinary state of affairs, when literally half the railway, less than half a year before it comes into operation, still does not know what its revenue costs or revenue charges will be? Does not that uncertainty compound the uncertainty about the investment that is likely to be available to Railtrack following the current Public Expenditure Survey Committee round?
      The Minister was right when, in Committee, he deplored the tendency of Governments to treat railway infrastructure as an economic regulator. He said:
      "It is sometimes seen as the regulator. When public sector revenues are under pressure, investment projects are often postponed."—[Official Report, 11 February 1993; c. 52.]
      Quite right too.
      In contrast to that deplorable record, the Minister drew, at that time, a rosy picture of a long-term rolling programme of investment for railway infrastructure under the new Railtrack arrangements. It would help the House if the Minister could give us a guarantee that, following the Budget, there will be no cuts in investment for Railtrack. At the end of the day, it is not phoney deals or fancy franchises, but cash entering the system, upon which the future of the railway system depends.
      Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) referred to Opposition Members repeatedly getting things wrong. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) reminded him of the words of her predecessor, Mr. Robert Adley, that the proposals contained in the Bill were
      "the poll tax on wheels."
      If ever a Government got anything wrong, it was the Conservative Government when they brought in the poll tax; and if ever a Government are going to get it wrong again, it is the Government when they force this measure through the House tonight and bring upon themselves the hatred and rejection of the British people, who do not support the measures in the Bill and especially do not support the break-up of the public service railway.
      I listened to the Minister of Transport in Committee, and I was not over-impressed by his contribution. I thought that perhaps he would have improved, having been given the summer recess during which to recover, but he made a brief speech tonight in introducing the amendments which even he should be embarrassed about.
      The Minister began by saying that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 were relatively uncontroversial, and then he ran right into a wall of controversy when he suggested that he should not make the arguments for them, because we could read them in the Hansard report of the House of Lords. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) pointed out, that is no way for a Minister of the Crown to operate in the House of Commons. If he can argue the case for those amendments, as he does here, he should not refer hon. Members elsewhere.
      The Minister went on to say that the amendments were to make things clearer, but he could not say clearly what "a substantial interest" meant. He could only say that it is not 5 per cent. We are all agreed about that. "A substantial interest" does not mean 5 per cent., but what does it mean? The Minister could not define it more specifically.
      An annexe in a letter that the Minister circulated to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) describes the different groups of amendments.

      55
      When describing amendments Nos. 1 and 2 the Minister says that employees providing the railway services to be franchised must have "a significant interest". Which is the correct phrase? Is it the "substantial interest" that is in the annexe which the Minister sent to my hon. Friend? Will the Minister tell us which phrase will appear on the statute book when the Bill finally becomes a statute?
      There is a difference between "substantial" and "significant". "Substantial" suggests that perhaps we are describing a majority interest. The Minister was careful not to define it in those terms, but that is what I would take to be the meaning of "a substantial interest". What do other hon. Members believe the phrase "a substantial interest" means? One may receive 650 different interpretations of what "a substantial interest" might mean.
      Let us remember that we are dealing with law that will go on to the statute book. We could not get a definition of a key term in an important amendment that will go into a Bill and, by my standards, that is no way for a Minister to try to get any legislation through the House. In fact, he went on to say that he could not define "a substantial interest" because it depends on the capitalisation; it depends on the debt burden; it depends on the possibility that the company that is set up will suffer a loss of revenue at some time in the future.
      It also depends on the unforeseen rise in costs. One foreseen rise in costs that may be able to be taken into account are the track charges that will be levied by Railtrack, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East pointed out, neither the Government nor the Minister are prepared to tell anyone what those track charges may be, so we do not know what foreseen or unforeseen costs may arise.
      That is an insane way for the House to behave when we are dealing with legislation. What happens when one of the franchises is awarded to a bid that comes from a management buy-out and someone contests that award on grounds of interpretation? Should one go to the regulator and ask him to define "a substantial interest", or should one go to the courts?
      Let us suppose that the parties ask the courts to decide what Parliament meant by "a substantial interest". The courts would look at the Hansard record of the debate and would find out that no one in Parliament could define "a substantial interest". The Minister was not prepared to do so. He virtually told hon. Members that it is up to us to make up our own minds about what that phrase means before we vote on the amendment. What will the courts think of the House if that is the sad result of our debate, because the Minister and the Government do not know what they are doing in these amendments?
      The phrase "a substantial interest" is not the only problem. We went on to ask the Minister what he meant by "promoting". We are placing a duty on the regulator and the Secretary of State to "promote" management buy-outs. The Minister says that that does not mean price preference, so we are clear about that. Funds will be made available to help in the preparation of management bids. I think that the Minister said that—he referred to the fact that £100,000 of taxpayers' money would be made available for potential management buy-outs.
      If I were a private sector bidder considering a franchise, I would make sure that former British Rail employees
      56
      made up the required 6 per cent. Under the Minister's definition that is all that will be necessary to qualify for a £100,000 handout to prepare the franchise bid. That percentage interest will also place a duty on the Secretary of State and the regulator to promote the bid when compared with one with which no former British Rail employees are involved.
      The whole thing is absolute nonsense. What will happen if there are two bids which in all other respects are equal, but one is a management buy-out? Will the Secretary of State and the regulator be obliged to give the management buy-out preference? What if a private sector bid is only marginally better than a management buy-out? Does "promoting" mean that the Secretary of State must still give preference to the management buy-out in those circumstances?
      It is an insult for the Minister to come to the House in 1993 with those arguments and to expect the amendment to be carried with a majority. It is also an insult to those Conservative Members who have been getting kudos from their constituents throughout the summer by arguing that they will stand up to the privatisation of the railways. When the time has come, they are not taking part in the debate or complaining when the Minister tables such shoddy and slipshod amendments.
      As a Scottish Member, I have a special interest in the debate, because ScotRail and the east coast main line will be two of the first franchises put out to tender. I am especially concerned because, at a time when the Scottish rail network is crying out for investment, the Government seem to have got their priorities completely wrong.
      A recent report on transport links with Europe prepared for the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs identified an urgent need for a £750 million investment in track and rolling stock in Scotland. At such a time, it is wrong for the Government to proceed with a Bill that will promote management buy-outs and privatisation, change the structure of the railways, and put at risk safety and all the other things that are important to people in Scotland.
      Time and again, hon. Members have referred to the stories at the weekend about the measure costing about £2 billion. We know that the original estimate for the public sector obligation grant for next year was £851 million, based on the assumption that the rail network would remain in the public sector. However, an influential interdepartmental Committee set up by the Minister and the Secretary of State is suggesting that, if privatisation goes ahead, the cost will be £2 billion.
      Every hon. Member knows that there is an unprecedented squeeze on public expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that his proposed limits for public spending next year will not, under any circumstances, be breached. We must believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he says that £851 million will be spent on the public sector obligation grant next year. We must believe that that figure will not be breached, but if so, where will the other £1 billion-plus come from? I suggest that it will not come from Government grants to any franchise holder next year. The people who win the franchises will be expected to make savings by cutting services, jobs and working conditions for railway staff. That is not merely my view but that of the people who work in the industry.
      Only last week, representatives of the "Save Our Railways" campaign came here. A train started in Glasgow, went to Edinburgh and then down the east coast

      57
      main line, picking up protesters. They all said exactly the same. People in Scotland have complained about the collapse of morale in ScotRail, caused by the threat of privatisation and management buy-outs. The Government dismissed that complaint. Mr. Donnie Shannon, a chargehand at Queen Street station in Glasgow, said:
      "Privatisation isn't an answer. The railways require investment. Privatisation will threaten rural services and staff are particularly worried about their conditions under private ownership."
      The protesters are not the only people to think like that. Tayside regional council is the transport authority for my constituency in Dundee and it has a strategy to try to persuade commuters to move from private to public transport. A key component is to encourage the use of our railways. A series of stations just outside Dundee—Broughty Ferry, Monifeith, Carnoustie and Arbroath—desperately need investment to upgrade the buildings, improve rolling stock and keep the fares down so that the service can compete with the cost of taking a private car into Dundee.
      There is no hope of fulfilling that aim if the Secretary of State and the Government go ahead with their privatisation plans. There will not be sufficient investment, because the money will be directed elsewhere, to ensure the profitability of the franchises, whether they are management sector buy-outs or private sector bidders.
      The same is true of the east coast main line. I said in Committee time and again that that line consists of two complementary services—an electrified core service, which runs between London and Edinburgh, and a non-electric, non-core service from London to Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness. I am worried about what will happen to the non-core services if the line is taken over by the private sector.
      I wrote to InterCity to explain my fears. Mr. Brian Burdsall, the director of the east coast main line, wrote back and assured me that, as long as InterCity remained in the public sector, it intended to maintain the present level of services to Aberdeen and Inverness, and that it regarded the non-core services as an integral part of the line. He went on:
      "Whether private sector bidders will comply with this particular train plan and whether this timetable will endure for the length of the Franchise it is impossible to say at this point in time. This will partly depend on profitability and the level of Track Access charges which the Government has not yet determined."
      While the line remains in the public sector and has Government support, services to Dundee and Aberdeen can be guaranteed, but once it is taken over by the private sector—whoever wins the franchise—there will be no guarantee. If the service cannot be run at a profit, it will not be run at all. It is as simple as that.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: Where is the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson)?
      Mr. McAllion: Where are the Conservative Members who represent Scotland? I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has slipped into the Chamber. It is nice to see that at least one Scottish Tory Member has taken an interest in the debate, even if he has to because he is the Minister with that responsibility.
      Recently, Mr. Douglas Smart, the secretary of the Railway Development Society in Scotland, wrote to Scottish Members to tell them of his concerns about the
      58
      implications of rail privatisation in Scotland. He received a reply from the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who said:
      "I regard the complications of privatisation of British Rail as insurmountable and I am inclined to vote against the matter or abstain."
      I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman had hoped that that answer would be kept anonymous—he is not in favour of allowing anonymity for certain other people in society.
      However, the letter was published, and at least that hon. and learned Gentleman replied to Mr. Smart, whereas other Tory Members representing Scottish constituencies did not —and we do not know their intentions tonight.
      If privatisation goes ahead and lines are taken out of the public sector to be run by management buy-out teams or whoever, only one factor will determine their survival—whether or not those lines can be run at a profit. There will be no consideration of service to the people of the east coast of Scotland. In those circumstances, I know how I shall vote on the amendments and on the Bill tonight. I shall vote against them. The people of Scotland will be watching to see how Government Members who represent Scottish constituences vote.
      6 pm
      Mr. Home Robertson: I am happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), because I also represent an east Scotland constituency that depends on services provided by ScotRail and the east coast main line.
      I was amazed by the speech of the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls), who presented the view of a true believer in rail privatisation. He said, rightly, that we should be predominantly concerned about the interests of our constituents, particularly those who rely on railway services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will follow what happens to railway services in their part of the world. I fear greatly for the prospects of rail services in my part of Scotland. There is little doubt that the Bill will lead to poorer services and higher fares across the board.
      Lords amendment No. 1 states that the Secretary of State shall have a duty to
      "promote the award of franchise agreements to companies in which qualifying railway employees have a substantial interest".
      Those who study the Register of Members' Interests will know that I am sponsored by the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. Its members, who are British Rail managers, must be the kind of people to whom the Minister was referring when he expressed the hope that there would be massive participation in management buyout by rail staff.
      I am grateful to the TSSA for informing me of the views expressed by those of its members who are senior British rail managers in the survey to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred. Ninety-two per cent. of senior managers replying were not in favour of rail privatisation as outlined in the Bill; 77 per cent. were in favour of British Rail retaining the ability to bid for franchises; 71 per cent. were not in favour of management buy-outs; and 85 per cent. felt that there was a conflict between management buy-outs and British Rail bids—and I believe that the majority of people want British Rail to bid for franchises.

      59
      British Rail's senior managers want no part of privatisation. They are more concerned about the future of the service.
      Mr. Gary Waller: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is significant that one of British Rail's most senior managers, Chris Green, managing director of InterCity, is prepared to put his career at stake by moving to ScotRail? That displays a very different attitude among managers than that claimed by the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Green said:
      "The biggest difference in the end will be that we're going to have to be more inventive, attracting more customers through marketing initiatives against a backdrop of Treasury squeezes over the years."
      At least Mr. Green recognises that, in the past, it was not Government handouts that were the key factor, but the dead hand of the Government and the Treasury, which prevented the railways—particularly in Scotland—from attracting more customers. He acknowledges that there is a different way of approaching the problem in future, and is prepared to move to Scotland to prove it.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Chris Green moved to InterCity from ScotRail in the first place, and I am not surprised that he is baling out of InterCity when the Government are in the process of dismantling it.
      The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West conjured up the wonderful spectacle of competition leading to processions of private operators laying on more and more services for the benefit of our constituents, but he gave it all away when, replying to an intervention by one of my hon. Friends, he acknowledged that all services would depend on subsidies for ever more. They will be big subsidies, as we know from leaks over the weekend.
      The House may be interested to hear some of the responses by British Rail senior managers in the TSSA survey. Sadly, they must remain anonymous. One commented:
      "Rail privatisation is essentially unsafe, requiring people unskilled in railway businesses to have access to systems and equipment for which they have inadequate training."
      Another said:
      "Political dogma is blind to practical reality."
      One manager stated:
      "I totally oppose BR privatisation in any form and I, like most other BR managers, believe it will fail to provide any kind of service."
      There were many more comments, but perhaps the most significant of the comments that were passed to me was:
      "Every success in your fight. We have been muzzled."
      That is what the Government have done to the people who know about managing rail services. Right hon. and hon. Members are not supposed to be muzzled but are meant to protect the interests of their constituents—both those who work in the railway system and those who depend on rail services. Where are all those right hon. and hon. Members? Where is the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross?
      Mr. Matthew Banks: The hon. Gentleman quoted on the subject of safety someone whose identity and place of work is unknown to me. Does he accept that, throughout the whole process, the Government accepted each and every recommendation of the Health and Safety Executive?
      Mr. Home Robertson: I am not persuaded that privatisation will ensure the retention of proper safety standards, and I do not believe any of the Government's assurances.
      Mr. Hugh Bayley: My hon. Friend knows that Opposition Members tabled an amendment in Committee that sought to write into the Bill guarantees on each of the Health and Safety Executive's 37 recommendations to the Government. Is he aware that the Minister urged Conservative Members to defeat that amendment, so that it would not form part of the Bill?
      Mr. Home Robertson: Nothing surprises me about the Government's cynical approach to this type of legislation. We know from bitter experience that they are prepared to sacrifice all manner of important principles in their drive for privatisation for the hell of it—and we see that today.
      The presence in the Chamber of so few Government Members speaks volumes. I suspect that the vast majority of Conservative Members are thoroughly embarrassed by the Bill. Many of them led their constituents to believe that they would oppose the Bill. Where are those right hon. and hon. Members now? I hark back to the poll tax. Conservative Members failed to stop that lousy legislation reaching the statute book, and they ended up with a botched job that did them great damage. There is a serious danger that the same will happen again with the Bill.
      The country is looking to Parliament to protect the interests of our constituents. It is our duty to do that, but I fear that the Tory majority in the House will let down the people of Britain again.
      Mr. Snape: Listening to the Minister was like getting into a lift—or into an elevator, if one prefers the American name—that has muzak playing in the background. For the first three or four floors, it is relatively pleasant but as the lift continues to ascend, one realises that the guts of the music has been taken out and one is left listening to plink plonk. By the time that the lift gets anywhere near the top floor, one wants to rip out the speaker and jump on it. Putting violence aside in respect of the Minister, listening to him felt much the same. His voice was mellifluous enough but his speech was sadly lacking any any content. I do not believe that the Minister, in his heart of hearts, has any more faith in the Bill than any other right hon. or hon. Member. Indeed, although the few Conservative Back Benchers who are present profess to be in favour of it, I suspect that, in their heart of hearts, they do not believe in it either.
      I listened with interest to the contribution of the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls). He said that he had not spoken on this subject for 14 years. One forbore to say that, by the time he sat down, one could well understand why; but his speech did not—let us say—hit the heights in comparison with other speeches that we have heard in this Chamber.
      Anyone who believes that fragmenting the railway system in the way proposed by the Government—in particular, in two of the three amendments that we are discussing—will be good for safety and cohesion in the industry betrays his or her ignorance. It is a pitty that the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West left the Chamber after making his speech. We need go back only 70 years or so—a comparatively short time in railway history—to see what happened to the system when small private operators competed with each other: gradually, they all went under

      61
      financially, and in 1923 the railways were combined into groups of larger, still privately owned, geographical) based regional companies.
      I have no wish to cause Conservative Members further distress; I fear that, in due course, the electroate will do that anyway. However, let us consider what happened to those large, geographically based, privately owned companies throughout the 1930s and the second world war, until nationalisation. It is clear that they were exceedingly unprofitable. Let me choose one at random: the London and North-Eastern railway paid no dividends to its shareholders between 1935 and 1940. After that, of course, the taxpayer took care of the outgoings because of the second world war.
      The fragmentation of the industry that the Government propose—whether or not management buy-outs are involved—is likely to prove disastrous on safety grounds as well, as has already been mentioned. It is difficult to find any senior BR managers who are in favour of the proposals, whether or not they can be persuaded to lead management buy-outs.
      Predictably, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) referred to an article in this morning's Daily Telegraph, in which Chris Green was presented as a leading supporter of the principle. Although I cannot speak for him, I would not have thought that to be the case. I know that he is widely respected by railway workers for the way in which he has performed successive difficult jobs, but those jobs have been done within a unified railway system, in which some senior managers are themselves responsible for safety matters.
      What concerns many Opposition Members about the proposed management buy-outs is the fact that they will be commercially driven and commercially led. Senior managers responsible for signalling safety, for example, will have neither the inclination nor the resources to be caught up in MBOs—which may well be led by people who understand how to turn over a quick profit, especially with the subsidies that we are discussing, rather than by senior managers directly concerned with safety.
      One extremely senior manager to speak out against the proposals was Mr. Peter Rayner, formerly regional movements officer of the former London midland region. He was responsible for all train movements in the region. After the Clapham disaster, he denounced the fragmentation of the railway industry on the grounds of its likely impact on railway safety. Soon afterwards, he was transferred from his post and given a job that had been specially created; he described it to me as involving something called psychometric testing. I do not envy Hansard the task of transcribing that! It was clear that—as he put it himself—Mr. Rayner was a square peg in a round hole. Before long, he took early redundancy and left the railway industry. So much for railway managers' being allowed to speak freely about the damage that they expect to be done to their industry.
      The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) said that the Government had given various assurances about safety. What assurances from the present Government can we believe or trust? They have given many assurances about other matters that we shall debate today and tomorrow, but those assurances do not appear to have satisfied many people.
      62
      6.15 pm
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) suggested, financial matters lie at the heart of the amendments. I never thought that he and I would be in the Chamber bemoaning the fact that railway subsidies were to rise. For many years, we have pursued successive Ministers—successive Governments, indeed—on the subject of expenditure in the industry. The fact is that, as my hon. Friend points out, the increased subsidy will not provide a single extra service, a single refurbished railway station or a single extra member of staff at a country station. The money will be used—purely in the short term —to bribe people to become involved in purchasing a franchise to operate a railway service.
      Will anyone seriously wish to put up a considerable sum, whether it is their own money or the Government's —the Minister cannot tell us how much will be involved, because he does not know—to operate a railway service on track owned by another, in the short term, publicly owned company—Railtrack, which itself must achieve an 8 per cent. return? Would any Conservative Member do so?
      I note that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) has returned to the Chamber. A few weeks ago, he and I engaged in a short television debate; the last question I asked him was how much of his money he would put up to purchase the railway that runs through his constituency. After all, it is a hundred years or so since the Oxford, Wolverhampton and Worcester railway—known, for some reason, as the Old Worse and Worse, which does not augur particularly well for the future—disappeared into the maw of the Great Western railway.
      Unfortunately, the programme ended before I could get a straight answer from the hon. Gentleman however, I should like to know how much of his own money he is willing to put in—as a great supporter of this damned piece of legislation—if there is a management buy-out of the former Old Worse and Worse. Alas, answer came there none; but let me presuppose that the hon. Gentleman will not bankrupt himself, although he may well expect railway managers to bankrupt themselves.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) spoke of morale in the railway industry. I have been connected with the industry, in various junior capacities, since the mid-1950s—or, rather, the late 1950s; I should not make myself sound older than I am. I have never known morale to be as low as it is now, from the very top to the very bottom. The Government must accept some responsibility. If they think that managers whose morale has been virtually crushed by their attitude will now rush into MBOs at the behest of the Bill, they have another think coming.
      It is nearly 15 long years since the Conservatives came to office. During that time, every member of the British Railways Board has been appointed by a Conservative Secretary of State—or, in some cases, reappointed.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I have allowed a fairly broad debate, but this goes far beyond the general duties of the Secretary of State or, indeed, the regulator.
      Mr. Snape: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if the general duties of managers in the industry are to mean anything, we must consider how the industry has

      63
      been managed under various Conservative Administrations. However, at your behest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall move on from that argument.
      If Railtrack is expected to make the return envisaged under the Bill, railway management will not rush to participate in management buy-outs. The budgetary constraints to which my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham referred are likely to come sooner rather than later. Like him, I appeal to the Minister for Public Transport to assure us that moneys pledged for management buy-outs and for the investment envisaged in the railway industry—which will be privatised if the Government's majority is brought to bear tonight—will not be cut in the Budget later this month. Will he also assure us that that money and investment will not be subjected to the invariable trimming that takes place every time that it is deemed necessary for the axe to fall on public expenditure projects?
      If the Minister is serious about encouraging managers to become involved in the future of their industry, the Government will have to perform differently from the way in which they have performed in recent years. If we are made to stagger through the effects of another round of public expenditure cuts, which will fall on the railway industry in particular, morale among managers will collapse even further. That is not good for those who work in the industry; nor, from the Conservative party's point of view, is it good for those who use railway services. I hope that the Minister will give those assurances: those on financing are essential not only from a political point of view but from the point of view of the future of the railway industry.
      Mr. Heppell: It is disappointing that, at this late stage of the Bill's passage, hon. Members are in so much of a muddle about the Bill. That muddle was not foreseen when the Bill was introduced or during its Committee stage. The amendments have now been tabled because the Government got the Bill wrong in the first place.
      Sometimes people look for complicated arguments to explain the reasons of the Bill. The truth is that there are two reasons for it. The first is Government dogma that privatisation is good and the public sector is bad. The Secretary of State, knowing that being appointed Secretary of State for Transport was likely to be a stepping stone to spending more time with his family, wanted to flex his muscles and show the backwoodsmen on the Government Back Benches that he was made of stern stuff and that he would tackle privatisation. That is the main reason why we are here today. The second reason is simple: the Government have recognised that there are massive amounts of money in British Rail's pension funds and have been trying to get hold of those funds. Those are the reasons why we are here.
      The Government had no idea how privatisation should take place, which explains the muddle. If we start from the basis of not knowing where we are going, we may end up where we do not expect to be, which is why the Government are still tabling amendments. In Committee, we seldom had a chance to discuss a clause, because before we could do so the Government amended it. We seldom had a Chance to discuss amendments, because before we could do so the Government amended them. I am sure that
      64
      the House of Lords has been through a similar process, with amendment after amendment being tabled. In effect, no one has discussed the original proposals.
      There are two specific reasons for Lords amendment No. 1. The first is to cloud and disguise the Government's feelings about BR being able to bid. An amendment was tabled in the other place to allow BR to bid for franchises. Rather than impose conditions that make it impossible for BR to bid, why will not the Government come clean and admit that they oppose the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords and admit that they are doing all they can to frustrate it?
      The second reason is Ministers' fears that privatisation will be a failure because insufficient people are prepared to bid. We were told that people in the private sector were queuing up to participate in this great enterprise, but they have not materialised. However, the Government now seem to welcome the thought of a few management buy-outs.
      Let us face facts. The private sector will not be attracted without sufficient bribes, which will be given at the expense of the taxpayer. There will be no more management buy-outs without sufficient bribes. Who has heard of such nonsense? The Government talk about a level playing field and about competition, yet they say, "We shall issue a tender under which everyone is equal, but we shall pay for adverts placed by those who tender to help them to bid."
      The original purpose of the Bill was to ensure competition. The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) spouted about how marvellous it will be when we have competition. Competition has long since been abandoned. It went many months ago when the Government abandoned the idea of open access. After that, they abandoned the idea of anyone competing against the franchisee, effectively ensuring that, when a franchisee won a bid it would have a monopoly on the service. Here is the clearest demonstration that there is no competition. The purpose of the amendment is to allow anyone to bid except BR.
      British Rail's management have been encouraged to bid. They have been allowed up to £100,000 of taxpayers' money to prepare their bids. They have been allowed 85 per cent. of the cost of the first £10,000 in preparing their bids and 75 per cent. of the cost of the remainder, with a £100,000 cap on preparation. Is that a sufficient bribe? If it is, it still has not worked. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) explained, of the 25 directors in charge of existing profit centres that can become TOCs—train operating companies—only five are in the process of becoming such companies. It is interesting that there are so many new words to learn, and TOCs may be one of them. "TOCing" may go into the dictionary. That is not to be mistaken for "TWOCing" —taking without the owner's consent. "TOCing" may have the same definition in the dictionary, but it may or may not mean having consulted the Secretary of State or Minister first.
      If we have been bribing management to prepare bids by giving them up to £100,000 to bid against the publicly owned company that we are financing, who is running the railways in the meantime? If the management are not needed to run the railways, one has to ask whether that is the type of management that we want in the first place.

      65
      6.30 pm
      The truth is that there are no companies ready to bid. Only two companies—British Bus and Stagecoach—participated in a recent seminar held, I think, in August, by the Health and Safety Executive. Not one other company turned up to find out what the safety procedures would be on franchised railways. That tells me one of two things: no other companies are interested in bidding for the franchises or only two companies were sufficiently interested in safety to attend the seminar.
      I have no time for the Minister's reassurances about safety. As I said in Committee, if the Minister believed that the recommendations in the Health and Safety Executive's report needed to be implemented, he would have included them in the Bill so that they had to be implemented. Similarly, we had hoped that many pension arrangements would have been included in the Bill. If they had been, tens of thousands of pensioners would not now believe that they have been ratted on by the Secretary of State, who, in effect, gave guarantees to the House which have now been broken in Government admendments.
      Mr. Ealfyn Llwyd: You referred to competition. Even if it were still covered in the Bill, do you agree that it is a complete waste of time—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should be addressing me.
      Mr. Llwyd: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) said that competition was a dead letter in the Bill. My rural constituency contains one west coast railway and one in the north; what possible use is discussion about competition in such an area? I am sure that the socially necessary services are of great concern to us all. My understanding is that the Treasury rules would not allow a guaranteed subsidy for more than three years. I discussed that issue with the Minister earlier this year and I await a reasoned response even now.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, East also mentioned "TOCing", he might be interested to know that the word "tocio" in Welsh means "to cut back".
      Mr. Heppell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I agree that the very idea of competition has completely disappeared from the Bill. It is no longer relevant. It is certain that the Government will not allow proper and free competition, including the participation of British Rail. One has only to consider the drafting of the franchising director's powers. When considering bids for services, the criteria will not be who is making the cheapest bid, who is the most efficient or effective or who will provide the best service to passengers or customers. Not one of those criteria will be relevant when BR makes a bid.
      Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 31 states that the franchising director will not have to consider the inclusion of a bid by BR unless it is desirable

      "(a) for the purpose of promoting competition for franchises;

      (b) for the purpose of promoting the award of franchise agreements to companies in which qualifying railway employees have a substantial interest;

      (c) for the purpose of encouraging new entry to the passenger railway industry;

      or

      66

      (d) for the purpose of preventing or reducing the dominance of any person or person in the market for the provision in Great Britain, or in any part of Great Britain, of services for the carriage of passengers by railway."

      Each paragraph means that BR will be left out of the equation. If the Minister and the Secretary of State are not saying that BR is being told that it cannot bid, will the Minister tell the House in what circumstances will it be allowed to bid?
      Mr. Bayley: Clause 4, to which the amendments relate, deals with the Secretary of State's powers, and I am pleased to see him back in the Chamber. I should like him to deal with a point raised in paragraph (a) in Lords amendment No. 2, which instructs the regulator to take note of the Secretary of State's guidance. Precisely what guidance will the Secretary of State give the regulator about the need to promote freight on the railways? With reference to paragraph (b), what action will the regulator take to promote the use of rail freight?
      Paragraph 46 of the White Paper claims that privatisation
      "offers the best prospect of attracting new freight to rail with the environmental benefit that this will bring."
      The Minister of State made a similar point in Committee. He said:
      "It is extremely important to protect the interests of all users of the railway network—passengers and freight—and to promote the use of the railway network."
      Later that day, he said:
      "We want Railfreight to develop all sensible business that can be handled by rail."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 February 1993; c. 136–65.]
      On 9 March the Minister told the Committee that new Government grants would be introduced which
      "will broaden the benefit given to the rail operator"—
      vis-a-vis the road operator—
      "by taking account of the environmental damage caused by heavy goods vehicles on trunk roads and motorways".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 March 1993; c. 675.]
      The rhetoric is fine but, sadly, privatisation will have exactly the reverse effect: it will drive freight business off the railway on to the roads.
      Let us take the case of Trainload Freight. In 1992–93, it made a profit of £103 million. I have today seen a memorandum from Graham Smith, Trainload Freight's corporate planning manager. It was dated 13 September 1993 and was sent to all members of the Trainload executive, the board of this British Rail subsidiary. It shows that the company's profits will fall. In 1994–95, profits are expected to be down to £53 million. The following year, it is anticipated that they will be down to £9 million, rising slightly the following year to £17 million and to £27 million the year after.
      However, if one takes account of the large number of redundancies expected in the freight sector, which we discussed in Committee, the cash contribution that the company will manage after having met the redundancy payments will fall from more than £100 million last year to £46 million next year, to £4 million the year after and to zero—no profit whatsoever—the following year. That is hardly the rate of return that a private owner would expect on a £400 million business. It does not give much confidence for the future or in the prediction that privatisation will, in the words of the White Paper, move freight from road to rail for environmental reasons.
      Senior British Rail managers are telling Ministers that the privatisation of the freight business is a one-way ticket

      67
      to liquidation. No wonder there is so much in the Bill about administration orders, winding-up procedures and insolvency: that is what privatisation will do to the freight business.
      I have a verbatim record of a meeting between British Rail's chief executive, John Welsby, Trainload Freight managers with the Minister for Public Transport on 11 October 1993. Mr. Welsby said:
      "I'm just about to appoint three managing directors and I don't want to send them off on bum prospects".
      Those managing directors have now been appointed. They are Kim Jordan for the south-eastern division of Trainload Freight, Ian Braybrook for the north-eastern division and Julian Worth for the western division. Is the Secretary of State sending them off on bum prospects? Everyone in Trainload Freight is complaining that the fragmentation —the three-way split of their company—will mean that the operation will lose economies of scale.
      At the same meeting, Welsby told the Minister:
      "You are in a hole and still digging. I don't see how there will be anything still to sell, certainly not the cake, just the cherries."
      John Welsby is clearly picking up language used by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who was the first to talk about cherry picking as the likely consequence of privatisation. The Minister replied to Mr. Welsby:
      "Thank you for your clear and forthright presentation. The message is not surprising. I've understood the message for some time."
      I can imagine the Minister saying precisely that, because he said similar things in Committee. Later at the same meeting, the chief executive of British Rail said:
      "All you'll be left with is a car boot sale. I'm not joking. We are playing a zero sum game with a totally inelastic market. Every plus is a minus to another rail player. I've got an instruction to start releasing surplus assets. You've even asked for a telephone number."
      The Minister replied:
      "I wouldn't quite put it like that."
      With some menace, John Welsby said:
      "You'll have to sort this one out."
      Will the Secretary of State sort it out; more to the point, how will he sort it out at this late stage? When will the Government abandon their poisonous love affair with the juggernaut? When will they stop driving traffic from the railways on to the roads? When will they stop building roads through areas of outstanding natural beauty? When will they stop poisoning people with car fumes and move the traffic from the roads to the railways, as they promised —because they certainly will not achieve that through privatisation?
      Mr. Gunnell: I want to comment briefly on clause 4, and in particular on the proposed encouragement of management buy-outs. I believe that, even against the background of the Government's own wishes and intentions, this has not been set about in the right way. We spent 16 hours discussing the clause in Committee. We recognise that the Secretary of State and the regulator have wide-ranging responsibilities under that clause. Price, quality, safety and, as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) pointed out, the effect on the environment are all the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the regulator, who must make the best possible regulations and arrangements to fulfil these responsibilities. It is thus understandable that the Government should take the view
      68
      that they want British Rail managers to be involved in management buy-outs. I can therefore understand the Government's motivation in introducing a proposal by which they seek to ensure that that happens.
      The Government seem to be adopting an extremely doctrinaire position, however. In effect, they are seeking to castrate Lords amendment No. 31 and render it ineffective. That is not a satisfactory way of proceeding—even to get what they themselves want—and an alternative means ought to have been found.
      6.45 pm
      I was interested to hear that the venture capital industry has little interest in management buy-outs or in the Bill itself. The industry is uncertain about the future and believes that the arrangements that are being put in place are wholly risky. The risks are not risks that most members of the industry want to enter into. Why is the venture capital industry so concerned about and so distant from the legislation, given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said, the new arrangements will cost us £1.15 billion more than the present arrangements? One would have thought that there would be a lot of money to go around and therefore much by way of potential profit for the industry to garner. One wonders why the industry has no enthusiasm for the Bill.
      We must consider what makes a successful management buy-out. I not only have experience of the bus industry buy-out in west Yorkshire but have been involved in a number of other management buy-outs, albeit from a different point of view. It seems to me that such buy-outs have certain qualities in common which have led to their success. The motivation of the managers, their ability to manage and their understanding of their own market are crucial.
      Many British Rail managers regard the management buy-out option as the lesser of two evils. Either their job as a whole will be under threat because BR will not be performing the function in question, or they become part of a separate company in order to bid. Choosing the less unsatisfactory option is not the basis on which to form a successful company. The managers have to have enthusiasm and have to want to enter into such an arrangement before the Minister offers them £100,000 to set up. In the context of the services that they will run, £100,000 will not make a very great difference. In the case of successful management buy-outs, one usually finds that those involved are extremely enthusiastic about making money. Enthusiasm about making money is not a quality that is innate in British Rail managers and it does not seem to me that the Bill will help them to acquire that attitude.
      It is hard to understand why the Government have not taken the view that to allow British Rail to bid—and bid on an honest and untrammelled basis—would be a far better way of ensuring that services proceeded satisfactorily. Moreover, they should realise that, had they allowed BR to bid for franchises, they would have created circumstances in which many BR managers would have learnt how to operate franchises in the context of belonging to BR.
      The Government have told us what they ultimately want —if they, and the Bill, survive long enough for the provisions to come into effect. I can only say that, had they operated as I suggest, they would in effect have been training people who were capable of managing a separate franchise company; instead, they are making people managers and creating their companies for them—or

      69
      providing the wherewithal at least to get them started—without ensuring that they have the expertise that they would need to make a success of the Bill.
      I say that knowing that the Bill is fatally flawed. Like my hon. Friends, I believe that it is wholly misplaced. It is hard to see the scope for any profitability in the whole process, other than through direct subsidy from the public purse. My experience of dealing with transport and pricing tells me that, if one increases the price, one reduces the number of passengers. Even if they could produce rapidly the quality that the Minister sought, those who managed the companies would find themselves hemmed in by considerations of price and passenger numbers so that the only way in which their company could become profitable would be by an increased subsidy from the public purse. Therefore, we must be clear that the legislation provides for privatisation at public expense.
      The fundamental question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North must be addressed. He stressed the lack of motivation among managers as revealed in a survey. However, he also identified the additional costs as a result of this way of tackling the rail system. Those costs, £1.15 billion, are high. It is quite clear that they are the price of dogma and not of practicality.
      Mr. Prescott: I do not need to detain the House for long on this issue. From our debate on the amendment, it is clear that one factor has characterised the Bill from the very beginning: the Government have constantly changed their position. In Standing Committee, the Government moved amendments which altered announcements that they made at previous sittings. The Lords amendment is another example of that.
      The amendment refers to the Secretary of State's general duties in respect of which he will direct the regulator. According to the Bill, it is the Secretary of State's duty
      "to exercise the functions assigned or transferred to him under or by virtue of this Part in the manner which he considers best calculated".
      The Bill then makes those calculations clear. They are
      "(a) to protect the interests of users of railway services".
      The Secretary of State must make that judgment. The calculations continue:
      "(b) to promote the use of the railway network…(c) to promote efficiency and economy".
      I like the next calculation:
      "(d) to promote competition".
      I am not sure whether it has anything to do with competition. As other hon. Members have made clear, only one franchise will be operated on a particular line. There will be no competition. Preference in a bid will be given to the private sector bidder even if the BR bid is better. Quite frankly, this has nothing to do with competition. Clearly, the idea that competition is the best way to provide a better railway service for railway users is in doubt.
      The Minister for Public Transport referred us to the debates that took place in the other place. That was a bit of a cheek. I hope that he will give us a proper explanation of the amendments, as that is what the House would expect. It would be proper for him to do that.
      It has been difficult to study the 450-odd Lords amendments in detail, because they became available in their present form only last Thursday. I want to raise a little protest. The Lords amendments refer to specific clauses. As I understand it, the relevant lines are not numbered in Lords amendments. Thai makes it extremely difficult to
      70
      find the relevant sections. I hope that that procedure will be simplified because I spent most of Sunday trying to relate the amendments to the Bill. I do not recommend that exercise to anyone, but I had to do that in order to find out exactly what the Lords amendments did to the Bill. If the relevant lines were marked in the margin, that would make it much easier for us to make better contributions. I hope that we can all agree that that change should be made and that my protest will be noted in the appropriate quarters.
      The Minister asked us to assess, according to the Lords amendment, that the regulator could give preference to a bid from a company in which British Rail employees have a substantial interest. The Minister said that he could not define "substantial". Clearly, someone will have to define "substantial" because it is a crucial point. If BR employees held 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of a buy-out, that would clearly not be considered to be substantial.
      I do not understand why the Minister cannot have a stab at defining "substantial". For example, in monopolies legislation, control of the market relates to more than 30 or 40 per cent. There are various areas in respect of which we must make judgments. Someone will have to judge and it would not be wise to leave it to the courts. The Government must have an idea of what constitutes a substantial bid.
      I am afraid that the Secretary of State will direct the regulator to give preference to a certain bid, such as an up-front employee buy-out in which BR employees represent only 10 per cent. of the company. The private sector would be using those employees to achieve a cheaper bid. That seems a very curious way of bidding for franchises. The only competition in the Bill is that for subsidies. As the Minister made clear, very few franchises will make a profit. That is why we are arguing about the £2 billion which is double the largest public service obligation payment.
      The Secretary of State appeared on "On the Record" at the weekend. I could not challenge him on that programme as I was taken off it. He said that the £2 billion was not for one line. We know that. The £2 billion referred to in the Department of Transport document is assessed on the basis of apportioning a profit to the rate of return, or return on capital, for the track or assets. That calculation amounts to £2 billion. However, the Department's document makes no assessment of the operator's profit because that has not been calculated. The figure that we are talking about is £2 billion-plus.
      If BR had been given a fraction of that money to run a good railway system, it would be fair to judge whether BR could run a good service. Instead, BR has been forced to live on a quarter of the resources and to cut available services. Because of the inadequate resources made available to it, BR has been forced to cut services and it has been condemned for that. If the private sector makes a bid under Lords amendment No. 1, all sorts of money will be available for that bid, but that money is denied to BR. That is unfair.
      As hon. Members have said, there is so much of a tilt towards a management buy-out because the Government had a difficulty in the other place. Their Lordships supported the idea that BR should be allowed to bid for a franchise and the Opposition will support that when we reach that part of the debate. British Rail, as a corporate body, should be allowed to bid exactly as happens in

      71
      Sweden in similar circumstances. The Government will oppose that when we reach those amendments later. The alternative is to allow a few managers to buy in.
      As was made clear earlier, the reason for all this concern about management buy-outs is that we no longer hear the rhetoric about 30 companies lining up to bid for the franchises. Virgin has made it very clear that it would have difficulty bidding in such circumstances. Stagecoach ran a service which collapsed. Stagecoach sued me for saying that it collapsed. I said that outside and I repeat it here. That service no longer remains and that sounds to me as though it has collapsed. It was taken off before the lease to run the system ran out.
      The private sector is no longer talking about bids. The Minister does not want to give BR an opportunity because he made it clear at the earliest stages of the Bill that if BR were allowed to bid for franchises it would punch a big hole in the Bill, so the Minister has had to concoct a formula to allow managers to bid.
      I do not know whether the Secretary of State has talked to the managers to discover whether they agree with privatisation or with bids of this kind. I assume that he has done that. I am sure that our evidence, produced by the trade unions in assessing the view of the managers, has been sent to the Secretary of State, so I shall not repeat it, but when asked how many were in favour of privatisation, 88 per cent. were against. When asked whether they were in favour of the British Railways Board handling franchises, 74 per cent. said yes and that they would like to be able to bid for franchises. When asked whether they were in favour of a management buy-out in preference to BRB's bidding, 68 per cent. were very much against that because it would create great tensions within BR.
      No doubt those managers will read the reports of this debate. I must tell them that if they choose to bid in those circumstances to run a private sector railway instead of a public sector railway, they have declared their hand. We believe that it should be a public sector railway. It should be subject to public accountability and meet public needs. We have made clear our position on that point; it could not be clearer. We want managers who believe in the system.
      I hope that managers who make bids remind themselves that, if it goes back to a publicly owned system, we might look elsewhere for managers rather than look to those who have shown their hands. [Interruption.] That is fair for managers who judge whether they should change their careers and pension arrangements and bid for a private sector line or remain in the public service.
      The Government's principle is that BR will still run the majority of services. We still want BR to run services. It is fair for the Opposition to want people who believe in a publicly owned system running a public railway. I hope that the message will go out loud and clear to those who seek to depart from that position. That is the point that I make to managers who are considering making bids. They have made their position clear.
      The amendment is solely about trying to save the Government's face. There are no private sector people queuing up to bid, even with the massive bribes being offered'to them. The Government will deny British Rail the right to make bids—that is clear from what they have
      72
      said—and they hope that a few managers will be encouraged to get together with the private sector. We are against that and we shall oppose the amendment.
      We will not vote against all the amendments because there is insufficient time to deal with all the important issues. We shall therefore vote on amendment No. 1 and not push votes on the other amendments, although we are clearly against other amendments. We want to make it clear that we believe in British Rail having the right to run services. The amendment undermines British Rail's corporate ability to do that.
      7 pm
      Mr. Freeman: I will seek to answer as concisely as I can some of the points that have been raised in this important debate. It has taken two hours, but it has covered very important issues, and they need to be addressed, albeit as succinctly as I can.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked what "a substantial interest" is. The Government believe that, in certain circumstances, that can be less than a 50 per cent. interest in the entire equity, but I stand by my earlier remarks—the courts will eventually decide precisely what that definition means. It is clearly because different circumstances will apply in each management and employee buy-out.
      The hon. Gentleman again raised the matter of £2 billion, which his colleague the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) raised earlier. I make it absolutely plain that they were quoting from a working document within the Department of Transport. No decision has been taken on the financial regime for Railtrack, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will settle that matter in due course after the unified Budget which is to be presented at the end of the month.
      Clearly, some account must be taken in setting the franchising director's budget for the new regime of track charges that Railtrack will introduce. Therefore, to the extent that Railtrack, a public sector body, earns more, that money will be available to the public sector to provide additional funding not only to the franchising director but, as I have already given commitments to the passenger transport authorities and executives, for the running of railway services. To that extent, the movement of money is circular. My right hon. Friend will be making a clear statement and set the external financing limits not only of British Rail but of Railtrack and the franchising director in due course.
      Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, in a minute or two, when I come to his remarks, I will certainly give way.
      The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, East (Mr. Gunnell) talked about an apparent lack of interest from financial institutions. That is not the case. My right hon. Friend and I have had several meetings with financial institutions, including venture capital interests, and they are interested. This is a very early stage in the franchising process. We do not expect the majority of the first seven franchises actually to be let until 1995. It is very early days.
      The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) referred to Trainload Freight. Of course there is a conflict or a

      73
      dilemma—to be resolved, as I admitted in Standing Committee and I admit now; intellectually, it is obvious —between maximising receipts from the sale of Trainload Freight and maximising open-access competition. That we will do.
      We have not yet resolved the regime for the Trainload Freight companies or the degree to which, for example, surplus wagons and engines will be available to new entrants, but we are determined to ensure that we have managers in place not only for the Trainload Freight companies but also, I expect, for private companies to make maximum possible use of our rail freight network in this country. The initiatives that we have put in place—for example, that track charges will be based on avoidable costs, widening the section 8 criteria for grants to new rail terminals, and the track subsidy regime—are intended to promote the use of rail freight.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) asked about private sector interest and whether it has materialised. I repeat the assertion that I made at the beginning: I have visited most—[Interruption.] It is an assertion, because I am not producing any evidence to the House tonight. I am asserting that I have visited most of the potential rail franchises and I have found considerable enthusiasm among senior management for our proposals. They are anxious to get on with the process of franchising.
      The hon. Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) talked about safety. I repeat again that the Health and Safety Commission, on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive, made 37 recommendations about safety. The Government accepted all of them, as did British Rail. The Health and Safety Executive will have overall responsibility for safety, and Railtrack will administer the regime on a day-to-day basis. The Government do not accept that the privatised railway will be any less safe than British Rail.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that, according to his information, the east coast main line, while in public ownership, will continue to run through services to Inverness and Aberdeen. I am delighted. When the franchising director franchises the service, it will be based on the services that British Rail runs immediately prior to franchising. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should draw some reassurances from what he has been told.
      The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) asked several questions about Railtrack. Railtrack is not on the face of the Bill because several possible network operators —owners of infrastructure—could be in play in future years, including Railtrack. That is obviously one, and certainly the major, operator. The hon. Gentleman asked whether franchisees could buy operations and infrastructure—a vertical integration. That is not the Government's policy, and we have made that plain. Apart from one limited exception, which will be the case of the Isle of Wight, that is not our policy, and that is set out very clearly in the draft objectives to the franchising director.
      The hon. Member for Streatham asked about access charges, as did the hon. Member for Cunninghame., North. As I have said, we have not set the financial regime, but Coopers and Lybrand has now completed a substantial part of its work. From today, freight operators will be able to obtain a quote on the track charges that will apply to them when they start running services.
      On passenger services, I make the obvious point that, because the franchising director will be essentially acquiring access to the whole of the railway network, the
      74
      franchising director will be providing Railtrack with a substantial part of Railtrack' s income and taking the revenue risk on the ability to franchise.
      Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Freeman: I was going to answer the hon. Gentleman's points. Perhaps he would like to hear the answers first.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North quoted the survey conducted by TSSA, one of the three major rail unions. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was good enough to admit that it might be a little partisan. That does not square with the evidence before the Department. There is significant interest on the part of senior rail managers who actually run the trains in the different divisions. [Interruption.] I would be very happy in due course, as and when the franchising director receives bids and then lets franchises, to make sure that the public are well aware of the interest.
      In commending the Lords amendments—
      Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Freeman: No, I must finish. [Interruption.] I am answering the hon. Gentleman's points.
      In commending the amendments to the House, I draw attention to the two points that the Opposition spokesman has made tonight. First, the Opposition are opposed to British Rail managers and staff bidding for franchises. They should tell that to British Rail management. Many managers want the chance to have an equity interest in running British Rail. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is quite clear and candid—he does not want to break British Rail's monopoly. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) that breaking the monopoly, permitting competition and permitting the private sector to come in will revolutionise rail services and will improve the quality of service.
      Mr. Wilson: With the leave of the House—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that it is not possible under the rules to permit the hon. Gentleman to speak again. I understand the hon. Gentleman's disquiet, but I cannot permit that.
      Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to say that he will give way and then not give way? Is that not a breach of the courtesies of the House, if not of its rules?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that it is not a matter for the Chair and therefore one on which I cannot rule.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 283.

      Division No. 378]

      [7.09 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Ashby, David

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Alexander, Richard

      Atkins, Robert

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Amess, David

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Ancram, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      75

      Bates, Michael

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forth, Eric

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Body, Sir Richard

      French, Douglas

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fry, Peter

      Booth, Hartley

      Gale, Roger

      Boswell, Tim

      Gallaie, Phil

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bowden, Andrew

      Garnier, Edward

      Bowis, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bright, Graham

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gorst, John

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burns, Simon

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Burt, Alistair

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Butcher, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Butler, Peter

      Hague, William

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hannam, Sir John

      Cash, William

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Harris, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Churchill, Mr

      Hawkins, Nick

      Clappison, James

      Hawksley, Warren

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Heald, Oliver

      Coe, Sebastian

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Congdon, David

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Horam, John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Couchman, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

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

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

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Day, Stephen

      Hunter, Andrew

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Devlin, Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Dicks, Terry

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dover, Den

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Duncan, Alan

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Key, Robert

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Eggar, Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Elletson, Harold

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Knox, Sir David

      Evennett, David

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Faber, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Legg, Barry

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Leigh, Edward

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Forman, Nigel

      Lidington, David

      76

      Lightbown, David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lord, Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Luff, Peter

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Shersby, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Sims, Roger

      MacKay, Andrew

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Maclean, David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Madel, David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Malone, Gerald

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mans, Keith

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Marland, Paul

      Spring, Richard

      Marlow, Tony

      Sproat, Iain

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stephen, Michael

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stern, Michael

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Stewart, Allan

      Merchant, Piers

      Streeter, Gary

      Milligan, Stephen

      Sumberg, David

      Mills, Iain

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Sykes, John

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thomason, Roy

      Needham, Richard

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Tracey, Richard

      Norris, Steve

      Tredinnick, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Trend, Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Trimble, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Trotter, Neville

      Page, Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Paice, James

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Patnick, Irvine

      Viggers, Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Pawsey, James

      Waller, Gary

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Ward, John

      Pickles, Eric

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Watts, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wells, Bowen

      Rathbone, Tim

      Whitney, Ray

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Whittingdale, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Richards, Rod

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Riddick, Graham

      Wilkinson, John

      Rifkiand, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Willetts, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wood, Timothy

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Yeo, Tim

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

      Sackville, Tom

      Mr. Michael Brown.

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Alton, David

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Ainger, Nick

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Allen, Graham

      Ashton, Joe

      77

      Austin-Walker, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Foulkes, George

      Barnes, Harry

      Fraser, John

      Barron, Kevin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Battle, John

      Galloway, George

      Bayley, Hugh

      Gapes, Mike

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Garrett, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      George, Bruce

      Bell, Stuart

      Gerrard, Neil

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Benton, Joe

      Godsiff, Roger

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Gordon, Mildred

      Betts, Clive

      Graham, Thomas

      Blair, Tony

      Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

      Blunkett, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Boateng, Paul

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Grocott, Bruce

      Boyes, Roland

      Gunnell, John

      Bradley, Keith

      Hain, Peter

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hall, Mike

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Hanson, David

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

      Hardy, Peter

      Burden, Richard

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Byers, Stephen

      Harvey, Nick

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Henderson, Doug

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Heppell, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hinchliffe, David

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hoey, Kate

      Cann, Jamie

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Home Robertson, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Clelland, David

      Hoyle, Doug

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Coffey, Ann

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hume, John

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hutton, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Illsley, Eric

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jamieson, David

      Cox, Tom

      Janner, Greville

      Cryer, Bob

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jowell, Tessa

      Davidson, Ian

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Keen, Alan

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

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

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Denham, John

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dewar, Donald

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Dixon, Don

      Leighton, Ron

      Dobson, Frank

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Lewis, Terry

      Dowd, Jim

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Loyden, Eddie

      Eastham, Ken

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Enright, Derek

      McAllion, John

      Etherington, Bill

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McCrea, Rev William

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Macdonald, Calum

      Fatchett, Derek

      McFall, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Fisher, Mark

      McKelvey, William

      Flynn, Paul

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McLeish, Henry

      78

      Maclennan, Robert

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      McWilliam, John

      Rogers, Allan

      Madden, Max

      Rooker, Jeff

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Rooney, Terry

      Mahon, Alice

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Rowlands, Ted

      Marek, Dr John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Salmond, Alex

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Martlew, Eric

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maxton, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Meacher, Michael

      Short, Clare

      Meale, Alan

      Simpson, Alan

      Michael, Alun

      Skinner, Dennis

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

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

      Milburn, Alan

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

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Snape, Peter

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Soley, Clive

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Spearing, Nigel

      Money, Elliot

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Stevenson, George

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Stott, Roger

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Mudie, George

      Straw, Jack

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Paul

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Turner, Dennis

      O'Hara, Edward

      Tyler, Paul

      Olner, William

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wallace, James

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Walley, Joan

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Parry, Robert

      Wareing, Robert N

      Patchett, Terry

      Watson, Mike

      Pendry, Tom

      Welsh, Andrew

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pike, Peter L.

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Pope, Greg

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Wilson, Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Winnick, David

      Prescott, John

      Wise, Audrey

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Worthington, Tony

      Purchase, Ken

      Wray, Jimmy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Radice, Giles

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Redmond, Martin

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Reid, Dr John

      Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

      Rendel, David

      Mr. John Spellar.

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Question accordingly agreed to
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rose to speak during the previous debate, but you put the question without raising your eyes, and did not see me. When you next put a question, will you perhaps raise your eyes to see whether some of us on the Back Benches are still trying to enter the debate?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sorry that I missed the hon. Gentleman. I genuinely thought that all those Back Benchers who wished to contribute had already done so.

    Clause 5

      GENERAL DUTIES OF THE FRANCHISING DIRECTOR
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 6, line 4, after ("to") insert—("(i)")
      Mr. Freeman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 5, 32, 34 to 36, 38 to 43, 124 to 130 and 133.
      Mr. Freeman: Lords amendment No. 4 is grouped with a number of other amendments for the convenience of the debate. The main purpose of—[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a gossiping session. If hon. Members wish to remain, they should stay silent. If they wish to go, they should do so quietly.
      Mr. Freeman: The main purpose of the group of amendments is to deal with the implications of our announcement on the future for railway stations. There are a number of technical amendments on which I shall be happy to respond if there are any especial questions. I am sure that it would help the House if I explain why we need amendments to the Bill to deal with our policy on the operation of stations.
      Through franchise arrangements, we propose to allow franchisees, also, to operate—that is to say manage—stations. The scope of that operation could include light maintenance depots, for example, where the railway trains are maintained on a weekly basis. It is clear to us that the Bill needs to be amended to make it clear that a franchisee will be able to operate—possibly under a lease arrangement as we currently intend—the stations along the line of the route or routes that fall within the franchise area.
      For some larger stations, of which there probably number no more than two dozen, separate arrangements may be appropriate, but for most stations—there are 2,500 in the British Rail network—the majority will be run by and managed for a period conterminous with the franchise arrangement by the franchisee; the train operating company. Those companies will be responsible not as freeholders of the building, but for car parking and ticket arrangements, for facilities available for passengers and for train, information systems on the stations. That is common sense.
      There are some large stations—a number outside the metropolis—where we want to encourage the private sector to be involved in the development of stations, especially in the air rights above stations. Where it might be sensible to bring in separate private sector managers of the commercial facilities such as the shops—
      Mrs. Dunwoody rose—
      Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady has obviously not been to Liverpool Street station or to Victoria or to Waterloo and seen the benefits of the development.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Is not the Minister making it clear that, if no money can be made by running a railway, there can always be development of the air space above the railway which can be leased out to any property developer who wants to build something of the enormous architectural brilliance of Alban Gate?
      Mr. Freeman: I am surprised that the hon. Lady doubts that there are opportunities from the development of station premises that would benefit Railtrack, and therefore the rail infrastructure. That seems perfectly straightforward to me.
      7.30 pm
      Dr. Marek: I accept that some railway stations in metropolitan areas and in the capital could have such developments. What will the Lords amendments do for my constituents who use Wrexham station? The station is rotten and water is seeping through it. It is dank and it has not been repaired for years. Rooms in it have been available for letting for years and years, but there have been no takers. How will the amendments change that?
      Mr. Freeman: Certainly the hon. Gentleman's station does not seem to be a good opportunity for major private sector development. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman summarises the position accurately. However, Railtrack will have continuing responsibilities for the maintenance of the infrastructure and, together with the train operating companies—the franchisees—will ensure that facilities are modernised to attract passengers on to the railway. I do not know the hon. Gentleman's station, although I am sure that I shall visit it during one of my travels in his part of the country.
      The announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about new opportunities for railway stations made it clear that the freeholds would be retained by Railtrack and that the majority of stations would be leased to the franchised train operators. Railtrack will develop options for the larger stations, including sales on long leases of up to 125 years. There will be safeguards, which are replicated in the Lords amendments, for train operators and passengers through station access. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) has raised the point on a number of occasions. We must ensure that train operators have proper access to all stations through which they run services, and that is provided for in the amendments.
      I shall be happy to respond to any specific points. I hope that I have been helpful to the House in explaining the main policy purpose behind the amendments. I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Wilson: The main policy purpose of the Lords amendments appears to be to flog the largest stations at which the greatest amount of public investment has already occurred. That is par for the course. I am sure that all hon. Members were interested in the Minister's less than forthright disavowal of the £2 billion figure—a point that is also relevant to the amendments. It was at least an advance on yesterday's performance by the Secretary of State. He purported to believe that the increase in the poublic service obligation grant to British Rail envisaged in his Department's documents referred to one specific line that would be franchised. On the basis that it could not cost an extra £1.15 billion to franchise a single line, he regarded the whole thing as nonsense. We have obviously moved on. Even if the Secretary of State did not recognise the documents, the Minister recognised them, and the £2 billion figure is all too clear.
      The message that goes out from the Minister—we do not yet know how the Government will fiddle around trying to avoid this rather embarrassing figure—is that there will be a massive increase in grant not for the

      81
      development of railways and not for the development of stations, which we are discussing now, but purely for the restructuring of the railways to accommodate privatisation. That is the message that has come from the Minister this evening.
      I point out to Conservative Members who are interested in these matters that the Department of Transport documents, at the highest possible level, envisage a £1·15 billion increase in the PSO grant to the railways to pay for privatisation in the coming year. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), when he announced the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel in the same year, 1994–95, said that the sum that he envisaged obtaining in that year from that imposition was £950 million.
      That is a measure of the folly of the Government's proposals. They will spend an extra £1·15 billion on privatisating the railways, which is in excess of the amount that they will obtain from the most unpopular tax proposed to Parliament since the poll tax. It is phenomenal testimony to dogma that in the present economic climate the Government seriously propose, as testified in the documents and as tacitly confirmed by the Minister tonight, to increase the taxpayers' subsidy to pay for privatisation by a sum greater than that they expect to collect from VAT on domestic fuel in 1994–95. That is absolutely astonishing and the equation will be noted with great interest outside the House even if Conservative Members choose to shut their ears to it.
      We are dealing here with the powers of the franchising director. The Minister has chosen to concentrate rather narrowly on the business of stations. The truth is that the franchising director is the buffer who is being put between the Government and the railway system. He will be the fall guy. In his interview yesterday, the Secretary of State said that various matters would be for the franchising director. Of course they will not. The franchising director is the invention of Government and he will be their creature. The franchising director will follow precisely the political guidelines laid down by the Government.
      We see the truth of the matter in the issue of stations. The franchising director is not an independent creature who can franchise our stations. He has already been told that the 13 biggest stations in the country will be disposed of privately on long leases. They will be taken out of the general area of railway franchises. It is no surprise to anyone who knows the people with whom we are dealing and their philosophy that these are not the 13 poorest and most undeveloped stations. They are not the regional railway stations which have been starved of investment. They are the most prosperous stations into which taxpayers' money has already been poured and, of course, they are the stations in which the private sector is already fully represented. They are the places where the work has already been done and on which the money has already been spent, so they are in a fit condition to be handed over to private operators who can skim profits off them.
      I do not believe that the private operators whom the Minister and the Secretary of State have in mind will be interested in the revenue that comes from boring things, such as trains, using the stations. There is limited revenue from that. I do not believe that they will be interested in a combination of trains and the existing retail outlets which contribute to the use of stations by passengers. Of course they are not interested in that. They will be interested in air space, which will include everything that can be covered
      82
      over—everything that can be used for commercial development, for retail development and for office development. If the Tories have their way, some areas will be turned into shopping malls.
      I was interested in an article in the Evening Standard last week, which I am sure that the Minister has read. It was written by a former colleague of Conservative Members, Mr. Conal Gregory, who had some interesting thoughts on these matters. Mr. Conal Gregory should be an object lesson to Conservative Members. He used to represent the railway constituency of York. He no longer represents that railway constituency and I have no doubt that one of the reasons for his departure from the House was the Government's policy towards the railways.
      What did Mr. Conal Gregory, who was heavily billed as a Tory railway and tourism expert, suggest about our great London stations? He suggested that the trains should be moved a mile up the tracks and that whole areas should be covered over and used as shopping malls. That is a bright suggestion and one that has been noted. I saw letters from consumer organisations which said that that was exactly what they had feared from rail privatisation and from the privatisation of stations. The great stations of King's Cross and Paddington, the two that were mentioned specifically, will not be run by people who are committed to the railway industry. They will not be run by people whose primary interest is transport. The great master plan of Ministers is that they will be leased for a hundred-odd years to commercial organisations whose only interest will be in maximising the profit from them.
      There will be constant tension between the commercial interests of those operators and the transport interests of the train operators. In those circumstances, I would not bet on the transport interests prevailing for long. Anywhere else that that has been tried—notably the United States—the trains were pushed out, exactly as Mr. Conal Gregory, lately of the Conservative Benches, told us would happen.
      There is a parallel with the bus industry. Conservative Members are like parrots when they stand up and tell us about the great successes of privatisation. Have any of them studied what has happened to the bus industry since it was privatised?
      The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Yes.
      Mr. Wilson: The Minister is welcome to tell us how many town centres he has visited where the first thing that the privatised operator did was sell off the bus station in the town centre for commercial gain. An awful lot more money can be made by selling off town centre property than by using it as a bus station. We have an exact parallel between that and what could happen with our great railway stations for which that fate is predicted.
      I shall make a point that is peculiar to Glasgow, as I had discussions last week with the chairman of the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. As a result of public investment, Central station is now magnificent. As the Minister will be aware, every penny that went into the low-level station, which is part of the Argyll line, was paid for by local taxpayers through the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. One hundred per cent. of the trains that use that station are subsidised by it. The Strathclyde passenger transport executive subsidises 65 per cent. of the trains that use the high-level station.

      83
      Is the Minister seriously telling us that the Strathclyde passenger transport executive is now to subsidise a private train operator to pay charges to a private station operator for the privilege of using assets and facilities, which, on behalf of the local taxpayer, it has already financed?
      Why do the Government have such contempt for taxpayers that they are prepared to see them conned and diddled in every way possible, paying again and again for the assets that they have financed in the first place?
      Throughout the country there is an enormous range of qualities in station facilities. By and large, where InterCity has been in charge—there is money in the InterCity system —the public sector stations are good and have excellent facilities. The Minister may dispute that; he may despise anything that the public sector does, but the stations that the Government seek to franchise are good.
      One example that was pointed out to me was the comparison between York and Chester. Both cities are the same size, but are on opposite sides of the country. York has an excellent station, which was financed through InterCity; Chester has a pathetic, rundown station because there is no money in the regional railways system. That is the problem. Until now, the railways were given £850 million of subsidy, not £2 billion. That is the contrast.
      Where will the money come from? Will it come through Railtrack, through the franchising director or from the franchisees? Is there any guarantee that the stations that have been neglected until now will not continue to decline because of that fundamental lack of money in the system, as proposed by the Secretary of State?
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that we have an even worse position in Crewe, where, for example, a small fortune is being spent by the taxpayer on maintaining the railway bridge, which is the only direct route used by all emergency vehicles between one half of my constituency and the other.
      I am quite clear that no private developer will be prepared to spend the enormous amount of money that is required on that infrastructure. I am afraid that my constituents can look forward to a bleak future.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Wilson: Many Labour Members and, if they are honest with themselves, Conservative Members, could tell the same story. But we have a completely untested area, where we have no idea what the operator will be asked to pay via the franchising director to Railtrack. We have no idea what assets Railtrack will have. All we know is that it must make a profit. On that basis, we are asked to believe that there will be additional money in the system and that, as part of the franchises, station facilities will be improved. There is no guarantee of that. There is no doubt that private operators will see stations as halts. They will not see them as a crucial part of their responsibilities. I believe that we shall see further destaffing and not the development of facilities, to which the Minister pays lip service.
      We now know more about the franchising director, as we have his draft objectives. The picture becomes clearer about how he will be used as the guard—the fall guy—for what Ministers impose on the railways. The franchising director does not yet know what he will have to charge. I think that the Minister can confirm that. The Minister says
      84
      that progress has been made on that, but freight is the easy part. Part of the constraint that is placed on the franchising director is precisely that freight is to travel for very little on the tracks because of the belated lip service to the idea of putting more freight on to the railways.
      The difficult part, the part that Coopers and Lybrand has so far failed to address, is what the franchise operators will have to pay to the franchising director. Until that is known, the whole thing is simply a charade. The idea that there can be shadow franchises without the shadow franchisee knowing what the principal cost will be is nonsense. Yet already the Government have gone down that road by pressing ahead with the ludicrous and already discredited Gatwick Express experiment—not a shadow franchise, because nobody knows what the shadow franchisee is paying for the use of the tracks and signalling, which is clearly its major overhead.
      Many of my hon. Friends wish to participate in the debate. They are concerned about stations and the maintenance depots, which are also covered by the amendment. They are concerned by the idea that the franchising director is a complete unknown quantity, and that the powers that have been given to him are unlikely to produce anything of the kind of railway system that we want to see.
      The Opposition will oppose the powers, because we believe that the Minister is seeking to use the franchising director in that way. It is clear from what has happened in stations that the franchising director will not be an independent creature; he will be very much the creature of Government. That will become even clearer when the first few franchises are attempted. The franchising director will be told clearly how much of his budget will go to those private operations to get them up and running. That will be done with a blatant disregard to the interests of the network as a whole.
      The idea that that will be the action of the franchising director acting independently, as opposed to acting politically on behalf of the Government who have created him, is something which, at this stage of the debate, should be exposed as pure myth and a fallacy.
      We will vote on one of the amendments in order to signify our opposition to the whole system and recognise that the franchising director will not be an independent operator. When he acts against the interests of an integrated national rail network, he will be doing so exclusively in the name of the Government, as clearly presaged by the Bill.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I have only one brief point that I want to raise with the Minister in all the amendments.
      It seems to me that clause 26(3)(c), as proposed in Lords amendment 42, was the most appropriate. I have endeavoured to play a constructive role in the Railways Bill. The Minister will confirm that, when I heard that the Government were in deep trouble about amendment 31, to which we shall come shortly, which concerns British Rail participating, I tried to propose a way of solving it all by suggesting that we say that no subsidised national operator, whether it be French, German, Italian or British, should be able to participate, which I thought was a helpful compromise. However, as the Minister will confirm, we discovered that a Euro-directive exists which prevents us from doing that, so it unfortunately fell by the wayside. I

      85
      hope that the Minister will at least pay tribute to the fact that I have endeavoured, so far as I can, to assist him throughout the proceedings of the Bill.
      My question relates to the Fenchurch Street line and the relevance of 26(3)(b) to that. First, I should like to say that the Minister who opened the debate has done a great deal for Southend-on-Sea. He has travelled on the line himself, as I do—I was on it this morning. He has spoken to the passengers and to the staff and given the impression that, for the first time in years, there is a Minister wo is interested in one of the most important lines in commuter land—that between Southend-on-Sea and Fenchurch Street station. That busy line is known as the misery line because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) will confirm, the signalling in the station is older than me. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is possible. Over the years, our constituents have suffered a lamentably bad standard of service.
      My right hon. Friend and I were delighted to be told some time ago that new signalling would be installed on the line. That was a great breakthrough because many of the delays result from breakdowns in the ancient signalling system. The Minister also gave us an assurance, when he visited Westcliffe station, that the new operator would be obliged, as part of the deal, to provide new trains on the line. We know that the Minister is an optimist, and it may be that the serious economic situation has made that promise rather less than we hoped, but at least the thought was there, and we appreciate it.
      The Minister has tried to bring hope to the commuters of Southend-on-Sea, who have suffered a great deal. Other places may have organisations that oppose rail privatisation, but that is not the case in Southend: we are looking to the future with some hope, as it could not be so bad as the past.
      Mr. Bayley: Is not new rolling stock the one thing that would turn misery into joy on the line to Southend? Has the hon. Gentleman any idea whether privatisation would make it more or less likely that the commuters on his line would benefit in that way as people in Kent and other parts of Network SouthEast have recently been fortunate enough to do?
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I can only say that the Minister told us—we were thrilled to hear him—as we were coming down from Westcliffe station that the new operator will bring in new trains. The line has never before had new trains. That promise may have to change because of the economic situation, but at least the thought was there, and we now have a much better chance of getting new trains. British Rail has told us that the best that we could hope for was 12-year-old trains. Although the staff are very nice, and British Rail has some delightful people, because of the system, and because of the priority given to the constituency of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), the Southend constituencies have been sadly neglected.
      Mr. Wilson: My constituency does rather well because a Labour council runs the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. Perhaps if Southend-on-Sea followed that example, it could share equally.
      The hon. Gentleman said that nobody in Southend-on-Sea opposed privatisation. That rang a bell, and I dug up an interesting booklet called, "Rail Privatisation: a cause for concern". It lists various comments—from such radical
      86
      sources as the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph—which are deeply hostile to rail privatisation. Lo and behold, one of the sponsors of the booklet is the Southend-on-Sea rail users association. To give a general flavour, I will give the first comment in the booklet—from Lord Peyton, former Conservative Transport Minister—who said, "Absolutely dotty." Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should check his local information.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I do not want to take up too much time, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I live in Southend-on-Sea, and I travel on the trains, as I did this morning. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is one of those chaps who speaks as an expert on everything. I know Southend. There was hostility, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and I are well aware of that, but the Minister has taken a great deal of trouble. We have the promise of new signalling. It is unfortunate that I am being diverted when I am trying to make a simple and sensible point. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not divert me.
      My right hon. Friend will confirm that there is a far more positive feeling in Southend because of the trouble and the measures taken by the Minister, which we very much appreciate. If only other Ministers had the time and inclination to show the same consideration for difficult cases, we should get on better than we are. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North should be aware that there are Labour councils on the Fenchurch Street line, but things do not get better or worse depending on the political complexion of the council through which the line travels, although in Southend-on-Sea things are usually better because the council is excellent.
      My question arising from subsection (3)(c) concerns money. The Minister will be aware that, time and again in correspondence—I always get extremely courteous replies from him—I have asked him how the Southend to Fenchurch Street line is doing financially. My constituents have worries about fare charges, and they would be reassured if they knew the answer. If the amendment goes through, matters will be even more complicated, because the franchisee will have to take a lease on the offices, the railway station and the shops.
      I have been the Member of Parliament for Southend, East for 13 years, and I have never yet found out whether the line pays for itself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West is even more conscientious than I, but he does not know either. The reason is that the accounts of British Rail are drawn up in a strange way. The busier a line is, the more overheads are imposed on it, so 10 passengers will result in more overheads than five. That is a busy line and could become even busier. We should like some idea of how it would perform if it were operated independently, or how it would perform now if overheads were not applied. The Minister has kindly said that he will let us know at an appropriate time. Could this be that appropriate time?
      The Minister may say that he wants a trial period, with an independent operation in embryo form, to see how the line performs. That would give us an idea, but once we had got to that stage, we should be over the cliff. We would be there. We should like the Minister, British Rail, or anyone, to give us the information. We think that the line will

      87
      perform well. The fares are pretty high. Those on the line to Victoria are even higher because the service is better and there are sometimes nicer trains.
      After all the Minister's generous concessions and offers to the hard-pressed travelling public of Southend-on-Sea, will he take the further step of giving us a broad idea of how the line performs financially? If it is a bad performer, running at a huge loss, our constituents, and even Lord Peyton, who is a nice chap, would be worried that the fares would rocket up and up, which would be terrible for us.
      As the Minister is aware, Southend gets nothing from anyone. For example, we get nothing from the EC nonsense. Everywhere else round about gets money. We do not get Government grants. We were to get something under what is called assisted area status, but unfortunately a man called Mr. Van Miert decided to take 1 per cent. off the budget, and that included Southend-on-Sea. We do not take a penny from the Government. We are the prime example of Conservative capitalism. We try hard to co-operate with everything, but we want a good train service. Unemployment is high and people can sometimes find employment in London, but for that they need a reasonable service at a reasonable cost.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and I greatly appreciate the Minister's efforts, and the time that he has taken. He has gone out of his way to answer our problems and questions and to speak to passengers and staff. However, there is a gap. We should like him to give us some idea how the line performs financially. If he cannot do that tonight, will he tell us at the appropriate time? When would be the appropriate time? It was not last year or the year before, six months ago or last week—I tried again last week. If he cannot give us a general idea, will he at least give some reassurance to the good people of Southend by telling us when the appropriate time would be?
      I can assure the Minister that that is the only question that I want to raise. Southend-on-Sea is, by and large, far less apprehensive than other places about privatisation, and some are looking forward to it. We hope that it will bring better service.
      Mr. Paul Channon: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there has been a welcome improvement in the Southend line during the past year, the history of the line leads many to believe that it may be a good thing if the line is put into other hands than those of British Rail? Those other hands may well give a better service to our constituents.
      Does my hon. Friend also agree that the Minister has on many occasions given assurances about the level of fares and that it would be helpful if the Minister would repeat those assurances? Is my hon. Friend aware that I strongly support him in his belief that we ought to know what the financial arrangements are on the line which, I believe, makes a profit?
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I also think that it would be a help if we knew the figures. My right hon. Friend and I have acted as a genuine popular front on the matter, fighting together vociferously and toughly in the interests of our commuters. We hope that the Minister will therefore give a reply on the vital issues to the two hon. Members who represent Southend. We assure him that, if he does reply,
      88
      we shall simply sit back and believe that the privatisation exercise will give a good deal to the commuters of Southend. I hope that the Minister will give us the guidance that we are looking for, and will fill the one tiny gap in the great efforts that he has made for us until now.
      8 pm
      Ms Glenda Jackson: There are essentially just two subjects on which I would like the Minister to comment. First, who will have the responsibility for stations post-privatisation? Is it incumbent upon the franchising director to insist that a company which wishes, for example, to manage a stretch of stations along a particular line—although the company will not run trains upon that line—will have to ensure that those stations are manned?
      The north London line runs through part of my constituency and is, I believe, now totally unmanned at stations. If part of the thrust of the Bill is to increase the use of existing rail networks and expand the use of trains throughout the day and beyond the rush hours—as is particularly the case in London and the south-east—that is a vain hope if the Minister and the Government cannot guarantee that stations will be manned.
      The rejection of rail transport because of that aspect is not limited to women, who clearly dislike travelling late at night and having to wait on long and empty station platforms where there are no staff within eyesight or earshot. The impact is also grave for the disabled, whose ability to move around their country and community is excessively limited if there is no one at a station to assist them in alighting or mounting a train.
      Who will have the responsibility for stations? Will there be a two-tier system of station facilities depending on which company's train one is travelling on? My hon. Friend the Member for Cunningham, North (Mr. Wilson) referred to InterCity. There are stations which presumably must facilitate passengers travelling by InterCity or on rural and local networks.
      Will that mean that, if one travels by InterCity, one will be able to use all the facilities provided—waiting rooms, cafes, restaurants, lavatories and such shops as are available? I am excluding from that inquiry the large stations and terminuses which are clearly attractive to anyone who wishes to run a retail outlet or an office. I have a slight concern that it may at some point be impossible for passengers to catch a train, as there will be so many people on the major station concourses buying knickers, ties, pain au chocolat and coffee to take away.
      If I were to join a rural train at a station where the majority of the finance has gone into the station infrastructure, will I be denied the use of the public lavatories, waiting rooms or refreshment facilities? Are we looking at the possibility of a two-tier or even a three-tier system for station networks?
      My overriding concern is that there is an increasing movement towards the unmanned stations. That seems to cut directly at what the Government claim to be the main thrust in the privatisation of British Rail—to attract more and more passengers to service outside rush hours.
      Mr. John Denham: The Minister said that amendment No. 5 refers to the powers of the franchising director over other railway assets. Those will include maintenance depots and—although it may not be the Government's intention at the moment—British

      89
      Rail Maintenance Ltd. at Eastleigh. The company is an important employer, and although it is not in my consituency, it employs several hundred of my constituents.
      I believe that the powers that the Bill will give the Secretary of State and the franchising director pose a serious and severe threat to the future of BRML in Eastleigh and to the hundreds of my constituents who work there.
      The achievements of BRML are well known locally. It employs just under 1,350 people, and it has of course had a significant reduction in employment during recent years, because the technology and the demands of the railway system have changed. Nonetheless, BRML is a major industrial employer. Productivity at BRML, and its contribution to the activities of British Rail, has increased significantly. The company is—within the structured competitive framework of an integrated railway system —profitable, and that is important.
      The company is marked by good industrial relations. The most important aspect for the workers at BRML is its long-term commitment to the quality of its work and the undoubted contribution that it makes to safety on the railway system, and Network SouthEast—its major customer—in particular. It is obviously of local concern that, through BRML, about £24 million a year is brought into the economy of the Southampton area.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I do not think that the whole history of BRML can be covered under the selection of amendments. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to some of the amendments, which are concerned with miscellaneous franchising matters.
      Mr. Denham: Amendment No. 5 amends the clause that refers to the duties of the franchising director in relation to the operation of additional railway assets. I understand that the amendment and the Minister's comments mean that to include the possible franchising of maintenance depots.
      It is clear that the Minister does not intend under the Government's policy to include BRML in franchising. However, as I understand it, it is quite possible for BRML to be franchised under the Bill just as the level 4 depots are to be franchised. With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe that the effect of the Bill on the potential franchising of BRML is an issue of great significance.
      Mr. Freeman: I am sorry if I was in any way ambiguous. I stated that the group of amendments dealt with stations and light maintenance depots. That does not include BRML or the heavy maintenance depots, which are totally outwith the activities of the franchising director.
      Mr. Denham: Will the Minister clarify whether he is saying that the amendment to the Bill does not include BRML, or is he merely saying that it is not the Government's intention to include BRML within the franchising process?
      I am willing to be corrected, but I believe that, under the Bill as amended, it would be quite within the powers of the Secretary of State and the franchising director to franchise the operations of BRML. It might not be the Minister's intention to franchise, but surely the House is dealing with
      90
      the Bill as it is before us and as amended. The House is not dealing with what the Government might happen to do with the Bill if it were passed.
      Mr. Freeman: I have already explained the subject, but obviously I failed to make the point. The group of amendments deals only with stations and light maintenance depots. I have defined what that means, and it specifically excludes heavy maintenance depots such as BRML. Those involve a separate policy issue, and the franchising director will have no direct responsibility for the ultimate movement into the private sector of BRML. That has nothing to do with franchising.
      Mr. Denham rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better try a little harder if he wants to bring his speech within order.
      Mr. Denham: I bow to the Minister's interpretation, although that is not my understanding of the Bill. The Minister accepts that the Bill covers the light maintenance depots. If franchised as part of the development of the franchising system, those depots will be given powers to expand their operations and compete for the work currently done by works such as BRML at Eastleigh. Therefore, the effect of the legislation is, indeed, to put a potential threat over the 1,350 jobs at Eastleigh and the total £24 million contribution of BRML to the local economy.
      At this point, as we extend or clarify the role of the franchising director, I question the failure of the Minister to take into account the implications of the policy on other parts of the rail network, and in particular on the safety and quality of operations undertaken by maintenance depots, including BRML, and the future of that work. I believe that the powers which the Government are taking under the amendment pose a threat to both my local railway works and the quality and safety of operations on the railway system.
      The Government's approach to the franchising of maintenance depots is mistaken. It is a view widely shared in my area that those who currently provide maintenance services in the railway system and who may well lose that work under the new arrangements have been left as an afterthought or after-afterthought in the preparation for rail privatisation. That is not an adequate approach to an important rail maintenance facility and engineering works in the Southampton area.
      In Committee, I asked the Minister whether it would be possible under the franchising arrangements to link BRML to one of the operating companies that would take over the operation of Network SouthEast activities. Network SouthEast is by far the largest customer of BRML. I also asked whether it would be possible to link the works directly with the leasing companies which are to be established for the provision of rolling stock.
      I do not have the quotation with me, but I believe that my memory is correct on this point. In Committee, the Minister did not rule out the possibility of grouping BRML with either a leasing company or one of the companies that would franchise rail services. It is a mistake that we have come so far and yet those options have still not been ruled out. It is clear to me that the best way of retaining the activities at BRML and ensuring that they are not undercut by the franchises which are under discussion in the

      91
      amendment would be to make that engineering works an integral part either of one of the franchise operators or of one of the leasing companies.
      I know that discussions have taken place between the trade unions, the local council and Ministers on the matter. I know that certain liaison arrangements have been reached and that the possibility of negotiating contracts has been discussed, but a short-term guarantee of work for BRML would not be sufficient.
      If the Government push ahead with their wider proposals, a structured approach which builds that maintenance depot into one of the leasing companies will be required. In that way, the expertise of the work force and their contribution to the quality and safety of the rail system can be maintained. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister might give some undertaking that he will implement that option and ensure that possibly half or more of the 1,350 jobs in Eastleigh are not lost.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Tim Rathbone: I should like to raise three matters with my right hon. Friend the Minister. Before doing so, may I add to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and my hon. Friend for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and echo their thanks to the Minister for his consideration in listening to the points made and for spending an awful lot of time in our part of the country down in Sussex, as he has done elsewhere. He studied the track and the operations and listened to people's concerns. Not only I but all local Sussex Members and local travellers in Sussex are immensely grateful to him for that.
      My three questions relate to the operation of stations. First, how will the station leases be operated? It will not be outside the Minister's own experience that the British Rail Property Board can be somewhat conservative in its attitude to real estate development. Over the years, it has held up the clarification of extremely important developments in the county town of Lewes, which I am proud to represent. I hope that hard-edged commercial know-how and push will be injected into the disposal of the leases on the stations to which the Minister referred.
      Secondly, can the Minister give reassurances yet again about closures? It would be good to hear a reassurance from my hon. Friend that when a lease on a station has been sold off, it will not be open to the lessee to close that station with greater facility than that which British Rail can close stations at present. I think that I am right in believing that exactly the same closure requirements will be established in the future as in the past, but it would be good to have that reassurance.
      Thirdly, it would be good to have a reassurance that, in the development of stations, especially in towns and villages in the countryside the planning laws will be applied, monstrosities will not be put up and changes will not be made to structures which, if not listed as of historical value, are a loved part of the character of the towns and villages in which they have long been located. I hope that the Minister can give reassurances on those points. I should be grateful if he would do so.
      Mr. Snape: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on the succinct and relevant points that he has just made. We shall all listen with interest to the Minister's reply.
      I reiterate the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) about the future of light maintenance depots. I am not sure whether Saltley depot near Birmingham falls into that category, but I suspect that it does. It was featured in a recent issue of Railnews, the staff magazine of what is left of British Rail. The article said that the depot provided a vital service to various sectors of British Rail in the Birmingham area—for example, it refuels hundreds of locomotives each working month.
      It worries me that if depots such as Saltley are disposed of by the franchising director regardless of their operational necessity, they might be so disposed of because of their value on the property market—always supposing that the property market ever picks up again under the present Administration. The people who work at such depots would appreciate some assurance from the Minister that safeguards will be provided to ensure that the franchising director cannot dispose of useful operational assets solely for their property value.
      In passing, I wish to reflect on the line to Southend. I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He made his customary passionate defence of the interests of his constituents. I do not complain about it. I commend him on it. Unfortunately, the London-Tilbury-Southend line was modernised before it became part of the London midland and Scottish empire. To demonstrate to the southerners that the London-Tilbury-Southend line was sound, it was electrified and resignalled to the highest possible standards many years ago. The problem is that, when so much of the Victorian signalling of British Rail still remains, lines such as London-Tilbury-Southend go the back of the queue when it comes to modernisation in later years.
      The hon. Member for Southend, East specifically asked the Minister whether the London-Tilbury-Southend line was profitable. I am not sure whether the Minister, who answers most questions as ably as he possibly can, is in a position to answer that question. The hon. Gentleman might be aware that, under the Railways Act 1974, the financial performance of individual stretches of railway lines ceased to be compiled—in my view, it was a fairly inexact science before the 1974 Act came into force—and the overall subsidy paid to British Rail since 1974 has swamped the sort of detailed information that the hon. Gentleman requested.
      Under the terms of the amendments, it appears that the Minister might be in a position to answer that question some time in the future. Indeed, as far as the future of the London-Tilbury-Southend line is concerned, he might well say that it will be profitable.
      Sir Teddy Taylor indicated dissent.
      Mr. Snape: The hon. Member for Southend, East will not get any more exact answer than that. If the London-Tilbury-Southend line is profitable, it is because the track and signalling costs have been stripped and given to Railtrack.
      I hope that I do not have to convince the hon. Gentleman that carrying lots of passengers to London in the morning and taking them home again at night is not a profitable way

      93
      of tying up assets worth millions of pounds for 24 hours a day. Under the proposals, if the track and signalling are given to the regulator, the lines may well be profitable.
      The hon. Gentleman did not commend the taxpayer generally and the public sector as a whole on providing new signalling on the London—Tilbury—Southend line. I do not think that he received a satisfactory reply from the Minister about the prospects for new rolling stock. Under existing ownership, I understand that 10-year-old or 12-year-old rolling stock is to be cascaded—that is the beloved word of senior management of British Rail—from other parts of the country. That may or may not fit the bill under the new arrangements, but I think that it is the best that the Minister will be able to promise.
      I shall ask the Minister some specific questions about the main railway station in the west midlands, Birmingham New Street. He will be aware that, under the existing fragmented, albeit publicly owned, railway system, virtually every sector of British Rail, including Network SouthEast services, serves Birmingham New Street. That station is regarded as the rail crossroads of western Europe. It is possible, although not always convenient, to get from virtually anywhere in England, Scotland and Wales to anywhere else by changing at Birmingham. Surely it should worry the Minister that, under the terms of the amendments, it would be possible to flog off Birmingham New Street to the highest bidder.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) referred to some of the commercial outlets at other railway stations. Under the current arrangements, it is possible to buy a whole range of commercial goods, including socks, ties, knickers, hot dogs, Coca-Cola, hamburgers and cheese rolls at outlets at Birmingham New Street. Under the wonderful system proposed, we will have separate booking offices for the different privatised companies.
      Under this fragmented, albeit publicly owned, system, it is possible to imagine that there will be a while range of booking office windows at Birmingham New Street, like an airport check-in lounge. If we have such booking office windows and commercial outlets as well, and if the station is privately owned, it is not difficult to imagine the sort of chaos that could ensue. Under the present system, although one can buy a whole range of goods at Birmingham New Street if one wants to, one cannot travel from England's second city, Birmingham, to England's third city, Manchester, and back after 6 o'clock in the evening. It was Sir Bob Reid mark one who gave the reason for that. He said:
      "It is not our role or function to run trains that are desirable. It is our role and function to run trains that are profitable."
      Under the brave new world of the privately owned railway, it is difficult to believe that such services will be restored and that once the station is sold to a private operator, the main concern of the operator will be the welfare and safe passage of rail passengers, as against the interests of the commercial outlets that already exist and those that the owner of Birmingham New Street will seek to attract in the future. I hope that the Minister can give me some reassurance on that matter.
      I have a couple of other facts that the Minister should bear in mind. Although it is possible to drink Coca-Cola by the gallon at Birmingham New Street, it is possible to get to the toilets only if one pays lop for a platform ticket. Toilets on stations are not open around the clock, although the outlets often appear to be. Will the new owners be
      94
      compelled to provide the sort of lavatory facilities that we expect the public sector to provide, albeit at a price, under the present system, or will they be free to make as much money as possible commercially without worrying too much about the welfare or comfort of future passengers?
      Mr. McAllion: I was delighted to hear that the Minister recently visited Southend and received a warm reception. I recommend that he revisit Southend next Friday when the civil service trade unions will be demonstrating in opposition to the Government's market-testing proposals. I am sure that he will receive an even warmer reception if he shows up at the Customs and Excise building next Friday.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Customs and Excise has won every one of its market tests and that is has won every proposal put out for tender? Therefore, does he accept that, far from Customs and Excise in Southend being a threat, it has shown that it is so efficient that no one else can beat it?
      Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman really believes that, he should go to the meeting next Friday and explain his position to the civil service trade unions in Southend.
      At least the Minister was honest when he said that the main purpose of the amendments is to deal with the Government's proposals for railway stations. I shall concentrate mainly on that. The Minister drew a distinction between what he called "large stations" and the remainder of the stations. He said that large stations were those that were on commercially valuable sites close to the centre of large cities. For example, 188,000 passengers pass through Victoria station in London every day, and the station has retail space of some 47,500 sq ft.
      It is easy to understand why the private sector would be interested in obtaining a long-term lease for one of the large stations. People will be falling over each other to get their hands on such valuable property. I am sure that the Minister will have no problem in selling large stations to the private sector, but, by his own admission, he said that there are only about two dozen such stations around Britain.
      There are 2,500 stations around Britain, so what about the other 2,476? Will the private sector be equally interested in them? The Minister must give us more details about the proposals that are likely to be put in place for the remainder of the stations in Britain, other than the large, valuable and strategically placed stations.
      A number of key stations are more middle sized. I am referring to stations that might be described as having a substantial or significant commercial potential—I hope that we can at least agree on what we mean by "substantial" or "significant"—or those that are in important passenger centres. I understand that the private sector might be interested in those stations as well. Indeed, train operators might be interested in taking out franchises for such stations. Will all the remaining 2,476 stations be classed as middle-sized stations, or will some stations fall outside either those two categories?
      What will happen to the very small stations which count passengers in hundreds rather than thousands, or possibly even less than hundreds? What will happen to stations that are located not just far from the centres of cities but far from the cities all together? For example, ScotRail has been put out to franchise as a single bid. Will ScotRail be required to take on the franchise for every existing railway

      95
      station in Scotland? If that is not a requirement, when it takes on the franchises for the services, will it be able to say that it is not interested in taking over some stations because they are too small, require too much investment and do not have enough passengers? Will it be able to say that in its commercial judgment those stations cannot be run properly?
      Under the Government's proposals, what will happen to such stations? The Minister has not made that clear and I hope that when he replies to the debate he will mention the small stations that do not have commercial potential. Will train operators be required to take on such stations as part of their franchise? I understand that train operators will lease the station from Railtrack and will operate it for the same duration as the franchise for the train service. I also understand that franchises are to be for seven, 10 or 15 years.
      Will an operator who is required to take on a station for, say, seven years make a significant investment in that station when, at the end of seven years, he may lose the franchise for the service and, therefore, for the station? Any train operator who is told that he has to take on 25, 30 or 40 small stations will not be prepared to invest in them if he has a franchise of only seven years.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Wilson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember that in Committee the Minister said dismissively that it would be ridiculous for the franchising director to lay down when lights were to be switched off at Basildon station—for Basildon, we can read anywhere else in the country. My hon. Friend will remember that, in Committee, the Opposition said that an operator who wanted to get rid of off-peak or inconvenient services could use power over stations as a powerful, manipulative weapon.
      Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. If an operator is required by his franchise to run a series of small rural stations, he may close them at 6 o'clock in the evening, thus making it unnecessary to stop at them. Such services could be completely undermined by the franchisee, who would have the power to say that the stations would not be kept open after a certain time at night. Will such matters be negotiated with the operator, will there be give and take, or will the franchiser be able to agree with the franchisee about closing stations because no one is prepared to take them on?
      I should like a reassurance that the two stations in my constituency, Dundee Central and Broughty Ferry, will be required to be kept open by whoever takes over the ScotRail franchise or the east coast main line franchise, the only two services which run through there. A train operator who takes on a franchise for any station will also be required to meet agreed and specified responsibilities on routine maintenance at the station. Will a train operator who is running the service to make a profit be interested in taking on the routine maintenance of an isolated small rural station? I do not think so.
      Will there be an independent station operator, separate from the train operator and from Railtrack, for large stations? In the consultation document which was issued on this matter, the Minister states:
      96
      "It is vital that there is a single chain of command to deal with emergencies, and this will be a requirement of the station operators safety case. The station operator will have to demonstrate to the Regulator that he has the management capacity to operate a station efficiently and safely. As part of this process he will need to prepare a satisfactory safety case."
      Is there not a danger that the people who are best placed to exploit the commercial trading potential of a station—for example, Hanson or Marks and Spencer—may not be the best people to whom to give the responsibility for the safe operation of that station? Conversely, if the franchise is given to those who are best qualified to run the station safely, they may not be the best people to make the most money out of the station. Under the Government's proposals it is not impossible to surmise that Group 4 will bid for the operation of a large railway station, and that would not be regarded by anyone as a welcome development.
      The cost of operating a station could be recouped by means of the charges that are placed on operators and others who use the station. If a station operator passes his costs on to the train operators who are using the station, the train operators will simply pass the costs to the customers, the fare-paying travellers. That is why some Conservative Members have spoken about assurances that there will be no implications for fare rises. Such an assurance is essential.
      Lords amendment No. 37, which is not in this group, deletes clause 25(4), which states:
      "A franchise agreement may include provisions with respect to the fares to be charged to persons using the franchised services."
      Therefore, the Minister is removing from the franchise agreement the ability of the franchiser to say that fares cannot be increased beyond a certain level. That seems to be giving freedom to those who operate the services and those who operate the stations to charge whatever they like to ensure profits, irrespective of what that may mean for people using the stations, their services and the trains that run through them.
      Mr. Gunnell: I have some questions about clause 5, which deals with the general duties of the franchising director. Those duties were illuminated by the advice and objectives that were sent by the Secretary of State to the franchising director. That fits fully into the part of the Bill that we seek to amend. Subsection (1)(b) states that any payments to which the paragraph applies will have to achieve those objectives "economically and efficiently". The franchising director will have to assume that the person who receives the franchise will achieve any objectives given to him by the Secretary of State economically and efficiently. Those objectives have been spelt out.
      I presume that the term "economically" applies to the person who is willing to bid the most to take on the job; therefore, it is about how much income there will be. From whose perspective will efficiency be considered? The efficiency of the train operator is clearly important, but it is slightly different from the passengers' view of efficiency. The operator will want to get his passengers dealt with as efficiently as possible, but facilities are important to the passenger, as hon. Members have said.
      What guidance will be given to those who take on the franchises of stations on what should be provided for the benefit of passengers? Uniformity of service will be valuable. That is not to say that stations should have a

      97
      uniform appearance or should apply a uniform total service. However, one would expect a minimum level of service in all stations.
      Hon. Members will be concerned about parking arrangements at stations. I am sure that they have noted that our passes for British Rail, which sometimes affect the efficiency of our travel arrangements, expire on 31 March next year. What advice will be given, through the franchising director, on the minimum level of service that passengers can expect? How will the different needs of operators, expecially muliple operators, be reconciled? I am concerned about the definition of "efficiency" when applied to the franchising of stations.
      The Minister has sent out a wider consultation note. Bids are to be judged on efficiency and economy. We know a great deal about British Rail's unique position, a matter that we shall discuss shortly. If I have interpreted the Minister's consultation note correctly, it appears that British Rail's actual record will be given great weight. I presume that that record, as described in the general duties and objectives set for the franchising director, would include the sort of information referred to by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
      It would be necessary to know the cost of providing services, adjusted to take account of the new financial and charging arrangements. Can I assume from the paragraph headed "The transfer of risk" that any private sector operator's bid cannot be comparable with that of British Rail because the risk will have been transferred from the public sector to the private sector?
      The consultation note contains a fair amount on investment and what, under the general duties of the franchising director, the Secretary of State expects in investment. The Minister is aware that I am especially concerned about investment in rolling stock. Throughout the summer I have raised with him and his Department the question of moving forward the ordering of rolling stock for the newly electrified West Yorkshire line. The cascading process, which hon. Members have referred to and defined, is occurring in West Yorkshire and old rolling stock is to be refurbished at a cost of more than £3 million.
      When the franchising director takes up his post, what initiatives can he take to ensure that there is investment and that the ordering of rolling stock is proceeded with? I pay tribute to the Minister for his efforts—with others, with myself, with the company concerned and with the West Yorkshire PTA—to solve the dilemma of how to push forward the current rolling stock order. It is significant that, under the Bill, even the Minister's best efforts—it is clear that he has made considerable effort—could not solve the problem. I want to know how the franchising director, under the general duties laid down for him, can break the impasse in West Yorkshire which is hindering the private sector railway engineering industry in doing its job and thriving.
      Dr. Marek: I was recently in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) and I noted the number of class 142s at Leeds station. They are most unsatisfactory vehicles and I sympathise with my hon. Friend because his whole region has them in and around it. Other regions have managed to get rid of them.
      We must not forget that stations exist to help passengers to go about their business—from where they want to start to where they want to finish. A station does not exist as an
      98
      end in itself; it is something that helps passengers. It may be true that facilities are needed on stations as people should be able to buy tickets and refreshments and to obtain information. However, there is a line to be drawn between that sort of provision and turning stations into shopping malls, markets and places where developers and others with capital seek to make a return on that capital, irrespective of whether that helps the passenger to go about his business.
      8.45 pm
      There is a danger that stations could be so built up and clogged up that during busy times passengers could be impeded. Victoria station, although a little better now, was like that. It has always been claustrophobic on the high numbered platforms because there are too many shops. I do not blame British Rail, because it has to get money from wherever it can under the present system, but it has allowed too many shops. When the Bill becomes an Act, as I fear it will, and private interests take over stations, the criterion under which they operate will not be that of seeking to aid the passenger to go about his business.
      There is already a nonsensical position under which Regional Railways does not want to pay to stop at one platform but might pay to stop at another platform; InterCity does not want to stop at one platform but will stop at another, provided that it is for no longer than is absolutely necessary. The convenience of the passenger does not come into play when it comes to trains stopping at stations, especially where passengers want to make connections.
      Once a station is in private hands, different charges can be made for different trains to stop at different times on different platforms. The market, which the Government think knows best, might know what is best for the market and for those who want to make money out of passengers, but that might not be the same as providing the best possible service with the least inconvenience to passengers. I am worried about what the Government are doing through the clause. I shall wait and see what happens.
      There will come a time when there is a different Administration. This incompetent Government are on their last legs because they have introduced such stupid Bills —[Interruption.] The Minister for Transport in London laughs, but the public know that they were had in 1992. People will not forget that the Government said, "Vote Conservative on 9 April and the recovery will begin on 10 April." People in my constituency have certainly not forgotten that.
      When the Opposition are in government, I hope that we will take as our criterion the convenience of passengers. If any clause in any lease goes against the spirit of that criterion, we should either introduce legislation to take away such leases—without allowing the lessees to make any gain—or impose conditions on those leases to ensure that certain criteria are met; in that way, passengers could conveniently change trains and have convenient access to or exit from stations. If, at a suitable time, the Opposition can lay down those criteria clearly and succinctly, that will give pause for thought to any get-rich-quick cowboy developer or speculator whom the Government have in mind to take over the stations once the Bill becomes an Act.
      Mr. Freeman: I shall seek to answer the points that have been raised.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) mentioned a number of issues, which I shall take in sequence. First, he referred to the possibility of double payment by, for example, local authorities or PTE authorities, for the use of stations where they had in the past been responsible for investing and improving the station facilities. I pay tribute to what the PTEs have done. Strathclyde was cited as an example where there has been sustained investment in rolling stock and I hope sincerely that that continues. The Strathclyde PTE—
      Mr. Prescott: The Strathclyde authority.
      Mr. Freeman: The Strathclyde authority will have my continued support in ensuring that it can place further orders for rolling stock, which I know that it is negotiating.
      Mr. Prescott: At least it is not the Minister's money.
      Mr. Freeman: It is the taxpayers' money.
      I shall now reply to the argument that was made about investment in station assets. We are ensuring that, when the PTEs fund infrastructure improvements from debt they have incurred on their own books, they will not have to pay twice—the financing costs of the debt and also infrastructure charges. We intend that Railtrack will create an obligation on its books and repay the PTE, over a suitable period, sufficient funds to enable those additional charges for the use of assets to be financed by the local authorities. When we discuss the group of amendments about PTEs I will be glad to explain the arrangements that we have in mind.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North also asked where the money is to come from for stations. Railtrack is the freeholder and will have ultimate responsibility for all the assets that it owns. It may be that, for franchises where there is responsibility over five, seven or 10 years for running trains on a group of lines and the franchisee wants responsibility for operating and managing the stations, an agreement will be made with the franchisee as to what improvements, repairs and maintenance will be done at the stations. The responsibility will not fall between the two—in other words, on neither Railtrack nor the franchisee.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me about allocation of cost to the shadow franchises. From 1 April 1994, with Railtrack established, the 25 train-operating companies will have a proper apportionment made of the cost of track. We hope to have financial information generated properly for the first seven franchises that we have nominated, from 1 April 1994, in a form which provides a true and accurate record of the cost of operating trains on those lines.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) asked me many questions. I can now be more precise about when financial information will be available about the Fenchurch Street line—the London, Tilbury and Southend line—because we intend that it should be shadow running from 1 April 1994, and that therefore, after the first six months, properly prepared financial information will be available. We shall know what the track charges are; we shall know what the operating costs are because we shall know the size of the payroll; we shall know which rolling stock is being used and accurate information will become available. It certainly will be
      100
      available in 1995–96 to the potential franchisees of the line, and I would expect that we shall start franchising that line in early 1995.
      Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman tables a question asking me what has been the financial record of the line, I shall be able to answer in due corse, although certainly not before the first six months of the line, and, I would expect more accurately at the end of the financial year because when the franchising director lets the franchise that will be public information. In other words, the degree of subsidy required will be publicly known. I hope that that is a clear answer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East are interested in the line and we can see whether it is profitable.
      I believe and expect that some fares on the London, Tilbury and Southend line will be reduced.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Freeman: I expect that franchisees for certain off-peak services will experiment with lower fares to increase patronage. I travel on the line in both peak and off peak and I know that there is a capacity available on the line. I would expect the private sector to experiment accordingly.
      The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) asked me about the manning of stations. I know that she is especially concerned about that, and she is right to be so. British Rail, over the years, has felt constrained by the limitation of its resources—inevitably, in the public sector—to reduce the manning at certain stations.
      I would expect that, when we franchise rail services, there will be an improvement in the situation of stations which are either unmanned or partially manned, for two reasons. First I would expect the franchisees, and certainly Railtrack, to experiment with introducing greater commercial activity at some stations. Even quite small stations can benefit from shops, or perhaps even restaurant facilities. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) laughs. Let me explain why British Rail cannot do that at the present time.
      The hon. Gentleman has not had the experience of setting BR's external financing limit. That is broken down by line of route. The managers have a sum to spend—not a penny more, not a penny less. Many managers find it difficult to experiment, for example, with rent-free accommodation in order to attract the private sector, in what has been a depressed property market, to come on to the stations to develop them. I expect that, as one of the advantages of privatisation, the private sector, without those constraints, will experiment to create more activity at the stations. More activity means greater safety, and greater safety means more passengers.
      Mr. Wilson: I am interested in the scenario which the Minister outlines, as it is imaginative and it may happen somewhere. His idea is that restaurants will be opened at stations which are currently unmanned in order to attract more people on to the stations while trains which are under-used run through them. It may happen, but I am sure that the Minister will also want to consider the scenario that I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and which the Minister brought into the debate in Committee.
      He made it quite clear that it would not be the Minister's or the franchise director's job to lay down the times when

      101
      there would have to be lights on stations, far less a range of restaurants available to the public on a rent-free basis. Will the Minister consider that other scenario, and will he confirm that it will be at the discretion of the operator, not just whether there are restaurants on the stations where now there are none, but whether there are lights on in the stations and whether the operator of the stations and the route will be allowed to run down the service to get rid of off-peak services?
      Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman proceeds from the assumption that the private sector is there to cream off the profits, make the service deteriorate, increase fares substantially and cut investment. I do not proceed on that basis. All the evidence of privatisations during the past 14 years flies in the face of his assertion. I do not expect the private sector to do anything other than encourage more passengers to use railway trains. That will perhaps answer the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell). The rooted hostility of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North towards the private sector is irrational. I expect it to want more patronage, not less.
      I was in the middle of trying to answer the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate. In certain cases, the private sector will want to experiment to encourage patronage, by hiring additional staff to work on platforms or on trains. I believe that Network SouthEast has lost a share of the market—although I do not blame it—because it has had to operate within cash limits under Labour and Conservative Governments, as I have described. There is evidence, however, that more people would travel by train if they felt that they were more secure—especially women late at night. I believe that such investment by the private sector would be repaid.
      The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) asked about British Rail Maintenance Ltd. at Eastleigh. There has been a remarkable change in the technology involved in building trains. Whatever happens —whether British Rail is privatised or not—we must acknowledge that that change will reduce the amount of work available for heavy maintenance depots. We must face the fact that considerable surplus capacity is likely in that section of the industry. It is important that we do not limit the opportunities open to the workers at Eastleigh or the amount of business that they can bid for.
      In Committee, I considered whether it was sensible to assign each BRML depot to one of the rolling stock leasing companies. I have come to the firm conclusion—one that I think is shared by those who work at Eastleigh—that that would be wrong, because one would be limiting its work.
      Mr. Denham rose—
      Mr. Freeman: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman on that subject, but perhaps I may finish my argument first. Eastleigh would then be limited to perhaps only one third of the total rolling stock maintenance market. The more efficient the plant, the more business it can obtain, and if Eastleigh is right that it is one of the most efficient plants, as I believe it is, it should wish to bid for work from all the rolling stock companies.
      The present arrangements are not satisfactory, because work is essentially assigned by British Rail. Eastleigh should have the opportunity to compete across the board. As the hon. Member for Itchen said, it is true that we plan to establish contracts between British Rail and Eastleigh—and probably the rolling stock leasing companies,
      102
      although not necessarily—to guarantee a work load for some years. I cannot be specific about how much and for how many years. Those contracts would ensure the viability of the business before it passes into the private sector.
      Mr. Denham: Although it is perhaps a contradiction of what the Minister has just said, does he accept that last week the council and the trade unions representing workers from BRML asked that it be allocated to a leasing company? The evidence therefore suggests that BRML workers favour that option. Does the Minister also accept that 90 per cent. of its work derives from Network SouthEast rolling stock, largely because of the third rail electrification system, which means that it has a specific type of rolling stock and therefore of maintenance? The allocation of BRML to the leasing company most likely to provide such rolling stock would be the best way to secure its future.
      9 pm
      Mr. Freeman: We are dealing with the livelihoods of many people, and I am happy to keep an open mind on the final structure. I do not want to do anything that would needlessly put anyone's jobs in jeopardy. I have already given a commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan)—I am happy to extend it to the hon. Gentleman—that I shall stay in close touch so that we do not needlessly complicate what is already a difficult situation due to the over-capacity in the industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take those words in the spirit in which they are offered.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) asked me three questions. I thank him for his kind comments. I know of his great commitment, both in his constituency and throughout the south-east, to ensuring that we have a good railway system, and that services improve rather than deteriorate. First, he asked who would have responsibility for stations and for their maintenance, development and so forth. He asked whether it would be the British Rail Property Board or some other body.
      Railtrack, as the freeholder, will be responsible for all stations and will decide when it is appropriate to delegate any financial responsibility to the franchisees, who will be responsible for maintenance and development for a relatively short period in the life of a station—five, seven or 10 years. I am already impressed with Railtrack's plans. A competent management is being put in place, and I look forward to Railtrack pursuing a positive policy to improve stations. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for Transport and I will watch carefully to see that that policy is applied.
      I assure my hon. Friend, too, that the closure policy, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will deal with shortly, will cover stations. Neither Railtrack nor a franchisee will be able to close a station precipitously. We set out at length our policy on that aspect. That process will take up to 12 months.
      As to towns and villages having railway stations which might not be covered by listed building consents, I give my hon. Friend the assurance that planning law will continue to apply to any change of use away from the main business of the statutory undertaking—that is, running a railway station—to some other purpose, such as the running of a

      103
      supermarket. Listed building consent already applies and will continue to do so. We want to maintain our excellent railway stations, particularly those in Sussex.
      The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked about disposing of assets for commercial value. That will be the responsibility of Railtrack as the freeholder. As to Birmingham New Street, I see nothing wrong in having a single operator of that station being responsible for the station's commercial redevelopment and improvement, with several different franchisees operating through it. Birmingham New Street is already showing its age and I see no objection to a sole operator with many different train operators providing services.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) asked what is meant by the transfer of risk in the draft document which sets out the franchising director's objectives. It means that when the franchising director considers bids from the public and private sector, he will take into account that a public sector bid does not involve the transfer of risk. If the public sector gets its bid wrong and more subsidy is required, the taxpayer has to pay, so there may be some premium, advantage or benefit attached to a private sector bid which takes the risks.
      I was asked about the role of the franchising director in West Yorkshire passenger transport executive rolling stock. He will be able to designate assets so that they roll over from one franchise to another. They will continue in use for the full length of a lease. The director will also be able to give assurances about the operation of the railway administration orders. I look forward to making further progress on the rolling stock lease. I am determined that it will come to fruition.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Minister dwelt on the commercial prospects for larger stations; but will he comment on the rule for smaller stations? How will his plans affect them? Will he answer the questions put by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)? What future does the Minister see for smaller, rural stations?
      Mr. Freeman: I apologise for not dealing with that point, which was also raised, by implication, by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). Smaller stations will almost invariably be run by the franchisees and will remain under the ownership of Railtrack, the freeholder. It will not be within the gift of the franchisee operating the train services or Railtrack to close any particular station. We have an elaborate, clear and comprehensive closure procedure which involves not only the consultative committees but the regulator and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
      Mr. McAllion: The Minister said that smaller stations
      "will almost invariably be run by the franchisees".
      That suggests that ScotRail, for example, will be required to take on all the small rural stations in Scotland and continue to run them as part of the franchise that it assumes on 1 April. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case?
      Mr. Freeman: I think that by implication that is the case, for the simple reason that when we come to franchise ScotRail, it will be franchised on the basis of all the rail services running in Scotland. By definition, that will involve the active use of all the stations, small and large,
      104
      at which rail services call. Therefore, the practical implication is yes. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 6, line 5, at end insert
      ("or
      ((ii) the operation of additional railway assets under or by virtue of any franchise agreement or any provision of sections 26 and 32 to 42 below;").
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Freeman.]
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 231.

      Division No. 379]

      [9.09 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Alexander, Richard

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Couchman, James

      Amess, David

      Cran, James

      Ancram, Michael

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

      Arbuthnot, James

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Ashby, David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Day, Stephen

      Atkins, Robert

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Devlin, Tim

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Dicks, Terry

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Baldry, Tony

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Dover, Den

      Bates, Michael

      Duncan, Alan

      Batiste, Spencer

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dunn, Bob

      Bendall, Vivian

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dykes, Hugh

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Eggar, Tim

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Elletson, Harold

      Body, Sir Richard

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Booth, Hartley

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Boswell, Tim

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Evennett, David

      Bowden, Andrew

      Faber, David

      Bowis, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Brazier, Julian

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bright, Graham

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Forth, Eric

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Burns, Simon

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Burt, Alistair

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Butcher, John

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Butler, Peter

      French, Douglas

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Fry, Peter

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gale, Roger

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gallie, Phil

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Cash, William

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Garnier, Edward

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gill, Christopher

      Churchill, Mr

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Clappison, James

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Coe, Sebastian

      Gorst, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Congdon, David

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Conway, Derek

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      105

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Merchant, Piers

      Hague, William

      Milligan, Stephen

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mills, Iain

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Harris, David

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hawkins, Nick

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hawksley, Warren

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hayes, Jerry

      Needham, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Nelson, Anthony

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Norris, Steve

      Horam, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

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

      Page, Richard

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Paice, James

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Pickles, Eric

      Jack, Michael

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jessel, Toby

      Rathbone, Tim

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Richards, Rod

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Key, Robert

      Robathan, Andrew

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Knapman, Roger

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

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

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Knox, Sir David

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Sackville, Tom

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Legg, Barry

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Leigh, Edward

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shersby, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Sims, Roger

      Lightbown, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lord, Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Luff, Peter

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Maclean, David

      Spring, Richard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sproat, Iain

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Madel, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Steen, Anthony

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stephen, Michael

      Malone, Gerald

      Stern, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Stewart, Allan

      Marland, Paul

      Streeter, Gary

      Marlow, Tony

      Sumberg, David

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Sykes, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      106

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Ward, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Thomason, Roy

      Waterson, Nigel

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Watts, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wells, Bowen

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Whitney, Ray

      Thumham, Peter

      Whittingdale, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Widdecombe, Ann

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

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Tracey, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Willetts, David

      Trend, Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Trimble, David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Trotter, Neville

      Wolfson, Mark

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Yeo, Tim

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Viggers, Peter

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

      Waller, Gary

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Denham, John

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Dixon, Don

      Ainger, Nick

      Dobson, Frank

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Alton, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Enright, Derek

      Ashton, Joe

      Etherington, Bill

      Barnes, Harry

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Battle, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Flynn, Paul

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Fraser, John

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Galloway, George

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Gapes, Mike

      Betts, Clive

      Garrett, John

      Blair, Tony

      George, Bruce

      Blunkett, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Boyes, Roland

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bradley, Keith

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Burden, Richard

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Byers, Stephen

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Gunnell, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hain, Peter

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hall, Mike

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hanson, David

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hardy, Peter

      Canavan, Dennis

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Cann, Jamie

      Harvey, Nick

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Heppell, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hoey, Kate

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Coffey, Ann

      Home Robertson, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hood, Jimmy

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hutton, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Illsley, Eric

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Jamieson, David

      Dafis, Cynog

      Janner, Greville

      Darling, Alistair

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

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

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      107

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Pope, Greg

      Jowell, Tessa

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Keen, Alan

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Prescott, John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Radice, Giles

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Randall, Stuart

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Raynsford, Nick

      Leighton, Ron

      Redmond, Martin

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rendel, David

      Lewis, Terry

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Rogers, Allan

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Rooney, Terry

      McAllion, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rowlands, Ted

      McCartney, Ian

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCrea, Rev William

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McFall, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McGrady, Eddie

      Short, Clare

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Simpson, Alan

      McLeish, Henry

      Skinner, Dennis

      Maclennan, Robert

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McNamara, Kevin

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

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Madden, Max

      Snape, Peter

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Soley, Clive

      Mahon, Alice

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mandelson, Peter

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Marek, Dr John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stevenson, George

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Stott, Roger

      Martlew, Eric

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Maxton, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Meacher, Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Michael, Alun

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Milburn, Alan

      Tyler, Paul

      Miller, Andrew

      Walley, Joan

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wareing, Robert N

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Watson, Mike

      Morley, Elliot

      Welsh, Andrew

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wilson, Brian

      Mudie, George

      Winnick, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Wise, Audrey

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Worthington, Tony

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Wray, Jimmy

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      O'Hara, Edward

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Parry, Robert

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Patchett, Terry

      Mr. Gordon McMaster and

      Pickthall, Colin

      Mr. Alan Meale.

      Pike. Peter L.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in
      page 6, line 20, after ("35") insert
      ("Proposals to close passenger railway facilities operated on behalf of the Franchising Director")
      The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, we will take Lords amendments Nos. 70, 71 to 123, 325, 326 and 453.
      Mr. Norris: The amendments build on the existing closure procedures. Those procedures will apply, as at present, to the complete cessation of passenger services to
      108
      a station or on a line. Consumer committees will continue to report on any hardship arising from a proposed closure and may, of course, hold public hearings. Some changes will be made to the procedures, mainly to reflect the new structure of the railways. The operational control of certain facilities, networks, stations and light maintenance depots may not in future rest with train operators, so the closure procedures will also need to apply to proposals to terminate the use of such facilities. Decisions on closures will be for the regulator, but there will be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. There will also be a simplified procedure for minor infrastructure closures.
      The amendments would substantially improve the closure provisions of the Bill. The majority are drafting, technical and consequential amendments, but one or two are of substance. I emphasise that most of the proposals were tabled by Opposition Peers, or introduced by the Government in response to Opposition concerns. Let me detail the most significant of them.
      Amendment No. 108 is the most important in the group. It removes the 26-week limit on any further period that the Secretary of State may allow the regulator to make his decision. We have repeatedly said that the restructuring of railways does not lead to more closures but, inevitably—as has always been known on the railways—there will be a few over time as railways adjust to changing demand, just as there will be additions to the network for the same reason. Most of the closures will not be particularly important but it is conceivable that there may be controversial closures and the closure procedures have to cater for that eventuality, too.
      The Bill as drafted permits the regulator a maximum of one year in which to make his decision. It is acceptable to argue that, in an especially controversial case, that limit might be tested severely. Amendment No. 108 will remedy that potential difficulty.
      Amendments Nos. 107, 112 and 325 would enable the rail users consultative committees to publish their reports to the regulator; would ensure that the RUCCs were informed of the designation by the franchising director of those services that were experimental; and would permit the Secretary of State to place conditions on consents to closure given under the alternative closure procedures set out in schedule 4. All those amendments followed representations made on behalf of the Central Transport Consultative Committee, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that they would improve the Bill.
      Amendment No. 453 would make transitional provision for closure proposals—that is, provision for closure proposals which might be in the pipeline when the new procedures replace the old. It provides that such a proposal should be processed under the old procedure. It also ensures that the channel tunnel services are included in the consumer committees' responsibilities.
      Amendments Nos. 97 and 104 introduce the new clauses that are needed to cover a particular circumstance in which a closure might be proposed that was not covered by the Bill as amended in this House. If consent to close a network or a facility such as a maintenance depot is refused, the franchising director must secure its continued operation, and is likely to do so by engaging someone to do it on his behalf. The new clauses will simply enable him to repropose closure of those networks or facilities if in later years he wishes to do so.

      109
      Other amendments in the group include a recasting of clause 33, which deals with proposals to close franchise services, so as to align it with the new clause introduced by amendment No. 97—proposals to close networks operated on behalf of the franchising director—and amendments to ensure that the removal of track is not treated as a closure provided that at least a single track remains. That last amendment carries forward the position under the existing closure procedures and ensures that routine track alterations can take place without triggering any part of the new closure procedures.
      All the amendments are fairly technical and I again emphasise that the majority were either introduced by Opposition Peers or by the Government in response to demands from groups such as the user committees or Opposition Members.
      Lords amendment No. 123 adds a new clause to the Bill which deals with exclusion of liability for breach of statutory duty. The new clause is exactly the same as the provision in section 3(4) of the Transport Act 1962 which provides that nothing that is contained in sections 3(1) or 3(2), which places a duty on BR to provide railway services in Great Britain, shall impose
      "any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court to which the Board would not otherwise be subject."
      In broad terms, the duties of the franchising director in respect of securing continuity of service are not to give rise to any liability for breach of statutory duty. That fairly straightforward principle is in the 1962 Act and is simply replicated in this legislation. However, to avoid doubt, that does not mean that we are seeking to exclude any proceedings for judicial review in respect of those duties of the franchising director.
      9.30 pm
      Similarly, any obligation on an operator not to discontinue services or the operation of a network, station or light maintenance depot without giving due notice, is not to be enforceable through proceedings for a breach of statutory duty. Those obligations will be enforceable by the regulator who will use his enforcement powers in the Bill.
      It is also important to recognise that, in moving that the House doth agree with Lords amendment No. 123 and the new clause to ensure that nothing contained in sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Transport Act 1962 places a duty on the franchising director analogous with the duties on the British Railways Board under the 1962 Act, we are not excluding liability of operators for breaches of contract or negligence. All those powers remain in place should it be appropriate for them to be used.
      As I said earlier, the other amendments in the group are largely technical. It is reasonable to say that they all improve the Bill by common agreement, having received the support of Opposition Members when moved, and I trust that the House will agree to them.
      Mr. Bayley: The Opposition welcome Lords amendment No. 108, which deletes the 26-week cut-off period for extensions of consultation in respect of closures. However, unlike the Minister and Conservative Members, we fear that it will have to be invoked because the privatisation is not just a sale of the railways, it is likely to be a closing down sale of the railways.
      It is disingenuous of the Minister to say that the closure procedures set out in the Lords amendments simply build on the existing procedure. It is also misleading to say that the Government are introducing a simplified procedure for
      110
      dealing with minor closures. The minor closure procedure, which we have not had before, reduces the public's right to object if they are to be disadvantaged by a closure. In the past, the transport users consultative committees decided whether a closure was so minor that they had no comment to make. In future, the committees will not have that choice and the regulator will make that decision.
      Nothing illustrates better the way in which the Government have approached privatisation, by making it up as they go along, than the way in which they have dealt with the closure procedures. We had a full day's debate on the matter in Standing Committee and ended up with 17 pages of legislation on the issue in the Bill that we sent to another place. A further 14 pages of legislation have come back. They are changes which were not thought of by the Government in Committee. They have arisen subsequently.
      It all seemed so easy in the White Paper. The closure provisions were summed up in two very short paragraphs. Paragraph 71 stated:
      "There is no reason to believe that the Government's proposals will lead to closures of services. But if in future, as a result of change in demand, the Franchising Authority decided that a service was no longer socially necessary and there was no case for continuing that service then the same statutory closure procedures would apply as now. In such cases the final decision about whether a service should be retained or withdrawn will continue to be taken by the Secretary of State."
      Sadly, those commitments were not to be. First, the commitment to the social railway has been deleted—it does not appear in the Bill. Secondly, the commitment to provide the same statutory closure procedures as we had previously does not appear. We have tighter time limits and a new concept of a "minor closure". There used to be a requirement to advertise in two local newspapers. That is now changed to one local newspaper, although in another place an amendment was passed that there had to be two advertisements in one newspaper.
      If, as seems likely with privatisation, in respect of services from Seamer to Bridlington to Beverley to Hull, if that east coast line were to close, where would one advertise? Would it be the Scarborough Evening News, the Hull Daily Mail or the Bridlington local newspaper? It is not good enough to limit it to one newspaper.
      In the White Paper, we were promised that the decision on the closure would be made by the Secretary of State, as now. In fact, it is not the Secretary of State but the regulator who will make the decision. In some cases, there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, but what we were promised in the White Paper is not in the Bill.
      The threat of closure is real. Regional Railways has published a map on which it highlights a wide range of lines that are threatened with closure. Apart from the Scarborough to Hull service, there is the Middlesbrough to Saltburn service, the Middlesbrough to Whitby service, the Grimsby to Cleethorpes service, and the Sheffield to Barnetby service. Apart from Yorkshire, the Carlisle to Barrow service is marked in red on the map as threatened with closure. Other services include Barrow to Silverdale, Aberystwyth in Wales to Shrewsbury, Llanelli to Craven Arms and so on throughout the country, including Lowestoft to Ipswich, and, in the south-west, the Exeter to Barnstaple and the Par to Newquay services. All those services are highlighted as at risk.
      Those lines do not make a profit, they provide a public service, and their future depends on whether the franchising director's budget, after other calls on it to make

      111
      main franchise services profitable for private operators, will contain enough money to maintain services. British Rail currently has 10,600 miles of passenger track. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that, after privatisation, the extent of the network would remain nearly the same as it is now. In Committee, the Minister said that there would not be a significant reduction in the franchised services compared with the May 1994 pre-privatisation timetable.
      I should like the Minister to reiterate the commitment that the basis of services post-privatisation—the basis of the franchising agreement—will be the same as the services set out in the May 1994 timetable. I should like him also to comment on use of the phrase "substantially the same as in the timetable". Time and again, we have asked for a definition of what "substantially" means in that context, but we have never received one. Does it mean that 90 per cent., 95 per cent. or 99 per cent. of services will be protected?
      What about the quality of service that is provided to the travelling public? The service can decline quite substantially without the closure procedures being introduced. I notice that in amendment No. 90, which the Minister described as a small technical tidying-up matter, there is a specific new provision that, if a line is changed from dual-track working to single-track working, it will no longer count as a closure at all. So the service can be radically reduced and undermined in a major way, which, in the past, would have resulted in a full and proper closure procedure, and, with the appointment of a regulator, even the Secretary of State can now get off the hook.
      The commitments that we were offered in bland and breezy terms in two paragraphs of the White Paper have not been met in the relevant 17 pages of the Bill that went to the Lords or in the further 14 pages of amendments that have come back to us. What does the Minister say about the failure to honour the commitments contained in the White Paper?
      Mr. Norris: It always strikes me as quite extraordinary that one of the more incredible flights of fancy indulged in by Opposition Members when considering this Bill is that they assume that somehow the pattern of railway services in Britain has remained immutable, unchanged and as written on tablets of stone for the past 45 years. If that had been the case, it would be worrying if the Government proposed anything to suggest that in the future those tablets of stone might be shattered.
      The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) is obsessed with that notion. He meanders constantly around this complex Hornby OO service—an immutable service which has not altered since time began—and he believes that the slightest movement on it will upset terrestrial equilibrium. Of course, that is and always has been nonsense.
      The hon. Gentleman purports to know something about railways, but I have not been able to judge whether he does know anything in the 150 hours of debate that we have had, and I remain to be convinced. The hon. Gentleman should know that the pattern of railway services has altered in every year that the railways have been in operation.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Mostly for the worse.
      Mr. Norris: That is a matter for the hon. and learned Gentleman and others to judge. Railway services have altered under Governments of both complexions—bits have been added to and removed from railway services —which is exactly what one would expect to happen as railway patterns reflect changes in demand.
      Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Norris: If I may finish the sentence, the hon. and learned Gentleman will be welcome to enliven our proceedings, as he always does.
      Let us take the extraordinary proposition that what might happen in the future is exactly what has happened in every year that the railways have existed. There will, no doubt, be minor closures and minor openings. The local press will make more of the closures than of the openings, but that is in the nature of things. We want a procedure to deal with the closures, to ensure that whenever a closure is proposed it is exhaustively debated, and all the relevant information about a service's usefulness to the local community is taken into account.
      The Bill not only takes forward the current provisions for closure, but makes them wider and more comprehensive-sive. It gives the user committees more powers in relation to the publication of their reports, the disclosure of the information that they have and the observations that they can make on the closures. It is illogical and absurd to argue that because the Bill contains provisions for closures it breaches a new dyke in railway administration.
      Mr. Carlile: Of course one cannot exclude the possibility of closures from time to time—that is an ordinary incident in the commercial life of a nationalised or private industry—but does the Minister not agree that, after the railways have been privatised, inevitably it will be the rural lines that are forced into closure? A privatised regime, by its own hypothesis, will be opposed to the continuation of railways in areas where there are not many customers. Should not the Government address the issue of the social need for railways and their affect on rural areas, some of which have important towns, such as Aberystwyth, on their periphery?
      Mr. Norris: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not honestly believe that any sensible reading of the Bill could lead one to conclude that the privatisation of services proposed in it has any relevance to decisions on the closure of rural or busy lines.
      My reasoning is straightforward. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that, in the past 40 years, there have probably been more line closures than openings, but I remind him that those took place in a nationalised industry.
      9.45 pm
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport was good enough to visit Lancaster, he made it quite clear that socially necessary lines and rural ones would receive a subsidy. He has since confirmed that assurance in writing to me. That means that it is highly probable that the west coast main line will be eligible to receive a subsidy. That line covers many rural areas.
      Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because her remarks underline the heart of the Bill. I understand that it is in the political interests of

      113
      Opposition Members not to understand that point or to take it on board, because the minute they do so three quarters of the debate in which they have been engaged for the past months will explode.
      The hypothesis is straightforward. The franchising director sets out a pattern of services that he requires the franchisee to undertake. In answer to the hon. Member for York, the timetable on which that pattern is based will, as has frequently been stated, be that operating at the time the franchise is offered. It may be the 1994 timetable or one for a later date. The important thing is that it will offer a replication of the current services.
      We have used the word "substantially" according to its straightforward English meaning. In other words, the new service will be the same in every material respect as that currently on offer. That is why the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) should understand that the issue of the vulnerability of rural lines is not affected by the Bill. On the contrary—there will now be an open incentive to a private operator, who has already contracted with the franchising director to provide a range of relevant services, including services to some rural stations, to think about how to maximise his or her profits. The operator will wish to do that by looking at services which are currently under-used to see what can be done to make them more attractive, thus attracting extra revenue to those lines.
      The franchise operator is already contracted with the franchising director, and in so doing has presumably built in the basic rate of return that would be required by his shareholders. Any improvement in the take-up of services will be to the benefit of the franchising operator. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery would agree, of course, that that will also benefit passengers.
      I must make it clear that I do not accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for York. The new regime is a substantial improvement on the one which currently operates. It will not detract in any way from the ability of local communities to object to the closure of lines. On the contrary, it replicates and expands the existing system. On that basis, I have no hesitation in commending the amendment to the House.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7

      EXEMPTIONS FROM SECTION 6.
      Lords amendment: No. 7, in
      Page 8, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
      ("(6) If any condition (the "broken condition") of a licence exemption is not complied with—

      (a) the Secretary of State, in the case of a licence exemption under subsection (1) above, or

      (b) the Regulator, in the case of a licence exemption under subsection (3) above,

      may give to any relevant person a direction declaring that the licence exemption is revoked, so far as relating to that person, to such extent and as from such date as may be specified in the direction.
      (6A) For the purposes of subsection (6) above—
      "condition", in relation to a licence exemption, means any condition subject to compliance with which the licence exemption was granted;
      "relevant person", in the case of any licence exemption, means a person who has the benefit of the licence exemption and who—
      114

      (a) is a person who failed to comply with the broken condition or with respect to whom the broken condition is not complied with; or

      (b) is the operator of any of the railway assets in relation to which the broken condition is not complied with.")

      Mr. Freeman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 18, 24, 178 to 181 and 187.
      Mr. Freeman: There are two aspects of this group of amendments that I shall draw to the attention of the House. First, the principle amendments Nos. 7 and 24 deal with the powers of the Secretary of State or the regulator to revoke licence exemptions when breaches occur. The Bill needed improvement to make it plain that when an undertaking that has been given and formally recognised in the licence is breached, for example, the failure to honour a commitment on through ticketing, which is to be a condition of a licence agreement and a most important network benefit, then the regulator—in certain cases the Secretary of State will grant the licence—has the power to revoke the licence exemption where an exemption has been granted.
      The more important reason for amendments Nos. 8 and 16 is to do with where there is a particular group of railway lines that involves both licensed and exempt activities. We realise that there may well be examples of that and I shall cite one in a moment: the Heathrow Express, which is most important. There may well be examples on the network where the running of trains is subject to the licensing regime because the railway service is plying for hire, carrying passengers on the track infrastructure and, also, where the same railway service runs are on exempt—privately owned—track. That may well also be the case for preserved railways.
      The Heathrow Express example is the best that I can cite at the present time. The Heathrow Express service has reached the stage where an agreement has been concluded and we hope that construction will start shortly. The Heathrow Express is a spur from the western mainline connecting new stations at Heathrow central and terminal four to Paddington. The House will know that that service will run on licensed main track on the Great Western railway for most of its journey. It is a joint venture between the British Airports Authority and British Rail on 70–30 equity terms, with the majority coming from BAA in the private sector. Heads of agreement were agreed in March and the detailed agreement has now been concluded. Four trains per hour will run during the day on the 16-minute journey between Paddington and Heathrow central. Fares are to be set commercially by the joint venture and the level of fares presently contemplated are £9 single and £14 return. Contracts are now being tendered and let and main contruction will be under way soon. Services are expected to commence by the end of 1997. Approximately £300 million including the cost of the rolling stock will be invested.
      The group of amendments, especially Nos. 8 and 16, deals with where it is expedient for public policy purposes not to control the fares on the whole service between Paddington and Heathrow. It is a non-stop service, partly running over track that would normally carry only licensed

      115
      services and partly over a private spur. We do not think that it is sensible in any way to interfere or regulate fares that will be and should be set commercially.
      The amendments also provide for the transfer of the licences, including the Heathrow Express licence, but for that to occur there needs to be the consent of the Secretary of State or the regulator. At some stage in the future, that joint venture or others that benefit from the group of amendments may need to be sold or transferred, and there is a mechanism for that. Access to Heathrow by crossrail at some stage in the future will be possible, but the commercial agreement of the partners will clearly be needed for the joint venture.
      Undoubtedly, the licence conditions—the Lords amendments clarify the position—can apply, for example, to the provisions for through ticketing or to other common operating procedures. There has been some anxiety that some of the arrangements for common operation between two franchisee companies might fall foul of either the licensing conditions or other legislation. We have made it plain in the Lords amendments that such arrangements are appropriate and can be included in the licence conditions.
      I should be glad to answer detailed questions on any of the other Lords amendments in the group. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 15

      FACILITY OWNERS TO PERMIT USE OF RAILWAY FACILITIES BY OTHER PERSONS
      Lords amendment: No. 19, to leave out clause 15 and insert the following new clause—Access agreements: directions requiring facility owners to enter into contracts for the use of their railway facilities—

      (" .—(1)The Regulator may, on the application of any person, give directions to a facility owner requiring him to enter into an access contract with the applicant for the purpose specified in subsection (2) below; but no such directions shall be given if and to the extent that—

      (a) the facility owner's railway facility is, by virtue of section 16 below, an exempt facility;

      (b) performance of the access contract, if entered into, would necessarily involve the facility owner in being in breach of an access agreement or an international railway access contract; or

      (c) as a result of an obligation or duty owed by the facility owner which arose before the coming into force of this section, the consent of some other person is required by the facility owner before he may enter into the access contract.

      (2) The purpose for which directions may be given is that of enabling the beneficiary to obtain (whether for himself alone or for himself and, so far as may be applicable, associates of his)—

      (a) from a facility owner whose railway facility is track, permission to use that track for the purpose of the operation of trains on that track by the beneficiary;

      (b) from a facility owner whose railway facility is a station permission to use that station for or in connection with the operation of trains by the beneficiary;

      (c) from a facility owner whose railway facility is a light maintenance depot, permission to use that light maintenance depot for the purpose of obtaining light maintenance services for or in connection with the operation of trains by the beneficiary, whether the facility owner is to provide those services himself or to secure their provision by another;

      116

      (d) from any facility owner, permission to use the facility owner's railway facility for the purpose of stabling, or otherwise temporarily holding, rolling stock in connection with the operation of trains on any track by the beneficiary; or

      (e) from any facility owner, permission to use the facility owner's railway facility for or in connection with the operation of a network, station or light maintenance depot by the beneficiary;

      but this subsection is subject to the limitations imposed by subsection (3) below.

      (3) In subsection (2) above—

      (a) paragraph (a) does not extend to obtaining permission to use track for the purpose of providing network services on that track;

      (b) paragraph (b) does not extend to obtaining permission to use a station for the purpose of operating that station;

      (c) paragraph (c) does not extend to obtaining permission to use a light maintenance depot for the purpose of enabling the beneficiary to carry out light maintenance;

      (d) if and to the extent that the railway facility mentioned in paragraph (e) is track, that paragraph does not extend to obtaining permission to use that track for the purpose—

      (i) of providing network services on that track, or

      (ii) of operating any network in which that track is comprised,

      except where the purpose for which directions are sought is to enable the beneficiary to operate on behalf of the Franchising Director a network in which the track in question is comprised;

      (e) if and to the extent that the railway facility mentioned in that paragraph is a station, that paragraph does not extend to obtaining permission to use that station for the purpose—

      (i) of providing station services at that station, or

      (ii) of operating that station,

      except where the purpose for which directions are sought is to enable the beneficiary to operate the station on behalf of the Franchising Director;

      (f) if and to the extent that the railway facility mentioned in that paragraph is a light maintenance depot, that paragraph does not extend to obtaining permission to use that light maintenance depot for the purpose—

      (i) of carrying out light maintenance at that light maintenance depot, or

      (ii) of operating that light maintenance depot,

      except where the purpose for which directions are sought is to enable the beneficiary to operate the light maintenance depot on behalf of the Franchising Director.

      (4) Any reference in this section to a person operating a network, station or light maintenance depot "on behalf of the Franchising Director" is a reference to his operating the network, station or light maintenance depot in pursuance of any agreement or other arrangements made by the Franchising Director for the purpose of performing a duty imposed upon him, or exercising a power conferred upon him, under or by virtue of this Part to secure the operation of that network, station or light maintenance depot.

      (5) Nothing in this section authorises the Regulator to give directions to any person requiring him to grant a lease of the whole or any part of a railway facility.

      (6) In this Part—

      "access contract" means—

      (a) a contract under which—

      (i) a person (whether or not the applicant), and

      (ii) so far as may be appropriate, any associate of that person,

      obtains permission from a facility owner to use the facility owner's railway facility; or

      (b) a contract conferring an option, whether exercisable by the applicant or some other person, to require a facility owner to secure that—

      (i) a person (whether or not the applicant or that other), and

      (ii) so far as may be appropriate, any associate of that person,

      117
      obtains permission from the facility owner to use his railway facility;

      and any reference to an "access option" is a reference to an option falling within paragraph (b) above;

      "facility owner" means any person—

      (a) who has an estate or interest in, or right over, a railway facility; and

      (b) whose permission to use that railway facility is needed by another before that other may use it; and any reference to a facility owner's railway facility is a reference to the railway facility by reference to which he is a facility owner.

      (7) In this section—
      "the applicant" means the person making the application for directions;
      "associate", in relation to any person, includes—

      (a) any servant, agent or independent contractor of his;

      (b) any passenger of his;

      (c) any person engaged in the provision of goods or services to or for him; and

      (d) any other person who deals or has business with him;

      "the beneficiary" means the person mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or, as the case may be, paragraph (b)(i) of the definition of "access contract" in subsection (6) above, according to the description of access contract in question;
      "directions" means directions under this section;
      "the Directive" means the Directive of the Council of the
      European Communities dated 29th July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways;
      "implementing regulation" means a provision contained in subordinate legislation made for the purpose of implementing the Directive;
      "international railway access contract" means an access contract entered into as a result of—

      (a) an application made under an implementing regulation by an international grouping to an infrastructure manager for access and transit rights, or for transit rights, for the provision of international services between the member States where the undertakings constituting the international grouping are established; or

      (b) an application made under an implementing regulation by a railway undertaking established, or to be established, in a member State other than the United Kingdom to an infrastructure manager for the grant of access for the purpose of the operation of international combined transport goods services;

      and expressions used in paragraph (a) or (b) above and in the Directive have the same meaning in that paragraph as they have in the Directive;
      "lease" includes an underlease or sublease and an agreement for a lease, underlease or sublease.

      (8) Any reference in this section to obtaining permission to use a railway facility includes—

      (a) a reference to obtaining, in connection with any such permission, power to obtain the provision of ancillary services relating to that railway facility, whether the facility owner in question is to provide those services himself or to secure their provision by another; and

      (b) a reference to obtaining permission—

      (i) to enter upon the facility land, with or without vehicles,

      (ii) to bring things on to that land and keep them there,

      (iii) to carry out works on that land, and

      (iv) to use and maintain any things kept, or buildings or other works constructed, on that land (whether by the beneficiary or another) or any amenities situated on that land,

      "facility land" meaning in this paragraph the land which constitutes the railway facility in question;

      and, in subsection (2)(c) above, the reference to obtaining permission to use a light maintenance depot includes a reference to obtaining power to obtain light maintenance services at that light maintenance depot, whether the facility owner is to provide those services himself or to secure their provision by another.

      118

      (9) Any reference in this section to a railway facility includes a reference to a part of a railway facility.

      (10) Schedule (Access agreements: applications for access contracts) to this Act shall have effect with respect to applications for directions.

      (11) Any sums required for the making by the Franchising Director of payments in respect of an access contract entered into pursuant to directions under this section shall, if the access contract is one—

      (a) in relation to which the Franchising Director is the person who made the application under this section, or

      (b) under which an access option is exercisable by the Franchising Director,

      be paid by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament.")

      Mr. Norris: Moved formally.
      Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend seeks to relegate me, Madam Speaker.
      I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 23, 25 to 30, 132, 182 to 186, 301 and 324.
      Mr. Freeman: The amendments concern access and they are extensive. They deal with three particular issues which I am glad to explain to the House. Access and access agreements are vital to the efficient running of the privatised railway. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that an access agreement has to be entered into by a railway operating company with Railtrack, which has the duty to ensure that it does not discriminate between train operating companies. The regulator has the power of regulations and under the Bill, he has the duty to ensure fair competition.
      We envisage that the access agreement that will be entered into by the train operating companies—the passenger train companies, the franchisees—and Railtrack will run coterminously with the franchise agreement which governs the degrees of subsidy that the franchising director will pay to the train operating company. The two agreements run back to back. It is most important, under our provisions for open access to the railway, that, when it is appropriate, the Secretary of State, who has powers to give directions and guidance, can ensure that, in his dealings with the regulator, the regulator is left in no doubt about the need to moderate competition for the letting of the first franchises.
      The amendments, which are largely technical, do three things. First, they make it clear that rights of access do not extend to the actual operation of the track or the stations. That is reserved, obviously, to Railtrack as the freeholder and to station lessees as those responsible for the management and operation of individual stations.
      Secondly, the amendments deal with the right of access granted by the regulator generally and they ensure that rights of access do not override other rights in certain cases. Rights may already exist, for example, to run railway trains or freight trains. The regulator cannot arbitrarily grant access to new operators, because that would conflict with existing contracts and agreements. Under the provisions for granting access internationally to railway trains, especially passenger services, those agreements will be made formally under the provisions that apply to international access under the EC directive.
      It is envisaged that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will appoint the regulator responsible for

      119
      regulating the domestic traffic as the international regulator. I think that that is his present intention. That is my right hon. Friend's function at the moment.
      The amendments deal with access to railway facilities. The access provisions of the Bill as it left the Commons were deficient in a number of detailed but important respects. First, access rights were not sufficiently closely defined. It is important, therefore, to pin down exactly the rights that applicants should have and the types of contract that need to be regulated. For example, it is not our intention that management contracts relating to the operation of a station, or a lease of a light maintenance depot, should count as an access contract.
      Secondly, the effect of the grant of access rights on obligations, which facility owners may owe to others, was not entirely clear. Finally, the procedures governing applications were, on reflection, too cumbersome. To ensure—
      Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
      Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Business of the House
10 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The business for tomorrow will now be a timetable motion on the Railways Bill followed by conclusion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Railways Bill.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: That is a constitutional outrage. The House was told by the Leader of the House last week that we would have two full days to debate this business. By agreement with the Government, there were to be 28 debates on the important issues—such as pensions and travelcards—in which members of the British public are most particularly interested. However, the Government, who have brought to the House a Bill with nearly 500 amendments from another place, guillotine the debate on them after only part of a day's debate. It is an outrage, and the Lord President and his colleagues all know it is. They are a gutless bunch. They know that there is no support for the Bill in the country or the House. They have run away from it.
Mr. Newton: I do not accept what the right hon. Lady has said. When I made my business statement last Thursday, she did not even suggest that she thought that the time to debate the Railways Bill was inadequate. We have had a normal full parliamentary day. I accept that there was a statement at the beginning, but that is not unusual.
We have spent five hours debating two groups of amendments of relatively modest import. On that basis, I calculate that it would take 75 hours of parliamentary time, or four parliamentary weeks, to dispose of the business. That would be without allowing for proper debate on the two most significant amendments that occur in the list. If there is a constitutional outrage, it is the Opposition making such a meal of progress on the Bill.
Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have often told the House that you are the protector of the rights of Back Benchers, and we respect that. A great many Back Benchers are taking a close interest in the Railways Bill because it affects our constituencies directly. Can it be satisfactory to you, Madam Speaker, that the House of Lords should be seen to be a more democratic debating Chamber than the House of Commons on this Bill?
Madam Speaker: Those are matters that might be debated when we consider the guillotine motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Just a moment. Many hon. Members want to raise points of order. I am trying to answer the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). Those are matters that might appropriately be raised at another time.
Mr. John Prescott: The Government told us that there would be about 28 debates. The amendments were tabled last Thursday, and the list of debates was given to us on Sunday. We have dealt with four groups of amendments, Which involved some 100

121
amendments and a number of clauses. I can think of no other example of a closure or a move towards a business motion for the guillotine in such a short time—
Mr. Alan Duncan: The hon. Gentleman was never in the Committee.
Mr. Prescott: In Committee, we never had a guillotine. We have co-operated in the debates. Our debates never went on for a long time. The Minister and the Secretary of State will agree. What we have is an outrage. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has said, it is a constitutional outrage that the Leader of the House has made that statement, when he is supposed to be defending the rights of Members of the House against the Government.
We cannot accept that, and we shall do all we can to oppose it.
Mr. McAllion: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: There is no need for points of order. Hon. Members may ask questions arising out of the business statement.
Mr. McAllion: I am sorry; I did not realise that that was the case.
The Leader of the House said that the Opposition were deliberately filibustering to prevent progress on the Bill. I say to him through you, Madam Speaker, that I have been in the Chamber since the debate started at half-past 4, and he has scarcely shown his face here in that time. There has not been one complaint from Ministers or Tory Back Benchers about filibustering.
Hon. Members have been seriously debating the Government amendments. The House should be given the opportunity to continue to do that. It is a disgrace that the Government will make us go away for two weeks' holiday, but are imposing a guillotine on an important measure that will affect constituencies throughout the country. It is time that the Government realised that they cannot use their majority to trample over the rights of the British people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. There has been a business statement and questions should be raised on that.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the Leader of the House tell us why he chose to arrange that the 10 o'clock business motion should not be moved when there are several hours of debate before us, there is no justification for his statement and he has not demonstrated that the House has used the full extent of the time available to it? He has arranged for the deliberate curtailment of debate to make the business statement at 10 o'clock, and will then curtail the debate again by moving the guillotine motion. Does not even he think that extremely unfair, when the Bill is so vital and when the Lords amendments and the Government amendments are so extensive?
Mr. Newton: As I understand it, we are operating on points of order rather than on my responding to questions, but I should appreciate your guidance on that, Madam Speaker. Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we tabled the 10 o'clock motion so as to allow for the extension of debate, on the assumption that debate was proceeding in a reasonable fashion. It manifestly was not doing so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House rose, on a point of order, to make a business statement. Therefore, hon. Members may now ask questions arising from that statement.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: I hate to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the lack of advance in the debate but, according to Mr. Deputy Speaker, all the speeches made today were in order. Some of them went on to an untoward length, and we could have done with shorter speeches, but none of them could be ruled as just holding up the business of the House.
In the light of my right hon. Friend's statement, I ask him for a reassurance that the guillotine motion will be certain to allow a long enough time to debate two subjects of concern to many of our constituents. They are the right of British Rail to bid for franchises—the so-called Peyton amendment—and pensions. If we could not have proper debates on those matters, the Government would stand the risk of losing a considerable amount of good will.
Mr. Newton: It is certainly our aim—it was one of the reasons that led me to propose this course, because the way things were going it seemed that a lot of time would be spent on matters other than the debates on the principal issues to which my hon. Friend referred—to allow time for proper debates. Our intention and expectation is that the motion will provide for proper time in which to debate those matters.
Mr. Peter Snape: At what time did the Leader of the House take the disgraceful decision to guillotine the Bill, bearing in mind the fact that, at one stage during the debate, the only Conservative Back Bencher in the Chamber was the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and the only Minister was the Under-Secretary?
For those of us who care about the future of the railway industry, there is something deeply sickening about the fact that most of the Government Back Benchers can flock in at 10 o'clock to support the disgraceful guillotine, yet none could be here to take part in the debate. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Opposition are not filibustering, but that the shower on the Government benches are neglecting their duties?
Mr. Newton: The decision to table the timetable motion was taken as we saw the progress of debates and as we recognised the statistics. As I told the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), if this rate of progress continued, the House would still be debating the Bill in December.
Mr. Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who sat on the Committee can confirm that the Bill has been examined line by line, clause by clause—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members who want to be called must let the House hear what everyone has to say.
Mr. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East rarely turned up to the Committee, and that he slouched in and

123
slouched out? Is not his stunt tonight no more than another stunt to try to become the deputy leader of the Labour party?
Mr. Newton: I did not have the privilege of being a member of the Committee and I cannot testify to the hon. Gentleman's attendance record. However, the Bill has had 183 hours of debate here and in another place. That figure includes 109 hours in Standing Committee. There can be no question of a constitutional outrage following the amount of time that has been devoted to the Bill.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Leader of the House told my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that insufficient progress was being made on the Bill. Why is he not moving a motion that would allow business to proceed?
Will the Leader of the House tell the House what he has in mind for tomorrow? What time will he table the motion—presumably one must have been drafted—for the debate to finish and only outstanding votes be taken? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember a Bill in the early 1970s during progress on which considerable voting went on through the night on remaining motions to be taken?
Mr. Newton: The motion that I propose to table will provide for a further five hours of debate on the Bill.
Mr. Peter Luff: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a general welcome among Conservative Members for the decision to table a motion of this kind? I came to the House with high hopes of having a serious debate about the issues that were raised by the amendments, two of which were highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have been treated to nothing but a series of Second and Third Reading speeches?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose vies, I suspect, will be widely shared on the Government benches.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House tell the House the last time that 400 Lords amendments were brought in by the Government in a two-day debate in advance of a recess period of some 14 days between the prorogation of a Session and the Queen's Speech? Is it not possible to find some extra time during this week or early next week to give the Bill the consideration it surely deserves?
Mr. Newton: A substantial number of amendments have come here from another place, but the hon. Gentleman knows well that the vast majority are of a character that one could properly describe as technical.
We have sought to provide what we believe to be adequate time, taking account of the subject matter. I believe that we have allowed the longest period for Commons consideration of Lords amendments for about two years. I will resist the suggestion that inadequate time has been allowed. What has happened today is that adequate time has been misused to the detriment of proper discussions of the Bill.
Dr. John Marek: The Leader of the House has not been in the Chamber for all of today's debate. May I draw to his attention—I hope that he will accept the point
124
after consulting his right hon. and hon. Friends—that, on the penultimate set of amendments, only the Minister spoke, and that the amendments were accepted without Division?
Opposition Members were prepared formally to accept the amendments that we were debating at 10 o'clock, but the Minister said that they were important amendments, and spoke to them for five minutes. Does the Leader of the House accept that the Bill has been substantially rewritten, and that, although the changes might be matters of detail, they are matters of vital detail?
I hope that the guillotine motion that is tabled tomorrow will ensure that there is adequate time for debate. I hope that the Government will not try to wrap up the business by tomorrow night. I hope that you will use what influence you have, Madam Speaker, to resist that, as it would be intolerable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said, it would be a constitutional outrage if that were allowed to happen.
Mr. Newton: In response to the hon. Gentleman, I simply advert to the point that I have now made twice. At the rate of progress that was made on two amendments, neither of which were among the significant amendments referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, it would take a parliamentary month to complete consideration of the Bill.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Can we have from the Leader of the House the detailed terms of the timetable motion? Clearly he knows the details. Why not tell the House of Commons tonight? He said that there were two outstanding and crucial issues. What is the maximum time available tomorrow for debating those issues?
Mr. Newton: I have already said that the guillotine motion will provide for five hours of further debate. That time would be available for debating the issues to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that it will be possible tomorrow to debate the amendments which deal with pensions, and the so-called Peyton amendment referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone)? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the points made by the Opposition came from hon. Members who spent virtually no time in the Chamber during the debate this afternoon?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I repeat that, in my judgment, five hours is an appropriate and reasonable amount of time for the further debate required on the Bill.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind two factors? When two days were originally assigned for consideration of the Lords amendments, first, it was assumed that the Monday would be open-ended; and secondly, it was not thought that there would be a statement which would take more than one and a half hours and would cut into the debate. Surely even this Leader of the House must recognise that to use the tactic of the guillotine in this way at this time is a dangerous matter, and that he is fashioning a weapon that one day will be used against his side.
Mr. Newton: Might I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a Member I respect, that this is only the second such

125
motion that I have moved on a significant Government Bill; so I can hardly be accused of being slap-happy with timetable motions. I shall make a point that I made earlier in a slightly different form. I accept that there was a statement. Other things being equal, that would have made us more inclined to suspend the rule and continue with the debate this evening. However, we did not do so on the basis that the House took five hours to discuss two reasonably limited amendments.
Mr. Brian Wilson: The Leader of the House has repeatedly said that it took five hours to discuss two amendments. Will he confirm that that is the basis on which he made his judgment? In line with his apparent general ignorance of the Bill that he is guillotining, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on that factual point. We have not dealt with two amendments. We were dealing with the fifth group, and each included a large number of amendments. Is the Leader of the House aware of that or has he been given some nonsense to read to the House which is in direct contradiction of the reality?
Will the Leader of the House confirm that there has been absolutely no time-wasting? Despite his apparent ignorance of the subject that he is dealing with, does he regard the financing of Railtrack, the franchising procedure, the closure procedure and the access charging procedure, all of which we have already dealt with, as minor matters that should be waved through the House?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further confirm that, although we had many hours in Committee, we did not have a guillotine motion? There are 470 amendments from the other place which deal not with minor or technical matters but with major changes to employment rights, a right to bid and, above all, the pension rights of hundreds of thousands of people. They are major issues, not minor or technical ones. Can the Leader of the House confirm that we have had no time to debate the amendments, other than the four hours of debate this afternoon?
Finally, does he understand that it is well understood outside the House, especially when we are about to go on two weeks of unasked-for holiday from this place, that the Government are closing the debate on these matters because they fear debate on them? The body of opinion outside the House already regards the legislation as discredited and being rushed through the House by Ministers who base their actions on dogma and prejudice,and that impression will be confirmed by the disreputable action taken tonight.
Mr. Newton: So far as the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said is concerned, I made it clear that I was referring to the amount of time taken to discuss the first two groups of amendments, which was in the order of five hours. In our view, that meant that there would not be sensible and orderly debate on the remaining amendments in a way which would concentrate on the major issues. Our expectation and hope is that the timetable motion will enable that debate to take place.

Cervical Smears Inquiry (Greenock)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
10.21 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has a good voice, if he tries to use it. Come on!
Dr. Godman: I always use my voice properly, Madam Speaker, even when I am being reprimanded by your good self in that charming way.
I shall begin by asking the Minister a serious question because I could argue that I have been misled with regard to a request that I made to him. On Thursday, I asked him for a copy of the response of the Argyll and Clyde health board to the report into the cytology laboratory at the Inverclyde Royal hospital in Greenock. I have an idea that the copy that I received from his office is incomplete. My copy of this important report ends at paragraph 2·5.
I understand that section 3 of the report, which is a response to Dr. McGoogan's report, deals with such matters as discipline and the need for the hospital to be allowed to continue with its application for trust status. I do not believe that the hospital should be given trust status until certain serious concerns involving the management of the hospital are sorted out. I shall welcome the Minister's response to my comment about the incomplete copy of the report that I received from his office. It might have been a genuine mistake, but I am concerned that the report which I have ends abruptly at section 2 of that document.
The Minister and I are here to exchange views on the report of the inquiry into cervical cytopathology at the Inverclyde Royal hospital at Greenock. The four authors of the report are leading experts in their respective fields. They have produced a unanimous report, despite what some members of the health board would have us believe.
Although the Minister and I may disagree profoundly on various aspects of the report, I think that we are at one in our concern to ensure the restoration of public confidence, not only in Inverclyde Royal hospital in Greenock but in the national cervical smear test programme. I am sure he agrees that that confidence, which has taken about four decades to build up, was badly damaged by this scandalous affair at Inverclyde Royal hospital.
When the misreporting of smear test slides was first reported six or seven months ago, not only my constituents but those of my hon. Friends the Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) and those of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) were deeply dismayed at the board's admission that something had gone terribly wrong. We all have a duty to restore public confidence in the hospital and to restore the morale of its staff.
However, we should not allow this scandalous affair to be swept under the carpet. Ten days ago, Mr. Robert Reid, the chairman of the Argyll and Clyde health board, urged us all to set this unfortunate incident behind us. Mr. Reid's "unfortunate incident" was described to me by an angry,

127
distressed woman constituent as "this bloody scandal." That is a graphic but accurate description, while Mr. Reid's description is in itself unfortunate.
Thousands of smear test slides were misread by hospital employees who, as the report states in page 56, paragraph 6.25 worked
"in a laboratory which was known to have been over-worked, under-staffed, antiquated and isolated."
Senior medical staff and senior health board officials knew that, but nothing was done about it.
In our surgeries women constituents have told us about having to go back for fresh smear tests. Some of them had to undergo hospital treatment. Is that the way to run a hospital? Is no one to be disciplined over this affair?
The Minister knows that the bruising of local confidence in the hospital was exacerbated by a recently highly contentious and controversial television programme about the hospital. In the interests of patients and hospital staff, we need an independent inquiry into the management of the hospital. That view is shared by many of my constituents and others elsewhere in Inverclyde.
Last week I received a letter from a young woman employee at the hospital. The letter states:
"The recent incidents which have resulted in bringing Inverclyde Royal under the public spotlight have further demoralised staff and undermined patient care. At the IRH all staff regret this.
Only full independent investigations into all areas of concern will restore public and staff disquiet."
I am quoting accurately, but I think that the young woman means that such investigations will restore public and staff confidence in the hospital. The letter continues:
"One welcome first step is the decision to refer surgical procedures to the Royal College of Surgeons."
That young employee is referring to a decision by the Argyll and Clyde health board to invite members of the Royal College of Surgeons in Glasgow to conduct an inquiry into surgical services at the hospital in response to the television programme. I understand that the president of the college, Professor Donald Campbell, declined the invitation on the ground that such an investigation was impossible to conduct unless it was properly constituted. I quote from the Greenock Telegraph of 27 October:
"In my view an independent inquiry would lead to the hospital being given a clean bill of health."
Mr. John McFall: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend told me prior to the debate that he wished to contribute, but in the hurly-burly at the start of my remarks I forgot to ask the Minister for his agreement to that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart)indicated assent.
Dr. Godman: I ask my hon. Friend to be brief.
Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend will be aware that, in my constituency last year, 1,000 smear tests were sent to the Inverclyde Royal hospital. Does he agree that the public will be satisfied only if some disciplinary action is taken at board level?
On Friday 5 April last year, I had an interview with the district manager of my hospital. He subsequently told me that at that time he had known of the problem with the smear tests, but had decided not to convey that information
128
to me, the Member of Parliament. Instead, he waited a month before doing so. Does my hon. Friend agree that the procedures within the board are wrong and that something has to be done—and the Minister must undertake it—so that public confidence can be restored?
Dr. Godman: I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, this sorry affair, which has caused so much distress and anxiety among so many women in Inverclyde and elsewhere, should not be seen merely as an unfortunate incident that is now behind us. One question that I wish to put to the Minister, which has been prompted by my reading of the report, is what procedures exist to enable senior managers and, indeed, the Scottish Office to monitor the wrongful, careless or neglectful conduct of senior consultants and, just as important in such a matter, senior hospital administrators. Are those people above discipline? They certainly appear to be above resignation.
I have the greatest respect for the doctors, nurses and ancillary employees at the hospital, the overwhelming majority of whom provide a superb service for their patients. However, there are serious problems with the management of the hospital, and that needs to be examined. I therefore repeat my first question: what procedures exist to allow for the vigorous examination of inappropriate, careless or neglectful conduct by senior consultants, medical administrators or health board officials?
I want to ask the Minister a number of questions, to some of which I have already alerted his staff. Dr. McGoogan and her colleagues say on page 9 of their report:
"The high false negative rate is not the responsibility of one individual alone but can be attributed to deficiencies in … the approach of the Argyll and Clyde Health Board to cervical screening"
and to
"the staffing and operation of the laboratory."
In no way do I want a witch hunt of the two individual senior medical people who have direct responsibility. The ultimate responsibility rests with senior management and the board.
On the question of discipline, I accept what the Minister of State, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, said when I demanded the resignation of the chairman of the board and other disciplinary measures. He wrote:
"As to disciplinary action against senior staff this is a matter solely for the Board. You will appreciate that the Secretary of State could have an appellate role where senior staff are concerned and it would be inappropriate for me to offer any further comment."
However, we should not allow Ministers to make that sort of statement without conducting some sort of investigation and seeking some response from the board about disciplinary measures.
Paragraph 4.8.7 on pages 31 and 32 of the report states:
"As at 25th August 1993, one hundred and fifty-two women with results other than negative"—
in other words, with results other than normal—
"and seven hundred and forty-four women with normal results remain untraced."
I am deeply concerned about that former group—those whose smear tests displayed some form of abnormality but who had not been traced as late as the end of August. What is the Scottish Office doing by way of urging the health board to take every measure to locate each and every one of those 152 women? Naturally it is my hope, and I am sure of all hon. Members present, that each and every one of them will be given a clean bill of health.

129
The board, assisted by the Scottish Office, must make every effort to trace those women. If the Minister can say tonight that they have been traced and cleared, no one will be happier than me. Some of those women could be in danger and they must be traced.
Similarly, it is essential that the 744 women with normal results come forward for proper smear tests. I am sure that I have the Minister's support in that matter.
It appears that the board was less than helpful to Dr. McGoogan and her colleagues. The Minister may dispute that, but paragraph 5.2.5 on pages 34 and 35 of the report states:
"A request was made for smears to be rescreened and for the histology reports and slides to be reviewed at Inverclyde Royal Hospital to verify the diagnosis and stage of the disease. Despite repeated requests, the information does not link the date and stage of diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer to previous smear reports from these individual women."
I hope that the Minister will address that aspect.
Despite all the criticisms levelled against Dr. Stanworth, paragraph 6.4 of the report states:
"Dr. Stanworth's diligence was also apparent in her willingness to work long hours often without remuneration and at the expense of her own private life."
That individual was engaged in incredibly onerous and difficult work. Together with the Minister for Health, I spent half a day in Dr. McGoogan's laboratory and received some indication of the difficult nature of the work. Dr. Stanworth was working for the health board unpaid—that is how the board treated that loyal servant.
As to acceptance by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and by other Ministers in the Scottish Office of the report's recommendations, the Under-Secretary of State stated last Thursday, in answer to a written question of mine, that he and his colleagues accepted the seven recommendations directed at the Scottish Office.
Perhaps the Minister will say something about the need rapidly to implement the recommendation in paragraph 6.36 on page 60 of the report for a
"national health education programme to improve understanding of the benefits of regular screening."
The Scottish Office has accepted that. At Thursday's sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee, I said how pleased my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde and I were with the many courtesies shown to us by the Minister. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend—who has many thousands of constituents involved in this sorry affair—will agree that we need a national health education programme.
I know that difficulties are involved in bringing the various specialists together; but it seems to me that such a programme is needed, in the light of what has happened at Inverclyde Royal hospital and, more recently, the taking of smear tests in Gateshead and elsewhere in England. It is needed to persuade women to return to the smear-test programme. Confidence has taken a battering. I hope that the Minister will spend a moment or two replying to that question.
Mr. Thomas Graham: As my hon. Friend knows, there has been much concern about the problem, and about the lack of confidence experienced by many women in our area. It is important for the Government to recognise that, and to provide enough money to persuade women to ensure that they do not miss tests but follow them up and have
130
confidence in them. I am also worried—as I know my hon. Friend is—that clinicians seem to be getting out of some of the accusations scot free.
Dr. Godman: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
I am sure that the Minister will support what I am going to say now. The cervical smear test programme is very important in its own right. Cervical cancer is easily detectable in its precursor stage and it is essential that women's confidence in the programme is restored. I hope that every hon. Member supports me in that view.
10.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on obtaining an Adjournment debate on a subject that is of great importance to his constituents, but whose wider importance is shown clearly by the attendance of my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).
I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said about the importance of reassuring women—not just in the Inverclyde area, but nationally—about the smear test programme. Because time is limited, I will not go into the details of the background to the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State. As the hon. Member knows, the inquiry was announced under the independent chairmanship of Dr. McGoogan on 28 April. Its findings were made public, and—as I will explain to the House—are being implemented.
I hope that the House will agree that, by announcing that independent inquiry, the Government demonstrated that they wished to move quickly to explain the position to the general public and to offer the reassurances whose importance hon. Members have rightly emphasised.
I am happy to reassure the House that, as at this date,
none of the women concerned were found to have invasive cancer. I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about the stress of the exercise, but I hope that the House will be reassured by that outcome.
I am sure that the House will accept that the inquiry team completed its task despite a demanding time scale, beginning work in early May and publishing its report on 9 September. The report has been widely distributed throughout Scotland, the United Kingdom and worldwide. As hon. Members know, a copy was placed in the Library.
The report should reassure women in Scotland of, first, the health benefits of regular smear testing and, secondly, that implementation of the recommendations will reinforce the already high standard of the screening programme in Scotland.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Stewart: I shall give way, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate the pressure on time.
Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister give the time scale within which the recommendations will be implemented?
Mr. Stewart: I give the hon. Lady the general assurance that the Government are determined to ensure that progress on implementation proceeds as quickly as circumstances will allow, with continual monitoring of progress. May I spell out what that means in detail?
The report's recommendations fall into three main categories—those directed at the Scottish Office Home and Health Department, those directed at the health board and those directed at its laboratories. The aim is to implement these as quickly as practicable. The process involves consultations and discussions with professional bodies, health bodies and trusts on the details.
Of the seven recommendations directed to the Scottish Office Home and Health Department, we have already announced that we shall set up a central co-ordinating unit for cervical screening on similar lines to that in place for the Scottish breast cancer screening programme. That will be funded centrally, at an estimated cost of£100,000 per annum. There is a guarantee on the future of the proficiency testing scheme, which costs an estimated£20,000 per annum and is an important element in maintaining standards of smear testing in all NHS laboratories.
We are preparing and will issue guidance to health boards, trusts and their laboratories on proposals in respect of training, staffing—including grading and staffing levels—health education and the rationalisation of laboratories.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked in particular about health education. I confirm that discussions have already taken place with the Health Education Board for Scotland on promoting a national health education programme to improve awareness of the benefits of regular cervical screening. The results of the discussions will be reported to the House in due course.
We are now working to finalise the membership of the working groups, which will address quality control and guidelines for training techniques in smear taking, staffing and the rationalisation of laboratories. The handling of perceived reporting discrepancies, as I told the Scottish
132
Grand Committee, will be looked at in the light of the report of the Calman committee, which was set up following the problem in Birmingham.
On the recommendations directed to the board and its laboratories, the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow will know that the health boards set up a task force headed by a senior health board member. It has produced an interim report, and a formal report was submitted on 27 October to the chief executive of the management executive. He is studying its contents and will closely monitor implementation.
I confirm that the board has already implemented the recommendations which ensure that monitoring and evaluation include the comparison of statistical returns and an audit of the screening history of all new cases of squamous carcinoma of the cervix and that all aspects of quality assurance are exercised in the laboratory and funded accordingly. The board has confirmed that it will make provision for continuing education for technical and medical staff of non-training grades and that a person in each hospital should ascertain that all staff make use of it.
The board accepts all but two of the remaining recommendations directed at it and proposes to implement them once a further investigation of possible options and alternatives has been fully carried out by a health board working group. The board considers that the two recommendations will require a longer period of implementation but they have been accepted by the board.
I am aware that, in the time available, I have not answered every detailed question asked by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, but I assure him that I shall write to him with those detailed answers. I shall, however, respond to the very important question about the number of women still to be traced. There are 69 women still to be traced, 53 of whom are thought to be in the United States. The board is liaising closely with the United States' authorities and following up addresses of women and their relatives elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Packaging
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make representations to the European Community to secure that the European directive on packaging and packaging waste is amended(a) to include reference to measures to encourage the use of reusable packaging, (b) to delete arbitrary assertions of equivalence and to secure that priority is given to source reduction, reuse and recycling in that order and (c) to ensure that consumer information and labelling distin-guishes packaging for which there is an established recycling route;

  (2) if he will make representations to the European Community to secure the inclusion of a timetable for the reduction of waste at source within the European directive on packaging and packaging waste;

  (3) if he will make representations to the European Community to ensure that those parts of the proposed directive on packaging and packaging waste setting standards for packaging systems are also applied to packaging exported from member states to non-EC countries;

  (4) if he will make representations to the European Community to secure that information submitted under article 8 and annex III of the European directive on packaging and packaging waste includes information on toxic substances;

  (5) if he will make representations to the European Community to secure that the European directive on packaging and packaging waste is amended to include (a) specific targets for the recycling of collected material, (b) targets for reuse and source reduction and (c) measures to increase the proportion of recycled materials used in packaging.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government support the proposed directive as a means of harmonising the basis on which member states take measures relating to packaging and packaging waste, in order to avoid distortion to competition and restrictions to trade. We also see the proposal as environmentally beneficial. We have argued strongly for the directive to establish broad targets which are both realistic and challenging and for it to contain sufficient flexibility for individual member states to choose the waste management option which makes most sense in the light of local circumstance.

  The directive proposed by the Commission establishes an overall target for the recovery of waste packaging and sets out specific targets for material recycling. The Government accept the concept of a waste management hierarchy which covers reduction, re-use, recycling and energy recovery and final disposal, in that order, but do not believe that it makes environmental or economic sense to impose it rigidly in all cases. There will be some
  2
  circumstances where the economic and environmental considerations point to an option towards the bottom of the hierarchy. We therefore oppose the incorporation of a rigid hierarchy in the directive and the inclusion of specific targets or timetables for individual aspects of the hierarchy. These could prevent the choice of the most appropriate option in individual cases. We believe that it would be more sensible to adopt a general target for recovery and allow local decisions on what constitutes the best combination of management options in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

  The proposed directive also establishes a regime of essential requirements with which packaging must conform and ensures free circulation for packaging which conforms with the requirements. It requires the creation of mechanisms to ensure that suitable information is provided so that consumers and producers can contribute to the attainment of its objectives and to assist in compliance monitoring. We believe that it is essential for those mechanisms, relating either to the marking of packaging material to the provision of information to consumers, or to providing data for monitoring performance against the directive's objectives, to be as simple and clear as possible. They should take into account other national or EC legislation dealing, for example, with safety, performance or quality issues. Furthermore these requirements should be established in a manner which facilitates trade within the European Community and with other countries and takes account of the need for standards to be set in a world-wide context.

  We believe that the pragmatic approach we have adopted during the negotiation of the directive has support among many of our EC partners and that many of our concerns are being taken on board. There remain significant difficulties with the amended proposal and we will be continuing to press for further changes before we can consider the text to be acceptable; we do, however, believe that the negotiations are going in the right direction and that we now have the foundations for a successful outcome.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans the Government have to make all providers of social housing statutorily responsible for providing accommodation for the homeless; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  In a reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 21 October,Official Report, column 281, I said that the Government propose to reform the homelessness legislation. We will be consulting about our proposals in due course.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the anti-pollution equipment that is installed at the(a) Ince, Merseyside and,(b) Richborough, Kent power stations.

  Mr. Yeo
  Both power stations are currently fitted with electrostatic precipitators to reduce emissions of par-ticulate matter to atmosphere. In respect of other emissions, the authorisations recently issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution require the operator to provide, by 1 April 1994, an improvement plan using
  3
  BATNEEC—best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—to bring the stations up to the standards appropriate for new plant.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to rescinding the order to burn orimulsion at the(a) Ince, Merseyside and (b) Richborough, Kent power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires the inclusion of conditions in authorisations designed to prevent or minimise pollution of the environment and prohibits HMIP from granting an authorisation unless it is satisfied that an operator will be able to comply with such conditions.

  Authorisations allowing the burning of orimulsion at these power stations were issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on 30 July 1993. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no reason to believe that they were not granted in accordance with the requirements of the Act and has no plans therefore to direct that they should be revoked.

  Carbon Emissions
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of how far the duties and powers of the Director General of Gas Supply are sufficient duties to enable the post to assist the Government fully in achieving their declared international commitments on carbon emission reductions.

  Mr. Yeo
  Using his existing powers as prescribed by the Gas Act 1986, the Director General of Gas Supply has introduced changes to the gas supply tariff formula—the "E factor"—which have already permitted funding of two initial energy efficiency schemes of Energy Saving Trust. The trust's target of achieving, through energy efficiency measures, annual fuel savings equivalent to 2.5 million tonnes carbon emissions by 2000 will form an important part of the Government's national programme on CO2 emissions.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those councils whose tenants have voted in favour of a new approved landlord from the private sector; what is the number and value of the properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The tenants of 30 local authorities have voted in favour of the large scale voluntary transfer of the ownership of all or most of their council's housing stock to registered housing associations. Of these, the following 23 councils have already transferred all or most of their stock:

  Number of dwellings transferred

  Transfer price £ million

  Breckland DC

  6,781

  60.2

  Broadland DC

  3,721

  25.1

  London Borough of Bromley

  12,393

  117.6

  Chiltern DC

  4,650

  32.9

  Christchurch DC

  1,621

  15.4

  East Cambridgeshire DC

  4,266

  31.5

  4

  Number of dwellings transferred

  Transfer price £ million

  East Dorset DC

  2,245

  21.6

  Hambleton DC

  4,268

  33.5

  Medina DC

  2,825

  27.9

  Mid Sussex DC

  4,426

  44.2

  Newbury DC

  7,053

  47.0

  North Bedfordshire DC

  7,472

  64.3

  Rochester upon Medway DC

  8,029

  77.0

  Ryedale DC

  3,353

  28.3

  Sevenoaks DC

  6,526

  65.5

  South Buckinghamshire DC

  3,319

  34.0

  South Wight DC

  2,119

  22.8

  Suffolk Coastal DC

  5,272

  34.0

  Surrey Heath DC

  2,885

  28.7

  Swale DC

  7,352

  55.2

  Tonbridge and Mailing DC

  6,382

  54.4

  Tunbridge Wells DC

  5,519

  58.1

  West Dorset DC

  5,279

  40.3

  The remaining seven councils listed below have not yet transferred their stock, but are expected to submit applications to do so by the end of March 1994:

  Number of dwellings to be transferred

  Epsom and Ewell DC

  1,773

  Hart DC

  2,504

  Havant DC

  3,587

  Hertsmere DC

  6,383

  Leominster DC

  1,874

  Penwith DC

  3,413

  South Ribble DC

  3,600

  The transfer price for these dwellings is not yet known.

  In addition, tenants in the City of Westminster and London borough of Merton have voted in favour of two tenants' choice transfers involving a total of 830 dwellings. In both of these cases the stock had a negative value, and a disposal cost was paid to the new approved landlord.

  The progress of the large-scale voluntary transfer programme is very encouraging. Large-scale voluntary transfer can bring advantages to existing and future tenants, local authorities and council tax payers and I would like to see a continuing programme in future. There are also a number of tenants' choice transfers in the pipeline, four of which are well advanced.

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 25 October,Official Report, column 414, whether the Local Government Commission requested at any stage a variation in his direction on the North Yorkshire review to include the West Craven area of Lancashire.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Elections, Avon
  Dr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects that elections will be held for the new unitary authorities in Avon.

  Mr. Baldry
  Decisions about the implementation date for any changes to local government structure in Avon are dependent on the nature of the Local Government Commission's final recommendations for the area. We
  5
  expect the Commission to make its final report on Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset to my right hon. Friend in January 1994.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Peter Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits and running costs limit for 1993–94.

  Mr. Gummer
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  (i) the cash limit for Class VII, Vote 5 (Central Environmental Services etc.) will be increased by £663,000 from £390,673,000 to £391,336,000. The increase provides for the transfer of responsibility for the Oslo Commission from MAFF to DoE, for additional resources for the Environmental Action Fund, for additional grant in aid for the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board, for additional provision for Energy Efficiency, and for additional expenditure on the Environmental Protection research programme;

  (ii) the cash limit for Class VII, Vote 8 (Revenue Support Grant, payments of non-domestic rates, Valuation Office Services, etc., England) will be decreased by £54,000 from £28,808,833,000 to £28,808,779,000. This reflects the transfer of savings from the Valuation Tribunals subhead to Class VII, Vote 12, subhead D1: Emergency financial assistance to local authorities;

  (iii) The DoE/UA non-voted cash limit will be increased by £33,765,000 from £962,907,000 to £996,672,000. Capital End-Year Flexibility take up of £28,255,000 will fund Docklancls Light Railway, deferred Local Authority claims for City Challenge and other deferred claims for Derelict Land Grant. Increases totalling £47,814,000 are necessary to establish the Urban Regeneration Agency, to cover additional expenditure on the Manchester Olympic Bid and for Urban Development Corporations to carry out redevelopment and reclamation work.

  These increases will be offset by savings, transfers, and retained PES and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  PSA Businesses
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to make to the cash limit on the sale of the PSA Businesses vote in 1993–94.

  Mr. Curry
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class VII, vote 13 will be increased by £38,950,000 from £401,000 to £39,351,000. The increase will not constitute a claim on the Reserve as it will be netted off the proceeds from the Government's privatisation programme.

  The provision is sought mainly to fund the subscription of shares and other expenses in connection with the sale of the five building management businesses to the private sector during September and October 1993; partly offset by an increase in receipts representing that part of the proceeds of sale payable in 1993–94.

  Landfill Waste
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amendments Her Majesty's Government have proposed to the draft proposal of the European Commission for a Council directive on the landfill of waste.
  6
  Mr. Yeo
  The draft proposal for a Council directive on the landfill of waste was introduced by the European Commission in May 1991. An amended proposal was produced in June this year following the European Parliament's opinion. The present proposal was drawn up before the principle of subsidiarity was strengthened in the Maastricht treaty and endorsed at the Edinburgh Council and is very detailed and prescriptive. That principle requires that Community legislation deals only with issues that can be better attained at the level of the Community than at the level of individual member states. Accordingly the proposed directive fails the subsidiarity test.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the European Community directive on the landfill of waste will be implemented.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Belgian presidency of the European Community is giving priority to the draft proposal for a Council directive on the landfill of waste. Considerable negotiations lie ahead and it is not yet clear when Council will be able to agree a common position. The present draft requires member states to take the necessary steps to comply with the directive within one year of its notification.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he currently considers to be the best environmental disposal option for large items of bulky decommissioning waste such as nuclear submarine reactor compartments.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government's position was set out in the White Paper, "This Common Inheritance" (Cm. 1200). This said that the Government had not ruled out sea disposal for large items such as boilers, but would keep under review whether this disposal option needed to be maintained. Decommissioning wastes from nuclear-propelled submarines are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Methane
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been carried out into methane migration at(a) open and (b) closed waste rubbish tips (i) in England and Wales, (ii) the London borough of Havering, (iii) the borough of Thurrock and (iv) the district of Basildon.

  Mr. Yeo
  Work on the phenomenon of methane migration from landfill sites has been an integral part of the Department's controlled waste management and contami-nated land research programmes for many years. Projects have ranged from theoretical modelling, through laboratory work, to site monitoring and investigation. The aim of this work is to provide an improved understanding of landfill gas generation and migration as support for the Department's technical guidance on best practice for gas monitoring and control. None of the research work has been carried out at sites in Havering, Thurrock and Basildon.

  Research on methane is also carried out in a programme of work managed by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association jointly funded by the Department and industry.

  Housing, Lancashire
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing association properties have been built in each local authority area in Lancashire over the last three years for(a) general need and (b) sheltered housing; and how many properties have been acquired by housing associations and renovated for renting over the same period.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 22 October 1993]: Estimates of the total numbers of housing association housebuilding completions within each local authority area in Lancashire are shown in the publication "Local Housing Statistics", table 1. Figures for 1990 are in issue No. 101 and for 1991 and 1992 are in issue No. 105.

  The Department collects information about specialised housing for the elderly, including sheltered dwellings. Figures of sheltered housebuilding completions for housing associations within individual local authority areas are also shown in "Local Housing Statistics". Annual data for 1990 and 1991 are in issues Nos. 99 (table 10) and 102 (table 11) respectively. Figures for 1992 are to be published shortly in issue No. 106.

  Figures for numbers of housing association dwellings which were renovated with local authority loans are shown in "Local Housing Statistics". Figures for 1990 are in issue No. 101 (table 4) and for 1991 and 1992 in issue No. 105 (table 3). The figures for dwellings renovated with funding from the Housing Corporation are not readily available.

  Local Government Reform
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the sums committed by(a) county councils and (b) other local authorities in England and Wales on representations about the proposed reform of local government.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: This is a matter for authorities themselves; we have no information on which to base an estimate for England. Local government reorganisation in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Abandoned Coal Mines
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with British Coal and the National Rivers Authority about pollution from abandoned coal mines.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: There have been discussions and exchanges of information between my officials and those of the NRA, and between the chairman of the NRA and myself. It is for British Coal in consultation with the NRA to assess any environmental effects of pollution from abandoned mines.

  Mineral Planning Guidance Note
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the new draft mineral planning guidance note 3.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: I intend to publish the new draft minerals planning guidance note 3 for public consultation as soon as possible.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Archaeological Site, Bedfordshire
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the decision not to prosecute the person caught plundering an archaeological site west of Bedford in June this year.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has no knowledge of any case in 1993 in which the CPS has been asked to consider the prosecution of any person for any offence under the Theft Act 1968 or under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 in respect of theft from, or damage to, an archaeological site. A case of this nature which the hon. and learned Member may have in mind was considered in 1991, but no sufficient admissible and reliable evidence was available to found a prosecution.

TRANSPORT

  Nuclear Transport
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding the risks of transporting nuclear materials by air, land or sea.

  Mr. Norris
  During this month my Department has received two questions and three letters from Members of the House of Commons, and four letters from other bodies on the transport of radioactive materials.

  M62
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received in relation to his proposals for the M62 relief road; and how many such representations have been in favour and how many against.

  Mr. Key
  On 29 October 732 completed comment sheets, 175 letters and 650 printed pro-formas had been received so far. Most expressed concern about the proposals.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold a public inquiry into all methods of reducing traffic congestion on the M62 motorway.

  Mr. Key
  If the scheme goes ahead following the public consultation a public inquiry would be held at which alternative solutions would be debated.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many years after completion of the proposed M62 relief road it is expected that traffic flows will have reached capacity levels on(a) the proposed M62 relief road and (b) the M62 motorway.

  Mr. Key
  I expect the design capacity of the M62 motorway to be reached again 15 years after the opening of the relief road. It will be some years after that before the relief road reaches its design capacity.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what economic appraisal he has made of the proposed M62 relief road using the cost-benefit technique COBA9; and if he will publish the appraisal during the public consultation process ending in February 1994.
  9
  Mr. Key
  The Department used its standard methodology to produce an economic appraisal for the relief road. This was published as part of the documents available at the consultation exhibition.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average daily traffic flow on the M62 motorway at junction 17.

  Mr. Key
  A total of 123,400 vehicles per day based on 1992 figures.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what average daily traffic flow is forecast for the M62 in the opening year of the proposed M62 relief road.

  Mr. Key
  Average daily traffic flow forecast for M62, between junctions 15 and 17, in the opening year of the relief road is:

  low growth—105,600 vehicles per day

  high growth—126,000 vehicles per day

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Transport to what extent the public and elected representatives at local and national level have been consulted over the traffic congestion on the M62 motorway and on possible methods of reducing that congestion other than the proposed M62 relief road.

  Mr. Key
  Local authorities and others were consulted last year on options for improving transport links across the Pennines. The Options, identified in a study commissioned from consultants, were published in the document "Trans-Pennine Study: Strategy Report".

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what average daily traffic flow is forecast for the proposed M62 relief road in the opening year.

  Mr. Key
  Average daily traffic flow forecast for opening year is:—

  Vehicles per day

  Low growth

  63,000

  High growth

  75,200

  Jet.Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Transport if he will make a statement on(a) the certification requirements and (b) the pilot qualification requirements for persons seeking to operate former military fast jet aircraft on the United Kingdom civil register.

  Mr. Norris
  Aircraft certification requirements and pilot qualification requirements are matters for the Civil Aviation Authority in the first instance. I have therefore passed the hon. Member's question to the chairman of the authority and asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all accidents to civil-registered former military fast jet aircraft on the United Kingdom register, since 1980, giving in each case an indication of the number of injuries or fatalities and the cause of the accidents.
  10
  Mr. Norris
  The records of the Civil Aviation Authority's safety data and analysis unit show that since 1980 there has only been one accident involving a civil registered former military fast jet aircraft on the United Kingdom register. This accident was that which occurred on 11 June 1993 to a Hawker Hunter T7, near Sheffield.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the accident to a civil-registered Hunter T7 aircraft in the Peak district on 13 June.

  Mr. Norris
  The accident in which a Hawker Hunter T7 crashed in open country northwest of Sheffield, Yorkshire, occurred on 11 June 1993. The only fatality was that of the pilot who died in the crash. My Department's air accident investigation branch carried out a field investigation and has produced a report of this incident. Its analysis suggests that there had been no failure of the aircraft or its systems to explain the accident. There was, however, bad weather on the route of the flight.

  A copy of the AAIB's report (AAIB Bulletin No. 10/93 —Ref: EW/C93/6/4) is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Road Improvement, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each of the current road improvement programmes covering the Greater London area that qualify for Government funding.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government are responsible for funding the trunk road improvement programme and provide support for local authority road improvement programmes of more than local significance.

  In addition, the Traffic Director for London receives Government funding for the development of the priority (red) route initiative.

  M25
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake a study of delays to traffic on the M25 motorway(a) distinguishing the causes of all delays over a period of at least three months and (b) indicating approximate vehicle or person-hours occasioned by each cause of delay.

  Mr. Key
  We carry out continuous monitoring of traffic flows and delays on the M25. This information contributes to cost benefit assessments of improvements to the route.

  Harwich-Fishguard Link
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the proposed corridor linking Harwich with Fishguard to be funded in part by the European Community; and whether this will involve the lengthening or enhancing of the M50.

  Mr. Key
  A route between Harwich and Fishguard forms part of the trans-European road network that has now been agreed within the European Community. The M50 is not part of this route, but it is part of the M4—A449 — A40—M50—M5 TERN route between South Wales and the west midlands. Its inclusion in the network does not involve any lengthening or enhancement.

  Unleaded Fuel
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will update the answer to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) of 25 February,Official Report, columns 692–93, relating to unleaded fuel and catalytic converters.

  Mr. Key
  All new cars manufactured since 1 October 1990 have had to be capable of running on unleaded petrol. Of the 1.927 million tonnes of petrol sold in the month of September 1993 53.7 per cent. was unleaded. The number and proportion of older cars converted to use unleaded petrol is unknown. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimates that there are some 2.5 to 3 million cars that cannot be converted out of a total petrol car fleet of some 21 million. Since 31 December 1992 nearly all new petrol-engined cars have been fitted with catalysts. The total number of catalyst car sales to the end of September 1993 was approximately 2.31 million or some 10 per cent. of the total car fleet. The number of car owners who have had a catalyst fitted to their vehicle is unknown, but is estimated to be negligible.

  Exhaust Emissions, Wales
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number and location of vehicle exhaust emissions testing points in Wales.

  Mr. Key
  Statutory in-service emission checks on HGVs and PSVs are carried out at the eight vehicle inspectorate testing stations in Wales and at 17 testing stations which are designated for the purposes of testing PSVs. Statutory in-service emission checks on other classes of vehicle are carried out at all 1,132 MOT testing stations in Wales. I will write to the hon. Member with details of the locations.

  East Coast Main Line
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposal has been submitted to his Department for the opening of passenger stations on the east coast main line in Berwickshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  None, but such proposals would not necessarily need the approval of my Department.

  Thurrock Service Area
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what geological surveys were made in relation to the site of the Thurrock service area serving the M25 prior to its construction; and to what extent methane or similar gases were found on the site or in the immediate location.

  Mr. Key
  The Department was aware that part of the Thurrock motorway service area site had previously been used for landfill waste and studies carried out before bids were invited for its development confirmed the presence of both methane and carbon dioxide. Further studies were carried out by the selected developer before construction began to determine the best method of treatment.

  The Department took expert advice, and consulted the relevant authorities, before approving the landfill gas control system and the associated monitoring equipment now installed at the site. The safety of service area users is
  12
  of paramount importance and the control and monitoring procedures are therefore subject to regular review. I am satisfied that these arrangements provide adequate protection for MSA staff and users.

  Taxis, London
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that the right of London's taxis to ply freely for hire at railway stations serving London commuters will be maintained following rail privatisation.

  Mr. Norris
  Following privatisation, British Rail stations will be owned by the new body, Railtrack, which will remain in the public sector for some time. There are no plans to change the Act of 1907 which gives taxis free access to stations within the Metropolitan police district, but this is one of the topics discussed in the consultation paper on the future of taxi and private hire services which was published on 27 October.

  A38
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when it is intended work should start on the Dobwalls bypass section of the A38 trunk road improvement between Liskeard and Bodmin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Construction of the A38 Liskeard to Bodmin improvement scheme, including a bypass for Dobwalls, could start in the latter part of the decade, depending upon satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures and the availability of funds at the time.

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it is his intention to give further consideration to a route option through the Glynn valley as part of the consultation procedures for the A38 trunk road improvement between Liskeard and Bodmin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We are considering all the responses to the supplementary public consultation on this scheme, including suggestions for an alternative route through the Glynn valley. We hope to announce the preferred solution shortly.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many civil servants are working in his Department's offices at 2 Marsham street.

  Mr. Norris
  According to the Department's com-puterised staff record, 1,352 Department of Transport staff are currently employed in 2 Marsham street.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Privatisation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales that are now being considered by his Department for possible privatisation.

  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.
  13
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 1 November 1993:

  PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT IN PRISONS
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the prisons in England and Wales that are now being considered for possible privatisation.
  On 2 September 1993 the Home Secretary announced that 10 per cent. of prisons, about 12, are to be managed by the private sector. This total includes the two already operated by the private sector, the new prison at Doncaster, which is due to open next year, and the six new prisons the building of which was announced on 6 October. About three prisons currently managed directly by the Prison Service will therefore need to be brought under private sector management following a market testing programme. As indicated at the time of the September policy announcement, no decision has yet been taken on which prisons will be market tested.

  Prisoner Support Groups
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the role of voluntary family support groups in respect of the enhancement of family-prisoner links and the successful resettlement of prisoners on release;

  (2) how much money and what proportion of the prison service budget was allocated in (a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c) 1993 to fund prisoners' families support groups.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the prison service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 1 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the role of voluntary support groups in enhancing prisoners' family links, and about the amount and proportion of the Prison Service Budget which has been allocated to prisoners' family support groups in the years 1991 to 1993 inclusive.
  The Prison Service gives a high priority towards helping prisoners to maintain close and meaningful links with their families which will help them to resettle in the community on release. We recognise that prisoners' family support groups can play an extremely valuable part in this process.
  There is no provision in the Prison Service Vote for making regular grants to these voluntary groups. However, over the two most recently completed financial years the Minister of State has authorised one-off payments totalling £75,000 to assist groups in exceptional circumstances.

  Driving Bans
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many lifetime driving bans were imposed by the courts in the years 1991 and 1992; and for what offences.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information required is published in "Offences relating to motor vehicles England and Wales 1991 Supplementary tables", tables 13 and 14. A copy of this publication can be found in the Library.

  The figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Hit and Run Offences
  Mr. Gerrrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded incidents of hit and run offences involving injury or death occurred in 1991 and 1992; and in how many cases the driver was not subsequently traced.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Prisoner Transfers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been transferred(a) temporarily and (b) permanently from prisons in England and Wales to prisons in Scotland in each of the past 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 A. J. Butler to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 1 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners transferred to Scotland.
  The number of prisoners permanently and temporarily transferred to Scotland, under sections 26 and 27 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 in the last three years were as follows:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993

  Temporary

  19

  18

  20

  13

  Permanent

  13

  19

  18

  9

  1 End of September.

  Pregnant Prisoners
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pregnant women were on remand or serving prison sentences in each year since 1987.

  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 Derek Lewis to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 1 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of pregnant women who were on remand or serving prison sentences in each year since 1987.
  I am afraid that the information you have requested is not available. As you will know from my reply to you on another Question we do know the number of pregnancies which result in a birth during the time a prisoner is on remand or serving a sentence. But we do not know, for example, the number of women prisoners who are pregnant when they are received into custody but are released before their pregnancy has come to term. A women may choose to keep the fact of her pregnancy confidential between her and the doctor. There is no requirement, nor would it be possible, for central records of pregnancies to be kept.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women gave birth while serving a prison sentence or on remand in each of the past five years.
  15
  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 Derek Lewis to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 1 November 1993:
  Births to Women Serving Prison Sentences or on Remand The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of women who have given birth while serving a prison sentence or on remand in each of the past five years.
  The annual reports on the work of the Prison Service record the number of women temporarily removed to outside hospitals for delivery and returning to establishments afterwards. The figures are:

  Number

  1987–88

  75

  1988–89

  63

  1989–90

  74

  1990–91

  65

  1991–92

  56

  In addition there were three deliveries within Prison Service establishments, one in 1987–1988 and two in 1988–1989. We have no records of births having taken place in establishments in recent years.

  Sunrise and sunset times Current British summer time arrangements

  21 December 1993

  1994 GMT plus 1 hour from 27 March to 23 October March

  GMT

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Lerwick

  Sunrise

  09.08

  09.08

  08.20

  07.04

  06.31

  05.53

  03.53

  03.45

  04.43

  05.58

  17.09

  07.27

  08.40

  Sunset

  14.57

  15.08

  16.17

  17.31

  19.48

  21.03

  22.13

  22.31

  21.37

  20.09

  18.38

  16.09

  15.06

  Thurso

  Sunrise

  09.03

  09.04

  08.21

  07.11

  06.42

  05.20

  04.17

  04.10

  05.03

  06.12

  07.18

  07.30

  08.38

  Sunset

  15.21

  15.31

  16.35

  17.43

  19.55

  21.04

  22.08

  22.25

  21.36

  20.15

  18.49

  16.25

  15.28

  Stornoway

  Sunrise

  09.12

  09.13

  08.31

  07.21

  06.54

  05.33

  04.31

  04.25

  05.17

  06.24

  07.29

  07.40

  08.46

  Sunset

  15.36

  15.46

  16.48

  17.55

  20.06

  21.14

  22.16

  22.33

  21.45

  20.25

  19.00

  16.38

  15.42

  Inverness

  Sunrise

  08.57

  08.58

  08.19

  07.12

  06.47

  05.28

  04.29

  04.23

  05.13

  06.17

  07.20

  07.28

  08.33

  Sunset

  15.33

  15.43

  16.43

  17.48

  19.57

  21.02

  22.02

  22.18

  21.33

  20.15

  18.52

  16.32

  15.39

  Aberdeen

  Sunrise

  08.46

  08.48

  08.09

  07.02

  06.38

  05.20

  04.22

  04.17

  05.05

  06.09

  07.11

  07.19

  08.22

  Sunset

  15.27

  15.36

  16.36

  17.40

  19.47

  20.52

  21.51

  22.06

  21.22

  20.06

  18.44

  16.24

  15.32

  Dundee

  Sunrise

  08.45

  08.46

  08.09

  07.05

  06.43

  05.27

  04.31

  04.26

  05.13

  06.15

  07.15

  07.20

  08.21

  Sunset

  15.35

  15.45

  16.43

  17.45

  19.50

  20.53

  21.49

  22.05

  21.22

  20.08

  18.48

  16.30

  15.40

  Glasgow

  Sunrise

  08.46

  08.48

  08.12

  07.09

  06.49

  05.34

  04.40

  04.36

  05.21

  06.21

  07.19

  07.23

  08.23

  Sunset

  15.44

  15.54

  16.50

  17.51

  19.55

  20.55

  21.50

  22.05

  21.24

  20.12

  18.53

  16.37

  15.49

  Edinburgh

  Sunrise

  08.42

  08.44

  08.08

  07.05

  06.44

  05.30

  04.35

  04.31

  05.16

  06.17

  07.15

  07.19

  08.19

  Sunset

  15.40

  15.49

  16.46

  17.47

  19.51

  20.51

  21.47

  22.02

  21.21

  20.08

  18.49

  16.33

  15.44

  Stranraer

  Sunrise

  08.43

  08.44

  08.11`

  07.11

  06.53

  05.41

  04.50

  04.46

  05.29

  06.26

  07.22

  07.23

  08.20

  Sunset

  15.54

  16.03

  16.57

  17.55

  19.57

  20.55

  21.47

  22.01

  21.23

  20.13

  18.57

  16.44

  15.58

  Note:Figures reproduced with permission from data supplied by the Science and Engineering Research Council.

  Crime and Unemployment
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what analysis of the relationship between crime levels and unemployment underlay the statement in his consultation paper, "Disclosure of Criminal Records for Employment Vetting Purposes," on the relative likelihood of reoffending by(a) an ex-offender with suitable work and (b) one who is unemployed.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The relevant passage says only that commonsense suggests that an ex-offender with suitable work is less likely to re-offend than one who is unemployed. It did not derive from any general analysis of a possible link between levels of crime and unemployment.

  British Summer Time
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the times of sunrise and sunset on 21 December and on the first day of each month in 1994 in(a) Lerwick, (b) Thurso, (c) Stornoway, (d) Inverness, (e) Aberdeen, (f) Dundee, (g) Glasgow, (h) Edinburgh and (i) Stranraer, respectively, under (i) the present arrangements of British summer time and Greenwich mean time and (ii) under BST plus one hour and GMT plus one hour.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:
  17

  Sunrise and sunset times Single/double summer time (aka central European time)

  21 December 1993

  1994 GMT plus 2 hours from 27 March to 25 September, GMT plus 1 hour the rest of the year

  GMT +1 hour

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Lenvick

  Sunrise

  10.08

  10.08

  09.20

  08.04

  07.31

  06.03

  04.53

  04.45

  05.43

  06.58

  07.09

  08.27

  09.40

  Sunset

  15.57

  16.08

  17.17

  18.31

  20.48

  22.03

  23.13

  23.31

  22.37

  21.09

  18.38

  17.09

  16.06

  Thurso

  Sunrise

  10.03

  10.04

  09.21

  08.11

  07.42

  06.20

  05.17

  05.10

  06.03

  07.12

  07.18

  08.30

  09.38

  Sunset

  16.21

  16.31

  17.35

  18.43

  20.55

  22.04

  23.08

  23.25

  22.36

  21.15

  18.49

  17.25

  16.28

  Stornoway

  Sunrise

  10.12

  10.13

  09.31

  08.21

  07.54

  06.33

  05.25

  05.25

  06.17

  07.24

  07.29

  08.40

  09.46

  Sunset

  16.36

  16.46

  17.48

  18.55

  21.06

  22.14

  23.16

  23.33

  22.45

  21.25

  19.00

  17.38

  16.42

  Inverness

  Sunrise

  09.57

  09.58

  09.19

  08.12

  07.47

  06.28

  05.29

  05.23

  06.13

  07.17

  07.20

  08.28

  09.33

  Sunset

  16.33

  16.43

  17.43

  18.48

  20.57

  22.02

  23.02

  23.18

  22.33

  21.15

  18.52

  17.32

  16.39

  Aberdeen

  Sunrise

  09.46

  09.48

  09.09

  08.02

  07.38

  06.20

  05.22

  05.17

  06.05

  07.09

  07.11

  08.19

  09.22

  Sunset

  16.27

  16.36

  17.36

  18.40

  20.47

  21.52

  22.51

  23.06

  22.22

  21.06

  18.44

  17.24

  16.32

  Dundee

  Sunrise

  09.45

  09.46

  09.09

  08.05

  07.43

  06.27

  05.31

  05.26

  06.13

  07.15

  07.15

  08.20

  09.21

  Sunset

  16.35

  16.45

  17.43

  18.45

  20.50

  21.53

  22.49

  23.05

  22.22

  21.08

  18.48

  17.30

  16.40

  Glasgow

  Sunrise

  09.46

  09.48

  09.12

  08.09

  07.49

  06.34

  05.40

  05.36

  06.21

  07.21

  07.19

  08.23

  09.23

  Sunset

  16.44

  16.54

  17.50

  18.51

  20.55

  21.55

  22.50

  23.05

  22.24

  21.12

  18.53

  17.37

  16.49

  Edinburgh

  Sunrise

  09.42

  09.44

  09.08

  08.05

  07.44

  06.30

  05.35

  05.31

  06.16

  07.17

  07.15

  08.19

  09 19

  Sunset

  16.40

  16.49

  17.46

  18.47

  20.51

  21.51

  22.47

  23.02

  22.21

  21.08

  18.49

  17.33

  16.44

  Stranraer

  Sunrise

  09.43

  09.44

  09.11

  08.11

  07.53

  06.41

  05.50

  05.46

  06.29

  07.26

  07.22

  08.23

  09.20

  Sunset

  16.54

  17.03

  17.57

  18.55

  20.57

  21.55

  22.47

  23.01

  22.23

  21.13

  18.57

  17.44

  16.58

  Note: Figures reproduced with permission from data supplied by the Science and Engineering Research Council.

  Recreation Grounds
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take early action to strengthen the powers of the police and local authorities to prevent or deal with the nuisance and damage arising from unlawful use of motor cycles or other motor vehicles on recreation grounds in public open spaces.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that there are sufficient byelaw-making and enforcement powers available.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had from the area criminal justice liaison committee for Mid, South and West Glamorgan, Dyfed and Gwent in relation to secure accommodation for young offenders and remandees.

  Mr. Maclean
  No such representations have been made directly to the Home Office; but on two occasions—at the end of 1992 and in August 1993—concern about the lack of secure accommodation for juveniles was expressed, respectively by the secretary and chairman of the area committee, in letters to the secretariat of the national 18
  Criminal Justice Consultative Council. These concerns were brought to the attention of Government Departments and replies to these letters were sent respectively from the Home Office and the Welsh Office.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he issued invitations to tender for the secure training centre or centres in Wales; if he will list the principal elements in the specification; what consultations he has had with regard to the drawing up of these specifications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Invitations to tender have not yet been issued in relation to any particular site. The time at which any such invitation can be issued will be dependent upon the progress made by the Bill which will be necessary to implement the Government's proposal to introduce secure training orders. Draft specifications for secure training centres were issued on 30 July to potential providers covering separately design and construction, and regime. These specifications were produced with the intention of indicating the likely requirements and to enable those with expertise or experience in dealing with persistent juvenile offenders to offer informed comments. The specifications were drawn up in close consultation with the Department of Health and social services inspectorate and endorsed by an interdepartmental steering group with representation from the Home Office, Department of Health, social services inspectorate, Department for Education, Lord
  19
  Chancellor's Department, Treasury and Welsh Office. The content of the specifications was also informed by views submitted as part of an earlier consultation exercise about the scope of the new secure training order.

  New Prisons
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing for each of the prisons referred to in his answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 214, (a) the date on which the possibility of a new prison was announced by a Minister, (b) the date on which a commitment was announced by a Minister, (c) the date on which the general location was made public, (d) the dates on which planning permission was given in outline and in detail, (e) the date on which a contract was let, (f) the date on which work started on site, (g) the date of completion, (h) the date on which the prison started to accept prisoners, with estimated dates when the relevant stage has not yet been reached and (i) the number of prisoners for which the prison was designed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at dispropor-tionate cost.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Private Pensions
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reduction in(a) local government and (b) central Government costs would result from public sector employees being required to obtain contributory private pensions in respect of benefits above (i) twice the average weekly wage, (ii) thrice the average weekly wage and (iii) the earnings cap for tax relief operating for private sector pensions, if pension benefits were no longer paid for by the public sector above those levels.

  Mr. Dorrell
  If the earnings on which public service pension scheme benefits are based were limited as described, the Government Actuary's Department estimates that the annual savings to central Government would be as follows:

  Limit on earnings

  £ million

  Twice the average weekly wage

  175

  Thrice the average weekly wage

  43

  Earnings cap for tax relief introduced in the Finance Act 1989

  11

  These estimates assume that all future accruals of pension benefit would be subject to the limitations but that benefits accrued to date would not be so affected.

  Data needed to prepare corresponding estimates of the savings for local government is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  New Banks
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications have been made since 1 January to establish new banks.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Bank of England has received five such applications this year. Three related to the establishment of new entities; the other two came from 20
  overseas banks which required new authorisations for their presence in the United Kingdom: one because of a merger; the other following a group restructuring.

  Banks
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on proposals to assist the creditors of(a) Mount bank and (b) Equatorial bank.

  Mr. Nelson
  Mount Banking Corporation and Equatorial bank are both in administration. A partial distribution has already been made to Mount's creditors and the administrators of both banks propose to make further distributions. The deposit protection fund has been activated in both cases and payments have begun to be made to depositors.

  Taxation
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer of 22 April,Official Report, columns 172–74 to provide similar estimates of the burden of direct and indirect taxes for 1994–95 based on the assumption of statutory indexation and including measures already announced in the 1993 Budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available information is contained in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 22 April 1993,Official Report, columns 176–78.

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 19 April,Official Report, columns 6–7, if he will publish estimates for 1994–95 based on the assumption of statutory indexation and including measures already announced in the 1993 Budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates of the annual change in income tax liability in 1994–95, assuming statutory indexation and inclusion of measures already announced, are in the table. The 1978–79 income tax regime has been indexed to 1994–95 levels by reference to the statutory formula and allowing for independent taxation.

  For the purposes of these calculations the indexed regime of 1978–79 is applied directly to the income base of 1994–95. In practice, retention of the regime indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  Average reduction in income tax per individual1 in 1994–95 compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime

  Range of individual's income in 1994–95

  Number of individuals 1994–951

  Total reduction

  Average reduction

  (£)

  (million)

  (£ million)

  (£ per annum)

  Under 5,000

  3.1

  420

  140

  5,000 to 10,000

  8.2

  3,100

  380

  10,000 to 15,000

  6.1

  4,200

  700

  15,000 to 20,000

  4.0

  4,100

  1,020

  20,000 to 30,000

  3.3

  5,100

  1,510

  30,000 to 50,000

  1.5

  3,400

  2,240

  50,000 to 80,000

  0.33

  2,400

  7,250

  Over 80,000

  0.19

  9,000

  47,300

  Total

  26.6

  31,700

  1,190

  1 Individuals liable to income tax under the 1978–79 indexed regime.

  Annuality
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what work his Department has done on the cost to public funds of annuality.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps this under review. We are anxious in this, as in all areas of public spending, to prevent inefficiency.

  Literacy
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has made to the report by Ernst and Young entitled, "Literacy, Education and Training: Their Impact on the United Kingdom Economy", a copy of which has been sent to him: and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  I have read this report with interest. It would not be appropriate to comment further in advance of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement.

  Alcohol and Tobacco
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received opposing tax increases in the Budget on beer and tobacco; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of such representations in recent weeks, all of which are considered carefully. It would not be appropriate to comment further in advance of the Budget.

  Banknotes
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the status in England and Wales of banknotes in pounds sterling issued at Belfast, Edinburgh and Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Banknotes isued by the commercial issuing banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland may be used in transactions anywhere in the United Kingdom so long as both parties to the transaction agree that they are acceptable.

  Central Statistical Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes there will be to the Central Statistical Office's cash or running costs limits for 1993–94.

  Mr. Nelson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVII, vote 14 will be increased by £850,000 from £42,701,000 to £43,551,000 and the running costs limit by £317,000 to £42,211,000. These increases reflect the take up of both running costs and capital end year flexibility entitlements, and a transfer from Cabinet Office: Other Services (£155,000), class XIX, vote 1. The increase will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes there will be to the Treasury's cash and running costs limits for 1993–94.
  22
  Mr. Nelson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessasry supplementary estimates, two changes are proposed:

  (a) the cash limit for class XVII, vote 1 1993–94 will be increased by a token £1,000 from £76,467,000 to £76,468,000. The net increase is required to meet the gross costs, estimated to be £400,000 in connection with the privatisation of Forward: Civil Service Catering. These gross costs have been offset by increased appropriations-in-aid.

  (b) the cash limit for class XVII, vote 3 1993–94 will be increased by a £258,000 to £259,000 and the net running costs limit for Forward from zero to £258,000. This increase is required to meet an underpayment by Forward of PAYE contributions to the Inland Revenue in respect of prior year payments to casual employees.

  This increase will be fully offset by a reduction in the Bank of England's non-voted cash limit to £87 996 million and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  EC Public Procurement Directive
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to discuss with the European Commission and member states the level of implementation of EC public procurement directive (90/521/EEC) by other member states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the replies which my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade gave to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) on 21 October,Official Report, cols. 301–2.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants are working in his Department's offices in Parliament street.

  Sir John Cope
  On 1 October there were 1,076.

  Fruit Juice Industry
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment his Department made of the likely financial impact of the Value Added Tax (Beverages) Order 1993 on the freshly squeezed fruit juice industry before the order was laid before the House; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultations took place between his Department and the freshly squeezed fruit juice industry before his Department laid the Value Added Tax (Beverages) Order 1993 before the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Tax changes of this nature are not normally discussed in advance. The order followed careful consideration of the relevant factors and is designed to clarify an area of the law where there is now no coherent borderline between directly competing products following conflicting VAT tribunal decisions. It will put all fruit juices, however produced, on the same tax footing so that the VAT system does not favour one competing product over another.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  London Orchestras
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what representations he has received about the Arts Council's decision to reduce its funding to the London orchestras; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the method which the Arts Council has proposed for deciding on the level of its future funding of London orchestras.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have received approximately 20 letters on the Arts Council's decision to adopt a different approach to its funding of the London orchestras.

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  LPO

  450,000

  465,000

  461,920

  1,062,000

  1,128,500

  LSO

  600,150

  600,000

  1,048,000

  1,110,880

  1,128,500

  Philharmonia

  450,000

  540,000

  568,940

  700,000

  711,500

  RPO

  435,050

  450,000

  459,140

  400,000

  400,000

  The Arts Council has asked its clients to plan for a 2 per cent. grant reduction in 1994–95 and for standstill grants in the subsequent two years. The Council did, however, write to all its clients at the beginning of this financial year to say that it could no longer give revenue-funded organisations 12 months' notice of any intention to cease or substantially reduce its funding. The letter also stated that the Arts Council was undertaking a review of its activities.

  London Orchestras
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the members of the Arts Council's music panel and their relevant qualifications to judge the future funding of the London orchestras.

  Mr. Brooke
  The music advisory panel is constituted to be able to consider authoritatively the wide range of music supported by the Arts Council. Each year the council writes to a wide range of professional bodies, including the Association of British Orchestras, seeking nominations for the music advisory panel. Its current members are as follows:

  Bryan Magee (chairman):
  a member of the Arts Council appointed by myself;

  Professor Margaret Bent:
  early music specialist, All Souls', Oxford;

  Richard Bernas:
  conductor;

  Dr. Graham Dixon:
  producer, Music Department, BBC Radio 3;

  Evelyn Glennie:
  percussionist;

  Dr. Jonty Harrison:
  composer, lecturer at University of Birmingham;

  Dr. Jane Manning:
  soprano, Director of Jane's Minstrels;

  Priti Paintal:
  composer;

  Dr. Jane Ritterman:
  Director, Royal College of Music;

  Janis Susskind:
  Head of Promotions at the music publishers, Boosey and Hawkes;

  Gail Thompson:
  jazz musician

  As its name implies, the panel's role is advisory. Decisions about the future funding of the London orchestras rest with the Arts Council alone.
  24
  It is for the Arts Council to formulate its artistic policies and to determine the means by which its decisions are implemented. I am assured that the council has given the most careful consideration to its approach to the funding of the London orchestras.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the level of grant from the Arts Council to the four London orchestras in each of the past five years; and what are the projected figures for the next three years.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information requested is as follows:

  Millennium Fund
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will state the dates being treated for the purposes of the Millennium Fund as the end of the 20th century and the commencement of the 21st century.

  Mr. Brooke
  The 20th century will come to an end on 31 December 2000, and the 21st century and third millennium will begin on 1 January 2001. However, we recognise that many people will wish particularly to mark the beginning of the year 2000, and for that reason the Millennium Commission's terms of reference, as laid down in the National Lottery Act 1993, are to support projects which mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium.

  Transvestite Television
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ban the transvestite television channel.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am aware of reports of a new satellite television channel catering for transvestites. There is little evidence to indicate when broadcasts will commence, or whether they will do so at all.

  It is the duty of the Independent Television Commission to bring to my attention any foreign satellite television service it considers goes beyond the limits of what is acceptable. My actions against the pornographic television channel "Red Hot Television" earlier this year should be sufficient warning to anyone who considers overstepping those limits.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will issue guidelines for the distribution and potential recipients of the national lottery revenue assigned to sport; and if they will be published.

  Mr. Sproat
  It is for the distributing bodies to issue guidelines to applicants for lottery money. These will need to be consistent with the directions which my right hon. Friend will issue under section 26 of the National Lottery
  25
  etc Act. In the case of sport, I expect that the sports councils will publish their guidelines for applicants next summer.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether Oflot will operate an inspectorate across the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sproat
  The operation of Oflot will be a matter for the Director General. The Director General wall have powers to regulate the operation of the national lottery throughout the United Kingdom.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many civil servants are working in his Department's offices at 2–4 Cockspur street.

  Mr. Brooke
  The figure is 283.

  Office Costs
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the estimated amount to be spent in 1993–94 on rent and other costs associated with the offices of his Department in 2–4 Cockspur street, London.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: The rents paid for Government offices are a commercial-in-confidence matter between the Government and their landlords. The Department will pay £255,000 to Property Holdings in respect of services charges for Cockspur street and £797,000 in contributions in lieu of rates in 1993–94.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 20 October, column 236, if he will specify the amount spent by his Department on official hospitality in respect of the Prime Minister's office.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 25 October,Official Report, col. 426.

  Cash Limits
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals there are to change the 1993–94 cash limit or running costs limit for the Office of Public Service and Science.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for the Office of Public Service and Science (class XVIII, vote 1) will be increased by £50,000 from £73,458,000 to £73,508,000 and the gross running cost limit will also be increased by £50,000 from £90,518,000 to £90,568,000. This takes account of a transfer from the Department of Trade and Industry (class IV, vote 1) of £50,000 in respect of the running costs of the Link Secretariat which is being transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of Public Service and Science.
  26
  The net running cost limit for the Civil Service college has been decreased by £758,000 from £1,800,0000 to £1,042,000 reflecting greater than anticipated receipts from the provision of training courses.

  The changes will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  PHARE Programme
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom involvement in the EC's PHARE programme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The EC's PHARE programme finances, mainly, the provision of know-how to Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The European Commission expect to spend around 450 mecu—approximately £345 million—in 1993. The United Kingdom contributes over 16 per cent. of these funds.

  We discuss policy and management issues on a regular basis both with the Commission and other member states. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has met Sir Leon Brittan on several occasions to consider these issues.

  British companies play an active part in the programme by providing know-how and services. They are well regarded by both recipients and the Commission. Companies and other entities from the United Kingdom bid successfully for about 20 per cent. of the value of contracts awarded under the programme.

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current aid projects that have been approved for Kenya for 1993–94.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The following table lists the capital and technical co-operation projects approved since June this year. These are additional to the projects listed in the table provided in response to the hon. Member's question on 14 June, cols 413–14.

  Project

  Total Cost of Project £000

  Roads

  Bailey Bridging

  170

  Small Scale Enterprise

  Business Growth Training

  320

  Small Enterprise Awards Scheme

  514

  Education

  Polytechnics Information Technology

  370

  Health and Population

  Provision of Contraceptives

  950

  Peru
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what development aid has been given to Peru by Her Majesty's Government in each of the past five years; and for what purposes it was dedicated.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The latest available figures for gross bilateral aid in each of the past five years are: 1988–89 £1.1 million, 1989–90 £0.9 million, 1990–91 £1.6 million, 1991–92 £1.4 million, 1992–93 £2 million (provisional).

  This aid has mainly focused on technical co-operation, and specific humanitarian aid—disaster relief. Recent activities have included technical training in the United Kingdom, projects in support of veterinary services to livestock farmers, English language materials and teacher training in secondary schools, and the commissioning of small hydro-electric power plants; and jointly funded projects with British non-governmental organisations in agriculture, community development and health care. Other activities now completed include development of fish products, water leakage control techniques and quality surveillance and cotton pest control.

  Commonwealth Institute
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's decision to withdraw funding from the Commonwealth Institute.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary's decision was taken in the light of the pressing need to finance other forms of aid which are of higher priority. We very much hope that the Commonwealth Institute will use the period until March 1996, when grant support will cease, to reconstitute itself as a fully independent body, thus enabling it to continue some, if not all, of its existing activities. We shall do all we can to assist the board and the Director General to secure a sound future.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Advice
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice is currently offered by his Department to persons proposing to visit(a) Egypt, (b) Tanzania and (c) Uganda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The current Foreign and Commonwealth consular travel advice for Egypt is:"Since the summer of 1992 there have been a number of violent incidents in Cairo and Upper Egypt, aimed at embarrassing the Government, including attacks on tourist targets by Islamic groups in which three foreigners, one a Briton, have been killed and several others injured. In early June, five Britons on a tourist bus in Cairo were injured in a bomb explosion. In August a River Nile cruise boat, carrying British tourists, was fired on between Assiut and Dairut, and in mid-September another, carrying French tourists, was fired upon in the Assiut area. In late October, three foreigners were killed when a gunman opened fire in a Cairo hotel. Islamic groups have threatened more violence in Cairo and further incidents there and elsewhere in Egypt must be expected.
  The Egyptian authorities are giving the highest priority to protecting visitors, and the great majority experience no security
  28
  difficulty, but complete security cannot be guaranteed. Visitors should be vigilant at all times, avoid the areas of Dairut and Assiut unless they have essential business there, and are reminded to behave and dress discreetly."

  For Uganda the travel advice is:
  "There has been an increase in incidents of armed robbery in Uganda, including Kampala. If possible, do not drive at night, and, in particular:

  (i) Avoid the border areas with Rwanda, Zaire and Sudan

  (ii) Exercise extra caution in Northern Urganda (Karamoja, Teso, Lango, Acholi, Madi and West Nile), and

  (iii) Avoid travel in Murchison Falls National Park north of the River Nile.

  Before travelling up-country, inform the British High Commission in Kampala (Telephone: 257054/9). Please report to them any known incidents involving British travellers."

  We do not issued a travel advice notice for Tanzania.

  Prisoners (British Nationals)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the known number of British nationals at present serving prison sentences in prisons overseas; and if he will list the countries and the number of United Kingdom citizens detained in each country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have arranged for the hon. Member to receive a written reply from the Consular Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible, with the information that it has to hand.

  BBC Overseas Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the funding of the BBC overseas service.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The BBC World Service is funded on a triennial basis by grants-in-aid administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There are no plans for any change to this arrangement.

  Grants-in-aid in the current triennium—1991–92 to 1993–94—have risen from £159.58 million to £175.86 million this year. Funding for the 1994–95 to 1996–97 triennium is subject to the outcome of this year's public expenditure survey.

  Thailand
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Thai Government regarding child prostitution in Thailand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We regularly raise our concerns about child prostitution with the Thai authorities. We are glad to note that the Thai Government have committed themselves to combatting child prostitution, and are enacting legislation to punish the customers, procurers and owners of brothels.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the United Kingdom to rejoin UNESCO; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We continue to keep membership of UNESCO under close review, but have not yet taken any decision about rejoining the organisation.

  British Youth Council
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of his Department's total spending is taken up with expenditure on the British Youth Council.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Total FCO expenditure in 1992–93 —Diplomatic Wing plus ODA—was £3,302,729,000, of which BYC funding amounted to £42,000.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the level of grant-in-aid funded to the British Youth Council in real terms, for each year since 1987–88; and what plans he has for the future funding of the British Youth Council.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  FCO funding in real terms, at 1987 prices has been:

  £

  1987–88

  42,964

  1988–89

  41,014

  1989–90

  38,484

  1990–91

  34,011

  1991–92

  31,886

  1992–93

  30,517

  1993–94

  29,984

  The FCO has notified the British Youth Council that its funding will be terminated from April 1994. However, the possibility of a limited amount of transitional funding for financial year 1994–95 only is currently under discussion.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the percentage change in the level of grant, in cash terms and in real terms, funded by his Department to the British Youth Council for each year from 1987–88 to 1994–95.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Percentage changes:

  In cash terms:

  Per cent.

  1988–89

  +2.4

  1989–90

  0.0

  1990–91

  -4.5

  1991–92

  0.0

  1992–93

  0.0

  1993–94

  0.0

  In real terms:

  Per cent.

  1988–89

  -4.5

  1989–90

  -6.2

  1990–91

  -11.6

  1991–92

  -6.3

  1992–93

  -4.3

  1993–94

  -1.7

  The possibility of limited funding for 1994–95 only will be discussed with the British Youth Council on 2 November.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the level of grant-in-aid to the British Youth Council in each year since 1979; what plans he has for funding after the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.
  30
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information prior to 1986–87 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Grant-in-aid levels post-1985–86 are:

  £

  1986–87

  43,876

  1987–88

  42,964

  1988–89

  44,000

  1989–90

  44,000

  1990–91

  42,000

  1991–92

  42,000

  1992–93

  42,000

  The British Youth Council's FCO grant will be terminated from April 1994. However, the possibility of a limited amount of transitional funding for financial year 1994–95 only is currently under discussion.

  Russia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the assistance to be given to the Russian Federation in the forthcoming parliamentary elections.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We shall be sending a small team to observe the elections; we hope to include eight parliamentarians, whom the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union have agreed to select on behalf of the Government. I very much hope that hon. Members will actively consider volunteering to participate. We have also offered assistance and advice directly linked to the election preparations and are discussing requirements with the Russian Government. To underline our long-term support for democratic reform in Russia, we have established a British programme for democracy, worth £500,000, to provide training for the new institutions in place after the elections.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants are working in his Department's offices at King Charles street.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A total of 871.

  Cash Limits
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes to make in his Department's diplomatic wing cash limits and running cost limits for 1993–94.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the following changes will be made.The cash limit for class II, vote 1, (Overseas Representation) will be reduced by £10,319,000 from £828,928,000 to £818,609,000.
  The gross running costs limit on class II, vote 1 will be reduced by £5,537,000 from £585,414,000 to £579,877,000 following a transfer of provision to class II, vote 2 (non-running costs).
  The cash limit for class II, vote 2 (Other External Relations) will be increased by £98,121,000 from £203,109,000 to £301,230,000. The increase will be met by savings of £10.3 million on vote 1, by savings of £2 million on vote 2 and by increased appropriations in aid on vote 2 of £1.7 million and the balance will be charged to the Reserve.

  31
  The cash limit for class II, vote 3 (External Broadcasting and Monitoring) will be increased by £2,597,000 in respect of the take up of end year flexibility entitlement announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1993, c. 512–17.
  32
  None of the proposed changes will add to the planned total of public expenditure.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep Dips
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date the operative research protection group in her Department first received indications or evidence about adverse reaction following exposure by humans to organo-phosphate sheep dips.

  Mr. Soames
  The operator protection group forms part of the pesticides and contaminants group of the Central Science Laboratory. It deals with potential hazards to operators arising from the use of pesticides. Sheep dips are classified as veterinary medicines and do not fall directly within the group's remit. Information on suspected adverse reactions to organophosphorus sheep dips is collected by the veterinary medicines directorate. The first suspected adverse reaction report recorded on the data base involving human exposure to an OP sheep dip was received by the VMD in July 1985.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what date she now expects for the introduction of the fourth round of environmentally sensitive areas in(a) Blackdown hills, (b) Cotswold hills, (c) Dartmoor, (d) Essex coast, (e) Shropshire hills and (f) upper Thames tributaries.

  Mr. Jack
  We still plan to introduce these new environmentally sensitive areas next year.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how procedures for isolating, monitoring and reporting BSE livestock suspects born after 18 July 1988 differ from those born prior to that date; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Suspect cases of BSE reported in cattle born after 18 July 1988, when the ban on the use of ruminant protein in ruminant feed was introduced, is with all suspect BSE cases, are compulsorily slaughtered only when a confident clinical diagnosis of the presence of the disease can be made. Slaughter may be carried out sooner if necessary to prevent suffering: this affects compensation arrangements but not the way in which the case is handled and laboratory diagnosis carried out.

  Particular care is taken in the clinical assessment of BSE suspects born after the feed ban because it was found, at an early stage, that more than 90 per cent. of such cases were negative on laboratory examination, compared with a negative rate of 15 per cent. for all cattle. In February 1992, Ministry field staff were therefore instructed that suspects born after the ban should not normally be slaughtered at the first visit, but that a further visit should be made, at least seven days later, to reassess the progress of the case. An earlier revisit was to be made if the owner reported that the animal had deteriorated, and immediate action was to be taken to protect the welfare of the suspect animal. This observation period allowed many of the suspects to return to normal, or an alternative diagnosis to be made and treatment given by the owner's veterinary surgeon. This change has resulted in an improvement in the negative rate in this group of animals from 90 per cent. in 1991 to 28 per cent. in 1993.
  34
  Animals which are suspected to have BSE do not have to be isolated except when calving.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is available from the outcome of tests on mink to establish the potential for transferring BSE to this species.

  Mr. Soames
  Although mink have been shown to be susceptible to BSE in experimental studies using brain material from confirmed BSE cases, this does not relate to risk of transmission of the disease in the natural situation.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why specified offals excluded from the food chain in November 1989 did not include bone marrow, liver and kidney.

  Mr. Soames
  The specified bovine offals ban was introduced to remove from the food chain those tissues which, by analogy with natural scrapie in Suffolk sheep were most likely to contain the infective agent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in significant quantities.

  Bone marrow, liver and kidney were excluded as they show minimal or no detectable scrapie infectivity. Subsequent studies in mice with tissue from BSE-infected cattle have shown that only the brain and cervical spinal cord have any detectable infectivity. The BSE agent has not been detected in bone marrow, liver and kidney from cattle which were clinically affected with BSE.

  The specified bovine offals ban has been endorsed by indpendent experts in this country, and by the scientific veterinary committee of the European Commission, the World Health Organisation and the Office International des Epizooties.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many confirmed cases of BSE were reported between 1 January 1992 and 30 September 1992 from each county in England;

  (2) how many confirmed cases of BSE were reported between 1 January 1992 and 30 September 1992 from each county in Scotland;

  (3) how many confirmed cases of BSE were reported between 1 January 1992 and 30 September 1992 from each county in Wales.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of confirmed cases in Great Britain by county by date of notification of suspicion of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to the Ministry for the period requested is as follows:

  Number of confirmed cases 1 January 1992 to 30 September 1992

  Region and county

  Number

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  77

  Cambridgeshire

  74

  Essex

  116

  Hertfordshire

  80

  Lincolnshire

  151

  Norfolk

  641

  Northamptonshire

  199

  Suffolk

  289

  Midlands and Western

  Cheshire

  1,240

  Derbyshire

  687

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  442

  Lancashire

  958

  Leicestershire

  470

  35

  Region and county

  Number

  Manchester

  43

  Merseyside

  23

  Nottinghamshire

  156

  Shropshire

  678

  Staffordshire

  747

  West Midlands

  24

  Warwickshire

  227

  Northern

  Cleveland

  29

  Cumbria

  866

  Durham

  128

  Humberside

  99

  Northumberland

  181

  Tyne and Wear

  7

  Yorkshire North

  1,109

  Yorkshire South

  85

  Yorkshire West

  142

  Scotland

  Borders

  73

  Central

  27

  Dumfries

  379

  Fife

  38

  Grampian

  206

  Highland

  39

  Lothian

  31

  Orkney

  16

  Shetland

  1

  Strathclyde

  311

  Tayside

  82

  South Eastern

  Berkshire

  146

  Buckinghamshire

  204

  Hampshire

  566

  Isle of Wight

  127

  Kent

  304

  London

  18

  Oxfordshire

  355

  Surrey

  212

  Sussex East

  293

  Sussex West

  512

  South Western

  Avon

  498

  Cornwall

  1,832

  Devon

  2,467

  Dorset

  1,480

  Gloucestershire

  519

  Somerset

  2,076

  Wiltshire

  1,127

  Wales

  Clwyd

  401

  Dyfed

  1,477

  Glamorgan Mid

  29

  Glamorgan South

  84

  Glamorgan West

  25

  Gwent

  183

  Gwynedd

  113

  Powys

  356

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of confirmed BSE have been reported from(a) the Isle of Man, (b) Jersey and (c) Guernsey, annually for each year since 1988.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested, kindly provided by the island authorities, is as follows:

  Isle of Man

  Jersey1

  Guernsey2

  1988

  6

  1

  34

  1989

  6

  4

  49

  1990

  22

  8

  73

  36

  Isle of Man

  Jersey1

  Guernsey2

  1991

  68

  15

  75

  1992

  108

  23

  92

  19933

  73

  19

  94

  1 For Jersey, the information is shown by the year in which the animals were slaughtered as it is not available by the date when they were reported.

  2 For Guernsey, only early cases and cases born after the ruminant feed ban in July 1988 have been confirmed by histopathological examination of brain material. All other confirmed cases are based solely on diagnosis by clinical signs.

  3 To 26 October 1993.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the accuracy of current methods to identify tissues infected with BSE outside the brain and spinal cord.

  Mr. Soames
  The bioassay used to detect infectivity in cattle tissues is the most sensitive method currently available. That the test is effective is shown by the fact that it does detect infectivity in brain tissue and cervical spinal cord from confirmed BSE cases, and that incubation periods were shorter than for the equivalent transmission experiments in cattle.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she will publish the results of the monitoring study described in paragraph 8.1 of the Southwood report.

  Mr. Soames
  The monitoring study described in paragraph 8.1 of the Southwood report has not produced any results yet as it is being conducted as a blind experiment and has a number of years to run. However, field evidence derived from the BSE epidemic as a whole shows that to 4 October 1993 there are 347 confirmed BSE cases in animals which were offspring of previously confirmed cases. This incidence is not statistically different from the incidence in cattle whose dams are unaffected.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what modifications to the announced programme for new environmentally sensitive areas, and to the expansion in resources for ESAs generally, she now proposes.

  Mr. Jack
  Six of the new English environmentally sensitive areas were launched earlier this year and we plan to launch the remaining six next year when full details of each individual scheme will be published. An announcement on the planned expansion of resources for all our agri-environment schemes, including ESAs, will be made in the context of the Chancellor's unified Budget statement.

  Dairy Cattle
  Mr. Hinchiffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total number of dairy cattle in England, for each year from 1984 to 1993 for each county.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested for the years 1984 to 1992 is shown in the following table. Figures for 1993 are not yet available.
  37

  Total number of dairy cattle by county 1984–1992

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  North Region

  Cleveland

  4,940

  4,810

  4,908

  4,705

  4,667

  4,557

  4,388

  4,083

  3,990

  Cumbria

  159,750

  155,279

  156,453

  152,833

  148,001

  146,024

  145,258

  143,688

  138,698

  Durham

  21,942

  20,184

  20,193

  18,686

  17,920

  17,537

  17,411

  16,783

  16,616

  Northumberland

  15,482

  14,575

  14,622

  13,525

  13,244

  12,977

  12,978

  12,430

  11,583

  Tyne and Wear

  2,668

  2,608

  2,560

  2,363

  2,330

  2,198

  2,197

  2,024

  1,777

  204,782

  197,456

  198,736

  192,112

  186,162

  183,293

  182,232

  179,008

  172,664

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Humberside

  15,639

  14,184

  13,774

  13,132

  11,938

  11,425

  11,394

  10,856

  10,105

  North Yorkshire

  125,515

  120,353

  120,959

  115,457

  111,064

  108,499

  108,774

  107,459

  104,174

  South Yorkshire

  14,816

  14,000

  14,274

  13,527

  12,961

  12,895

  12,811

  12,169

  11,726

  West Yorkshire

  33,237

  31,035

  30,490

  29,468

  28,280

  27,273

  27,522

  26,758

  25,655

  189,207

  179,572

  179,497

  171,584

  164,243

  160,092

  160,501

  157,242

  151,660

  East Midlands Region

  Derbyshire

  75,723

  72,670

  71,808

  68,813

  66,575

  66,189

  66,524

  63,302

  62,140

  Leicestershire

  47,966

  45,509

  45,041

  43,249

  41,488

  40,785

  40,711

  39,349

  38,058

  Lincolnshire

  21,776

  19,670

  18,960

  18,047

  17,069

  16,583

  16,951

  16,628

  15,375

  Northamptonshire

  19,170

  17,969

  17,598

  16,709

  15,943

  15,853

  15,669

  14,970

  14,303

  Nottinghamshire

  19,822

  18,837

  18,336

  17,889

  16,934

  17,263

  16,983

  16,380

  15,353

  184,457

  174,655

  171,743

  164,707

  158,009

  156,673

  156,838

  150,629

  145,229

  East Anglia Region

  Cambridgeshire

  4,964

  4,454

  4,229

  4,067

  3,780

  3,382

  3,373

  3,516

  3,073

  Norfolk

  29,597

  27,437

  27,253

  25,849

  23,830

  22,777

  23,358

  21,832

  20,678

  Suffolk

  20,535

  18,269

  17,751

  16,713

  14,971

  14,384

  14,654

  13,463

  12,729

  55,096

  50,160

  49,233

  46,629

  42,581

  40,543

  41,385

  38,811

  36,480

  South East Region

  Bedfordshire

  5,476

  5,337

  5,125

  5,128

  4,800

  4,719

  4,654

  4,687

  4,604

  Berkshire

  14,502

  13,326

  12,573

  12,466

  11,482

  10,784

  10,954

  9,911

  8,865

  Buckinghamshire

  24,166

  22,721

  22,857

  21,504

  20,798

  19,869

  18,817

  17,852

  17,139

  East Sussex

  28,480

  26,137

  26,619

  24,491

  23,293

  22,235

  20,675

  19,812

  18,431

  Essex

  16,107

  14,790

  14,288

  14,219

  13,582

  12,995

  12,422

  11,732

  10,564

  Greater London

  2,633

  2,519

  2,478

  2,512

  2,386

  2,104

  2,266

  2,129

  2,040

  Hampshire

  49,398

  47,421

  45,776

  44,350

  41,406

  40,790

  40,087

  38,432

  36,407

  Hertfordshire

  11,416

  10,259

  10,389

  9,936

  9,535

  9,404

  8,489

  7,442

  6,953

  Isle of Wight

  10,164

  9,260

  8,821

  8,558

  7,574

  7,671

  7,311

  6,774

  6,454

  Kent

  25,627

  24,663

  23,473

  21,585

  19,850

  19,077

  18,435

  17,110

  16,286

  Oxfordshire

  33,408

  31,503

  31,534

  30,277

  28,810

  28,071

  27,965

  26,127

  25,561

  Surrey

  20,551

  19,011

  18,565

  17,288

  16,734

  16,423

  15,523

  13,703

  12,258

  West Sussex

  34,498

  33,980

  33,490

  31,449

  29,772

  26,703

  26,504

  25,066

  24,015

  276,426

  260,927

  255,988

  243,763

  230,022

  220,845

  214,102

  200,777

  189,577

  South West Region

  Avon

  48,121

  46,876

  47,083

  44,489

  43,268

  42,451

  41,581

  40,069

  36,805

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  116,548

  111,818

  113,270

  110,433

  105,084

  103,439

  103,115

  100,630

  98,801

  Devon

  208,527

  199,781

  199,374

  197,738

  190,435

  188,121

  185,808

  181,522

  176,537

  Dorset

  115,926

  112,405

  111,890

  108,822

  104,247

  102,589

  102,602

  98,177

  95,544

  Gloucestershire

  58,365

  56,139

  55,832

  54,990

  51,898

  50,521

  49,481

  47,840

  46,293

  Somerset

  159,175

  152,810

  151,479

  146,358

  141,797

  140,890

  140,541

  136,475

  132,465

  Wiltshire

  93,706

  90,131

  90,764

  86,444

  82,038

  81,323

  81,523

  77,681

  74,354

  800,368

  769,960

  769,692

  749,274

  718,767

  709,334

  704,651

  682,394

  660,799

  West Midlands Region

  Hereford and Worcester

  62,802

  59,619

  59,253

  57,204

  54,842

  52,405

  52,352

  50,107

  48,796

  Shropshire

  109,357

  105,803

  105,346

  102,892

  99,447

  99,100

  98,399

  95,995

  93,219

  Staffordshire

  113,838

  109,414

  110,613

  105,861

  102,318

  101,901

  102,316

  100,253

  99,607

  Warwickshire

  30,898

  29,745

  29,479

  27,711

  258,811

  25,993

  25,911

  24,982

  23,517

  West Midlands

  4,582

  4,326

  4,210

  4,029

  3,790

  3,762

  3,644

  3,419

  3,221

  321,477

  308,907

  308,901

  297,697

  286,208

  283,161

  282,622

  274,756

  268,360

  North West Region

  Cheshire

  152,268

  145,976

  146,958

  144,893

  138,046

  138,673

  138,818

  137,139

  134,428

  Greater Manchester

  15,956

  14,887

  14,891

  13,904

  13,185

  13,009

  12,703

  12,674

  11,759

  Lancashire

  114,443

  110,297

  109,796

  106,401

  102,237

  99,749

  100,688

  99,889

  97,429

  Merseyside

  3,369

  3,276

  3,311

  3,086

  3,070

  2,830

  3,100

  2,997

  2,955

  286,036

  274,436

  274,956

  268,284

  256,538

  254,261

  255,309

  252,699

  246,571

  38 39

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  England Total

  2,317,849

  2,216,073

  2,208,746

  2,134,050

  2,042,530

  2,008,202

  1,997,640

  1,936,316

  1,871,340

  Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food June Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  Note: The data in this table relate to main holdings only i.e. excludes data on minor holdings.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed in her Department's cash limits for 1993–94.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The cash limit for class III, vote 5 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: Departmental Research, Advisory Services and Administration) will be decreased by £341,000 from £312,934,000 to £312,593,000. This change is the result of transfers of £288,000 to the Intervention Board—Executive Agency (class III, vote 2) and £53,000 to the Welsh Office (class XV, vote 9) and will reduce the department's gross running cost limit from £309,410,000 to £309,069,000.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Intervention Board Executive Agency (class III, vote 2) will be increased by £932,000 to £52,932,000. The transfer from class III, vote 5 contributes towards a proposed increase in provision for the agency's administration vote (class III, vote 2) following the announcement—Official Report, 24 June 1993, columns 244–45—that it shall assume operational responsibility for the administration of milk quotas in the United Kingdom. Capital will be increased by £295,000 to £1,456,000 and agents' fees will be reduced by £1,000,000 to £19,831,000. The supplementary estimate will also give effect to the running costs end-year flexibility entitlement announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1993, Official Report, columns 512–17.

  The running costs limit for the Intervention Board executive agency will be increased by £1,637,000 to £32,372,000 to reflect the necessary preparations for the administration of milk quotas (£1,552,000) and additional costs of computer conversion (£85,000). These increases will be met in part by the transfer from class III, vote 5 (£288,000) and end-year flexibility provision of £144,000.

  The transfer of funds from MAFF to the Welsh Office takes account of that department assuming responsibility for the administration of grants and subsidy payments in Wales. It is included in a number of changes to class XV, vote 9 (Welsh Office Administration) which contribute to a net reduction in the cash limit for that vote as detailed in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The cash limit for class III, vote 4 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: Agricultural, Food and Fishing Services) will be reduced by £19,171,000 from £385,985,000 to £366,814,000. Within this limit, expenditure will be reduced by £15,423,000 on agricultural schemes, by £3,295,000 on coast protection and by £453,000 on sea fishery support. These reductions reflect a predicted decrease in demand and delay in implementation in further areas of these schemes. The remaining reduction (£82,000) reflects the transfer of responsibility for the Oslo Commission to DOE.
  40
  The increases will be offset by savings and charges to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Brucellosis
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 25 October,Official Report, column 512, how many cattle affected with brucellosis were imported; from which countries and on which date; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Two cattle in Anglesey and two in Cheshire which reacted positively to serological tests for brucellosis are known to have been imported. One of these came from the Netherlands in August and three came from France: one in May, one in June and one in July. Brucella abortus has been cultured from post mortem samples only from one French animal imported in June and found on the farm in Anglesey. Detailed epidemiological investigations to determine the source and origin of infection are continuing, and it cannot be assumed that any of these cattle were infected before they were imported.

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she is taking to protect the interests of United Kingdom fishermen in exploring options for the conservation of fish stocks in the Irish Box-ICES areas VIIa, VIIb, VIIf, VIIg, VIIj and part VIa-in the current discussions on the implementation on the EC treaty of accession for Spain and Portugal.

  Mr. Jack
  At the June Fisheries Council, when Iberian arrangements were discussed, it was agreed that relative stability should be respected and that there must be no increase in effort. The Commission proposals presented at the October Council asked the Council to agree major changes to the present Iberian access and effort arrangements but discussion of what is to replace them and meet the conditions agreed at the June Council by way of controls, exemptions and obligations would only take place at some point in the next two years.

  I said that this was asking the Council to sign up to the equivalent of a blank cheque. The new arrangements must in practice confine Spanish and Portuguese fishing activities as closely as possible to their current pattern and not enable expansion or diversion of effort beyond that. We wanted the Council to agree continuation of the present restrictions on access to the Irish box and the North sea. Also, all the arrangements must be dealt with simultaneously. This would be fairer to all concerned. It could be done before the end of the year or the whole issue could be rolled forward. At whatever point we settle this issue the United Kingdom aim will be to secure considerable improvements to what is now on the table.

  Food From Britain
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the principal functions of the agricultural development division of Food From Britain and give figures of the funding and staffing levels used by each function.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The table shows information based on Food From Britain's 1993–94 budget. Outturn figures will be lower because of savings resulting from the closure of the division, but final details are not yet available.

  Function

  Funding1(£'000)

  Staffing2(man years)

  Administration of co-operation grants (remaining work)

  120

  2.5

  Advice on applications for group marketing grant

  210

  4.5

  Business development advice

  320

  7

  1 Staff costs including travel and subsistence and overheads.

  2 Includes part-time staff.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many civil servants are working in his Ministry's offices at Whitehall place.

  Mr. Jack
  There are at present 657 officials working in Whitehall place and 111 in the adjacent office at 55 Whitehall. These numbers include 20 casual staff.

  Agriculture Development Division
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) where the principal functions of the agriculture development division of Food From Britain will be allocated in the future;

  (2) what funding and staffing will be made available to a successor to the agricultural development division; and in which areas and for what projects those funds will be directed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The division is being closed down as a result of the refocusing of FFB on exports following the Stevenson report. The functions it formerly carried out will be discontinued, apart from remaining work on the administration of co-operation grants which will transfer to Agriculture Departments. I am, however, continuing to work closely with the agriculture and food industries to address the needs for improvement of marketing on the domestic market.

  Waste Dumping at Sea
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will make it her policy to support amendments to the London convention to permanently ban the dumping of radioactive waste at sea at the meeting of contracting parties being held in London on 8 to 12 November.

  (2) if she will make it her policy to support amendments to the London convention to permanently ban the dumping of industrial waste at sea;

  (3) if she will make it her policy to support amendments to the London convention to permanently ban ocean incineration of waste.
  42
  Mr. Jack
  At the forthcoming consultative meeting of the London convention we will seek to facilitate the use of the best practical environmental option for the disposal of all types of wastes.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Agricultural Development Operational Programme
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people made applications in respect of the agricultural development operational programme scheme from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1993; and, of these, how many were approved and how many were refused.

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of applications received under the agricultural development operational programme to 31 March 1993 was 12,070, of which 160 have been refused and 11,511 have been approved to date.

  Internment
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to re-introducing internment in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The power of executive detention remains on the statute book. However, it would be brought into force only in particular circumstances and it is not the policy of the Government to discuss what those circumstances might be.

  Maternity Services
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the members' names of the departmental review committee reviewing maternity services in Northern Ireland; when it was set up; how often it has met; when it will report; and what opportunity has been given for submissions to the departmental review committee.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: The Department of Health and Social Services announced the establishment of the maternity unit study group on 28 October 1993. The group will meet for the first time on 25 November and is expected to report by the end of March 1994. The group will consider what evidence and submissions it should invite from interested organisations and individuals in due course. The members of the group are:

  Mrs. Brenda McLaughlin, Chairman

  Mr. Derek Baker

  Dr. Henrietta Campbell

  Mrs. Fionnuala Cook

  Miss Eileen MacBrinn

  Dr. Denis Martin

  Miss Maeve McConville

  Dr. Agnes McKnight

  Mr. Douglas Smyth

  Mrs. Gladys Smyth

  Miss Mary Uprichard

  Severely Disadvantaged Areas

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many farmers in the United Kingdom were in receipt of hill livestock compensatory allowances in the severely disadvantaged areas according to the most recent figures for each year since 1978.
  43
  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: The number of farmers in severely disadvantaged areas of Northern Ireland who were paid hill livestock compensatory allowances is as follows:

  Year

  Number of farmers

  1978

  12,882

  1979

  12,596

  1980

  12,410

  1981

  12,090

  1982

  11,977

  1983

  11,959

  1984

  11,861

  1985

  12,255

  1986

  12,268

  1987

  12,160

  1988

  12,100

  1989

  12,205

  1990

  12,309

  1991

  12,333

  1992

  12,326

  1993

  112,200

  1 Provisional.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the net farm income for mainly sheep and sheep and cattle farms in severely disadvantaged areas, in both nominal and real terms for each year since 1978.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: Information for mainly sheep farms is not available. Estimated income figures for cattle and sheep farms in the severely disadvantaged areas are given in the tables. The basis of farm typology was changed in 1992–93 and the data are therefore, presented in two tables, one covering the period 1978–79 to 1991–92 (old classification) and the other the period 1986–87 to 1992–93 (new classification).

  Average net farm income on cattle and sheep farms in the Severely Disadavantaged Area in Northern Ireland (old classification)1

  £'000 per farm

  Indices2

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices3

  Current prices

  Real terms3

  1978–794

  4.6

  12.2

  152

  374

  1979–804

  1.1

  2.5

  35

  75

  1980–814

  1.6

  3.2

  30

  55

  1981–824

  5.3

  9.4

  108

  178

  1982–834

  4.9

  8.0

  96

  147

  1983–84

  4.4

  6.9

  104

  153

  1984–85

  5.9

  8.8

  127

  177

  1985–86

  2.3

  3.2

  52

  69

  1986–87

  2.1

  2.9

  58

  74

  1987–88

  8.1

  10.6

  190

  232

  1988–89

  6.2

  7.7

  159

  186

  1989–90

  3.9

  4.5

  96

  104

  1990–91

  42

  4.4

  98

  97

  1991–92

  4.4

  4.4

  106

  99

  Average net farm income on cattle and sheep farms in the Severely Disadavantaged Area in Northern Ireland (old classification)1

  £'000 per farm

  Indices2

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices3

  Current prices

  Real terms3

  1986–87

  3.7

  5.1

  74

  94

  1987–88

  8.9

  11.7

  160

  195

  1988–89

  7.3

  9.1

  143

  167

  1989–90

  5.0

  5.8

  96

  104

  1990–91

  4.7

  4.9

  88

  87

  1991–92

  4.6

  4.6

  117

  110

  1992–935

  6.4

  6.2

  164

  149

  44

  1 Accounting years ending on average in February.

  2 1989–90—1991–92 = 100.

  3 This information has been derived by deflating the current price estimates by the Retail Price Index.

  4 The estimates for these years are not strictly comparable with those for later years.

  5 Provisional.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many producers in the United Kingdom are entitled to hill livestock compensatory allowances; and what proportion of those are located in(a) severely disadvantaged areas and (b) disadvantaged areas.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: In Northern Ireland 12,326 producers in the severely disadvantaged area and 6,145 producers in the disadvantaged area were entitled to hill livestock compensatory allowances under the 1992 scheme.

  Ewe and Suckler Cow Premiums
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the figures for the United Kingdom relating to 1993 for the value of the ewe premium and suckler cow premium per head distinguishing the value of any supplements if applicable.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: The final rate of ewe premium for the 1993 marketing year will not be determined by the EC Commission until early 1994. In Northern Ireland two advance payments totalling £12.55 per ewe each for all producers and the supplement of £5.16 per ewe payable to producers in the less-favoured areas only have been authorised.

  In Northern Ireland the rate of suckler cow premium in respect of 1993 is £84.51 per cow. Suckler cow producers whose overall stocking density is less than 1.4 livestock units per hectare of forage area will also receive an extensification premium of £28.17 per cow.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Property Schemes
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners on how many property schemes money has been lost by the Church Commissioners in the last three years.

  Mr. Alison
  Seven development properties have been sold in the last three years, four at less than their original cost, but not for less than their market value at the time of sale, and three at a profit.

  Investment Risks
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what steps are being taken by the Church Commissioners to institute procedures which minimise risks to their investments.

  Mr. Alison
  Two recent reports on the Church Commissioners make a number of specific recommendations about this. The Commissioners have already acted on some of these recommendations and action on the remainder will follow as soon as possible. The
  45
  Commissioners have prepared a note for General Synod about these reports and their response to them and I have arranged for a copy of the note, and of the reports themselves, to be placed in the Library.

  Clergy Pensions
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement about the impact on clergy pensions of the results of Church Commissioners' investments.

  Mr. Alison
  The current level of clergy pensions is amply covered by the Commissioners' resources. The report of the Lambeth group has, however, recommended that regular contributions should be made to a segregated fund to ensure that accruing liabilities in respect of future service are provided for as they arise and this is under consideration.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what representations he has received about the future level of clergy pensions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  None. The Church remains committed to the provision of reasonable pensions and retirement accommodation for its clergy and their dependants. The Lambeth report, which was one of those I referred to in my earlier reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), has recommended that some features of the existing scheme might be re-examined, and this will be done in the context of that commitment.

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what is his policy regarding recreational cycling over agricultural land in the Commissioners' ownership.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners do not have a specific policy. They are always willing to discuss individual proposals, but on a basis that they must seek to obtain a proper financial return from their investments.

  Property Damage, London
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement on the Church Commissioners' plans for Church of England property damaged by Provisional IRA bombing in the City of London earlier this year.

  Mr. Alison
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 17 May,Official Report, column 12.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many judges have been appointed since the current Lord Chancellor was appointed.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total number of judges who have taken up appointment in England and Wales since 46
  27 October 1987 is 348. This figure is made up of seven Law Lords, including Lord Jauncey from Scotland, and Lord Lowry from Northern Ireland, four head of divisions, 23 Lords Justices, 65 High Court judges and 249 circuit judges. These figures include those judges who have been appointed to successive offices in this period.

WALES

  Health Service Employees
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of employees of the family health services authority in(a) Clwyd and (b) Wales; and what the figures were 10 years ago.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of staff employed by the Clwyd family health services authority at September 1993 was 62.4 whole-time equivalents and the total staff for Welsh family health service authorities is 452.5.

  These authorities were set up in 1990.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of grants to voluntary organisations from his Department in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure for 1978–79, at constant prices.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The total value of direct grants from my Department to the voluntary sector in 1992–93 was £12.3 million; for indirect grants the figure was £201.4 million. The earliest financial year for which directly comparable figures can be determined is 1988–89, when the equivalent expenditure at 1992–93 prices was £7.9 million and £92 million respectively. However, since 1978–79 Welsh Office support for the voluntary sector has trebled in real terms.

  Employment Initiatives
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 15, what new initiatives he is proposing to reduce male unemployment (a) within the valleys initiative area and (b) in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  One of the five aims of the latest Programme for the Valleys is the creation of more, better quality jobs. My Department, the Welsh Development Agency, training and enterprise councils, local enterprise agencies, and the local business community will work closely together to achieve that aim. The same applies to all areas of Wales.

  Coal Mining Communities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the policies of Her Majesty's Government for Welsh coal mining communities.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am using the full range of my Department's responsibilities to promote the successful economic development of the Welsh coalfields area.

  Welsh Office Budget
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the(a) planned and (b) expected outturn figures for the budget of the Welsh Office for 1993–94.

  Mr. Redwood
  Planned expenditure for the Welsh Office in 1993–9494, as set out in the departmental report, was £6,316 million. The current estimate of outturn is £6,346 million.

  Appointments
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest total number of appointments for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Redwood
  The total number of appointments is 789, which includes 14 vacancies. I have today placed in the Library of the House, a list containing biographical details of people holding appointments current on 1 September 1993; it will be revised quarterly.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were unemployed in(a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  In September 1993, there were 8,023, 21,794 and 131,556 unemployed claimants in Newport borough, Gwent and Wales respectively.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prospects for manufacturing industry in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Welsh manufacturers' confidence about output for 1994 remains very positive.

  National Parks
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the national parks in Wales to discuss the impact of local government reorganisation upon the national parks in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I met the chairmen and chief officers of the three Welsh national parks on 16 August.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage change in manufacturing investment in Wales over the latest available 36-month period.

  Mr. Redwood
  The annual census of production shows that between 1987 and 1990, net capital expenditure by manufacturing establishments in Wales increased by 80 per cent. in cash terms.

  Young People
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give an estimate of the cost to local authorities in Wales of providing homes for young people who have been subjected to physical and/or sexual abuse; and if he will make a statement.
  48
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Social services departments in Wales have direct responsibility for the protection of children where they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They provide a range of services for such children and their families, including, where necessary, placement away from home. It is not possible therefore to provide information in the form requested.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the funding of local government for the next financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  On 13 July I chaired a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance at which I discussed, with representatives of the local authority associations, their assessment of local government's need to spend in 1994–95. I will take account of that assessment in my settlement decisions. However, the settlement will also need to reflect the need to restrain public expenditure to an affordable level.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales have expressed an interest in grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Some 200 schools across Wales, from both the primary and secondary sectors, have shown an interest in grant-maintained status. In response to this interest from schools the Welsh Office has arranged a series of three conferences to provide governors and head teachers with factual information about grant-maintained status.

  At 1 September this year there were 11 grant-maintained schools. A further two schools have been approved to become grant-maintained from 1 January 1994. Applications from a further three schools are currently before me for consideration and a number of other schools are in the process of balloting parents.

  Arrangements included in the Education Act 1993 will simplify the GM process and I expect the number of grant-maintained schools in Wales to increase significantly.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of whether the proposed timetable for the reorganisation of local government in Wales is still likely to be met.

  Mr. Redwood
  We are planning implementation of the new structure on 1 April 1995 subject to satisfactory parliamentary progress.

  Economic Regeneration
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the regeneration of commerce, trade and industry in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Wales has made great strides in recent years towards becoming a diverse, dynamic and competitive economy. Wales can now compete in world
  49
  markets and win and its labour force has demonstrated its ability to take on new working practices and succeed with the best.

  A5 (Dualling)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to bring forward the date for commencing the dualling of the A5 across Ynys Mon.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend's plans for dualling the A5 across Ynys Mon will be kept under review. Work on the first stage between Llanfairpwllgwyngyll and Nant Turnpike is planned to start before April 1996.

  School Dinners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children have taken school dinners in Wales in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers of pupils in LEA maintained and grant maintained schools in Wales who took school meals in each year since 1979 are given in the following table:

  Number of pupils1

  1979

  288,348

  1980

  234,669

  1981

  244,692

  1982

  236,499

  1983

  248,345

  1984

  252,569

  1985

  231,155

  1986

  228,436

  1987

  225,840

  1988

  213,341

  1989

  214,978

  1990

  216,289

  1991

  216,026

  1992

  231,693

  1 Pupils taking midday meals on the schools census enumeration day in September each year.

  Drainage, Llandudno
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his office has to carry out an inquiry into the drainage system of the Llandudno area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig is responsible for the foul and surface water drainage system in Llandudno. Following the recent flooding incident the customer service committee for Wales, appointed by the Director General of Water Services, is investigating the matter and has asked the company to provide it with a detailed report.

  Floods, Llandudno
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are still living in temporary accommodation following the 1993 floods in Llandudno; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  At present 993 people are living in temporary accommodation; 325 are council tenants and 668 are private home owners.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many known sufferers of Alzheimer's disease there are in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) on 27 January 1993 at column 734.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his office has to review its policies in dealing with sufferers of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for health authorities to determine and make provision to meet local health needs. The Welsh Office actively supports the work of the Alzheimer's Disease Society in Wales and is providing over £300,000 towards specific projects and posts.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children have been killed as a result of road traffic accidents in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is as follows:

  Children under 16 years of age killed in road traffic accidents in Wales

  Year

  Number of children killed

  1979

  36

  1980

  28

  1981

  20

  1982

  30

  1983

  28

  1984

  25

  1985

  28

  1986

  18

  1987

  21

  1988

  21

  1989

  22

  1990

  19

  1991

  19

  1992

  20

  Source: Welsh Office.

  Further details on road accidents in Wales are published annually in "Road Accidents: Wales", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures his Department is taking to improve road safety in the areas surrounding schools in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In September, the Government launched the fifth phase of the child pedestrian safety campaign encouraging drivers to reduce their speed in residential areas. Last week, I launched a road safety teaching resource for five to eight-year-olds which included advice on safe journeys to and from school. We have recently installed a number of pedestrian crossings outside schools and are about to commence a variable
  51
  speed limit trial outside a school on Anglesey. We have also issued advice to local highway authorities on traffic calming measures and 20 mph speed limit zones.

  Flags (Schools)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the cost of purchasing and erecting a flag pole and purchasing and flying a union flag at every state nursery, infants, primary and high school in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is a matter for local determination.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of employment created by inward investment in Wales over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Redwood
  During the past 10 years, Welsh Development International has recorded some 1,180 inward investment projects for Wales, promising over 114,000 new and safeguarded jobs and a capital investment of £5.5 billion.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the cost of employing management consultants to assist in his Department's assessment of applications for trust status in each wave; how many assessments took place; and which were the consultants concerned.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows:1 Application for NHS Trust status from April 1992: Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte; cost £5,698.
  14 Applications for NHS Trust status from April 1993: KPMG Management Consulting: cost £70,500.
  12 Applications for NHS Trust status from April 1994: CSL Group; cost £25,318.

  The management consultants were engaged, via a tendering process, to provide independent advice on the risk/financial management aspects of the applications.

  In February 1993, KPMG Management Consulting undertook a development need study on the designate chief executives and directors of finance in the units/ambulance services invited to apply for 1994 trust status. The cost was £35,250.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants are working in his Department's offices in Gwydyr house, Whitehall.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of civil servants working in my Department offices in Gwydyr house, London is 33.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from the area criminal justice liaison committee for Mid, South and West Glamorgan, Dyfed and Gwent with respect to secure accommodation for young offenders and remandees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have received one letter on this subject from the chairman of the area criminal justice 52
  liaison committee for the three counties of Glamorgan and Gwent to which I replied on 2 September. I am anxious for the planned 18- place secure unit at Neath to be built as soon as possible, and I next look forward to receiving a grant application in respect of the capital costs for this project from West Glamorgan county council.

  St. David's Hospital
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received and what consultations he has had regarding the continuation of grade II listed buildings status of St. David's hospital frontage and clock tower subsequent to the fire of Saturday 23 October.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No representations have been made to this Department regarding the listed building status of St. David's hospital frontage and clock tower. I understand that South Glamorgan health authority and Cardiff city council are reviewing the situation caused by the fire and the Department-via Cadw: Welsh Historic Monument's Executive Agency-has offered technical advice.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he proposes to make to the cash limits for his Department in the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit on class XV, vote 2 will be increased by £4,660,000 from £169,280,000 to £173,940,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 4 will be increased by £436,000 from £151,316,000 to £151,752,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 5 will be increased by £9,861,000 from £787,498,000 to £797,359,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 8 will be increased by £7,382,000 from £1,374,344,000 to £1,381,726,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 9 will be reduced by £141,000 from £65,283,000 to £65,142,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 10 will be increased by £408,000 from £2,150,156,000 to £2,150,564,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 12 will be increased by £377,000 from £3,861,000 to £4,238,000. The local authority capital limit—WO/LACAP—will be reduced by £8,576,000 from £417,761,000 to £409,185,000; the cash limit on the European regional development fund—WO/ERDF—will be reduced by £20,000,000 from £70,650,000 to £50,650,000; the urban block cash limit —WO/UA—will be increased by £4,729,000 from £85,696,000 to £90,425,000; the running costs limit for the Department will be reduced by £82,000 from £77,366,000 to £77,284,000. The running costs limit for the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales will be increased by £462,000 from £2,755,000 to £3,217,000.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 2 is in respect of the take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement of £4,660,000.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 4 represents the net effect of (i) an increase of £1,800,000 in respect of the training and vocational education initiative; (ii) an increase of £200,000 in respect of training for work; and (iii) a reduction of £1,564,000 in respect of youth training. The £1,564,000 represents a decrease in provision following a cash limit overspend in 1992–93.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 5 comprises mainly (i) the take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement of £92,000 for running costs; (ii) additional provision for

  53
  motorways and trunk roads of £20,395,000, of which £3,065,000 represents the take-up of capital end-year flexibility entitlement; partly offset by (iii) a transfer of £8,500,000 to class XV, vote 6; and (iv) a transfer of £150,000 to class XV, vote 8.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 8 comprises the take-up of end year flexibility entitlement (£7,232,000) and a transfer from class XV, vote 5 (£150,000).

  The reduction in the cash limit for vote 9 comprises mainly (i) a transfer of resources to class XV, vote 12 (£479,000); partly offset by (ii) the take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement of £273,000 for running costs and (iii) the take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement of £50,000 for capital.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 10 is in respect of valuation tribunal expenditure.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 12 represents the net effect of transfers of £48,000 and £479,000 from class XV, votes 5 and 9 respectively; partly offset by a reduction of £150,000 in respect of the costs of inspections by registered inspectors.

  There are also changes to several non-voted cash limits. The reduction in the cash limit for WO/LACAP represents an offsetting saving to increases elsewhere in the Welsh Office block. The reduction in the cash limit for WO/ERDF reflects lower-than-expected expenditure on ERDF projects in 1993–94.

  The increase in the cash limit for WO/UA covers additional provision for the urban programme, urban investment grant and the Cardiff Bay development corporation, of which £3,729,000 represents the take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement.

  The entitlement to end-year flexibility for votes 2, 5, 8 and 9 and for WO/UA were announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July. So also was the increase in the Department's running costs limit, which features in both vote 5 (£92,000) and vote 9 (£273,000).

  None of the proposed changes will add to the planned total of public expenditure.

EDUCATION

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish in statistical form expenditure on education as a percentage of gross domestic product in each member state of the European Community.

  Mr. Boswell
  The readily available information is as follows:

  Total public expenditure on education1 as a percentage of Gross National Product

  Country

  Calendar year 1989

  Belgium

  25.2

  Denmark

  7.4

  France

  5.4

  Germany, Fed

  4.1

  Italy

  34.8

  Netherlands

  6.5

  Spain

  4.8

  United Kingdom

  4.6

  (4.74)

  Sources:

  Unesco Statistical Yearbook 1992

  Education Statistics for the United Kingdom 1992

  54

  1 Includes subsidies to the private sector.

  2 Ministry of Education only.

  31987 data.

  41990 data.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for extending the availability of student loans to postgraduate students in order to bring provisions for their finance into line with that for undergraduate students.

  Mr. Boswell
  Within the limited resources available, the Government's priority has been to make loans available to full-time undergraduate students and those on courses of initial teacher training. The Government have no plans to extend loans to other postgraduate students, many of whom have access to other resources.

  Religious Education
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is taking regarding the monitoring of agreed syllabuses for religious education in response to his letter to Sir Ron Dearing of 29 September.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We understand that SCAA is already discussing with the local education authorities whose revised syllabuses were analysed earlier this year what amendments might be necessary to reflect more precisely the detailed statutory requirements for RE. Following the issue next year of the Department's revised circular of guidance and national models for agreed syllabuses in RE, SCAA will be monitoring the revision of locally agreed syllabuses in response to section 256 of the Education Act 1993.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the preparation of model agreed syllabuses for religious education currently being drafted by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is working with representatives of the Christian and other faith communities and with teachers to draw up model agreed syllabuses. Wide consultation on draft models is due to begin in the new year, with a view to publishing final versions in the summer.

  School Dinners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children have taken school dinners in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on school meal arrangements in maintained schools in England between 1989 and 1992, the latest year for which information is presently available, is shown in the table. Information prior to 1989 is not available on a comparable basis although the results of early school meals censuses were published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy up to 1988 in "School Meal Statistics at October", copies of which are available in the Library.
  55

  Numbers of day-pupils raking school meals in maintained schools in England 1989–92

  Position as at January each year

  Numbers

  1989

  3,006,715

  1990

  2,991,682

  1991

  2,975,233

  1992

  3,029,766

  Union Flags
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his estimate of the cost of purchasing and erecting a flag pole and purchasing and flying a union flag at every state nursery, infants, primary and high school in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patten
  This is a matter for local determination.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes he has to announce to cash limits and running costs limits on votes within his responsibility for 1993–94.

  Mr. Patten
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limits for class X, vote 1, schools, research and miscellaneous services, vote 2, higher and further education, vote 4, administration, and vote 6, Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England, will be amended. The cash limit changes are as follows:

  Class and vote

  Current cash limit£

  Change£

  Revised cash limit£

  X.1

  742,847,000

  -1,615,000

  741,282,000

  X.2

  5,399,269,000

  +5,562,000

  5,404,831,000

  X.4

  92,472,000

  +1,829,000

  94,301,000

  X.6

  55,607,000

  -6,788,000

  48,819,000

  The reduction on class X, vote 1 is in respect of a transfer of £1,250,000 to class X, vote 2 for a preliminary scheme of school-centred initial teacher training; a transfer of £250,000 to class X, vote 2 to provide grant to the Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit for the initial costs of the family literacy initiative; and a transfer of £115,000 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, class II, vote 2, as a contribution towards the tuition costs of students coming to the United Kingdom under the European Community TEMPUS programme.

  The increase on class X, vote 2 includes an increase of £4,060,000 in grant-in-aid to the Higher Education Funding Council comprising a transfer of £2,460,000 from the Department of Health in respect of the costs of extended and upgraded courses in social work, and a transfer of £1,600,000 from the Cabinet Office (Office of Science and Technology) following the transfer of responsibility to the HEFC for the direct funding of the Institute of Cancer Research. There is also provision of £1,250,000 for a preliminary scheme of school-centred initial teacher training and of £250,000 for the costs of setting up and running the family literacy initiative, both fully offset by a cash limit reduction on class X, vote 1; and an increase of £2,000 in grant-in-aid to the Further
  56
  Education Funding Council, offset by a transfer from the Chessington Computer Centre, for provision of payroll services upon the centre becoming an agency on 1 April 1993.

  The increase on class X, vote 4 takes account of an increase of £1,600,000 under the capital (£1,122,000) and running costs (£478,000) end-year flexibility scheme announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1993, Official Report, cols 512–17; transfers of £24,000 running costs from the Department for National Heritage, £8,000 running costs from the Office of Public Service and Science and £8,000 running costs from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in respect of services provided by my Department; and a reduction of £189,000 in forecast receipts by the Teachers' Pensions Agency to be appropriated in aid of the Vote. The Department for Education's gross running costs limit has been increased by £1,499,000 from £88,824,000 to £90,323,000 as a result of these changes.

  The change on class X, vote 6 is in respect of a reduction of £7,172,000 in expenditure related to the inspection of schools, forecast to fall in 1993–94. This is partly offset by an increase of £384,000 in forecast expenditure on the restructuring of Her Majesty's inspectorate. OHMCI's gross running costs limit has been increased by £235,000, from £31,725,000 to £31,960,000.

  The increases will be offset by savings transferred from other votes and changes to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

PRIME MINISTER

  Vietnamese Prime Minister
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, columns 11–12, what action has been taken on the specific human rights cases raised with the Vietnamese Prime Minister during his visit to the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  Our embassy in Hanoi continues to raise our human rights concerns with the Vietnamese authorities, most recently on 15 October when the cases of Thich Huyen Quang and the three monks arrested in Hue in May were discussed.

  Speeches (Party Conferences)
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Prime Minister to what extent civil servants may assist Ministers in drafting speeches delivered at party conferences.

  The Prime Minister
  Civil servants may provide briefing of a factual nature for Ministers on matters relating to their own Departments. In addition, Ministers in preparing for a conference can draw upon material produced by their Department during the normal course of business.

  Writs (Cabinet Ministers)
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Cabinet Ministers whose legal costs arising from writs against them issued by individuals have been wholly or partly met from public funds in the past month.

  The Prime Minister
  I know of no such cases.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to change the 1993–94 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office: other services vote.

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the running costs limit for the Cabinet Office: other services vote (class XIX, vote 1) will be increased by £1,901,000 from £22,513,000 to £24,414,000. At the same time, the cash limit will be increassed by £3,321,000 from £18,313,000 to £21,634,000. This increase reflects the residual transfer of certain administrative functions, following the machinery of government changes announced after the general election, and provides for the transfer of certain other administrative functions and the move to repayment for some common service support as follows:

  (a) transfer or running costs provision for superannuation awarding services (£1,617,000);

  (b) transfer of running costs provision for central services previously funded by Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service and Science (class XVIII, vote 1) which is offset by an inter-vote payment by that department (£16,000);

  (c) transfer of running costs provision (£80,000) for central services offset by a reduction on HM Treasury: administration (class XVII, vote 1);

  (d) transfer of running costs provision for information services (£249,000) and some central services (£128,000) offset by an increase on Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service and Science (class XVIII, vote 1);

  (e) increased appropriations in aid following the transfer of provision for certain central services offset by increases on Department of National Heritage (class XI, vote 7) (£231,000), Central Statistical Office (class XVII, vote 14) (£155,000) and Inland Revenue (class XVII, vote 6) (£12,000).

  In addition, as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1993, Official Report, cols. 512–17, this vote is eligible for a cash limit increase of £868,000 in respect of the end year flexibility arrangements for capital expenditure. This supplementary estimate gives effect to the increase. All the increases are either offset by inter-departmental transfers or have been charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Newspapers
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will make a statement about the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the distribution and sale of newspapers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  On 19 August 1992 the Director General of Fair Trading referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the supply of newspapers from publishers to wholesalers and wholesalers to retailers in England and Wales. The MMC reported to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 30 July. The President of the Board of Trade is currently considering the report and will make a statement in due course.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to his Department's cash limits and running costs limit for 1993–94.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 1 (support for business, consumer and investor protection, energy programmes and administration) will be increased by £1,051,000 from £1,236,060,000 to £1,237,111,000.

  The gross running costs limit for the Department of Trade and Industry is being increased by £875,000 from £327,424,000 to £328,299,000 following transfers from the Department of Employment of £712,000 and Chessington Computer Centre for £581,000 offset by transfers from Her Majesty's Treasury of £135,000 in respect of accommodation costs, £233,000 of OFTEL for personnel services, and £50,000 to the Office of Public Service and Science in respect of a machinery of government transfer.

  The supplementary estimate for £1,051,000 on class IV, vote 1 includes an increase of £641,000 in research establishments' capital expenditure as a result of take-up under the end-year flexibility arrangements announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1993, Official Report, columns 512–17.

  There are some other changes in the allocation of provision. These include a £3,000,000 increase for energy programmes offset by a corresponding reduction of £3,000,000 for industrial research and space, a transfer to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of £500,000 in respect of the Taejon exposition and increased expenditure on the merger between the UKAEA and the Warren Spring Laboratory mostly offset by a reduction in departmental capital expenditure.

  In addition, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 4 (privatisation of the coal industry) will be increased by £4,800,000 from £7,500,000 to £12,300,000. The increase covers the additional costs of privatisation advisers' fees and the commissioning of consultants by management buy-out teams. Provision has also been made in the total for recovery of VAT.

  Office of Gas Supply
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to the cash limit and gross running costs limit for the Office of Gas Supply.

  Mr. Eggar
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 11, Office of Gas Supply, will be increased by £940,000 from £3,006,000 to £3,946,000. The gross running costs limit for the Office of Gas Supply will be increased by £878,000 from £2,953,000 to £3,831,000. The increase provides for the estimated additional costs incurred by the Office in considering the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commissions' report on British Gas under the Gas Act 1986. Increased provision is sought to cover extra costs due to greater use of consultants, increase in personnel and personnel overheads and change to internal building structure. The increase will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

HEALTH

  Amoxycillin
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish for the latest year for which figures are available the total income to her Department from the sale of Amoxycillin on prescription to patients of general practitioners who are not exempt from paying prescription charges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The estimated prescription charge income from prescriptions for Amoxycillin in the calendar year 1992 in England was £12.9 million.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish for the most recent year for which figures are available(a) the total number of prescriptions dispensed in England and Wales for Amoxycillin and (b) the total number of prescriptions dispensed in England and Wales to non-exempt prescription charge payers for Amoxycillin.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available on the number of chargeable prescriptions at individual drug level. Of the 12.6 million prescriptions for Amoxycillin dispensed by community pharmacists in 1992 in England, it is estimated that 3.1 million were issued to patients who are not exempt from prescription charges. There were additionally 3 million prescriptions for Amoxycillin directly dispensed by doctors during the same period; no breakdown of this figure is available by prescription charge category. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Opportunity 2000
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the targets under Opportunity 2000 for women consultants in the years up to 2000.

  Mr. Sackville
  The goals are to increase the percentage of women consultants from 15.5 per cent. in 1991 to 20 per cent. by 1994 necessitating an annual increase of 10 per cent. and to accelerate the rate of increase in the number of women consultants in surgical specialties from the current 9.7 per cent. per year to 15 per cent. per year by 1994. No goals have been set for post-1994.

  Primary Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to review the geographical inequalities in primary care expenditure in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government's programme for improving primary health care and delivering services in ways which better reflect the needs of consumers was set out in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" (Cm 249). We continue to develop this, for example through the revised health promotion arrangements in general medical services which place greater emphasis on better targeting of resources and wider access to health promotion for all patients; by reviewing the arrangements for the provision of general dental services; by encouraging cost effective and quality prescribing; by developing purchasing of community health services that are sensitive to local needs and take account of other 60
  primary care services; and by developing the proposals for strengthening primary care in London as set out in our strategy document "Making London Better".

  Clinical Grading Appeals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list by(a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority the number of clinical grading appeals that are currently outstanding;

  (2) how many grading appeals were still outstanding in respect of the 1988 nurses regrading scheme in each region.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 21 October at column 315. Information on the number of grading appeals outstanding by district health authority is not available centrally.

  Junior Doctors
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she is taking to improve morale among junior doctors.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  "Junior Doctors: The New Deal", copies of which are available in the Library, sets out a range of measures designed to benefit junior doctors. These include targets for reducing hours of work; the introduction of new, more flexible, working patterns; approaches to reducing the amount of inappropriate work undertaken by junior staff; and recommendations on standards for residential accommodation. This year we are spending some £37 million from central funds in support of the new deal.

  We believe that the new deal, together with the continued increase in consultant numbers, which provides improved career opportunities for junior 'doctors, demonstrates our commitment to improving their living and working conditions to the benefit of patient care.

  Consultancy Costs
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost per consultant episode in(a) the London teaching hospitals and (b) the Southend trust hospital for the latest period for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Hospitals, Birmingham
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will visit Birmingham to discuss the situation in hospitals there.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is kept regularly informed about health services in Birmingham. My hon. Friend the Minister of State was briefed on the current position when he met West Midlands regional health authority officers in September. He has also visited hospitals in and around Birmingham during October this year.

  NHS Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she hopes to appoint a new chairman for the Doncaster NHS healthcare trust; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Shortly.

  Drugs Budgets
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what average amount of money per patient was allocated in 1993–94 to(a) fund holding general practitioner practices in north Yorkshire and (b) other general practitioner practices in north Yorkshire for their NHS drugs budgets or indicative drug budgets.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Nurses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will order health authorities to pay interest on moneys still due to nurses in respect of the 1988 regrading scheme.

  Mr. Sackville
  No.

  Staff Relocation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of housing and all other benefits paid to departmental staff who moved from the south-east to Yorkshire in 1992–93; and what are the estimated costs in 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  A total of £8.71 million in 1992–93; £5.68 million in 1993–94.

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes she proposes to the cash limits and running costs limits for OPCS for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XII, vote 6 (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys) will he increased by £989,000 from £32,671,000 to £33,660,000 and the running costs limit of OPCS will be increased by £1,444,000 from £46,695,000 to £48,139,000. This reflects the take up of £238,000 for running costs and £751,000 for capital under the end-year flexibility arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1993 at columns 512–17. The increase in public expenditure will be charged to the Reserve and will therefore not add to the planning total.

  It also reflects increased running costs provision of £635,000 and capital provision of £284,000 in the national health centre register area for work on the Department of Health's national health service number programme; increased running costs provision of £10,000 and capital provision of £20,000 for work on the aggregation of local authority wards; increased running costs provision of £561,000 for the work of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission. These increases will be offset by an increase
  62
  in appropriations in aid on the OPCS vote and met from within the existing resources of the Department of Health (class XII, vote 3) and the Home Office (class VIII, vote 3). This will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number of consultants, staff grade and associate grade in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is shown in the table. Both medical and dental grades are included.

  Number of hospital medical and dental staff in England as at 30 September 1992

  Grade

  Number

  Consultant

  16,806

  Staff grade

  755

  Associate specialist

  966

  TOTAL

  18,527

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes she proposes to the cash limits and running cost limits of her Department in 1993–94.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The cash limit for class XII, vote 1 (Hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, England) will be decreased by £58,031,000, from £19,938,202,000 to £19,880,171,000. This decrease covers transfer of £104,688,000 to class XII, vote 4 (Family health services (part) and NHS trusts external financing etc., England) for an increase in the NHS trusts' aggregate external financing limit (£88,416,000) and for general practice fund holder drug costs (£16,272,000). The total decrease has been partly offset by the addition of £44,957,000 for take up of entitlement to carry over underspends under the end-year flexibility arrangements as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1993 at columns 512–17 and also covers a transfer of £1,700,000 from class XII, vote 3 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England) for day and domiciliary care.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for class XII, vote 3 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England) will be reduced by £3,978,000 (from £1,441,225,000 to £1,437,247,000). This reduction allows for a transfer of £1,700,000 to class XII, vote 1 mentioned above; £2,460,000 to class X, vote 2 (Department for Education higher and further education) for the conversion of social work training courses; £200,000 to class XI, vote 3 (Department of National Heritage: Libraries) for a grant to the Royal National Institute for the Blind and £840,000 to class XIV, vote 13 (Family health services (part) and NHS trusts external financing etc, Scotland) in respect of increased receipts by the health benefit unit. The overall reduction is partly offset by £1,161,000 from class XIII, vote 4 (Department of Social Security, administration and miscellaneous services) (Departmental running costs of £642,000) in respect of departmental administration, accommodation, printing and stationery for the health

  63
  benefit unit and a contribution towards the Keep Warm Keep Well Campaign. There is an additional increase of £61,000 on running costs reflecting a new repayment service with the Department of Social Security. The increase is fully offset by increased receipts on Department of Social Security class XIII, vote 4.

  The Department's gross running cost limit will be increased by £228,000 from £252,856,000 to £253,084,000. This reflects a reallocation out of running costs of £475,000 to the health benefit unit offset by the effect of transfers from the Department of Social Security mentioned above.

  All increases will either be offset by savings or charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  DSS Headquarters, Leeds
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of staff travel from the home counties to the new DSS HQ in Leeds on a daily basis: how they travel; who pays their travel costs; and how much per week is spent by Her Majesty's Government on such travel.

  Mr. Sackville
  According to this Department's records, Her Majesty's Government pays for no Department of Health staff to travel on a daily basis from the home counties to the new headquarters building in Leeds.

  Quarry House, Leeds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future level of employment at the NHS Management Executive headquarters at Quarry house, Leeds.

  Mr. Sackville
  No decisions have yet been made on the future level of employment in the National Health Service Management Executive in Leeds. Future manpower requirements will be determined in the light of decisions on the functions which are to be discharged by the headquarters and the regional offices.

  Child Migrant Trust
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 25 October,Official Report, columns 501–2, what consideration she gave during her visit to Australia to the work of the Child Migrant Trust, as indicated in her press notice of 24 August.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 October at cols. 501–2.

  "The Resettlement Game"
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to respond to the recommendations of the Values into Action report "The Resettlement Game", a copy of which has been sent to her; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I look forward to receiving a copy which we shall, of course, study with interest.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that all NHS learning disabilities trusts comply with the requirements of the 64
  National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 in enabling residents of mental handicap hospitals to have their housing, health and social care needs met by community-based agencies.

  Mr. Bowis
  Guidance issued to health and local authorities in 1992, HSG(92)42 and LAC(92)15, stated clearly that health authorities should work with local social services departments to plan the transfer of residents from the old long-stay mental handicap hospitals to community-based facilities as quickly as feasible. The pace of transfer will depend on local circumstances and resources.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil servants are working in her Department's offices at Richmond house, 79 Whitehall.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are 447 Department of Health staff and 174 from the Department of Social Security.

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will quantify the total cost of the backlog of maintenance on the national health service estate for each district health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 21 October 1993]: This information will be placed in the Library.

  Health Authorities Capital
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the system of capital allocation to health authorities other than requiring the payment of interest on capital stock.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 25 October 1993 at column 499.

DEFENCE

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress made in repairs to the A91 complex at AWE Aldermaston.

  Mr. Aitken
  A contract for the repair of A91 was awarded to NNC Ltd. on 12 October 1993.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the sludge solidification system to be used for the treatment of radioactive effluent at AWE Aldermaston is now fully operational; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The system is not yet operational.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he, or staff at AWE Aldermaston, are currently having with(a) Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and (b) the Health and Safety Executive regarding the implementation of interim measures in order to ensure the continued operation of the existing liquid waste treatment plant at the Aldermaston site.

  Mr. Aitken
  (a) HMIP and MAFF, the joint regulators, regularly review with AWE staff the measures required to

  65
  ensure the continued operation of the liquid waste treatment systems at AWE Aldermaston. In addition, both HMIP and MAFF frequently inspect and comment on the implementation of these measures.

  (b) The HSE is currently carrying out a review of health and safety management at AWE. The general topic of waste and decommissioning will be one aspect of this review.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the low-flying areas in the United Kingdom which are not under the direct controlling authority of RAF West Drayton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The following low-flying areas within the United Kingdom are classified as dedicated user areas: LFA 1, LFA 3, LFA 9, LF.A 10, LFA 13 and LFA 19. Use of these areas for low flying is co-ordinated locally, except when the local co-ordinating authority is closed in which case control reverts to the tactical booking cell at RAF West Drayton. All other LFAs are controlled from RAF West Drayton at all times.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the low-flying area boundaries in use for daytime flying are also used for the night low-flying system.

  Mr. Hanley
  No. the United Kingdom low-flying system is based on a different set of low-flying areas which apply to daytime flying. As I told the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 25 October,Official Report, col 485, a map of the United Kingdom night low-flying system is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft movements into the highlands restricted area were booked in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not our practice to publish detailed information on activity in individual low-flying areas.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties were undertaken in the United Kingdom low-flying system in the period between sunset plus 30 minutes and sunrise minus 30 minutes, in each year from 1987 to 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  Statistics on low-flying sorties during the period of the day specified are not available. Statistics on sorties flown in the United Kingdom night low-flying system are, however, available from July 1989 on wards and are given in the table:

  Sorties

  11989

  1,601

  1990

  3,709

  1991

  2,066

  1992

  3,520

  1 July to December

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the requirements for individual air force flying units or stations to provide statistics to the military air traffic organisation on the use made of each low-flying area.
  66
  Mr. Hanley
  In general, statistics on the use of low-flying areas are compiled from information provided by the tactical booking cell at RAF West Drayton and there is no requirement for individual units to provide statistics to HQ military air traffic operations. The following units or flying stations, which are the co-ordinating authorities for dedicated user areas within the United Kingdom low-flying system or which have a dispensation to operate in their local low-flying area without pre-booking through TBC, are however, required to submit statistics on a monthly basis:

  RAF Benson

  RAF Chivenor

  RNAS Culdrose

  RAF Leuchars

  RAF Lossiemouth

  HQ Northern Ireland

  RAF Odiham

  Salisbury Plain Operations Centre

  RAF Spadeadam

  RAF Ternhill

  Wattisham

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations and dates of currently planned presentations by the RAF low-flying presentation team.

  Mr. Hanley
  Presentations by the Ministry of Defence low-flying presentation team are currently planned to take place on Wednesday 3 November 1993 at Staplehurst, Kent and on Thursday 9 December at Morecambe, Lancashire.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the joint United Kingdom-United States-Canadian study on the long-term effects on human health of exposure to aircraft noise; and if he will list any publications by participants in this study.

  Mr. Hanley
  Initial work on the feasibility of a study to investigate the possible effects on health of noise from low-flying aircraft has been completed and a report is being prepared. My Department is not aware of any publications by participants in relation to the study.

  MiG Aircraft Collision
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the minimum authorised altitude for the air display by the two MiG-29 aircraft which collided at RAF Fairford on 25 July; and what was the overall minimum altitude for all participating aircraft in the display.

  Mr. Hanley
  All participants in the international air tattoo held at RAF Fairford were required to comply with the regulations contained in the Joint Services Publication 318 as follows:Fixed Wing aircraft performing straight and level flypast—not below 100 feet Minimum Separation Distance (MSD).
  Rotary Wing aircraft performing straight and level flypast—not below 50 feet MSD.
  Aircraft performing aerobatic manoeuvres and inverted flight—not below 500 feet MSD.
  Fixed Wing aircraft performing all other manoeuvres—not below 300 feet MSD.
  Rotary Wing aircraft performing all other manoeuvres—not below 100 feet MSD.
  67
  Helicopters and vertical or short take-off and landing aircraft may operate below the above MSDs during hovering and transition manoeuvres.

  Minesweepers
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations he will take into account when deciding to whom to sell the six River class minesweepers presently for sale.

  Mr. Aitken
  Our general policy is to support the sale of British defence equipment overseas wherever this is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests, We consider our own national security, our policy towards a particular country, and our international obligations. Subject to these constraints, we will negotiate with interested Governments in order to achieve the best price for the vessels.

  Eurofighter 2000
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the progress being made in the development of flight control of software for Eurofighter 2000.

  Mr. Aitken
  The integrity of the flight control system software is critical to the flight safety of an aerodynamically unstable aircraft such as EF 2000. It is therefore essential that all aspects of the software standard required for first flight are subjected to thorough ground rig testing beforehand. This is taking rather longer than expected and has necessitated a postponement of the first flight, which Eurofighter is now forecasting for April next year. This further delay is disappointing, but there is no indication of any major design problem and it should not be of great significance in overall programme terms. It should not affect the forecast delivery of the first RAF production aircraft in 2000.

  Victor Tankers
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to dispose of the Victor tankers which have been withdrawn following the disbandment of 55 Squadron.

  Mr. Aitken
  Tenders for the purchase of the aircraft are expected on 4 November and we hope to complete the sale by the end of the month.

  Operation Deny Flight
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many combat air patrols have been flown by aircraft of the Royal Air Force since the commencement of operation Deny Flight.

  Mr. Hanley
  Up to and including 27 October 1993, 540 combat air patrol sorties had been flown by Royal Air Force Tornado F3 aircraft.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many close air support training missions have been flown by aircraft of the Royal Air Force since the commencement of operation Deny Flight.

  Mr. Hanley
  Up to and including 27 October 1993, 238 close air support training missions had been flown by Royal Air Force Jaguar aircraft.
  68
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft of the Royal Air Force, and of what types, are currently deployed in operation Deny Flight.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Royal Air Force aircraft currently deployed on operation Deny Flight are listed in the table:

  Number

  Tornado F3

  8

  Jaguar GR1

  12

  Sentry AEW 1

  2

  Tristan

  2

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he proposes to the class I cash limits and running costs limit for 1993–94.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the winter supplementary estimates, the following change will be made:

  Class I, vote 1 cash limits

  £ thousands

  Current cash limits

  12,408,726

  Change

  -3,510

  Revised cash limit

  12,405,216

  This change decreases the block defence cash limit by £3,510,000 from £23,406,837,000 to £23,403,327,000. It reflects a transfer between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Environment to enable Plymouth urban development corporation to purchase Royal William yard.

  The running costs limit is unchanged.

EMPLOYMENT

  Sellafield
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out the criteria established for the procedures, remit and timing of Health and Safety Executive studies of the incidence of leukaemia and other radiation effects in relation to British Nuclear Fuels plc's plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As the findings of the 1990 report by Professor Gardner suggested a possible occupational cause for the raised incidence of leukaemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma in young people near the Sellafield plant, the Health and Safety Executive decided to focus its investigation on the occupational histories of fathers employed at the plant. The purpose of the investigation, which was based on records held by British Nuclear Fuels plc, was to see if the Health and Safety Executive needed to take any specific action to further restrict workplace exposures. At the same time HSE agreed to fund a number of other relevant studies jointly with the Department of Health.

  A written protocol specifying the criteria and working methods of the investigation was drawn up and agreed with the workforce and management of British Nuclear Fuels plc and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. It

  69
  was cleared with the medical ethical authorities in December 1990 and work began in January 1991. It was recognised that a full epidemiological study would take some years to complete. Therefore, two short studies based on the case fathers identified by Professor Gardner, were carried out to whether any obvious common factors emerged; neither study pointed to a need for action. Originally, it was envisaged that the main study could be completed in April 1992. However, despite giving the work a high priority, the study took longer to complete because of the volume and complexity of the records that had to be examined and interpreted. This resulted in the report not being finalised until the end of September 1993. The findings of the report suggest that no further preventive action is required to protect the occupational health and safety of the Sellafield work force, over and above the measures which are already in place.

  Training and Employment Measures
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what communications he has received from the local government international bureau about possible forfeiture by the United Kingdom of money available from the European Community in support of measures to promote training and employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Unemployment duration

  Highest qualification

  less than 1 year

  more than one but less than 2 years

  more than 2 years but less than 3 years

  First degree or above

  115,000

  25,000

  10,000

  Higher education below degree

  65,000

  20,000

  5,000

  A level or equivalent

  375,000

  110,000

  45,000

  European Court
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the Government intend to respond to the recent decision of the European Court of Justice in the case of Marshall v. Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority (No. 2).

  Miss Widdecombe
  We are urgently seeking powers under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to make regulations to amend the law in the light of this judgment. These regulations will, in particular, remove the upper limit on compensation in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and give industrial tribunals a power to award interest in sex discrimination and equal pay cases. I expect these regulations to come into force during November. Similar regulations are intended for Northern Ireland.

  The Marshall judgment was concerned only with sex discrimination. However, the Government believe that other types of discrimination which are similarly prohibited should carry the same penalties as sex discrimination.

  The Government will therefore seek a suitable opportunity to amend the penalties available for racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1975, to keep them consistent with those soon to be available under the Sex Discrimination Act.

  Similarly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will seek an
  70
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No formal communications have been received from the local government international bureau on this subject, but I understand that it has been raised at meetings with the Department's European social fund unit.

  The United Kingdom has not forfeited money made available from the ESF. Acceptance of additional resources from the ESF arising from exchange rate fluctuations was subject to discussions with the European Commission and others about the complex accounting procedures governing the ESF. However a solution has now been found which will enable us to make use of the additional funds.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's estimate of the number of people who have completed a course of study at university or a college of further or higher education(a) in the last year, (b) in the last two years and (c) in the last three years and have yet to find employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department does not hold information in precisely the form requested. However the Labour Force Survey provides information both on an individual's highest qualification and duration of unemployment. The following table shows unemployment estimates for people qualified to further and higher education levels:

  opportunity to amend the penalties available for religious discrimination in Northern Ireland under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, as amended.

  Radiation, Sellafield
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what date the recent Health and Safety Executive study of the incidence of leukaemia and other radiation effects in relation to BNFL's plant at Sellafield was made available to British Nuclear Fuels.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 October 1993]: Pre-publication copies of the report of the findings were sent to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on 15 September 1993, following clearance by the Health and Safety Commission for publication.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the budget for each of his Department's special schemes for disabled people, and the actual amount available for the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 28 October 1993] I have prepared the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question in the form of the following tables:
  71

  Budget each scheme £000s

  Scheme

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Special Aids to Employment (SAE)

  2,218

  3,732

  5,843

  7,143

  8,658

  Adaptations to Premises and Equipment (APE)

  354

  495

  438

  461

  522

  Fares to Work (FTW)

  620

  968

  1,682

  2,028

  1,648

  Business on Own Account (BOA)

  39

  54

  44

  65

  82

  Job Introduction Scheme (JIS)

  609

  610

  779

  486

  433

  Personal Reader Service (PRS)

  395

  435

  575

  523

  849

  Actual expenditure for each scheme £000s

  Scheme

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Special Aids to Employment (SAE)

  3,361

  4,293

  5,602

  6,523

  6,670

  Adaptations to Premises and Equipment (APE)

  423

  338

  449

  527

  581

  Fares to Work (FTW)

  853

  1,160

  1,383

  1,648

  1,801

  Business on Own Account (BOA)

  31

  17

  40

  59

  40

  Job Introduction Scheme (JIS)

  614

  527

  461

  410

  391

  Personal Reader Service (PRS)

  453

  350

  619

  807

  1,206

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants are working in his Department's offices at Dover house, Whitehall.

  Mr. Lang
  At 28 October 1993, my Department had 39 civil servants working in Dover house.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he intends to make to the cash limits in running costs for 1993–94 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates I intend to make changes to six voted cash limits, two running costs limits and in addition the two non-voted cash blocks:—

  (a) The cash limit for class XIV, vote 3, training programmes, roads and transport services and industrial support, Scotland, will be increased by £17,437,000 from £728,557,000 to £745,994,000. The increase takes account of an increase in provision of £8,650,000 for grant payments to Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd (offset by a reduction in the company's market borrowing); a transfer of provision of £800,000 from class XIV, vote 17; an increase in provision of £7,287,000 for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, for the package of employment and training measures announced by the Chancellor in his Budget statement on 16 March 1993, Official Report, cols 169 to 196; a transfer of £1,077,000 provision in respect of Department of Employment employment action; and the uptake of end-year flexibility as announced by the Chief Secretary on 14 July 1993, Official Report columns 512–17.

  (b) The cash limit for class XIV, vote 7, housing and environmental services, Scotland will be increased by £152,000 from £418,807,000 to £418,959,000. The increase takes account of a £282,000 increase in provision for running costs as a result of a transfer of £96,000 from class XIV, vote 21; £56,000 as part take-up by Historic Scotland of the Scottish Office end-year flexibility entitlement for running costs; and £130,000 which is covered by a corresponding increase in Appropriations in Aid.

  (c) The cash limit for class XIV, vote 12, law, order, miscellaneous health and social work services, Scotland, will be increased by £2,829,000 from
  72
  £280,703,000 to £283,532,000. The major elements are transfers of provision for running costs; lower than forecast appropriations in aid in respect of the Scottish Prison Service; a £181,000 increase in provision for the Orkney inquiry offset by a corresponding reduction in social work services: and the uptake of end-year flexibility.

  (d) The cash limit for class XIV, vote 17, education, arts and libraries, Scotland, will be increased by £1,806,000 from £761,903,000 to £763,709,000. The increase reflects the full uptake of end-year flexibility of £2,606,000, partially offset by a transfer of provision of £800,000 to class XIV, vote 3.

  (e) The cash limit for class XIV, vote 21, Scottish Office Administration, will be increased by £1,019,000 from £163,417,000 to £164,436,000. This increase results from additional running cost resources of £600,000 taken up within the agreed limit for 1993–94 offset by a series of inter-Vote transfers totalling £286,000; and take up of £705,000 under end-year flexibility arrangements for running costs. Additional resources will be used to meet increased ERNIC costs, spending on staff and development of information systems to administer reformed EC schemes of agricultural support, making the Scottish Office more accessible through local contact points and telephone enquiry lines and offsetting loss of income from the intervention board.

  (f) The cash limit for class XIV, vote 22, Scottish Record Office, will be increased by £67,000 from £10,202,000 to £10,269,000. Within this total, the running cost limit is increased by £15,000 following a transfer from class XIV, vote 21. There is also £52,000 for the uptake of end-year flexibility on capital expenditure. The additional provision will contribute to the cost of installing and running an automatic intruder and flood detection system.

  (g) The non-voted cash limit SO/LA1, which covers non-housing capital expenditure by local authorities, is to be increased by £30,604,000 from £590,156,000 to £620,760,000. This reflects full take-up of end year flexibility amounting to £32,604,000 along with a reduction of existing net capital allocations amounting to £2,000,000 to balance an increase on class XIV, vote 8, local environmental services and housing.

  (h) The non-voted cash limit SO/LA2, which covers housing capital expenditure by local authorities and capital expenditure by new towns, will be increased by £11,019,000 from £264,395,000 to £275,414,000. The increase takes account of a reduction of £2,000,000 as a result of a transfer to class XIV, vote 11; and an increase of £13,019,000 as a result of the take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement.

  (i) The Scottish Office running cost limit will be increased by £2,369,000 from £330,487,000 to £332,856,000. This results from take up of end-year flexibility totalling £1,339,000; a transfer out of £15,000 to

  73
  Scottish Record Office; a transfer in of £15,000 to Scottish Prison Service from the Office of Public Service and Science (Class XVIII, Vote 1); £900,000 to cope with increased prison population and administrative work arising from CAP Reforms and the. White Paper "Scotland in the Union"; and an increase of £130,000 for Historic Scotland covered by additional income earned this year.

  These increases will be offset by savings on other votes and cash limits within my responsibility and by claims on the Reserve. There will not therefore be any addition to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Sewage Sludge
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a map showing the boundaries of the sewage sludge dump on the Firth of Clyde.

  Sir Hector Monro
  A copy of the appropriate map has been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards the appointment of persons with Conservative party affiliations to NHS trust boards.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 October .1993]: Political affiliation is not a factor in such appointments, which are made on the basis of the personal contribution which the individual concerned can make to the board.

  "A Partnership for Good"
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the total annual costs which will be, or already have been, incurred in fulfilling the commitments made by his Department in the document, "Scotland in the Union—A Partnership for Good."

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 October 1993]: Details of the identifiable costs, both actual and estimated, of implementing specific commitments contained in the White Paper, "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good" are set out in the table. Many of these commitments would have arisen in any case, but all contribute to the White Paper's general thrust to devolve more decision-making power to Scotland and within Scotland.

  Proposal or commitment

  Estimated or actual costs

  Europartenariat

  140,000

  Review of Scottish Trade International

  14,000

  Publication of concise Annual Report

  38,000

  Making Scottish Office more accessible to all parts of Scotland

  2176,870

  Publication of Further and Higher Education Charters

  86,500

  Publication of Householders Guide to Planning

  2,210

  Publication of Charter on Local Authority Environmental Services

  20,600

  Publication of Guide to Rights of Private Sector Tenants

  3,625

  Appointment of Lay Inspector of Constabulary

  317,170

  Appointment of lay members of schools and colleges inspection teams

  415,000

  Appointment of lay inspectors to Social Work Sevices Inspectorate

  52,600

  Comments:

  1 Estimate cost of Scottish Office Industry Department Stand

  2 Includes initial publicity costs of £150,000; estimated annual running costs are £28,500.

  74

  3 Salary fee for 9 month contract

  4 Start up costs.

  5 Cost so far incurred.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS sight tests took place in each financial year since 1984–85.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 October 1993]: The number of national health service sight tests paid for by health boards in each of the financial years from 1984–85 to 1992–93 is shown in the table.

  Number of NHS sight tests

  Year

  Number

  1984–85

  884,727

  1985–86

  913,901

  1986–87

  965,160

  1987–88

  1,098,145

  1988–89

  1,168,610

  1989–90

  1475,479

  1990–91

  432,885

  1991–92

  496,598

  1992–93

  538,684

  1 Since 1 April 1989 free National Health Service sight tests have only been available to children, full-time students under 19, those in receipt of Income Support or Family Credit, the registered blind and partially sighted, complex lens users, those who hold an AG2 Examption certificate from the Health Benefits Unit, diagnosed diabetic or glaucoma sufferers and close relatives aged 40 or over of glaucoma sufferers.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) individuals and (b) organisations in East Lothian have had their views conveyed to him (i) in favour of his plan to divide the local authority area of East Lothian, and (ii) against that proposal.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: Since the publication of the White Paper, "Shaping the Future —The New Councils", 35 individual letters commenting on the proposal to create a new single-tier authority for Berwickshire and East Lothian have been received from East Lothian, three of which have been in favour of the proposal and 32 against. Of these, 27 letters have come from individuals and eight from organisations. In addition, some 14,000 postcards, pro forma letters and petition signatures have been submitted, mainly from people objecting to the Government's proposals for East Lothian.

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

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: Estimates of net farm income based on results of sample surveys are provided in the following tables. The system of classification changed in 1992–93 and the figures in the two tables are not fully comparable. Year-to-year comparisons on each table can best be made by reference to the indices which are based on results from constant samples of farms.
  75

  Table 1

  Old classification1

  LFA: Mainly sheep

  LFA: Cattle and sheep

  Net farm income

  Indices (1989–90 to 1991–92=100)2

  Net farm income

  Indices (1989–90 to 1991–92=100)2

  Nominal terms

  Real terms

  Nominal terms

  Real terms

  Nominal terms

  Real terms

  Nominal terms

  Real terms

  1978–79

  8,100

  21,500

  74

  184

  6,900

  18,400

  48

  120

  1979–80

  5,700

  16,200

  49

  106

  3,500

  8,200

  26

  56

  1980–81

  5,800

  11,300

  52

  97

  3,100

  6,100

  27

  51

  1981–82

  9,700

  17,200

  99

  163

  11,000

  19,400

  87

  144

  1982–83

  7,400

  13,400

  75

  115

  9,500

  15,600

  74

  113

  31983–84

  6,000

  9,400

  72

  106

  7,500

  11,700

  66

  97

  1984–85

  8,400

  12,600

  94

  132

  6,100

  9,100

  60

  84

  1985–86

  13,200

  19,600

  144

  190

  8,400

  11,900

  84

  111

  1986–87

  7,100

  9,700

  79

  101

  3,600

  4,900

  34

  43

  1987–88

  10,200

  13,300

  118

  146

  9,300

  12,000

  102

  125

  1988–89

  10,700

  13,300

  105

  122

  12,500

  15,500

  129

  150

  1989–90

  9,300

  10,800

  97

  105

  9,300

  10,800

  105

  113

  1990–91

  9,300

  9,700

  95

  93

  8,400

  8,800

  92

  91

  1991–92

  9,600

  9,600

  108

  102

  10,500

  10,500

  102

  96

  Source: Farm Accounts Scheme.

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

  2 Nominal figures deflated by the Retail Price Index, 1991–92=100.

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

  Table 2

  New Classification3

  Specialist Sheep (SDA)

  Mixed Cattle and Sheep (SDA)

  Net Farm Income

  Indices (89–90 to 91–92=100)1

  Net Farm Income

  Indices 89–90 to 91–92=100)1

  Nominal Terms

  Real Terms

  Nominal Terms

  Real Terms

  Nominal Terms

  Real Terms

  Nominal Terms

  Real Terms

  1987–88

  8,800

  11,600

  97

  120

  9,600

  12,600

  91

  112

  1988–89

  9,400

  11,600

  89

  104

  12,300

  15,300

  116

  135

  1989–90

  8,600

  9,800

  91

  99

  11,100

  12,800

  105

  113

  1990–91

  8,100

  8,500

  101

  99

  10,100

  10,500

  95

  93

  1991–92

  9,100

  9,100

  108

  102

  8,600

  8,600

  100

  94

  1992–933

  10,800

  10,500

  149

  136

  11,600

  11,300

  110

  100

  Source: Farm Accounts Scheme.

  1 Net Farm Income figures deflated by the Retail Price Index, 1991–92=100.

  2 1992–93 Net Farm Income figures are provisional.

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

  Physiotherapists
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of physiotherapists in(a) general practitioner practices and (b) hospitals, within each health board area, in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 October 1993]: Information on physiotherapists employed by GP practices

  NHS Staff employed in physiotherapy as at 31 March

  Health Board

  1993

  1992

  1991

  1990

  Total

  Qualified

  Unqualified

  Total

  Qualified

  Unqualified

  Total

  Qualified

  Unqualified

  Total

  Qualified

  Unqualified

  Scotland

  1,901

  1,682

  219

  1,842

  1,636

  206

  1,735

  1,552

  183

  1,713

  1,531

  182

  Argyll and Clyde

  133

  115

  18

  134

  115

  19

  120

  106

  14

  120

  107

  13

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1134

  1125

  9

  144

  136

  8

  130

  124

  6

  119

  116

  3

  Borders

  47

  42

  5

  44

  39

  5

  39

  36

  3

  38

  34

  4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  41

  35

  6

  40

  34

  6

  36

  30

  6

  37

  30

  7

  Fife

  134

  112

  22

  129

  106

  23

  118

  97

  21

  113

  93

  20

  Forth Valley

  90

  79

  11

  83

  71

  12

  73

  64

  9

  76

  66

  10

  Grampian

  169

  158

  11

  160

  149

  11

  150

  141

  9

  149

  140

  9

  Great Glasgow

  412

  357

  55

  401

  354

  47

  394

  355

  39

  401

  361

  40

  Highland

  79

  64

  15

  77

  63

  14

  74

  61

  13

  73

  59

  14

  Lanarkshire

  146

  139

  7

  147

  140

  7

  142

  136

  6

  136

  130

  6

  Lothian

  334

  297

  37

  306

  274

  32

  299

  263

  36

  291

  257

  34

  Orkney

  9

  7

  2

  8

  7

  1

  7

  6

  1

  6

  5

  1

  76
  is available centrally only from 1 October 1992. Some practices do not classify the categories of staff employed, and from the data available at 1 April 1993 only one physiotherapist can be identified in a GP practice, in the Ayrshire and Arran health board area. Additionally, some physiotherapy services are provided in GP practices by hospital based staff.

  The number of phsiotherapists in hospitals, within each health board area, is shown in the table.
  77

  Health Board

  1993

  1992

  1991

  1990

  Total

  Qualified

  Unqualified

  Total

  Qualified

  Unqualified

  Total

  Qualified

  Unqualified

  Total

  Qualified

  Unqualified

  Shetland

  10

  8

  2

  9

  7

  2

  8

  6

  2

  8

  6

  2

  Tayside

  145

  128

  17

  142

  125

  17

  132

  116

  16

  131

  114

  17

  Western Isles

  18

  16

  2

  18

  16

  2

  13

  11

  2

  15

  13

  2

  1 Excludes one physiotherapist working in a GP practice.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Low Pay
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in low-paid employment are subject to a marginal tax/benefit withdrawal rate of(a) more than 85 per cent. and (b) more than 95 per cent.; and how many in each case have children.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Numbers with Marginal Deduction Rates at or above each level

  1993–94

  Thousands

  Without children

  With children

  Total

  Greater than 95 per cent.

  0

  (25)

  (25)

  Greater than 85 per cent.

  (5)

  120

  125

  Notes:

  1. Calculated for benefit units in receipt of income related benefits where at least one partner works 16 hours or more. Estimates are cumulative and rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  2. Figures are based on pooled Family Expenditure Survey data (1989, 1990, 1991).

  3. All results are subject to sampling error. Those bracketed are based on a small number of cases and therefore may have wider margins of error.

  Deductions from Benefit
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of claimants have deductions from their benefit at source.

  Mr. Burt
  Out of 5,088,000 income support recipients, 1,006,000 have one or more deductions from their benefit. The proportion is therefore 19.8 per cent.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry May 1992.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Percentage has been rounded to one decimal point.

  Independent Living Fund
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he intends to take to ensure that the independent living fund benefits people who are suffering from terminal illness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The independent living (1993) fund is an independent and discretionary trust, governed by a board of trustees. All decisions on matters of policy are a matter for the trustees.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been received by the independent living fund since 1 April; and how many of these have been approved.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the director of the independent living (1993) fund that, as at 27 October, the 78
  fund has received 575 applications. Of these, 112 have been approved for payment and a further 289 are in the process of being assessed.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have applied to the independent living (1993) fund so far in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the director of the independent living (1993) fund that, as at 27 October, the fund has received 575 applications.

  Income Support
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures on the same basis as table series 10 in the income support statistics annual inquiry for May 1992 giving the average amount of deduction for each statistical group.

  Mr. Burt
  Such information as is available is in table 10.1 of the income support annual statistical enquiry May 1992.

  Basic Skills
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those receiving income support have been assessed as having inadequate basic skills; and what estimate he has of the cost to the Exchequer of this group in the latest available year.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available.

  Child Support Agency
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the take-on strategy of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency has a phased four year take-on programme of work.

  During the first year, the agency will deal with new benefit clients, including an estimated half a million who do not currently receive maintenance, and new non benefit clients without existing court orders or written maintenance agreements who wish to apply. New benefit clients will form the bulk of the work in 1993–94 resulting in assessments for many absent parents who have consciously avoided paying in the past.

  The agency has already achieved considerable success in the task of locating parents who previously evaded their responsibilities. Since the agency was launched, the absent parent has been found in over 90 per cent. of those cases where the parent with care does not know his address. In September alone over 2,500 absent parents have been located by the agency's specialist tracing sections.

  The agency will also take on existing benefit clients, where the parent with care or their current partner was already receiving income support prior to 5 April, over a three year period. In addition, the agency will consider

  79
  sympathetically, in the light of their individual circumstances, any existing benefit client who seeks to be taken on early, including those where the absent parent has been avoiding paying maintenance.

  The agency is now dealing with existing benefit clients who already receive maintenance and where the whereabouts of the absent parent is known. Many of these will be clients where a change of circumstances triggers take on of the case; this avoids double handling by dealing with the case then rather than another occasion. The agency is now dealing with some existing benefit clients who are not receiving maintenance, and will be steadily taking on more. It will normally prioritise such cases according to whether or not a regular maintenance payment can be secured, again in order to secure the maximum benefit to parents with care quickly, but will have taken on all such cases by April 1996.

  During the last stage of the programme, in 1996–97, the agency will phase in those parents with care with existing maintenance agreements who do not receive income support, family credit, or disability working allowance, who wish to be taken on. This will be in line with a staggered programme according to the first letter of their surname.

  This strategy means that more children will receive more maintenance more regularly. It does this in the most administratively efficient manner, and in a way which will most economically reduce the burden on the taxpayer.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in how many cases the parent with care has refused to provide information to the Child Support Agency as to the identity of the absent parent; and in how many of those cases the absent parent has been traced by the Child Support Agency in the first six months of operation;

  (2) how many applications for maintenance assessments have been (a) received and (b) processed by the Child Support Agency in its first six months of operation;

  (3) in how many cases the Child Support Agency has decided that there have been good causes for the refusal to co-operate by those parents with care who have chosen not to co-operate with the Child Support Agency;

  (4) in how many cases processed by the Child Support Agency since April the absent parent has been part of a second family;

  (5) how many applications made to the Child Support Agency have been processed and put into payment in the first six months of the agency's operation; how many of these assessments are being collected by the agency; and how many are being collected by other means;

  (6) how many parents with care have (a) chosen not to co-operate with the Child Support Agency and (b) been unable to provide information as to the identity of the absent parent in the first six months of the Child Support Agency's operation.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Kevin Hughes, dated 29 October, 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational
  80
  matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking about various aspects of the work of the Child Support Agency.
  You ask about cases where the requirement to cooperate has been an issue. The number of such cases to 30 September is 6,600 and in 4,900 of these the Agency has accepted that the parent with care had good cause not to co-operate with the Agency in pursuing a maintenance claim. Tracing action is only taken when the parent with care has been able to provide sufficient information on the father to make such action feasible.
  At 30 September 328,700 Maintenance Assessment Forms had been returned and 36,610 maintenance assessments completed.
  You also ask about the collection of maintenance. Information on maintenance being collected is not currently available but will be available later in the year. I should explain that once the Agency has assessed an absent parent's maintenance payment, the maintenance can be paid direct to the parent with care rather than through the Agency.
  I am sorry but we do not collect statistical information on how many absent parents have a second family.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish information relating to the performance of the Child Support Agency on a regular basis.

  Mr. Burt
  I am pleased to announce that I intend to place information in the Library of the House each month relating to key performance areas of the Child Support Agency. An initial report, covering the first six months of the agency's operations, will be placed in the Library today.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many and what proportion of Child Support Agency assessments to date involve the protected income calculation to decrease the maintenance assessment; and how many and what proportion of assessments to date exceed the maintenance requirement;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the average assessment made by the Child Support Agency, broken down into the average assessment for families of one qualifying child, two qualifying children, three qualifying children and four or more qualifying children;

  (3) if he will publish a breakdown of the range of net income and exempt income of absent parents assessed by the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand from Ros Heppelwhite, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency that the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) maintenance application forms have been issued, (b) assessments have been completed, (c) benefit penalties have been imposed and (d) good cause claims have been accepted and how many refused in respect of the Child Support Act 1991 (i) nationally and (ii) in the Sheffield area.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Bill Michie, dated 29 October 1993:

  81
  As Chief Executive of the Child Support 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 (a) maintenance application forms have been issued, (b) assessments have been completed, (c) benefit penalties imposed and (d) good cause claims have been accepted and how many refused in respect of the Child Support Agency (i) nationally and (ii) in the Sheffield area.
  The information available in answer to your question about national figures is shown below but I am sorry that we are not able to provide a geographical breakdown for the Sheffield area.
  At 30 September 527,000 Maintenance Application Forms (MAFs) had been issued, and 36,610 maintenance assessments completed.
  The number of cases where the requirement to co-operate has been an issue up to 30 September 1993 is 6,600 and in 4,900 of these the Agency has accepted that the Parent with Care had good cause not to co-operate in pursuing a maintenance claim. Of those cases in which "good cause" was not accepted, 22 Reduced Benefit Directions have been issued and the cases referred to the Benefits Agency to implement the prescribed reduction.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Reciprocal Agreement (Australia)
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he proposes to revise the reciprocal agreement with Australia concerning social security matters.

  Mr. Hague
  We have no plans to do so.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes there have been in the cash limits or running costs limits of his Department.

  Mr. Scott
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for class XIII vote 4 will be increased by £30,958,000 from £2,527,166,000 to £2,558,124,000. The revision takes account of increased requirements resulting from rising workloads (£8,566,000 running costs), an increase of £23,434,000 (of which £12,628,000 is running costs) in respect of the end year flexibility arrangements, a reduction of £1,531,000 (running costs) offset by a corresponding increase on Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland), vote 3, an increase of £20.000 in running cost cover for services provided to Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) on repayment, a transfer to Department of Health, class XIII, vote 3, of £1,161,000 (of which £1,065,000 is running costs) and a reduction of £99,000 in appropriations in aid.

  As a result of these changes and the running costs limit of the Department of Social Security will be increased by £18,432,000 from £2,902,578,000 to £2,921,010,000.

  The additional requirements will be charged to the Reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Benefits
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans there are to set down charter standards for take up of benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  There are no such plans.

  Social Security legislation puts the onus on the individual to claim benefit. Some people choose not to
  82
  claim. It would be inappropriate to set targets or standards for something which is a matter of personal choice. The Government's role is to ensure that the availability of benefits is made known and to provide advice on eligibility.

  In this respect, we have recently launched a major advertising campaign to explain how in-work benefits can help families back to work and opened a family credit telephone helpline. The Benefits Agency is responsible for a number of initiatives to increase awareness of entitlement including exhibitions, talks and multi-lingual telephone helplines.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration has been given as to whether a tax credit system for paying benefits is feasible and would be more effective at delivering benefits.

  Mr. Hague
  There has been no recent serious considerations of a tax credit scheme as a means of delivering Social Security benefits. A tax credit scheme as sometimes proposed would not replace the need for income-related benefits which take account of family size and housing costs, and would be less responsive in dealing with short-term financial needs. We have, instead, concentrated on developing simpler tax and benefit regimes which reduce overlaps between the two systems and provide help to those in need whilst maintaining the incentive to work.

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to undertake a review of the notional return on a person's investments for assessment for benefit entitlements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  In all the income-related benefits, capital up to £3,000 is ignored. The formula applied for capital above this figure does not imply any particular return on investments. It ensures that help is targeted to those who need it most, while not denying benefit to those with only a moderate amount of capital. The rules are kept under review, but we have no plans for change.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has as to which EC countries have provisions enabling benefits to be reclaimed in the same way as under section 22 of the Social Security Act 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not held by the Department and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Spending
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what comparative figures he has on the administrative costs as a proportion of social security spending in the United Kingdom and other members of the European Community.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest information available on administrative costs as a proportion of social protection (social security plus health) spending in each member state of the EC is contained in the Eurostat publication, "Social protection expenditure and receipts 1985–1988". Care must be taken when comparing any European data sets because of differences in definition.

  Eurostat regularly publishes "Social protection expenditure and receipts". The latest edition covers the period

  83
  1980–91 and includes more recent data on administrative costs, but does not show these as a proportion of social protection spending.

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

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the costs of administering the social fund as a proportion of its total budget.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest available information on social fund administrative costs is given in the Social Security departmental report, "The Government's expenditure plans 1993–94 to 1995–96", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Severe Disability Allowance
  Mr. Austin Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for severe disability allowance from women who have reached the age of 60 years have been received and are currently awaiting determination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.
  84
  Following the Court of Appeal's decision in the case of Thomas and Others (July 1990), claims for severe disablement allowance from women aged between 60 and 65 have been determined in the same way as for men of the same age.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many absent parents on income support have deductions from benefit made as a contribution towards child maintenance.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 29 October 1993 at column 843–44.

  Accident Victims
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to review or repeal section 22 of the Social Security Act 1989, relating to reclaims of benefits paid to accident victims.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no such plans.